Google and Its New Management Method: Pundits Throwing Punches
April 10, 2011
I read the modest flurry of quasi-MBA analyses triggered by “Larry Page’s First Blunder”. I liked the word “first” because it implies that Mr. Page and his co-founder have been management “perfect 10s” since 1998. I thought about pointing out that the present range of challenges Google faces is a consequence of earlier blunders.
But I wish to ignore that admittedly trivial point.
The Computerworld article focuses on the idea of linking a Googler’s annual hefty cash bonus to becoming or coding social apps, systems, solutions, etc. I don’t know about you, but I have a number of high powered technologists working on projects. None of these individuals is what I would describe at fraternity or sorority president material.
Last week, at lunch, Dr. Tyra Oldham, one of my colleagues, pointed out that the three nerds and myself constituted a small world of insiders which was pointedly anti-social. In fact, as I recall, she said, “You are in some weird alternate universe where normal people don’t go.” In addition to a PhD in operations, Dr. Oldham holds an MBA degree and is well qualified to comment on management-related behaviors.
Dr. Oldham pointed out to some of the ArnoldIT.com engineering team, “You are not social.” With considerable pride, the engineering team agreed. One asked, “How can one be an excellent engineer by being more social?’ Dr. Oldham shook her head. We think it meant that the three ArnoldIT.com engineers were in need of social remediation. Good luck with that.
That’s an important point to consider: expected behaviors regarding “social.”
I live in rural Kentucky, commune with large boxer dogs, and spend my time in front of my various computing devices. As I look around my office, I count on April 10, 2011, 14 multi-processor machines, an assortment of electronic components and gadgets, the two large dogs, and white boards covered with diagrams. I have a cleared space for my new Sandy Bridge machine which will arrive on Monday. (Hooray.) My office bookcases are stuffed with technical manuals, cables, and “stuff.” If you know where to look, you will see a container of IBM’s weird computer fasteners from the now retired NetFinity 5500. Ah, nostalgia! To me, my little world is plenty social, thank you.
The film “Revenge of the Nerds” does contain elements of truth that age and money cannot alter with alacrity.
Now if Dr. Tyra Oldham were correct, a financial incentive might get my attention for a while, but I think I would drift away from social innovation. Money is not what makes ArnoldIT.com and its Managing Director go. Social is, at this time, not that interesting to me because Facebook and other services have okay systems. Maybe there is something that might catch my attention? However, I have personal projects that are going to get my attention and my time. Weaponized information, for instance, is really quite promising here in Harrod’s Creek. Curious? Well, lots of people are and many are writing checks to understand the system, method, and technology. Social? Not so much for me and some of my team.
Now back to the Computerworld, here’s the passage that may echo through the online grape vine:
Google and Its new Management Method: Reorganization
April 8, 2011
The Los Angeles Times’s article “Exclusive: Google CEO Larry Page Completes Major Reorganization of Internet Search Giant” documents a milestone in big company management tactics. The headline sums up the deliverable from a busy first week or so on the job for Larry Page, the founder with operational control of Google. Here’s the passage that may be recycled in a number of Business 101 essays in the months and years ahead:
The executives will be able to act more autonomously and won’t have to turn to Google’s powerful operating committee on every decision. “The idea is to empower people, let them take risks and give them more authority over decisions,” said one person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to maintain his relationship with Google. Page has been thinking about how to reorganize the company to cut bureaucracy and politicking while speeding up innovation. He may have found his answer in the success of the company’s Android mobile software unit and its video-sharing site YouTube, each of which have thrived as largely autonomous entities.
Questions which crossed my mind include:
- How does one define “success” for YouTube and Android. These two “products” have been fountains of legal and technical activity. Examples range from the shoot out with Viacom which is still flopping around the US legal maze and the possible “we’re open source but we are really into not be so much open that fragmentation occurs” approach to Android.
- What happens to customers of certain Google products and services who cannot find anyone to answer certain questions. Example: “Why has my traffic disappeared?” or “Where did the Adsense revenues go in the last three months?” My favorite is: “Whom do I call about a technical problem with my $300,000 Google Search Appliance?”
- Autonomous decision making is a great thing; however, giant publicly traded companies have many different pressures on them. Example: “What will be done to either re-enter the China market, arguably the fastest growing economy in the world when one compares it to Detroit or Gary, Indiana?” Another example: “When will revenues of a significant nature flow from a social information service?” (I keep thinking of Orkut, its early entrance in a market, and its somewhat interesting impact in Brazil, upon attorneys, and on certain government entities. “Impact” is not direct revenue flowing to Google as I understand the Orkut service.)
Microsoft was once described to me as “10,000 sail boats moving roughly in the same direction.” Is Google emulating Microsoft’s management methods? I see some similarities. A big difference is speed. Moving org boxes in less than five days is quite impressive. Now we can watch performance indicators to see how the method works. MBA candidates, on your mark, get set….
Stephen E Arnold, April 8, 2011
Freebie
Google Profile Search
April 8, 2011
We fielded a call about searching for information within Google Profile.
Late in 2008, Google launched its first cut of a tool designed to search the public pages of Google profiles. After perusing “New Google Profile Search”, one sees that this feature has been updated. At the top of the improvements list sit a friendlier interface and the presence of associated links in the search results, from a member’s blog or flickr account for example. It seems an advanced search option for probing relevant details like locations also exists, though I am uncertain if this is part of the new package.
The original blogger notes:
“This feature is not yet enabled in the interface, but you can search Google Profiles by adding &tbs=prfl:1 to a Google Search URL.”
Normally this is the time I begin harping about the dangers of serving personal information on a silver platter, and the ensuing repercussions when a wolf shows up at the table, be it a criminal or a salesman. I will not breech this topic today since individuals are largely chomping at the bit to complete these sprawling profile pages; “to each his own,” as they say.
So, in terms of a resource, Google has successfully made it easier to filter yet another aspect of life. Just in time too, otherwise I may have had to actually talk to one of my friends.
Sarah Rogers, April 8, 2011
Freebie
Google and Its New Management Method: Facebook
April 7, 2011
I found “Page Ties Google Bonuses to Social Strategy” an excellent write up. Business publications may want to pay a bit more attention to publications like MaximumPC. Anyway: The article said:
Google employees the world over now have reason to hope that the nerdy engineers running Google understand the social web more than stereotypes would lead us to think. Newly minted CEO Larry page just sent out a memo to all staff to let them know that 25% of all bonuses will be based on the success or failure of Google social strategy in 2011.
Okay, get paid to stay and now get a bonus for doing the social thing. Interesting. Why? Well, Facebook is moving forward:
- 500 million plus users
- A walled garden approach to members, ads, and those who want to reach the Facebookers
- Buzz
- An open platform that is pretty much a slap at Google’s new definition of Android which uses the word “open” to mean “not so fast, muchachas.”
- Users who stick within Facebook for hours at a stretch.
I could go on, but that is not necessary. What we have is a new type of management method. Reward those who may be inherently unhappy at a social function to be social. Okay. Makes sense but as a nerd, I am going back to the office tonight. I am not going to a neighborhood function. Forget the incentive. I like working alone with my gizmos.
Stephen E Arnold, April 7, 2011
Freebie and without an incentive burden.
Forrester Research on Social Business Intelligence
April 3, 2011
ECRMGuide.com interviewed James Kobielus, senior analyst at Forrester Research, for their article, “Social Business Intelligence- What Is It, and Do You Need It?”
Kobielus asserts that social BI is the essential new addition to business intelligence. It taps into information available on social networks that traditional solutions can’t capture. In particular, he mentions customer comments about your company, good, bad, or non-existent. He also emphasizes increased data available for predictive modeling tools.
Is this more baloney or pure intellectual gold? Pass the sandwich loaf please. We think social BI enthusiasts may overstating their case.
When asked about the risks of implementing social BI, Kobielus replied that companies must be careful to use only the official, sanctioned versions of records in order to avoid making costly mistakes. Important caveat.
As to the trend’s projection, Kobielus summarizes:
“There’s no clean delineation where traditional BI leaves off and social BI picks up because traditional BI is a moving target. Every couple of years it adds an additional layer of functionality that used to be bells and whistles but now is inherent. I think the social interface in the next year of two will become pretty much standard everywhere.”
We’ll see.
Cynthia Murrell April 3, 2011
The Columns of April from Stephen E Arnold
March 30, 2011
Quite a bit of flux in the world of print and online publishing. I am going to need a scorecard to know who publishes which of my for-fee columns. Here’s the line up for April 2011 or a month or two later. The production cycle for some print publications requires two, three, or more months in some cases.
Enterprise Technology Management, owned by IMI Publishing Ltd. “Google Nurtures Its Enterprise Services” talks about some of Google’s more interesting actions germane to its enterprise products and services. One of the points I mention is Google’s hiring Oracle sales and marketing professionals. In a word, “Wow.”
Information Today, owned by Information Today. “Search to Services: The Quiet Enterprise Revolution” explores the shift from licensing software to selling services. Search has become more of a consulting business than a software business in certain circles.
Information World Review, owned by Bizmedia, puts my picture on its home page as I write this on March 18, 2011. Go figure. “Real Time Search and the Search Results Laundry List” talks about the problems of delivering users a laundry list of results for real-time content. I highlight a company called Digital Reasoning and its new Synthesys system. Yes, it is better than a results list.
KMWorld, also owned by Information Today. “The Sentiment Explosion” talks about the use of semantics to solve problems, not provide a subject for lectures on next generation search technology. One of the companies discussed is Attensity and one exemplary product is Hakia’s Sensenews, a stock picking advisory service.
Smart Business Network owns magazines and Web sites. “Google Jazzes Local Advertising Options” talks about Google Tags and how a local business can get an Adwords or “boost” for a compelling $50 a month.
Although it is gratifying to get paid a pittance for these somewhat polished pieces, I am going to have to rethink what I am doing. Across these five publications, the reach is less than that of Beyond Search and Inteltrax, which is a very shocking fact for us dwelling in the heart of darkness in rural Kentucky.
Stephen E Arnold, March 30, 2011
This item is a freebie; the columns are not.
Sentiment Analysis, the New Search and Retrieval Tool
March 24, 2011
Computer World has a concept for us to ponder: “Sentiment Analysis Comes of Age.” Sentiment analysis has been around for some time, but with the rapid proliferation of up-to-date social media and semantic-software vendors that offer commentary and relevant components, its benefits are coming to the light. Sentiment analysis has many potential paybacks, including new data sources never before tapped. Many semantic platforms already analyze material from social networking sites.
“Sentiment analysis platforms use two main methodologies. One involves a statistical or model-based approach wherein the system learns to assess sentiment by analyzing large quantities of pre-scored material. The other method utilizes a large dictionary of pre-scored phrases.”
Computerworld discovers sentiment analysis the way a father realizes his 15 year old daughter is ageing quickly. Can sentiment analysis improve search and retrieval? We’re not sure, but it makes advertisers perceive an advantage in explaining why consumers dislike a product or brand.
We anticipate search vendors will pile into this market as well.
Whitney Grace, March 24, 2011
Freebie
Google and Yelp: The Future of Content Peeks around the PR Baloney
March 7, 2011
My personal view is that content is undergoing a bit of chemical change. The idea that authors are important seems to be eroding. The new value is an online system that generates content from software, volunteers, paid contributors, and sucking goodies from different places. There is no single word that encapsulates these trends. I wish there were. With the right word I could explain what is at the core of the unsolvable problem for Google and Yelp. You can get the core of the hassle in “Google Issues Ultimatum to Yelp: Free Content or No Search Indexing.” One interesting comment in the write up was this passage:
The issue has been ongoing for several years. However, Stoppelman said there is no answer to it at the moment, while Google maintains the same position.
I thought Google had the world’s smartest employees. Yelp has some sharp folks as well. No solution. So we have a new example of an unsolved problem. The Yelp Conundrum is right up there with The Goldbach conjecture. Well, that suggests that neither company is as smart as I thought it was or both companies have what I call a “power” problem.
Yelp is performing in an area where Google is not doing too well. Google wants the Yelp content and will remove Yelp from its index unless Yelp buckles under. When I read this story I thought about Google’s position when China pulled a power play. Now Google seems to be throwing its traffic power around.
Interesting.
With Bing and Yahoo accounting for 12 percent of Web search and Google most of the other traffic, Google’s position strikes an interesting chord with me.
Let’s assume that Google arbitrarily excludes Yelp. What does this say about objectivity in indexing? What does this make clear about Google’s ability to adjust an index manually? No matter how smart Google’s software is, the decision to block or otherwise hamper Yelp tells me quite a bit.
And what about Yelp? Is the company playing hardball because a potential tie up fell through? Is Yelp the most recent casualty of Google’s effort to expand via acquisition, not organic growth?
Too bad I am not a lawyer. I would have an informed opinion. As an observer from far off Kentucky, I see a glimpse of the future for new content environment.
Stephen E Arnold, March 7, 2011
Freebie
Relevancy and Meaning in New Media
March 6, 2011
In the recent Forbes.com article “Finding Influencers and Influential Events On The Social Web”, an IBM expert for hire expounds on the complexities of analytical solutions in the face of Big Data quandaries.
While attending the recent IBM mega-conference in Orlando, the author found himself in the audience during a discussion of the detailed examination practices applied to the communal media landscape via industry upstarts and innovations. Citing examples such as Klout (the four year old California=based firm that specializes in gauging online influence), he explains the importance of understanding the relationships bred from this form of contact as well as the consistencies therein and its value to new programs and services.
The concentration should not be on models of contact alone, the examination of themes must be a factor as well. This is especially difficult on a technological level given the nuances that exist within speech. Another issue that must be addressed is how to determine individual pertinence. The ability to impact the commercial spectrum, even at one hundred and forty characters or less, can transpire despite an individual’s mastery of a subject. On the plains of communal media, everyone’s voice carries.
One of the more surprising elements of the article was the omission of any reference to the two companies, Attensity and Lexalytics, thought to be leading this new charge of semantic review and management. Could this be an indication of a shift within the industry? Curious indeed.
Micheal Cory, March 6, 2011
Attensity Goes on a Social Offensive
March 3, 2011
Remember the pigeons from Psych 101.
Beginning with the discoveries made by Pavlov and his dogs to the direct application of the science by Ogilvy and his Madison Ave. minions, psychology has long played a part in shaping us as consumers.
Now it seems the growing worldwide embrace of Social media has altered one more aspect of our lives, how we are marketed to, or to phrase it more accurately, how we have begun to market ourselves.
Attensity’s “Customer Segmentation for the Social Media Age“, (which the Attensity writer admits was inspired by a series of tweets) delves into the new media ramifications on conventional segmentation practices.
Attensity explains that before the technological advances made over the last three decades, gathering the information necessary to construct effective marketing campaigns consumed both substantial amounts of time and capital. Despite these costs,
” … Segmentation was the best attempt that we as marketers had to give our customers what they needed, …”
What has changed?
The buyer’s willingness, nay their seeming compulsion to share every fleeting thought and scrap of personal information about themselves to anyone clever enough to operate one of the many devices that link us to the web. The new breed of admen now, instead of sorting through pounds of trial results and customer surveys, can as Attensity states:
” … scour the social web to find mentions of our brands, our competitors’ brands and product categories.”
An interesting read and something to think about the next time you feel the urge to “friend” your laundry detergent.
In a related post on the Parisian consulting and technology firm Capgemini’s site, Senior Consultant Jude Umeh discusses the melding of social media surveillance with the review, application and management of the collected data. His perspective is informed by the hands on experience he received at a partner training session organized by Attensity.
Attensity is collaborating with Pega, a firm offering business process management and customer relationship management software. BPM and CRM are factors in the new math of modern marketing, Attensity seems to have discovered the formula that will position the collective at the head of pack.
Layering their respective technologies, the group appears poised to revolutionize the way information is gleaned from new media. Can Attensity pull off a home run with every search and content processing vendor “discovering” these market sectors? We do not know.
Michael Cory, March 3, 2011
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
