The meeting software problem’s problem

Solving problems through software is hard. It’s especially hard if you don’t understand the problem well. And problems are rarely cut and dry. Within a problem is a series of solutions and those solutions have their own problems. And those solutions… you get the point.

Here’s an example. An easy one. Look at Tesla. What problem are they solving? What is the hard problem they’re solving? The core problem is polution and sustainability. This defines their mission. But their solution to that problem has a constraint on it that creates a ton of other problems. That constraint — electric cars. That is their high level solution. But that solution is loaded with its own problems. They’ve chosen a hard path because the degree to which that hard path can solve the hard problem (polution) is more complete than alternatives (i.e. slowly progressing away from ice engines to hybrids). But within that solution are all the real problems they want to solve. How do you get battery chemistry to charge fast enough and store enough at high density? How do you enable people to drive across the country and not get stranded? How do you manufacture all of that stuff at scale in a way that doesn’t compromise quality? How do you reinvent the product so that the go to market is fundamentally different in ways that reflect the fundamental difference of the car itself?

Here’s another example that suffers from the problem granularity problem but in the other direction — meeting software. Meeting software today falls into roughly two buckets.

1. Calendar software
2. Scheduling software

The first is represented by the likes of Google Calendar and Microsoft Outlook. You likely use one or both of these in your personal life and at work for setting meetings, inviting people, managing your day.

The second type of software is an attempt to fix one of the core problems that arises in the environment of the first — scheduling a meeting that fits everyone’s schedule. People have so many meetings that scheduling is a non-trivial event. Try to set up a meeting that requires a VP or two and you’re looking at two weeks before you’ll find an opening that works.

So, what’s the problem? The problem is that we’re solving the wrong problem. We’re putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. Is it possible that we have too many meetings that run too long and don’t serve their intended purpose? That problem doesn’t solve itself easily. Software can’t solve it alone. It’s a human problem. It’s a management problem. It’s a cultural problem. It will require digging deep into the purpose of meetings and what they are good at and what they are not good at.