Meeting Analysis: Findings from Research and Practice

Almost every time there is a genuinely important decision to be made in an organization, a group is assigned to make it -or at least to counsel and advise the individual who must make it." Hackman [23] Meeting analysis, that is the study of meeting expenses, productivity, processes, and outcomes, is relevant to GSS practice And research for several reasons. Many reviews and surveys [1, 2, 3, 15, 21, 52, 53, 57, 75, 82] reveal that meetings dominate workers’ and managers’ time and yet are considered to be costly, unproductive and dissatisfying. Studies [13, 52, 53, 56, 57] show that meetings are essential and that the number of meetings and their duration has been steadily increasing. Studies of Managers and knowledge workers [1, 13, 21, 51, 52, 53, 68, 75, 79, 89, 90, 92] reveal that they spend between 25%-80% of their time in meetings, suggesting that meetings are an important part of one’s working life. Estimates of meeting expenses [1, 13, 39, 53] range from costs of $30 million to over 100 million per year to losses between $54 million and 3.7 billion annually! Self estimates of meeting productivity [15, 21, 53 , 75] by managers in many different functional areas range from 33% 47%. Introduction Studies reveal that meetings are indeed costly and unproductive, yet essential and increasing in number and duration underscore the need for meeting productivity research. Studying the purpose of group meetings and common meeting problems provides insights into which types of group support may improve meeting productivity. Finally, the increasing trend toward telework [6, 17, 41, 58] justifies the need for research into virtual meeting support. It is important to understand how we meet and collaborate today before we can begin to design effective new methods for the future. This article reviews and summarizes in detail decades of “meeting analysis” research which reveal that meetings are costly and unproductive on the one hand, yet essential and increasing in number and duration on the other. Then it defines meetings and reviews literature on typical meetings, why groups meet, purposes for holding meetings, monetary and temporal meeting expenses, size and location of meetings, meeting problems, addition of technology to meetings, and finally the rise of telework and virtual meetings. Meeting: A Definition “A meeting is a gathering where people speak up, say nothing, and then all disagree.” Kayser [38] To explore complex human interactions such as meetings one needs to understand them and their components in detail. There is value in defining meetings as the definition reveals the variety of purposes they serve and the specific techniques required for each to bring about the greatest return on investment [2]. Webster [96] defines a meeting as “an act or process of coming together” that may be “a chance or a 0-7695-0981-9/01 $1 planned encounter.” This definition incorporates the concepts formality level and joint process or action; however it is somewhat imprecise and inexplicit. Goffman [19] is more explicit in defining a meeting as that which “occurs when people effectively agree to sustain for a time a single focus of cognitive and visual attention.” Hildreth [30] adds the concept of a shared goal to define a meeting as a “communication encounter between ... persons for a common purpose.” Nunamaker et. al. [61] incorporate the concepts of physical and temporal dispersion and define a meeting as “any activity where people come together, whether at the same place at the same time, or in different places at different times.” The definition of meeting in this research combines elements of all those found in the literature: “a focused interaction of cognitive attention, planned or chance, where people agree to come together for a common purpose, whether at the same time and the same place, or at different times in different places.” This definition includes several important dimensions of meetings: focused interactions; groups of people; a common purpose; level of formality; and temporal and physical dispersion. Each of these dimensions may affect the meeting itself and the support required to improve group productivity. Our definition includes formal board meetings, casual hallway conversations, telephone calls and internet-enabled interactions through tools such as Net-meeting and discussion groups. Our concept of a meeting involves people sharing data, information, knowledge and wisdom to garner their collective intelligence and bring it to bear to solve a problem or achieve a goal together. Typical Meetings “A meeting is an interaction where the unwilling, selected from the uninformed, led by the unsuitable, to discuss the unnecessary, are required to write a report about the unimportant.” Kayser [38] While each meeting is a unique event, some studies attempt to define a typical or average meeting. The 3M Meeting Effectiveness Study (3M Study) developed a profile for the typical meeting in Corporate America based on a survey of over 900 meetings (See Figure 1.) Figure 1. Profile of the Typical Meeting in Corporate America [52] The typical meeting in this study has the following characteristics: (Percentages based on 903 meetings surveyed, MF = Most frequently reported value) • Staff Meeting (45%) • Held in Company Conference Room (74%) • Starting at 11:00 AM (MF) • Lasts 1 hour and 30 minutes (MF) • Involves 9 people (2 managers, 4 coworkers, 2 subordinates, & 1 outsider) (MF) • Two hours prior warning (MF) • No advance written agenda (63%) 0.00 (c) 2001 IEEE 1 Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2001 • Somewhat or very informal (76%) • Most or all present actively participate (72%) • Uses handouts (47%) • Completely covers agenda only one-half of the time (53%) • Eleven percent of the time is spent discussing irrelevant issues. (MF) Kayser [38, 39] developed two typical meeting profiles based on related 1989 and 1995 studies of Xerox’s 24,000 person Manufacturing and Development group. These two profiles differed only in terms of average cost (See Figure 2.) Figure 2. Average Meeting for Xerox Manufacturing and Development Group [38, 39] Average Meeting Composition: Seven People Organizationally equivalent to Four Senior Engineers Two Project Managers One Second-Level Manager Average Length: 60 Minutes Average Cost: (Accounting for fully loaded Salaries) 1989: $337.0