Executive Summary
The following is the executive summary and report for exam 1 in Scott Metlen’s Systems and Simulation class.
Background and Purpose
Effective process management has been proven to be integral to business success. The companies that do it well are able to capitalize on the ability to manage various value-adding processes both for their primary processes and support functions. A good process can help accomplish various tasks or change the mindset of a company. Examples include changing metrics to fit more with what adds value to a product, changing from an internal to an external customer focus, and building value into a product at every gateway. Despite the importance of good process management, an analysis of various industries reveals that not every company is effective at it.
Scope
For this paper I analyzed Google Inc., and their product development process. I drew comparisons between the product development methods and the organic nature of the company as a whole. For research I utilized notes from a Google executive presentation given to the Silicon Valley Product Management association in addition to resources from the Google Inc. website.
Methods????
Findings
Google uses a non-linear approach to process management. Rather than utilize a rigid method for product design, Google encourages a fluid, amorphous process with the intent of fostering creativity. Google incorporates customer feedback into every level of the process and utilizes the control and improvement stages to build further value into their products.
Recommendations
Based on my analysis of Google I have found that in an industry context they engage in effective process management. The technology industry mandates a fluid, non-linear method of product design and Google has adapted its methods of process management to fulfill that need.
Process Management at Google
Introduction
The nature of the technology market necessitates a company to remain agile, innovative and focused on their target market. This point can be made for most companies in various industries but nowhere is the need for innovation more poignant and furthermore, its absence more catastrophic, than for technology companies. A ponderous list can be generated of failed startups like YadaYada.com, a wireless service company that lacked details about their target market and ultimately sank millions into advertisements and development of the “wrong” product. I feel this creates a need for process management that is just as nimble and effective as their products need to be. Google is an excellent example of a company that employs a method of process management that is meant to capitalize on the creativity and vision of its employees; ultimately creating the “right” product.
Design
Google, from an enterprise view, is an organic organization with special emphasis placed on nurturing innovation from its exceedingly bright human resource capital. They operate with few layers of hierarchy and constantly seek feedback from their employees. Many articles are available about the culture at Google example??. Their facilities are designed much like a college campus with few regulations in place that could potentially stifle creative output. Employees are given a great amount of autonomy in deciding their work statements. They are allowed to “float” in a sense meaning they can work on projects that are of interest to them and if they are deemed of value to the organization, Google will officially launch the product.
Their primary product is the development of web applications and search tools with a somewhat recent expansion into email. This newest foray into electronic communication was mandated by customer demand. As the CEO of Google stated, “email is the biggest web application with search being number two.” I feel this statement reflects a commitment from Google to produce the “right” product. Customer demand mandated an email system that was effective and Google followed suit.
Delving further into the design process we can see how the organic structure of their company is reflected at a micro level with their design process and engineering teams. Design begins with a large brainstorming session in which hundreds of ideas are thrown into a pool. In a presentation delivered to Silicon Valley Product Management Association, Google product manager Marissa Mayer stated “Ideas are generated at a rate of almost six an hour.” (Rodriguez) These ideas are generated from employees and from other sources such as online customer feedback. The process of basing a major portion of idea generation on customer feedback shows a strong commitment to a fundamental of effective process management, a customer centric focus. When enough ideas are generated each idea is scrutinized and its value to the customer and the organization considered. When the large pool is narrowed to a few ideas deemed the best by employees and management, teams are assigned to begin work on the various projects.
This bottom-up style of process generation is, I believe, is the correct method of process management for their industry or about any other. Virtually every product at Google has risen from a demand source such as the customer or other employees. For instance, Google News a web-based resource that searches thousands of sources and displays news articles by category, rose from the idea of an engineer. The engineer was frustrated with the difficulty in acquiring large amounts of information from various sources and wrote a program to automatically search the web. When management saw this idea they recognized the potential customer demand and the product was implemented on a major scale on the website. This method can be made into an analogy for proper business practices. It is not good business to create a product for the consumer; rather a consumer centric and successful business will in a sense allow their customers to create the product.
Management and Control
Management and control of the internal processes at Google is closely related to the design process and continues to reflect what I believe to be effective macro and micro process management. In fact, one could say that the organic, amorphous nature of Google’s structure is iterated throughout all levels of their process management policies. Each step is built into every level of process management in an amalgamation which results in hazy distinctions between the actions of design, management, control, and improvement.
Upon completion of a design the process then enters what could be considered a management phase. For our example of product development, the newly created product is exhibited to the market for general use. But design does not stop there. The process of improvement is a fundamental element of their management process. Users constantly give feedback about different applications including potential improvements that can be made. This collection of data along with input from their engineers allows Google to make subsequent improvements to their products.
Changes to the design by way the management process is constantly occurring????. Popular web products such as Google Gmail, the search function, and Google Maps are continuously updated. Seemingly, the only limit to the design process is the limits of the creativity of Google’s employees and their customers. This dynamic could be considered maddening to some, much like a technological Sisyphean Task where constant iterations occur but the project is never completed. Instead Google uses the process of redesign to positively bring about customer satisfaction. When management determines that greater customer satisfaction can be gained by focusing on other elements, the design process will begin anew.
Improvement
I interpret the improvement step for their processes as a feeder mechanism that affects the continuous design process. After design occurs and a product is given to the market the product is under constant scrutiny. As I mentioned before, Google receives feedback from a variety of sources and uses this constructive criticism in future versions of their products.
A great example of how they nimbly manage the improvement phase is Google Labs. Google does not deal with hard goods so they are not burdened with costly redesigns if a particular product actually they could, just because the product we use is not a good does not mean there is not substantial structure behind that product, i.e., hundreds of thousands of lines of code. does not satisfy consumer wants. A variety of their products have not yet been deemed “worthy for primetime,” and have not yet been distributed in the mainstream. Google Labs allows users to test drive products that are in this stage and supply detailed feedback. The feedback gathered is once again cycled back through their business processes and further redesigns occur before the product is officially released. The ability to offer on-the-fly feedback is almost unique to the industry and Google’s organic structure capitalizes upon this competitive advantage beautifully.
Based on Spanyi’s analysis of firms adept at process design and management, we can see how Google compares to these ideals. Among other things, Spanyi says that a firm needs to maintain a customer focus, embrace a shared vision, and take the time to do it right. Customer centricity is built into every aspect of the design process from original conception to improvement. A shared vision drives their process thinking and they seek to incorporate all aspects of their talent in developing products along the lines of consumer demand. Finally, Google takes the time to do it right. For their product creation process, products are constantly reworked, tested and evaluated before being released. In another industry such as manufacturing, I do not believe Google’s process management practices would be ideal actually some companies have accomplished the same thing. The creation of aircraft aluminum or beads relies on firm metrics, process standardization and uniform implementation across all functions. However, constantly changing technology industry mandates an organic structure to be able to function competitively. For this reason I have determined that Google, in an industry context, is quite adept at process management. (Spanyi)
Works Cited
Google Labs. Google Inc.. 26 Feb 2009 <http://labs.google.com/>.
Rodriguez, Evelyn. "Google Product Development Process." typepad.com. 2008. 23 Feb 2009 <http://evelynrodriguez.typepad.com/crossroads_dispatches/files/GoogleProductDevProcess.pdf>.
Spanyi, Andrew. More for Less: The Power of Process Management. 1. Tampa: Meghan-Kiffer Books, 2007.