16 ms·

might charging a ‘call to meeting’ fee based on the attendees salary/hourly rate be an alternative?

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
I would be very concerned about that killing productivity by making it so that nobody is willing to schedule them at all.
triceratops 7y ago
Not sure how many people would want to pay to do their own jobs.
- eitland 7y ago
  I'm not certain it is a good idea to to that but let me try to come up with a more constructive way to do it: Of course people shouldn't pay to do their work, so this must be taken from their allocated budget. If they don't have a budget they cannot invite anyone without the permission of someone who has a budget and think the meeting is a good idea.
  - memling 7y ago
    in contracting this is not uncommon. one employer I worked for bid on a contract that was later revised down by 75 percent. meetings were curtailed to save money precisely because of the cost to the customer. budget sensitivity is a valuable tool to fight time wastagement.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Allocating and drawing down a meeting budget pool might assist with this. As a positive incentive, a countering "attending" pool, also budgetable. Meetings with strong appeal would be compensated from that. Not sure what to do with the Imaginary Meeting Points at the end of the year, though possibly use it as the basis of some sort of merit award or bonus.
  - throwawayjava 7y ago
    And I thought a few extra vipers was bad! I can't even imagine the level of ensuing bullshit...
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Properly designing incentive systems in a realm of pervasive externalities and nonobvious costs and benefits is difficult. I'm not saying the market/cost approach is necessarily the best or appropriate. But it's an interesting thought experiment to work through it. Sometimes imposing arbitrary requirements (e.g., "have an agenda") is a cheaper way of effecting the same ends. Though Goodhart's Law is another pitfall. NB: "vipers"?
  - Bartweiss 7y ago
    At a bare minimum, teams that plan via "story points" or other time units ought to count meetings in those scores. When they don't, you start getting teams that either "get nothing done" or have to work nights and weekends because planning meetings are displacing all their intended work. For actually tracking Meeting Points, one option might be to make them a project metric? As in: "We predict our project will consume 21 Meeting Points, if we go over 25 that's a failure to be analyzed afterwards like overruning schedule or budget, if we're under 15 we're probably budgeting wrong".

I would be very concerned about that killing productivity by making it so that nobody is willing to schedule them at all.

triceratops 7y ago

Not sure how many people would want to pay to do their own jobs.

eitland 7y ago
I'm not certain it is a good idea to to that but let me try to come up with a more constructive way to do it: Of course people shouldn't pay to do their work, so this must be taken from their allocated budget. If they don't have a budget they cannot invite anyone without the permission of someone who has a budget and think the meeting is a good idea.
- memling 7y ago
  in contracting this is not uncommon. one employer I worked for bid on a contract that was later revised down by 75 percent. meetings were curtailed to save money precisely because of the cost to the customer. budget sensitivity is a valuable tool to fight time wastagement.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Allocating and drawing down a meeting budget pool might assist with this. As a positive incentive, a countering "attending" pool, also budgetable. Meetings with strong appeal would be compensated from that. Not sure what to do with the Imaginary Meeting Points at the end of the year, though possibly use it as the basis of some sort of merit award or bonus.
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  And I thought a few extra vipers was bad! I can't even imagine the level of ensuing bullshit...
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Properly designing incentive systems in a realm of pervasive externalities and nonobvious costs and benefits is difficult. I'm not saying the market/cost approach is necessarily the best or appropriate. But it's an interesting thought experiment to work through it. Sometimes imposing arbitrary requirements (e.g., "have an agenda") is a cheaper way of effecting the same ends. Though Goodhart's Law is another pitfall. NB: "vipers"?
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  At a bare minimum, teams that plan via "story points" or other time units ought to count meetings in those scores. When they don't, you start getting teams that either "get nothing done" or have to work nights and weekends because planning meetings are displacing all their intended work. For actually tracking Meeting Points, one option might be to make them a project metric? As in: "We predict our project will consume 21 Meeting Points, if we go over 25 that's a failure to be analyzed afterwards like overruning schedule or budget, if we're under 15 we're probably budgeting wrong".