Google's Strategy
by Eion Maison - BScEcons. MBA cum
Google is this era's transformational computing platform,” - Stephen Arnold
Any business would face options in the short run while pursuing its long run goals. Google is no exception. Google is not presently in the portal business but while being in the business of making the world’s information accessible and useful by applying the Delta Model the possibilities would be endless. E-commerce epitomizes the delta (change) in size, scope and market access of doing business in the 21st century.
Application of the Delta Model to the Google Case study is a reflection of how a modern business should strive to achieve customer bonding by creating the best product, with total customer satisfaction and unbeatable standards to lock in its customers through dominant exchange; Then continue to refine its mission statement while maintaining its competitive position with strong external factors which translate to an almost Industry superstructure.
The Delta Model as the name suggests caters for change in articulation and implementation of strategy that is necessary with emergence of the Internet. The original word "Googol" - coined by Milton Sirotta - is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros . Actually Google is so popular it has become a verb. Google's play on the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense amount of information universally accessible on the web[1]. Hence both terms, Delta and Google, represents unimagined potentials for change and expansion in technologies or put another way, the application of technology known as innovation surrounding e-business and e-commerce.
Should Google stick to its core business/competence as defined by its original mission statement? No. Google should further expand into Web portal business like Yahoo and MSN and also e-commerce such as Amazon and E-bay and challenge Microsoft's hegemony in Software development through operational effectiveness, customer targeting, and innovation to provide a fast, accurate and easy-to-use search service and thereby lock out the competitors.
Other firms are afraid of Google’s expansion, but with competition the customer benefits all around. Hax and Wilde, developers of the strategy (organizing) framework - the Delta Model, believe a firm owes itself to its customers: Google has realized that the heart of strategy resides in the customers. Professor Arnoldo Hax notes that “Success in today's ever-changing world comes not from creating one perfect plan but rather from adapting as the environment changes”. Hence, Google has changed its way of thinking about the customer as we read in this comment by Google’s co-founder Larry Page:
“When we first wrote these “10 things” four years ago, we included the phrase “Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat.” Over time we’ve expanded our view … products that then seemed unlikely are now key aspects of our portfolio. … the farther we travel toward achieving the mission, the more those blurry objects on the horizon come into sharper focus …”
Google’s customers expect further bonding: Search Market (SEM)[2] predicts the following 1. Google will launch a cross-platform bid management tool to work across all engine platforms. 2. It will create big new advertising opportunities for companies focused on natural search. 3. Google’s YouTube will launch their first foray into broadcast television. 4. Google Phone (or GPhone) will revolutionize the phone industry. 5. Its About Time for a Google Credit Card?
According to this assigned Case Study, Exhibit 1 of Google’s Financial revenue, earnings as at 2005 was $1,465.4 million as compared with a mere $253.8 million earned by its competitor Yahoo in the same year. Exhibits 2 and 4 tells the same story of market dominance in search query share in the U.S & International domain and U.S. paid -Listing spending Forecast.
Google has persistently pursued innovation and pushed the limits of existing technology over just a few years. Google has move from downloading 200 million web pages in the year 2000 to 100 billion today. With all increasing revenue that this profit maximizing firm is making, the expectation of consumers, and the application of the strategic triangle; Shouldn’t Google continue to expand?
[1]Dr. Moira Gunn of Bio Tech Nation. Interview with Larry and Sergey – co-founder of Google http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsocNnYEOk4&v3
[2] http://www.searchmarketingstandard.com/blog/2008/01/sem-predictions-for-2008.html
Thursday, May 15, 2008
What's MBO?
MBO defined
by Eion Maison
Peter Drucker 1954, in his book The Practice of Management posits that “Management is more than a total of its parts” and that “Objectives are not fate; they are direction. They are not commands; they are commitments. They do not determine the future; they are means to mobilize the resources and energies of the business for the making of the future.”
Management by Objectives (MBO) is a system in which specific performance objectives are jointly determined by subordinates and their superiors with periodic review of progress and allocation of rewards based on the progress. Management is the process of using organization’s resources to achieve the organizational goals through the activities of planning, organizing, leading and control. Therefore, objectives should be set and met.
Many non-profit organizations manage by objectives to achieve their short, medium and long term goals. One such Intergovernmental organization (IGO)- the USAID manage by objectives and according to the USAID Reports from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe this is a successful approach to management.
Other International Organizations (IO’s) use MBO with just the same success because of the comprehensive criteria used for evaluating objectives which is known as the SMART criteria. I actually learned about these criteria from an International Labour Organization (ILO) Training Workshop for Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SME) conference I attended in St. Lucia in 2002: There I was taught the Smart Criteria with says that in evaluation of an SME performance the objectives must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timespecific.
All organizations - profit and non-profit - should look at more than the narrow scope of managing resources and inaddition manage outcomes and even expectations, thus managing more than the total of it’s parts.
There have been many criticisms to Drucker work on MBO. One critic suggests that the phrase ‘management is more than a total of its parts’ is a careless statement (my emphasis). I hasten to disagree with the critic on the basis that many profit maximizing firms like Enron for example, should have been managing by objectives. Had they been so convinced, their managers would not have developed the propensity to collect private rent but instead, would have worked with the specific objectives and demonstrate proper management of the organization and the client’s portfolios thus safe guarding the shareholders interest.
In conclusion, MBO is an effective management strategy for all organizations, be they IO’s, IGO,s, NGO,s, Foundations or business organizations. Despite the type of organization, managing it is more than a sum of all its parts.
by Eion Maison
Peter Drucker 1954, in his book The Practice of Management posits that “Management is more than a total of its parts” and that “Objectives are not fate; they are direction. They are not commands; they are commitments. They do not determine the future; they are means to mobilize the resources and energies of the business for the making of the future.”
Management by Objectives (MBO) is a system in which specific performance objectives are jointly determined by subordinates and their superiors with periodic review of progress and allocation of rewards based on the progress. Management is the process of using organization’s resources to achieve the organizational goals through the activities of planning, organizing, leading and control. Therefore, objectives should be set and met.
Many non-profit organizations manage by objectives to achieve their short, medium and long term goals. One such Intergovernmental organization (IGO)- the USAID manage by objectives and according to the USAID Reports from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe this is a successful approach to management.
Other International Organizations (IO’s) use MBO with just the same success because of the comprehensive criteria used for evaluating objectives which is known as the SMART criteria. I actually learned about these criteria from an International Labour Organization (ILO) Training Workshop for Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SME) conference I attended in St. Lucia in 2002: There I was taught the Smart Criteria with says that in evaluation of an SME performance the objectives must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timespecific.
All organizations - profit and non-profit - should look at more than the narrow scope of managing resources and inaddition manage outcomes and even expectations, thus managing more than the total of it’s parts.
There have been many criticisms to Drucker work on MBO. One critic suggests that the phrase ‘management is more than a total of its parts’ is a careless statement (my emphasis). I hasten to disagree with the critic on the basis that many profit maximizing firms like Enron for example, should have been managing by objectives. Had they been so convinced, their managers would not have developed the propensity to collect private rent but instead, would have worked with the specific objectives and demonstrate proper management of the organization and the client’s portfolios thus safe guarding the shareholders interest.
In conclusion, MBO is an effective management strategy for all organizations, be they IO’s, IGO,s, NGO,s, Foundations or business organizations. Despite the type of organization, managing it is more than a sum of all its parts.
A system called organization
How we can see the organization as a system?
by Eion Maison
I was rather surprised to hear of the US Vice President who went to see his doctor about a cold and was told that he had an irregular heart rhythm and needed an electric shock to try to make his heart rhythm regular. Could this in practical terms, happen to an organization?
The organization is a system, albeit a social system with its own boundaries, subsystems and feedback mechanism much the same as the human body system. Lou Marcoccio intimates that “Many organizations have failures sitting in their systems, but they won't show up until they run the transactions.”
An organization, according to the General Systems Theory 1968 allows educators, writers and consultants to help managers look at the organizations from a broader point of view and thus interpret patterns and events in their respective organization. The organization is seen as a system of systems with many subsystems just like the body has its Circulatory, Digestive, Urinary, Immune, Endocrine, Lymphatic, Reproductive systems. The counter part in an organization would be the departments, programs, division and the teams. Each having its inputs, processes, outcomes, and outputs.
A system is defined by its legal documents, laws, roles and policies just like the human is defined by marital status, income and educational background. Further, the system is depicted by its organizational chart, job description, and marketing strategy much the same like the person is defined by their family name and title. Therefore, if one part of it is removed, then the nature is changed.
Feedback is very important to the organization as a system. The body system gets it feedback from symptoms we feel, or observe, and like the case of the politician, from a doctor’s evaluation. The organization on the other hand gets its feedback from employees, clients, governments, technology and economic indicators, inter alia.
In conclusion, since the systems are all interconnected and interdependent then there should be regular check ups or evaluation for both the human and the organization with the express purpose of ensuring efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and longevity. Therefore, all organization should assess its capacity which in order will reveal its current status or performance. One such tool I came across in my research is the Mckinsey Assessment Tool. This or any other relevant tool could detect any failure sitting in the system.
by Eion Maison
I was rather surprised to hear of the US Vice President who went to see his doctor about a cold and was told that he had an irregular heart rhythm and needed an electric shock to try to make his heart rhythm regular. Could this in practical terms, happen to an organization?
The organization is a system, albeit a social system with its own boundaries, subsystems and feedback mechanism much the same as the human body system. Lou Marcoccio intimates that “Many organizations have failures sitting in their systems, but they won't show up until they run the transactions.”
An organization, according to the General Systems Theory 1968 allows educators, writers and consultants to help managers look at the organizations from a broader point of view and thus interpret patterns and events in their respective organization. The organization is seen as a system of systems with many subsystems just like the body has its Circulatory, Digestive, Urinary, Immune, Endocrine, Lymphatic, Reproductive systems. The counter part in an organization would be the departments, programs, division and the teams. Each having its inputs, processes, outcomes, and outputs.
A system is defined by its legal documents, laws, roles and policies just like the human is defined by marital status, income and educational background. Further, the system is depicted by its organizational chart, job description, and marketing strategy much the same like the person is defined by their family name and title. Therefore, if one part of it is removed, then the nature is changed.
Feedback is very important to the organization as a system. The body system gets it feedback from symptoms we feel, or observe, and like the case of the politician, from a doctor’s evaluation. The organization on the other hand gets its feedback from employees, clients, governments, technology and economic indicators, inter alia.
In conclusion, since the systems are all interconnected and interdependent then there should be regular check ups or evaluation for both the human and the organization with the express purpose of ensuring efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and longevity. Therefore, all organization should assess its capacity which in order will reveal its current status or performance. One such tool I came across in my research is the Mckinsey Assessment Tool. This or any other relevant tool could detect any failure sitting in the system.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Manager or a Leader?
Hello my friends:
Today's post examines the characteristics found in all organizations. As a you read ask yourself am I a manager or a leader?
What are the differences between Management and Leadership?
One’s position within the organization will commensurate with the responsibility trusted upon the individual. To extrapolate from Daft’s 2005’s top down management theory we see that a manager would have to do at least 60% more than a leader.
A manager is expected to lead, plan, organize, and control on the basis of academic qualification and experience. While a leader does just that – lead- on the basis of influence. John Maxuel sums up his definition of leadership as “leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.”
The distinction between a manager and a leader is further clarified by Stephen R. Covey “Effective leadership is putting things first". Effective management is the discipline, carrying it out.
To carry out the functions of organizational management effectively, training is a must. The manager can be a leader but the leader cannot be a manager without training or experience. Nonetheless some leaders attain the position of manager over time by being awarded a (QBE) Qualified by Experience Certification on the demonstration of management capabilities and interest in principles.
Management principles were introduced by the Ecclesiastical Intuitions of the Roman era and perfected by the French vis-à-vis Henri Foyal – the father of modern management. Therefore, the Old French definition of ménagement as “the art of conducting, directing” from the Latin man agere, ‘to be led by the hand’.
In conclusion, whether the leader is tradition or contemporary in style or transactional or transformational in nature, both the leader and the manager must collaborate and work toward achievement of the organizational goals. However, it is the manager, not the leader who will be held accountable since that individual was placed in that position of responsibility.
Today's post examines the characteristics found in all organizations. As a you read ask yourself am I a manager or a leader?
What are the differences between Management and Leadership?
One’s position within the organization will commensurate with the responsibility trusted upon the individual. To extrapolate from Daft’s 2005’s top down management theory we see that a manager would have to do at least 60% more than a leader.
A manager is expected to lead, plan, organize, and control on the basis of academic qualification and experience. While a leader does just that – lead- on the basis of influence. John Maxuel sums up his definition of leadership as “leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.”
The distinction between a manager and a leader is further clarified by Stephen R. Covey “Effective leadership is putting things first". Effective management is the discipline, carrying it out.
To carry out the functions of organizational management effectively, training is a must. The manager can be a leader but the leader cannot be a manager without training or experience. Nonetheless some leaders attain the position of manager over time by being awarded a (QBE) Qualified by Experience Certification on the demonstration of management capabilities and interest in principles.
Management principles were introduced by the Ecclesiastical Intuitions of the Roman era and perfected by the French vis-à-vis Henri Foyal – the father of modern management. Therefore, the Old French definition of ménagement as “the art of conducting, directing” from the Latin man agere, ‘to be led by the hand’.
In conclusion, whether the leader is tradition or contemporary in style or transactional or transformational in nature, both the leader and the manager must collaborate and work toward achievement of the organizational goals. However, it is the manager, not the leader who will be held accountable since that individual was placed in that position of responsibility.
Human Resource Management
Human Reasorce Function
In the economic system, the factors of production are land, labor (Human Resource) and capital. Labor as Human Resource (HR) is the most precious of all; It is the HR that manages and generates return on investment (ROI) on the land and capital. . However, the time has come for HR to evaluate and generate its own ROI.
The function of HR is to manage the human capital on the job. However, in China this function is changing over the last ten years from administration to time spent on strategic activities (about 13 percent to nearly 30 percent globally): Traditionally this function was seen as hiring, establishing a personnel department to, inter alia, handling complaints, organizing a pension scheme, and to be at the manager’s disposal. HR function was, and still is in some organizations, very transactional since it performs routine task without the involvement of the other departments, some organizations even believe that they have established a strategy by creating a mission statement. The problem with these mission statements is that, for the most part, they are ambiguous, lofty, and empty.
Truth be told, HR is working in a hostile environment. More is expected of HR! HR now needs a strategy as is evident in the transformational study[1] done in the United States.
The shift of HR function is now for it to move from being traditional to be transformational i.e. to make a difference to the organization’s bottom line by working with the mission statement, goals and objectives of the organization. For HR to be viewed as transformational it’s objective is to appraise its contribution in quantitative terms. Beer et al posits that HR must now show commitment, competence, cost effectiveness and congruence.
The reason for the change in HR’s function is for HR to go beyond keeping pace with technological advances, processes, and people skills by building capabilities to deliver new values to customers in spite of globalization, and stronger shareholder’s demands.
The HR environment and model must change to suit the organizations strategic plans by putting strategy into action and thus enable HR to do a complete job. This will abate the hostility towards HR and to make it accepted and valuable.
The delivery mode of HR can have a direct correlation to the contribution of HR to the company in all areas of compliance, client satisfaction, culture management, cost control and its contribution to the organization.
The HR environment in a large organization is sometimes better managed when when a sourcing alternative is sought to develop, partner or contract all the operational, technical and capital functions of the organization, with the specific objective of maximizing the return on internal resources. These sourcing alternatives, respectively, are Insoucing, Cosourcing, and Outsoucing. Further, alternative sourcing may be sought for payroll, training, recruitment, benefits administrating. However, a small organization with below one hundred employees may not need a HR department since the manager can handle the aspects of hiring, training, benefits and terminating.
In conclusion, HR functions must produce benefits that extend to the wider community or market despite global challenges in its operating environment. These benefits will accrue from the delivery mode of HR with changes from administrative excellence to strategic contribution.
[1] Point of View: Unfinished Business. Mastering HR Business Design. New York, NY2004 Mercer Human Resource Consulting, Inc
In the economic system, the factors of production are land, labor (Human Resource) and capital. Labor as Human Resource (HR) is the most precious of all; It is the HR that manages and generates return on investment (ROI) on the land and capital. . However, the time has come for HR to evaluate and generate its own ROI.
The function of HR is to manage the human capital on the job. However, in China this function is changing over the last ten years from administration to time spent on strategic activities (about 13 percent to nearly 30 percent globally): Traditionally this function was seen as hiring, establishing a personnel department to, inter alia, handling complaints, organizing a pension scheme, and to be at the manager’s disposal. HR function was, and still is in some organizations, very transactional since it performs routine task without the involvement of the other departments, some organizations even believe that they have established a strategy by creating a mission statement. The problem with these mission statements is that, for the most part, they are ambiguous, lofty, and empty.
Truth be told, HR is working in a hostile environment. More is expected of HR! HR now needs a strategy as is evident in the transformational study[1] done in the United States.
The shift of HR function is now for it to move from being traditional to be transformational i.e. to make a difference to the organization’s bottom line by working with the mission statement, goals and objectives of the organization. For HR to be viewed as transformational it’s objective is to appraise its contribution in quantitative terms. Beer et al posits that HR must now show commitment, competence, cost effectiveness and congruence.
The reason for the change in HR’s function is for HR to go beyond keeping pace with technological advances, processes, and people skills by building capabilities to deliver new values to customers in spite of globalization, and stronger shareholder’s demands.
The HR environment and model must change to suit the organizations strategic plans by putting strategy into action and thus enable HR to do a complete job. This will abate the hostility towards HR and to make it accepted and valuable.
The delivery mode of HR can have a direct correlation to the contribution of HR to the company in all areas of compliance, client satisfaction, culture management, cost control and its contribution to the organization.
The HR environment in a large organization is sometimes better managed when when a sourcing alternative is sought to develop, partner or contract all the operational, technical and capital functions of the organization, with the specific objective of maximizing the return on internal resources. These sourcing alternatives, respectively, are Insoucing, Cosourcing, and Outsoucing. Further, alternative sourcing may be sought for payroll, training, recruitment, benefits administrating. However, a small organization with below one hundred employees may not need a HR department since the manager can handle the aspects of hiring, training, benefits and terminating.
In conclusion, HR functions must produce benefits that extend to the wider community or market despite global challenges in its operating environment. These benefits will accrue from the delivery mode of HR with changes from administrative excellence to strategic contribution.
[1] Point of View: Unfinished Business. Mastering HR Business Design. New York, NY2004 Mercer Human Resource Consulting, Inc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)