Read Online The Arithmetic of Life and Death by George Shaffner - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: George Shaffner
Ads: Link
voice an opinion and to hear the opinions of his or her peers.
Cecilia began to call the members of her team. She quickly discovered, however, that the probability of reaching any team member with one call was only 25 percent since there were several possible locations for each auditor, plus lunches, customer meetings, and travel between customer sites. Therefore, it took Cecilia twenty-four phone calls to reach all six members of the audit team.
The eighteen failed calls took only two minutes each. The six successful calls required an average of ten minutes each, during which time Cecilia and each accountant discussed the pros and cons of each proposal. At the end of the call, Cecilia asked that each auditor confer with each other before the end of business the following Tuesday, then get back to her with an opinion so that a timely decision could be made.
The next Monday, each team member commenced contacting each other. Because some were working in closeproximity, they managed to reach each other by the second call, on average. It took only ten minutes per call for each member to have his say. By Tuesday afternoon, every team member had talked to every other and had gotten back to Cecilia for a ten-minute discussion of their individual recommendations, a total of twenty-one distinct communications.
For a variety of personal reasons, four team members favored working longer weekdays and two team members favored working on Saturdays. Although there was a majority opinion, Cecilia was certain that they would never accept a split result in a typical weekly meeting without more discussion. The next day, a Wednesday, she contacted each member of the team again, which took an average of four calls each. During ten-minute discussions, she requested that each member again confer with each other to see if a clearer decision could be reached by the end of the next day.
The team members repeated the process, then each contacted Cecilia by Thursday evening as promised. After a ten-minute update with each of them, Cecilia found that two team members had indeed changed their votes. Four members now favored working on Saturdays, and two members preferred longer weekdays.
Exasperated and out of time, Cecilia consulted with the managing partner. A devotee of “The Solomon School of Management,” he instantly decided that the team would work nine-hour weekdays and half-day Saturdays. After the usual number of failed calls, Cecilia managed to inform each team member of her boss’s decision. Naturally, it took a little extra explaining.
While her team sulked, Cecilia calculated the accumulatedtime it had taken to replace a one-hour meeting with person-to-person communications, as follows (in minutes):
Total time consumption was 1,500 minutes, or twenty-five person hours. A one-hour team meeting would have taken a total of seven person hours, so net lost productivity was eighteen hours. Moreover, each team member’s work had been interrupted an average of seventeen times, a total of 102 disruptions versus seven for a comparable meeting. The decision was two days late. No one was happy with the final result.
The very next day, which was a Friday, Cecilia’s team resumed its normal pattern of weekly get-togethers. Since then, the team has taken steps to improve meeting quality:
An agenda is published at least one day before every meeting.
Since a ten-minute delay caused by one thoughtless team member could result in seventy minutes of lost productivity and no small amount of irritation, every member of the team arrives on time.
Every attendee sticks to the agenda.
The meetings are concluded on time.
Once the pressure of the audit season was behind them, the managing partner asked Cecilia if she would like to repeat the test in order to confirm her results. Like any good boss who cared about the morale and productivity of her team, she graciously declined—on the spot.
CHAPTER
16
Common Cause
“In every age and
Cecilia began to call the members of her team. She quickly discovered, however, that the probability of reaching any team member with one call was only 25 percent since there were several possible locations for each auditor, plus lunches, customer meetings, and travel between customer sites. Therefore, it took Cecilia twenty-four phone calls to reach all six members of the audit team.
The eighteen failed calls took only two minutes each. The six successful calls required an average of ten minutes each, during which time Cecilia and each accountant discussed the pros and cons of each proposal. At the end of the call, Cecilia asked that each auditor confer with each other before the end of business the following Tuesday, then get back to her with an opinion so that a timely decision could be made.
The next Monday, each team member commenced contacting each other. Because some were working in closeproximity, they managed to reach each other by the second call, on average. It took only ten minutes per call for each member to have his say. By Tuesday afternoon, every team member had talked to every other and had gotten back to Cecilia for a ten-minute discussion of their individual recommendations, a total of twenty-one distinct communications.
For a variety of personal reasons, four team members favored working longer weekdays and two team members favored working on Saturdays. Although there was a majority opinion, Cecilia was certain that they would never accept a split result in a typical weekly meeting without more discussion. The next day, a Wednesday, she contacted each member of the team again, which took an average of four calls each. During ten-minute discussions, she requested that each member again confer with each other to see if a clearer decision could be reached by the end of the next day.
The team members repeated the process, then each contacted Cecilia by Thursday evening as promised. After a ten-minute update with each of them, Cecilia found that two team members had indeed changed their votes. Four members now favored working on Saturdays, and two members preferred longer weekdays.
Exasperated and out of time, Cecilia consulted with the managing partner. A devotee of “The Solomon School of Management,” he instantly decided that the team would work nine-hour weekdays and half-day Saturdays. After the usual number of failed calls, Cecilia managed to inform each team member of her boss’s decision. Naturally, it took a little extra explaining.
While her team sulked, Cecilia calculated the accumulatedtime it had taken to replace a one-hour meeting with person-to-person communications, as follows (in minutes):
Total time consumption was 1,500 minutes, or twenty-five person hours. A one-hour team meeting would have taken a total of seven person hours, so net lost productivity was eighteen hours. Moreover, each team member’s work had been interrupted an average of seventeen times, a total of 102 disruptions versus seven for a comparable meeting. The decision was two days late. No one was happy with the final result.
The very next day, which was a Friday, Cecilia’s team resumed its normal pattern of weekly get-togethers. Since then, the team has taken steps to improve meeting quality:
An agenda is published at least one day before every meeting.
Since a ten-minute delay caused by one thoughtless team member could result in seventy minutes of lost productivity and no small amount of irritation, every member of the team arrives on time.
Every attendee sticks to the agenda.
The meetings are concluded on time.
Once the pressure of the audit season was behind them, the managing partner asked Cecilia if she would like to repeat the test in order to confirm her results. Like any good boss who cared about the morale and productivity of her team, she graciously declined—on the spot.
CHAPTER
16
Common Cause
“In every age and
Similar Books
