

IBM patent for "enhancing productivity" through shorter meetings - estromberg
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220090119148%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20090119148&RS=DN/20090119148

======
reduxredacted
Maybe off topic on the ridiculousness of this patent, the headline after "IBM
patent for" should be taken seriously.

The standard for me used to be one hour long meetings.

About this time last year I read a chapter in a management book (name escapes
me, and it would probably be great Prior Art) that suggested never scheduling
meetings longer than 30 minutes. So I set some rules for myself based on the
meeting type.

Brainstorming meetings/topical discussions: 30 minutes, max. Never recurring.
I start the meeting on time with a simple statement: "I value the time you've
given me here, so I want to get this going. If we tear apart <topic> we can
probably be done in twenty." I get consistent, on-time attendance (from people
who do _not_ report to me) and consistent participation (on conference calls
people are taking from in front of an internet connected PC).

Status Meetings: I rarely schedule these, but when I have to, they're set to
15 minutes and very structured. My daily status meeting lasts between five and
seven minutes.

I have a totally unscientific theory as to why I insist on shorter meetings
work (based solely on how I behave):

1) I don't have an hour to kill in a conference call being hosted by someone
other than my boss or in my reporting chain. So I work during those meetings.
I do have twenty minutes assuming that the problem attempting to be solved
hasn't already been solved by the organizer and my attendance is simply
ceremonial.

2) Half hour meetings may mean having to have two instead of one, but that may
also be a benefit in that it gives people time to think more deeply about the
problem at hand and be prepared for the next meeting.

3) Status meetings suck, especially if they are simply a formality or legal
requirement. I see them for what they are (a necessary evil) and try not to
waste anyone's valuable time. When I host them, they have a strict agenda and
are very short.

When I participate in "manager status meetings" (sometimes called "What did
you work on this week?"), I come prepared with a list and put it through a
filter: "Is this item something that anyone on this call will find useful or
care about". My responses are short and to the point. I regularly receive
follow-up questions targeted at a specific bullet point. Maybe that's bad, but
I'd rather provide a little less than is necessary and have someone ask me for
specific information that's important to _them_ , than provide so much
information that everyone's eyes glaze over and they stop paying attention.

------
ajju
IBM pays a bonus for and often promotes engineers based on the number of
patents they file. The natural result is a very large number of patents, often
of dubious value, that may never be implemented.

Having said that, I bet my colleagues at work would agree to pool in money and
license this patent if our boss agreed to abide by it :D

------
sutro
Next IBM patent: System and Method for Automatically Generating US Patent and
Trademark Office Submissions

~~~
lr
Brilliant!

If feels like big companies have figured out how to DOS the USPTO to the point
where the PTO is so overwhelmed with all of the incoming submissions that they
have no choice but to grant the patents.

------
biohacker42
If you know something about the corporate culture of IBM, you know why IBM
holds this patent.

------
lecha
Abstract: A method and computer program product include defining, by a user, a
time template including a plurality of predefined time intervals for
scheduling meetings. The time template is applied across a collaborative
system.

Translation: recurring meetings feature

------
muerdeme
United States Patent _Application_ 20090119148

~~~
dctoedt
A U.S. patent application is normally published 18 months after its filing
date (or other priority date). Looks like that's what happened here.

