Tag Archive: bottom up


“The billions of dollars in money and profits that flow from it [Google] are a by-product of the company’s concentrated efforts at innovation, rather than a yardstick used internally to measure success or to determine whether a project is worthy of exploration. Unlike most companies, where executives and product managers try to think of ways to make money and then create products, Google is a place where technologists think first of ways to solve problems; only later, if ever, do they worry about how to “monetize” them. Dedicated teams of engineers are encouraged to dream up entirely new ideas to make the search engine operate faster and better. One reason the company has no need for marketing is that its culture fosters a laserlike focus on serving the best interests of Google users. They, in turn, become it’s best advocates.

Google does not seek to make as much money as it could in the short run. The most obvious example of this is the Google homepage, considered the most valuable piece of real estate on the Internet… Google displays no advertising on this page, forgoing tens of millions of dollars in revenue and profits to give users a higher-quality search experience.

The soul of the Google machine is rapid innovation, the most important subject discussed at nearly every board meeting of the firm… for innovation is the reason the company raced ahead of others and stays out in front. Its founders are keenly aware that someone, somewhere, is always attempting to find a better, faster, smarter way to do things.”

“At Google, the preference is for working in small teams of three, with individual employees expected to allot 20 percent of their time to exploring whatever ideas interest them most. The notion of “20 percent time” is borrowed from the academic world, where professors are given one day a week to pursue private interests. Because the company lacks the usual layers of middle management, the hierarchical structure found in traditional corporations is non-existent”

“Google is the place with the buzz where the best and brightest engineers on the planet flock to work. They are leaving universities, NASA, Bell Labs, Microsoft and elsewhere for a dynamic setting that more nearly resembles a graduate school campus than a traditional business headquarters.”

Taken from the introduction of The Google Story.

Google and Facebook where the vanguard but now it’s taking off. Here are just a few of the books on the subject published in the last few months.

Leave a comment below!

Taking Chatter To The Next Level

I’m interested in organisations becoming more fluid. Chatter offers a way to do this. People’s “About Me” can be annotated so that a machine can extract relevant data and generate a multi-faceted org chart that automatically evolves.

It could show not just the org hierarchy, but who is working on what products, who shares the same pet projects and who has particular skills. It could have a visual, easy-to-navigate interface. Rather than just searching for “Java” and getting a list of people, you would be able to see that most of the people work for Metro and what their other skills are.

It could help people see what pet projects are popular.

Neo4J is a good fit for this: a database for social graphs with a built-in UI for visualising it. I can’t find a screenshot but here is something similar.

Every night, a daemon could crawl chatter (e.g. using HtmlUnit WebDriver), extract data and persist it to Neo4J. The out-of-the-box Neo4J UI should do the rest.

Here’s an example of the “About Me” annotations.

Blah blah blah
#petprojects: Personalisation, AB testing, API
#skills: java, web, agile
#products: Web, Personalisation

Blah double newline terminates list blah

#team: Dev
#boss: David Jensen
#role: Lead Developer
#foo: bar

Conversations. Not meetings.

Maybe we don’t need a big meeting about X.

Maybe it’s better to have lots of small meetings. 2 or 3 people meeting for 5-10 minutes. It’s the Steve Jobs approach.

Today it was Dave and Jamie, then Dave, Matt and Martin. Friday it was Matt and Larry.

Tomorrow it might be Martin and Joe. You get the picture.

It gives space for ideas to ferment. It gives more people a real say. It avoids groupthink. It avoids bottlenecks. And besides, big meetings are boring. Would you prefer more meetings or less?

To put it more formally: It might accelerate the evolution of successful memes.

Meetings = groupthink (unless you use 6 hats) = extinction.

We don’t need a grand plan. We need small experiments. Preferably 1 day. Max 2 weeks. We need feedback. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It might expose a critical flaw! No big deal. You didn’t invest much in it.

You might learn something. It might drive more traffic. It might give momentum for… another small experiment! Within a couple of weeks you might have a couple of wins and a couple of losses. You can build on the successes.

Everyone should do it. Anyone can start a blog. Or do AB testing. Or design a logo. Or learn HTML or javascript. (All cool sites have  javascript api so you can mashup their data). Or learn about usability. Or run an online survey. Everyone should spend 2 hours every 2 weeks trying something.

(A caveat: meetings can be OK for some things, but not innovation).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.