4 ms·
That doesn't matter if two groups have to have a conversation about something over a period of time so they can come to agreement about something. Usually this
by mahyarm 10y ago
That doesn't matter if two groups have to have a conversation about something over a period of time so they can come to agreement about something.
Usually this happens during that 'advance planning' stage. It adds an unavoidable lag time to come to some sort of decision or plan, especially when there is a conflict.
And if people have to wait on a decision to get started on something, that adds more inefficiency.
Another solution is to live close to work, build high-rises and subways, or you have 'core meeting hours' and people come in from 9am-noon.
- nitrogen 10y agoAsynchronous communication is made easier by raising multiple points at once, rather than sending one-line responses. It also helps to have multiple directions of work available, so progress can still be made in one area while blocked in another. Both of these strategies can carry a political/negotiating/leverage cost (all cards on the table at once), but I consider that a good thing :). Core hours: have some consideration for late risers and people with DSPS. Early birds have enough control already.
- mahyarm 10y agoWe already do all of that. It's still slower and less productive. I'm going through it right now with a remote office actually.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]