undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbeat12y ago0 comments

Email interrupts too, and probably worse because it happens ALL THE DAMNED TIME. Slicker systems like Campfire can be better, but you're still dealing with asynchronous versus synchronous communication. Synchronous is almost always more efficient.

The whole problem with the OP's premise is that his root cause analysis is flawed. He sees that most meetings are inefficient, and therefore assumes inefficiency is caused by meetings. But meetings also provide other efficiencies. As long as the added efficiency outweighs the cost, meetings are a net win.

0 comments

dragonwriter12y ago

> Synchronous is almost always more efficient.

Synchronous is almost always more efficient when there is very close to zero processing time necessary between receipt of communication and response to it.

As you get away from zero processing time, the efficiency of synchronous communication drops very, very quickly.

Also, that's assuming 1-on-1 communication. Even when a synchronous exchange is between two parties is efficient, every unnecessary party whose work is blocked because they are a party to the meeting drops the overall efficiency considerably.

Which is why meetings tend, in practice, to be very inefficient if they aren't well planned: while synchronous communication can be efficient for certain communications and a properly chosen set of participants, meetings often involve lots of people unnecessarily bound up waiting for other people to complete synchronous exchanges, and often involve subject matter where asynchronous exchanges would have been more efficient even for 1-on-1 communication.

thematt12y ago

Interesting, how is synchronous communication ever more efficient than asynchronous communication? It might be more efficient for the person asking, but rarely for the people being asked.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse