An effective meeting is one where we have clear objectives, timely decision-making, and next steps but more importantly, an effective meeting has active participation and focused discussion among all attendees. With the hybrid way of working and decentralized teams, what seems to be a routine meeting with a set agenda can also be a challenge. This is especially true when there are some folks that are meeting face - to - face while few others join remotely. This can create an imbalance of power with remote participants feeling left out. In addition, poor internet connectivity, incompatible software etc can also pose hurdles. So in such a situation, the conundrum remains, how do we conduct effective meetings?
Productive meetings happen when every participant is able to contribute and collaborate. This is especially true for approval meetings where multiple stakeholders need to weigh in. This can be tough when the team is distributed. A combination of a well defined structure and leveraging features provided in Google meet/ Zoom is employed at Haptik. We always use the raise hands feature so that people get a chance to weigh in with their discussion points, especially in a large team of 10+ folks.
Another technique commonly employed is structuring the discussions into mini-topics which are discussed in a sequence and with a break out time post each topic which allows for long meetings to be conducted more effectively. Participants can weigh in, vote if necessary and put in any counter points. Many times, alignment on a topic cannot be achieved in a single meeting and instead of going round and round, topics can be parked aside post a certain specified time and rest of the topics covered before a particular topic is either revisited or another meeting set for that particular topic.
Design Brainstorming sessions are another type of meetings where we have a strong structure. The idea is presented to the team and each team member works on either a figma or a figjam file to put in their ideas, questions and clarifications. We then go individually in the ascending order of experience where these are discussed. This is done so that junior folks are encouraged to put forth their points and begin the discussion and the more senior folks can weigh in if needed. It also helps juniors come up with their original ideas and think versus parroting another senior designer’s view points. Ground rules are to remain constructive in feedback and also accept the positives and downsides of any idea presented.
For Design review meetings, we similarly have a structure, Every review meeting needs to be preceded by an agenda and context. The designer needs to be clear on what they are presenting, the goal they have/ have aimed to achieve with the designs, areas where they may need feedback or help. Different variations they have tried on the designs to solve the problem and merits and demerits of the same. On the reviewer’s end, understanding the designer’s input and its nature especially when critiquing is essential . Feedback has to be constructive in nature and if a designer is stuck, help them with brainstorming and guidance. Also, certain design solutions may be the best but may be constrained with budget or time issues in terms of implementation, in such cases, the reviewer helps the designer understand the same and works together to find an effective solution and decide what will be taken in the coming sprint and what is to be parked for later.
Conducting effective meetings where key takeaways are clearly defined are always challenging. However with a combination of technology and structure oriented meeting plans, we manage to ensure that our meetings are inclusive, decisive and effective so that collaborations are more productive and designers strike a good balance and working relationship with other stakeholders of the product development process.
