Xoogler Demonstrates Historical Revisionism

July 4, 2022

How did Google’s famous “solving death” project get funded? What about the “put wood behind” social networking initiative? What about those X moon shots?

The answers to these and other Google mysteries allegedly appear in “Former Google CEO Describes Brutal Review Process for New Projects.” The write up reveals:

Schmidt always stated Google took a bottom-up approach to managing the 20% project. Meaning it was a collaborative effort in deciding what steps to take with new product ideas. However, Schmidt says at Collision that company leaders were more involved than previously stated. It wasn’t a team decision that allowed projects to advance to the next level. The decision was determined through a “brutal” review process from management.

The questions asked, according to the article, were:

Are these ideas good enough?
Can we fund them?
Are they going to work?
Are they going to scale?
Are they legal?

One question I thought would be included was, “Is it possible to solve death?”

Obviously I am not officially Googley, but, take it from me, that is okay. Tony Bennett crooning in the cafeteria was sufficient for me. I also liked entering a building on Surfside because the door was propped open so those washing cars could traipse in and out without those silly key cards.

But death?

The write up includes this quote from the former leader of the online ad outfit:

To build a systemic innovation culture, which is what I think we’re talking about here, you need to have both bottoms up and tops down.

That’s logical. And logic rules at Google, right? Oh, I forgot to ask, “Is it possible arrogance plays a small part?”

Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2022


Comments are closed.

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta