Expense of Meetings

– August 26, 2010Posted in: Project Management

I just came from a monthly meeting, scheduled to last 2.5 hours. I counted 40 people in the room, ranging from administrative assistants to top executives. I wanted to do an unscientific estimate of the cost of the meeting. I used Meetordie (meet or die) to arrive at my total. (Thank you to Deanne Earle of Unlike Before for telling me of the site) I plugged in a few simple values and… the meeting had an estimated cost of $17,904. The information provided by the vendor, from my perspective, was not worth nearly $18,000. Please realize this is a required monthly meeting.

The slide deck was distributed to everyone on the project via email, allowing them to review the materials at their leisure. They do need to be kept informed. But, instead of going about their day, many who received the slide deck came to the meeting. We all sat in a room as the vendor read from the slides. Now, this was no Steve Jobs keynote address. The vendor pretty much read word-for-word off the slides.

Just because the vendor may be contractually obligated to have this meeting, they should propose an alternative to what they’re doing. There either needs to be more value or less cost associated with this meeting.

Thoughts or comments?

Graphic: Pictofigo

3 for the price of 1!

Prepare for the PMI Agile Certified Practitioner exam!
1. Download and print out PMI Agile exam flashcards
2. Download and print out 25-Question practice exam
3. Just click and get 100 free web-based flashcards

Popularity: 1%

Tags: Meetings, Pictofigo

About Derek Huether

Enterprise Agile Coach and Trainer at LitheSpeed. Co-Lead of the PMI ACP Support Team. Lover of Agile, Scrum, & Kanban. Lawfulgood PMP Level 15. Chaotic Good Agilist Level 5. Author of Zombie Project Management (available on Amazon)

http://kellycrew.wordpress.com Robert

Derek:

Great post! Meetings really should be a great tool for the team to collaborate, make decisions, etc. They have turned into an extension of one’s office (so many folks working on laptops and not paying attention) or story time (someone simply reading a ppt deck).

Had there been value to the meeting ($18k is still up for debate) then it would be easier to swallow that number. I posted a few months back on meetings and had this calculator in their also…http://bit.ly/axPxmt

Derek Huether

Robert, I agree with you that some meeting can be great for team collaboration. But, this was a status meeting. We were being informed. In my opinion, it was unnecessary. Because this is a “deliverable” in the contract, the vendor is more than happy to have the meeting. They claim earned value, just by having it. Unfortunately, I think my client got the short end of the “value” stick.
Derek Huether

By the way, you wrote a great post! http://bit.ly/axPxmt

http://kellycrew.wordpress.com Robert

Derek:

Great post! Meetings really should be a great tool for the team to collaborate, make decisions, etc. They have turned into an extension of one’s office (so many folks working on laptops and not paying attention) or story time (someone simply reading a ppt deck).

Had there been value to the meeting ($18k is still up for debate) then it would be easier to swallow that number. I posted a few months back on meetings and had this calculator in their also…http://bit.ly/axPxmt

Derek Huether

Robert, I agree with you that some meeting can be great for team collaboration. But, this was a status meeting. We were being informed. In my opinion, it was unnecessary. Because this is a “deliverable” in the contract, the vendor is more than happy to have the meeting. They claim earned value, just by having it. Unfortunately, I think my client got the short end of the “value” stick.
Derek Huether

By the way, you wrote a great post! http://bit.ly/axPxmt

Jeff Clark

True, many meetings are a waste of time and not worth the cost of the participants time. It’s hard to imagine any meeting of a large group of people to be cost effective from a straight adding up of the attendees hourly rates. I’m not saying this is the case in the subject meeting, but there are intangible benefits of meetings, most notably getting people to work better together, simply because they met or had sidebar discussions with people then rarely see. The trick is to keep them to a bare minimum.
In one past role we had monthly meetings among executives from across IT. No way to justify the highest paid people from an hourly rate perspective, but we always got to meet the new person, or knew you would see certain people and could get their attention.

Derek Huether

Jeff, thank you for your comment. I do see a lot of value in small, short, one-on-one meetings when time is critical and distributed communications will be the bottle-neck. I also like small one-on-one meetings because I can read body language. If anything unscripted would have happened at the meeting, it would have increased the perceived value. Those interactions were limited to a handful of us challenging the vendor on some of their facts. I just looked at the packet they handed us on the way in. Each were 133 pages thick. So, in addition to lost hours, include the cost of printing all of those packets.

Jeff Clark

True, many meetings are a waste of time and not worth the cost of the participants time. It’s hard to imagine any meeting of a large group of people to be cost effective from a straight adding up of the attendees hourly rates. I’m not saying this is the case in the subject meeting, but there are intangible benefits of meetings, most notably getting people to work better together, simply because they met or had sidebar discussions with people then rarely see. The trick is to keep them to a bare minimum.
In one past role we had monthly meetings among executives from across IT. No way to justify the highest paid people from an hourly rate perspective, but we always got to meet the new person, or knew you would see certain people and could get their attention.

Derek Huether

Jeff, thank you for your comment. I do see a lot of value in small, short, one-on-one meetings when time is critical and distributed communications will be the bottle-neck. I also like small one-on-one meetings because I can read body language. If anything unscripted would have happened at the meeting, it would have increased the perceived value. Those interactions were limited to a handful of us challenging the vendor on some of their facts. I just looked at the packet they handed us on the way in. Each were 133 pages thick. So, in addition to lost hours, include the cost of printing all of those packets.

http://www.geoCognita.com Dr. Edward Wallington

An interesting figure! Even if the outcome was half that amount, it is still an expensive meeting.

What concerns me is that this meeting is a regular occurrence (and as you say the vendor hasn’t been imaginative enough in their approach), but also it appears to be a very one-way affair, with your team purely being updated, there appears to be no two-way communication going on.

I think it is time for a sit down with the vendor to discuss and agree a new approach and format, not only to save costs and time, but also to be of more use.

Derek Huether

Ed, I won’t argue with you. The vendor isn’t thinking proactively in the best interest of the customer. They should always be thinking of ways to either cut costs or increase value deliver. You are correct in your observation. This is nothing more than a status meeting. There are a handful of us who do challenge the vendor on some of the slides. Then again, that’s my job. I’m there to represent the customer’s interests.

http://www.geoCognita.com Dr. Edward Wallington

An interesting figure! Even if the outcome was half that amount, it is still an expensive meeting.

What concerns me is that this meeting is a regular occurrence (and as you say the vendor hasn’t been imaginative enough in their approach), but also it appears to be a very one-way affair, with your team purely being updated, there appears to be no two-way communication going on.

I think it is time for a sit down with the vendor to discuss and agree a new approach and format, not only to save costs and time, but also to be of more use.

Derek Huether

Ed, I won’t argue with you. The vendor isn’t thinking proactively in the best interest of the customer. They should always be thinking of ways to either cut costs or increase value deliver. You are correct in your observation. This is nothing more than a status meeting. There are a handful of us who do challenge the vendor on some of the slides. Then again, that’s my job. I’m there to represent the customer’s interests.

http://www.steelray.com Laura Bamberg

Ed makes a good point – is it possible this humongous amount is wrong? But that doesn’t even matter. There were FORTY people in that room! That’s crazy, Derek.

Derek Huether

Laura, as outlandish as it sounds, I think the estimate is pretty close. Though I used the website listed in the post to calculate the amount, I went back and did some simple math. There were 5 senior executives, a several directors, several senior managers, rows of engineers, and 4 executive assistants. This was a small crowd. We were only in one lecture room when we usual occupy two for this meeting. Since some people are out for vacation, it’s understandable.

Though I don’t want to offend anyone, let’s use this number to put it into perspective. 40 people x $100 per hour x 2.5 hours = $10,000. At a blended rate, an engineer could easily be billable at $150 hourly. See how it can get out of control quickly? Yes, it’s crazy and one might say offensive. I will be making a formal proposal to the program to cut back the attendance of the meeting and propose a communication strategy that will more align with our needs.

http://www.steelray.com Laura Bamberg

Ed makes a good point – is it possible this humongous amount is wrong? But that doesn’t even matter. There were FORTY people in that room! That’s crazy, Derek.

Derek Huether

Laura, as outlandish as it sounds, I think the estimate is pretty close. Though I used the website listed in the post to calculate the amount, I went back and did some simple math. There were 5 senior executives, a several directors, several senior managers, rows of engineers, and 4 executive assistants. This was a small crowd. We were only in one lecture room when we usual occupy two for this meeting. Since some people are out for vacation, it’s understandable.

Though I don’t want to offend anyone, let’s use this number to put it into perspective. 40 people x $100 per hour x 2.5 hours = $10,000. At a blended rate, an engineer could easily be billable at $150 hourly. See how it can get out of control quickly? Yes, it’s crazy and one might say offensive. I will be making a formal proposal to the program to cut back the attendance of the meeting and propose a communication strategy that will more align with our needs.

http://www.unlikebefore.com Deanne Earle

You’re absolutely right Derek – even if the number is slightly off your simple calculation proves the point of excessive indirect cost. Unfortunately this type of waste is not solely limited to meetings. I wrote a post a while ago that looked at the time and cost of indecision (http://unlikebefore.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-urgent-isnt-urgent-at-all.html) using the exact same simple formula.

You made a couple of other interesting points… 1 – that the vendor may be contractually obliged to have this meeting, and 2 – even though people received the slide deck they came anyway! Both sides need questioning on these behaviours so I’m glad to read you’re proactively proposing some changes in order to address both of these. I’m pretty sure you’ll be including the estimated $17,904 as supporting evidence

Derek Huether

Deanne, I read your post. I’ve been there as well. Defining urgent with the stakeholder is like asking if something is a need or a want. You get interesting responses, depending on whom you ask. In respect to my meeting, even if the numbers were way off, I still find the meeting size problematic. This vendor is contractually obligated to have “a” monthly status meeting. They are not required to invite a small army and neither is my client. I think there is such a communication issue, both sides may be overcompensating. Regardless, there has to be a better way. We ran into this same problem at the bi-weekly program management communications meeting. There were way too many people attending. The meeting is now restricted to the top managers and executives from both sides, and myself. I absolutely loath meetings, particularly ones that I have to travel to, if I think I can get the same value from reviewing the agenda and associated materials at my leisure. I will write a followup post when I have a response to my report.

http://www.unlikebefore.com Deanne Earle

You’re absolutely right Derek – even if the number is slightly off your simple calculation proves the point of excessive indirect cost. Unfortunately this type of waste is not solely limited to meetings. I wrote a post a while ago that looked at the time and cost of indecision (http://unlikebefore.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-urgent-isnt-urgent-at-all.html) using the exact same simple formula.

You made a couple of other interesting points… 1 – that the vendor may be contractually obliged to have this meeting, and 2 – even though people received the slide deck they came anyway! Both sides need questioning on these behaviours so I’m glad to read you’re proactively proposing some changes in order to address both of these. I’m pretty sure you’ll be including the estimated $17,904 as supporting evidence

Derek Huether

Deanne, I read your post. I’ve been there as well. Defining urgent with the stakeholder is like asking if something is a need or a want. You get interesting responses, depending on whom you ask. In respect to my meeting, even if the numbers were way off, I still find the meeting size problematic. This vendor is contractually obligated to have “a” monthly status meeting. They are not required to invite a small army and neither is my client. I think there is such a communication issue, both sides may be overcompensating. Regardless, there has to be a better way. We ran into this same problem at the bi-weekly program management communications meeting. There were way too many people attending. The meeting is now restricted to the top managers and executives from both sides, and myself. I absolutely loath meetings, particularly ones that I have to travel to, if I think I can get the same value from reviewing the agenda and associated materials at my leisure. I will write a followup post when I have a response to my report.