Comments on: On Googler's Fear: Getting Big, In The Worst Way

By: aishwarya

aishwarya — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:06:03 +0000

I think this small and fast company funda is profitable to some extent. But things start breaking up when you grow. Google would have to show that it can beat msft in innovation even when it becomes its’ size (50K+ engineers).

By: Vikram

Vikram — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:50:42 +0000

So guys whats the best working practices in present day working environmnent?

Company culuture yes its important but if your bosses dont want to get synchronised with the present days of working.

Its all abt results and ever changing environment we live in.
If u are not adaptable changeable then we are out of competition.

By: laura

laura — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:29:09 +0000

Your human detector does not allow me even after entering the letter. Never seen such a useless captcha. Finally I have to use fake name.

Well, it all depends on the style of management of the company. Giants like Microsoft or Toyota still have innovation as one of the major factors for their long term success.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:50:31 +0000

I thought you might want to check out Compete.com blog that has a posting today about the top search engines and the most popular searches on those sites for the past month.

http://blog.compete.com/index.php/2006/11/08/search-market-share-google-youtube-yahoo-msn-dogpile/

blog.compete.com

By: gulag

gulag — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:50:55 +0000

I worked for Google in Europe for a year up until very recently and I can confidently say I have never seen more people doing less productive or meaningful work (myself included)in my life.

Meetings are endless and inane, every conversation is riddled with acronyms and precisely the bullshit MBA speak mentioned above, products are poorly understood internally and internal documentation and communication is laughable.

The idea that Google are some bunch of enormous pulsating brains light years ahead of the curve is frankly laughable if you've ever worked there. Plus the pay is lousy. Plus the 20% thing is an absolute myth. And for the poster above, if you think they're arrogant from the outside, you should check it out inside. Arrogant doesn't even come close.

my 2 cents, from someone who actually worked for these clowns rather than gently tickling their ass with a big goofy grin in the blogosphere

By: Michelle

Michelle — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:59:39 +0000

And one should not forget the significance of the company culture on its success. It is very difficult to maintain the company culture and values when any company starts growing at a rapid pace.

By: Google Success

Google Success — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:56:14 +0000

Also one should note the importance of ‘company culture’. When a company starts growing and recruits new hires for new projects under demanding conditions, it is very difficult to maintain the ‘company culture’ which has significant impact on the success of the company.

By: Billy The Kid

Billy The Kid — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:04:58 +0000

Missing from this discussion is the point that formal process and sound software management practices can often save the engineers from their own mistakes caused by a lack of oversight, introspection and evaluation. Geniuses don’t seem to suffer from these problems, but Google is quickly running low on geniuses. Software construction by the rest of use still requires an amount of this “Bureaucracy” in order to get the job done right, on time, the first time.

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:07:05 +0000

Yes and no. While I, too, have been smothered in the beauracratic bowels of one of the least efficient and most backward thinking Fortune 500 companies, I think we should be careful to jump on the new anti-intellectualism bandwagon.

Executing successfully on complex projects require more than "by the seat of your pants" planning and "gut feelings" analysis. The greater the complexity of the project, the more planning and analysis it usually requires.

Would you fly on a new Boeing jet that was designed on a cocktail napkin and built in a hurry with materials that hadn't been rigorously tested for airline use? Probably not.

But do you need 160 meetings, 5 focus groups, 7 interdepartmental project teams, and a year of planning and analysis to determine what colors to use in the your new chewing gum print ad? No.

There's no question that bringing too much analysis and planning to a problem only adds to the work and stifles progress. However, it's a gross oversimplification to name planning, analysis, and attention to details as the culprit responsible for stifling innovation in companies (big or small).

I firmly believe that good management (the people and the practice) is responsible for how many or how few processes, hierarchies, templates, forms, and flow charts are required to meet an objective. Too much, and your competition outpaces you while you suffer from analysis paralysis; too little planning or quality control, and you launch a buggy flop which destroys your brand and maybe your company. Good management knows the difference (most of the time).

BTW, I think your book is great. Thanks for documenting one of the most important histories of the new economy.

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:06:23 +0000

Would you fly on a new Boeing jet that was designed on a cocktail napkin and built in a hurry with materials that hadn't been rigorously tested for airline use? Probably not.

But do you need 160 meetings, 5 focus groups, 7 interdepartmental project teams, and a year of planning and analysis to determine what colors to use in the your new chewing gum print ad? No.

BTW, I think your book is great. Thanks for documenting one of the most important histories of the new economy.