How might we...
- How Might We make O-DEP weekly calls better?
Hypothesis
If [we change up certain elements of O-DEP weekly calls] then the calls will be more productive, shorter, and efficient (and impactful and engaging?)].
Design
We will test 9 different changes for a 30 day period and then assess which of them we want to keep.
- #1. Call is reduced to 60 mins.
- #2. Everyone on video.
- #3. Develop a checklist for agenda items.
- #4. End calls early if the call is done.
- #5. An evaluation at the end of every call.
- #6. Explore rotating facilitation.
- #7. Structure the call to have non-universally relevant content at the end (aka “After-party” – optional final section of call).
- #8. Cancel the call when there isn’t a clear need for it.
- #9. Renewed commitment to the weekly priority emails.
Most of these need to happen weekly. Some are one time constructions that need regular updating to be impactful (eg. living list of agenda items).
All call participants are responsible.
Metrics
- Call is 60 mins / DID calls get shorter? WAS everything able to fit in 60 mins? What emotions did that evoke in participants?
- Everyone on video/ DID everyone always use video? Did it seem as if people were more engaged and attentive?
- Develop a checklist for features of the week or agenda items/ Did it happen? (YES!). Was it helpful? How so?
- End calls early if the call is done/ Did it ever happen?
- An evaluation at the end of every call/ Did it happen? YES. What were the results of those evaluations? Did it change the calls in any way to have them be evaluated?
- Explore rotating facilitation/ Did it ever happen?
- “After-party” – optional final section of call/ Did it happen? YES. Was it helpful to frame in that way?
- Cancel the call when there isn’t a clear need for it/ Did that ever happen? Was there any drawback to that?
- Renewed commitment to the weekly priority emails/ Did everybody do it every week? Was it as helpful as having verbal dialogue about it? What ways was it better? What ways was it less good?
~ Success would look like a call that people “like better”; bc it is shorter, more relevant to their work, more engaging, etc.
~ Minimal Success would be a majority of call participants having an improved call experience, based on their own perception.
~ To collect the data or complete the analysis there could be a survey, or a conversation on a call.
Learnings
Optimizing our calls is useful but it revealed some different expectations and needs that different staff in the department have from the call. Thus “improved” was not necessarily a shared experience. It became an opportunity to assess how some of these different expectations around calls might be symptoms of issues in how our teams are structured.
Success of calls is also dependent on linking with other organizational comms/collaboration systems: emailing out weekly priorities, using slack etc.
The balance between transparency and capacity is a juggling act. More transparency takes more capacity and the department needs to be intentional about how we balance those two poles.
Creation of “afterparty” final agenda section where people can self select was successful. This was generative rather than bureaucratic.
The effort to create more focus on criteria and agenda proposal systems did not create more engagement. It just created another systems to be maintained that few people used so we discontinued it.
Decisions
Doing broader assessment of department structure and workflow systems to see where we can optimize.
Will not continue more robust agenda proposal systems since they didn’t improve the call and required staff time to maintain.
Adopted most of the #9 proposals since they were helpful.
Questions
What is an improved call experience?
We will continue to evaluate the calls and ongoing collaboration systems to make sure they are serving our goals.