The New Buzz: Is Google Buying California?

Avid readers of that highbrow literary genre called cyberpunk will barely raise their brow at this dystopian scenario: the once-great State of California is on its financial deathbed. An angry mob with ruined dreams, shattered keyboards, and broken Chardonnay bottles is storming the Governor’s Smoking Tent. After midnight, following an all-stock tax-free acquisition including the assumption of the state’s crushing debt, California is declared a corporate principality, now run by a trillion-dollar market-cap mega-corporation that trades in nothing but information. (At the buyer’s insistence though, a last-minute carve-out is made for Southern California, its perennial water shortage and endless, nagging drain on the well-irrigated North cited as deal-killers; and besides, who’d want all these meddling creative types from Hollywood and those stubbornly Republican Naval retirees living in La Jolla?) Hasta la vista, Golden State!

At first it feels a bit weird, but the corporate citizens of California, Inc. quickly adjust to the perk-pampered life under the new regime. What’s not to like about free Sushi luncheons, mandatory reflexology massages at the workplace, and heavily subsidized 24×7 dry-cleaning? Foosball and frisbee are the official pastimes, red and green are added to the state colors, blue and yellow, and the K-9 police kennel of Alsatians and Dobermans is gracefully retired and replaced with loveable Golden Retrievers. But for the takes there are some gives too. Citizens are required to register with the corporation’s ubiquitous search-cum-information organization-cum-communication-cum-collaboration-cum-social-networking “matrix” (otherwise no comping your Hamachi, hombre). I’m not talking about your vanilla “opt in” EULA; non-compliers are rounded up by Blade Runners and summarily reinstated into the matrix via the corporation’s equally ubiquitous email system. Resistance is futile. Beguiling the populus with brazenly colored and annoyingly ever-present “We’re Not Evil” neon signs, this corporegent – whose business ferocity and trans-commercial ambition has not been matched since the East India Company set sail or before Microsoft lost its mojo – has fooled just about everyone except for these equally annoying and specially crafty Chinese (and look what they’re doing now, tempering with our matrix!).

The We’re-Not-Evil-Doers are just fabulous at day-to-day execution, and promptly they prove that this deal has been, in the words of their banking buddies who helped put it together, “exceptionally accretive.” Here are just a few highlights from the prospectus:

  • By virtue of having their lives digitized and uploaded onto the matrix via continual live feeds, every citizen becomes a “data node” on the company’s data-mining grid. Statistical analysis and pattern recognition across data-sets such a medical records create revolutionary advances in predictive medicine and preventive measures: “Results 1 – 10 of about 1,790,000 for people with identical symptoms, similar backgrounds, and typical outcomes. (0.19 seconds).” Healthcare savings in the billions.
  • Everybody has a smartphone that’s powered by the matrix-gone-mobile, which means every citizen, continuously geo-located (via the phone’s GPS chip), is an extra set of eyes (the phone’s camera) connected to the company’s brain. Location-tagging is a popular sport and hyperlinking reality with useful, personalized information (the “IndiWiki”) creates an augmented reality of astonishing depth and utility, rendering any Luddite “blind” to the “real” world. Advertising revenues in the billions (move over, mayors of foursquare, you’re in our augmented reality now!).
  • It is a citizen’s sworn duty to uninstall all local instances of productivity software (and those who fail their hardware inspection get a nasty house-call from Mr. Deckard). If it has words, columns and rows, or slides, it’ll move straight into the company’s Cloud – no discussion. Naturally, this one is about pocketing rightful revenues from Microsoft, but additional billions are minted when the company’s analytical clout is unleashed on the thousands of documents, spreadsheets, and slideshows that are uploaded every second; in a strictly anonymized fashion, mind you, trends, patterns, and common if not best practices are spotted (“meta-content”), and work product is now put up for search and sale, provided the owner agrees, making this the Lego store for intellectual property on the web.

(Note, if you will: the dystopia of governments ceding power to private organizations and entrepreneurs in a “distributed republic” was, of course, first portrayed in Neal Stephenson’s 1992 book Snow Crash, an immensely enjoyable read, which popularized terms and concepts such as “avatar,” “metaverse” viz. Second Life, and “Earth Software” viz. Google Earth. Also, the numbers are not far off. PetroChina became briefly the first trillion-dollar company by market capitalization, following its debut on the Shanghai index, but having since “settled down” at today’s value of about $200B, while Google is currently trading at $178.92B, to be precise. California’s deficit will grow to $28B through June 2010 with a Moody’s rating only three inches above non-investment grade, which is slightly worse than Kazakhstan’s. And factoring in its long-term bond debt, California is in the same obligation order of magnitude as Europe’s favorite spendthrift, Greece. Google, by comparison, has a surplus of over $24B in cash sitting on its balance sheet.)

The above – however far-fetched! – was, as you would expect, inspired by some of the recent “problematic” PR (to be polite about it) that greeted Google’s launch of Buzz, its integrated social networking platform. If you didn’t buy the part about Google buying California, try to fathom, however, the influence that a truly integrated Google-powered communications-productivity-social-media-platform might wield over people’s everyday lives. Buzz is only scratching the proverbial surface of what’s possible for Google. You can check it out at: http://www.google.com/buzz and for a useful overview watch their introductory video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi50KlsCBio

Some critical voices questioned “how far” Google would go to catch up with the undisputed social networking leader Facebook. While other, more technical reviews centered around security and privacy concerns and quite serious vulnerabilities (such as betraying a user’s geographical location via the company’s integrated Location Services). In general, the reception has been mostly mixed, which – quite frankly – surprised me. Your blogger believes that Google is the technology company of our time for a simple reason that transcends all their technical brilliance and business savvy: Google can be trusted. The element of trust is so central to our business that it’s part of our corporate identity (for more on Talent Trust see http://www.talenttrust.com/). In turn, as an organization we trust Google to help us all become more informed, connected, and productive, while safeguarding the user (his security, privacy, and data assets). In fact, we recommend that our clients use Google Sites (http://www.google.com/sites/help/intl/en/overview.html) for most aspects of virtual collaboration – nothing could be easier to set up, more intuitive to use, and safer in terms of reliability and backup. Google Sites is literally everything-you’d-ever-need-out-of-the-box in order to set up a web presence, an intranet, or a web-based collaborative work environment for distributed teams. Although you won’t have the full-blown functionality or, let’s be honest, the refinement and elegance of a mature Microsoft application, you should keep Google Sites and now Buzz in your technology repertoire or even just your ‘starter kit’ to enable remote work. We’ve been using Google Sites extensively – so please contact me if you have any questions or need any professional assistance (christophe.kolb@talenttrust.com).

Advertisements

Afraid of The Invisible Man (or the Remote IT Worker), Part II?

If anybody needs convincing that viable communication is about mostly standards of expression, lots of common sense, and just a little of that black magic known as linguistic sensibility, there is, at least this week, a sign for all visitors of the 10th floor of the steel-and-glass-enshrined headquarters of a Western European banking power to read: “WC out of order – use floor below.” That much, of course, for linguistic sensibility. Who needs a sense of subtlety when communicating about IT topics, you might ask, where – heaven be thanked – there are standards that most IT professionals recognize? But, as my mentor in all things ITIL used to note, the good thing about IT standards is that there are so many to choose from.

Since I mentioned the “Parity Principle” in my last blog just a few days ago, I’ve received a handful of responses from IT managers who’ve been kind enough to supply empirical data points to support said assertion: namely (and as a reminder) that the additional managerial overhead required to supervise a team of remotely located (as opposed to locally stationed) IT workers is, very, very roughly put, 120% of the comparable supervisory effort involved in working with regular, local folks. For an IT organization that has, for that very purpose of managing in a distributed work environment, implemented a set of best practices around standardization, formalization, and overall project management discipline, the resultant increase in productivity has been judged to be at an equal 120% of work output levels prior to “having to become a little more formal and disciplined” (similarly, these are rough, rough estimates – as we shall get more scientific later on). Voilà: if you spend a little more time managing remotely you gain the same back in terms of improved efficiencies. (The additional benefits of working with a remote person, such as cost savings through lower, offshore wages or access to specialized and perhaps locally unavailable talent have, of course, not been factored into the equation yet!)

As we wait for Google Wave with bated breath to give us the project war room to end all IT wars and war rooms, here are a number of communication tools that clients have found indispensable when managing remote IT workers:

Collaborative sites:

  • Google Sites;
  • SharePoint;
  • Wikis (see wikipatterns.com for adoption).

Messaging tools:

  • Campfire;
  • Digsby.

VoIP:

  • Google chat;
  • Skype with business control panel.

Issue tracking systems:

  • Google Sites;
  • Jira.

Project management tools:

  • Agile Buddy;
  • Google Sites;
  • Pivotal Tracker;
  • Xplanner.

Afraid of The Invisible Man (or the Remote IT Worker)?

Whenever I travel extensively and am naturally engaged in a remote working relationship with my colleagues from head office, I experience first-hand the chief tenet of our firm’s value proposition to clients: that with a little know-how just about anybody can tap into and benefit from a remote workforce. Whether you’re already part of a distributed IT organization with geographically dispersed teams, or you wish to engage remote workers in order to source or supplement skills that are locally scarce or unavailable, or whether you’re in the market to save money with offshoring, a number of key Do’s and Don’ts apply.

Although there are different engagement models when it comes to working remotely (e.g., managing a remote individual or stand-alone team vs. managing that individual or team as part of a larger and by definition even more distributed team), and hence different best-practice prescriptions exist for how to maximize the chances of a successful engagement, I will share a list of common success factors that make up what I call the “Parity Principle.”

For the sake of argument, our Parity Principle says that in order to make working with a remote person (located say in Buenos Aires, Argentina) as effective as working with someone in the proverbial cubicle next door, there is additional requisite behavioral activity that, when conducted properly, creates efficiency that, over time, offsets the “cost” of the behavioral change required in the first place. While there is in fact a scientific basis for measuring changes in management behavior and concomitant productivity levels, I will give you a commonsensical intuition for what this principle is all about.

Imagine you’re an IT manager and you’ve just called up your local recruiter to help fill an open, say highly specialized and three-month position with a local consultant. The contractor now reports for duty on Monday morning, and is presumably given a desk to work and shown a tour of the facilities, while you collect your thoughts on how best to familiarize, indoctrinate, and instruct your newest team member in order to make him or her as productive as possible on the task at hand. Communication with the consultant on the first day, for the first week, or for that matter for the entire three-month duration, can be spontaneous, on an as-needed basis in order to answer any questions or resolve any issues. And then there is always the iconic water cooler around which co-workers congregate for informal team discussions, and where even a slight gesture or expression of frustration can be more meaningful than a red-flagged item on the project’s Gantt chart. And lastly, you keep regular taps on your consultant using the most effectual management technique known since Peter Ferdinand Drucker left his native Vienna: managing by walking around (in other words, a quick stroll to the cubicle, a quick status check, a look at the screen, and you’re in the know again).

Now compare and contrast the situation with a remote IT worker. All the management activities are the same, but in general everything takes a little more preparation, a little more formality (watch out water cooler, here comes the water wiki!), and a little more follow-up. The Parity Principle now asserts that all that “little more” that is required to manage in a distributed work environment will accrue to the overall benefit of the project and the team (tangible results through a slight perhaps but measurable increase in standardization, formalization, and day-to-day discipline). A short-list of the most common success factors then looks like the following:

  • Planning (on behalf of the local manager);
  • Communication;
  • Collaboration tools;
  • Proactivity (on behalf of the remote IT worker);
  • Governance processes for a distributed IT environment.

In my next blog I will discuss these key factors in detail and within the offshore context. Of course, the world of work is rife with anecdotes of how, for example, communication with the “invisible worker” can be especially challenging when not only bridging geographic but in addition cultural distances. (An old favorite comes to mind that chronicles the travails of a German radio operator at high seas fielding the desperate plea for help of a sinking American vessel; listening in anguish to the repeated “Help, we are sinking” calls, he finally musters the courage to respond in English: “Yes, I hear you, but what are you sinking about?”)