© 2002–2003 Mike Wills Learning Services

Meetings - are they a waste of time? Posted by Scott Armstrong Here is what Dave Barry says (Things I Have Learned in 50 Years): 'If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be meetings.' A substantial amount of research has shown that traditional business meetings do a poor job at making predictions and decisions. However, there is research on how to improve meetings. Much of this research has been captured in the Delphi technique. Use of the Delphi technique can produce enormous improvements in the quality of forecasting and decision-making. This is the implication of the paper recently chosen by the Directors of the International Institute of Forecasters and the Associate Editors of the International Journal of Forecasting as the best paper in the IJF for 1998-9: Gene Rowe and George Wright's (1999) 'The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis', International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 353-375. A description of this paper is available on the 'Papers/Journals' page at forecastingprinciples.com along with full-text of the Rowe & Wright paper.

1. A Defence of Meetings — Peter McBurney 2. Delphi Technique — Mike Wills 1. A Defence of Meetings From Peter McBurney Thanks for this interesting posting. Could I respond by offering a defence of meetings?! Firstly, your statement: 'A substantial amount of research has shown that traditional business meetings do a poor job at making predictions and decisions' surely only applies, if it applies at all, to meetings concerned with making predictions and decisions. There are many other reasons for having meetings, besides the two reasons given here, e.g., to inform participants of something; to brainstorm; to schedule activities; to identify the causes of some past event; etc. These many other types of meetings may be quite effective in achieving their goals at the same time as they do a poor job of 'making predictions and decisions'. Secondly, my two decades of business forecasting leads me to be very suspicious of one-size-fits-all forecasting methods. The Delphi method, as defined in the Rowe and Wright paper, has two serious flaws for many real-world applications I have encountered: 1. It aims to achieve consensus. (Not all business forecasting activity aims, or even should aim, to produce a consensus. In situations of extreme uncertainty, it can be more sensible for an organization to keep alive different views about the future, with the intention of responding flexibly as that future comes about. This approach is the essence of scenario analysis. Reaching premature consensus about the future of some uncertain situation, IMHO, is usually an inappropriate strategy in a very turbulent or uncertain environment.) 2. Ordinarily, the reasons for the opinions of participants to Delphi processes are not circulated. (One important purpose of many business meetings is to create an awareness among the participants of each other's perspectives or interests. That is why meetings often appear to be rambling or unfocused to someone solely concerned with overt task. In particular, participants often need to know the reasons why other views are held if a common awareness of the problem and the relevant issues is to be created among the group. Delphi does not permit this - at least, as traditionally construed.) Of course, it is not only proponents of Delphi techniques who ignore the importance of arguments over the reasons for claims. One could argue, as for example Habermas does, that this is a key weakness of economic marketplace models of democracy.     2. Delphi Technique From Mike Wills People reading Scott's message may be interested in buying our article on the Delphi Consultation Process.

Recommend     this page