One Microsoft - Re-org & new Executive VP of Devices and Studios

AzBat

Agent of the Bat
Legend
Microsoft announced their re-org plans today...

Steve Ballmer said:
One Strategy, One Microsoft

We are rallying behind a single strategy as one company — not a collection of divisional strategies. Although we will deliver multiple devices and services to execute and monetize the strategy, the single core strategy will drive us to set shared goals for everything we do. We will see our product line holistically, not as a set of islands. We will allocate resources and build devices and services that provide compelling, integrated experiences across the many screens in our lives, with maximum return to shareholders. All parts of the company will share and contribute to the success of core offerings, like Windows, Windows Phone, Xbox, Surface, Office 365 and our EA offer, Bing, Skype, Dynamics, Azure and our servers. All parts of the company will contribute to activating high-value experiences for our customers.

We will reshape how we interact with our customers, developers and key innovation partners, delivering a more coherent message and family of product offerings. The evangelism and business development team will drive partners across our integrated strategy and its execution. Our marketing, advertising and all our customer interaction will be designed to reflect one company with integrated approaches to our consumer and business marketplaces.

How we organize our engineering efforts will also change to reflect this strategy. We will pull together disparate engineering efforts today into a coherent set of our high-value activities. This will enable us to deliver the most capability — and be most efficient in development and operations — with the greatest coherence to all our key customers. We will plan across the company, so we can better deliver compelling integrated devices and services for the high-value experiences and core technologies around which we organize. This new planning approach will look at both the short-term deliverables and long-term initiatives needed to meet the shipment cadences of both Microsoft and third-party devices and our services.

This means we will organize the company by function: Engineering (including supply chain and datacenters), Marketing, Business Development and Evangelism, Advanced Strategy and Research, Finance, HR, Legal, and COO (including field, support, commercial operations and IT). Each discipline will help drive our overall strategy. Each discipline will also be charged with improving our core capabilities in its area. We must improve in all aspects of the business.

There will be four engineering areas: OS, Apps, Cloud, and Devices. We will keep Dynamics separate as it continues to need special focus and represents significant opportunity. We will consolidate our technologies coherently into these groups pulling together some things that have been spread out in our current BG structure like cloud infrastructure, operating systems, mail, and identity, to name a few. Some of these changes will involve putting things together and others will involve repartitioning the work, but in all instances we will be more coherent for our users and developers. We have resolved many details of this org, but we still will have more work to do. Undoubtedly, as we involve more people there will be new issues and changes to our current thinking as well. Completing this process will take through the end of the calendar year as we figure things out and as we keep existing teams focused on current deliverables like Windows 8.1, Xbox One, Windows Phone, etc.

To improve engineering pace and quality, we will increase focus on our engineering systems, processes, and tools to improve the productivity of every engineer and to facilitate engineering collaboration and contribution across the company. Our engineering culture and new structure will enable more cross- group contribution, while maintaining confidentiality of some projects as needed. We will improve the approach we use to get MSR involved in product development, building on and enhancing our significant strengths there.

There is a lot more at the link at the bottom.

Meet your new Executive VP of Devices and Studios

larson_page.png


Steve Ballmer said:
Devices and Studios Engineering Group. Julie Larson-Green will lead this group and will have all hardware development and supply chain from the smallest to the largest devices we build. Julie will also take responsibility for our studios experiences including all games, music, video and other entertainment.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2013/Jul13/07-11OneMicrosoft.aspx

Tommy McClain
 
Well, this might be the end of Xbox. I seem to recall ERP stating the worst thing that could happen to XBox is if the Windows people got involved.
 
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/07/who-is-julie-larson-green/

Today’s promotion is just the latest leap for Larson-Green. Most recently, she replaced her longtime boss and mentor, Steven Sinofsky, to become engineering head of Windows this past November, jumping two rungs up the ladder. Unlike the notoriously prickly Sinofsky, Larson-Green is known for her communication skills and ability to work well with others, uniting people, including those outside her own purview, around a common goal.

Waiting tables to make ends meet meant that Larson-Green couldn’t hit the computer labs at night, when they were open to undergraduates, so she switched her major from computer science to business administration....It was around this time that Larson-Green finally learned to program, teaching herself coding during breaks from her day job. Later, she earned a master’s degree in software engineering from Seattle University and upgraded her Aldus gig to become a development lead.

Oversaw the dev of Visual C++, the design of the interface for Office XP/2003/2007 and led the planning of Windows 7.
 
That's great news, imho. Julie was my favourite candidate, :smile: just because she is a colourful note in a male dominated market. I wish her good luck, she is going to need it. She'll do great!

Other than that, I am not against the idea of an interoperable family of services and products and it seems like a different closed ecosystem.

They are like competing gardens, I think.

Finally, I don't know anything about the corporate structure. I got the idea after reading bkilian, ERP... etc that the competing teams in Microsoft were like silos and they were isolated from one another, to the point of being competitive to an extremely unhealthy nature.
 
On a different note, I forgot to mention that Steve Ballmer has stepped down as Xbox One chief after like 10 days, lulz
 
By the way, good riddance Don Mattrick. This song is dedicated to you, it's catchy and truly hilarious, and talks about "Suspicious minds". :mrgreen:


Now that we have Julie we don't want you back -you were unable to sell your ideas-, so yeah....
 
Surface Xbox One Edition incoming?

I would hope so, but lackluster Surface sales may prevent that. They should have shipped a 7" Xbox-branded tablet already.

Generally I'm intrigued by the re-org. It's not just along product lines but functions. It will be interesting to see how Larson-Green plans to pick up some of the pieces after the Xbox One launch mess. I hope she publishes an Open Letter to Xbox fans.

Tommy McClain
 
I would hope so, but lackluster Surface sales may prevent that. They should have shipped a 7" Xbox-branded tablet already.

Generally I'm intrigued by the re-org. It's not just along product lines but functions. It will be interesting to see how Larson-Green plans to pick up some of the pieces after the Xbox One launch mess. I hope she publishes an Open Letter to Xbox fans.

Tommy McClain
She managed to overcome similar obstacles in the past and she ended up being fine.

There is an interesting article which talks about the 5 things people should know about Julie Larson:

http://mashable.com/2013/07/11/julie-larson-green-xbox/
 
Well, this might be the end of Xbox. I seem to recall ERP stating the worst thing that could happen to XBox is if the Windows people got involved.

That's interesting because I was saying the same thing when Peter Moore was hired as the the VP of the division that housed the Xbox. Moore moved into the top position after overseeing the demise of Sega's hardware platform business. There wasn't a hell of lot of confidence in him either, and the common joke was that Moore was going to "Dreamcast" the Xbox 360.

Fast forward and you find many gamers still recalling the Peter Moore years very fondly. Let's wait and see what Green does before we start planning the Xbox's funeral service.
 
Well, this might be the end of Xbox. I seem to recall ERP stating the worst thing that could happen to XBox is if the Windows people got involved.
For those who considered Xbox as a gaming platform, and only a gaming platform, Xbox One probably felt like the start of the end.

But it's interesting how people reacted to Xbox One, with some considering it as diluting what Xbox is about and others considering it as adding to what Xbox is about. I guess it depends on what you want from your box. For the hardcore core gamers, if you're not a fan of motion control and Kinect then that buy in, along with sacrificing 3Gb of RAM for things you'll rarely use, feels too much of an ask.

But I don't think the entry of traditional Windows technology (the kernel, the Modern UI) into other devices is necessarily bad, as long as it serves a purpose and solves real problems.

It depends what Microsoft's strategy is. I would hope, they realise that the OS platform itself is becoming ever more irrelevant each passing year. Corporate IT and DirectX/gaming are basically the Window's platforms last Ace cards so as long as they're not planning on using other platforms as some form of crutch to their old cash cow, I don't think there is much to fear. Keeping Windows and games OS's separate in virtualised environments demonstrates they understand this on a gaming level.
 
I think that it is a really bad new that the Windows take over everything at MSFT.
They are the least successful branch within MSFT (pretty much stagnating for a decade with out of control R&D costs). It is also likely that their "winning formula" is no longer working. They are no longer leveraging a monopole and locked in costumers.

Imo a really bad news. Not too mention that MSFT is gigantic so having everybody to work together is easier said than done. PC market in the personal is evolving (/shrinking), there are other devices that are getting more relevant to the masses, they should have splitted the company in 2 divisions personal and professional/corporate division. The executive of each of those branch would not have a say on what the others are doing.

All this sounds awfully like what some financial analysts were predicting, MSFT may go down the pipe ffor the sake of trying to preserve what used to be their "cash cow", wasting in the process the ginormous potential they had to address or create new markets, etc.
 
let this become the 1st step of making GFWL a great platform on PC ...... by allowing xbox one games runs on PC inside Xbox one VM :p
 
Well, this might be the end of Xbox. I seem to recall ERP stating the worst thing that could happen to XBox is if the Windows people got involved.
Well there would be a nice symmetry ... the worst thing which ever happened to windows (from a gamer perspective) was the xbox division getting involved.

PS. the windows division has made multiple orders of magnitude more money, one successful console generation based on selling subscription services is hardly a proof of a division's grand competence ... especially given the billion dollar fuckups they had before AND during that success, the latest PR fuckup was entirely their own doing as well.
 
For those who considered Xbox as a gaming platform, and only a gaming platform, Xbox One probably felt like the start of the end.

But it's interesting how people reacted to Xbox One, with some considering it as diluting what Xbox is about and others considering it as adding to what Xbox is about. I guess it depends on what you want from your box. For the hardcore core gamers, if you're not a fan of motion control and Kinect then that buy in, along with sacrificing 3Gb of RAM for things you'll rarely use, feels too much of an ask.

But I don't think the entry of traditional Windows technology (the kernel, the Modern UI) into other devices is necessarily bad, as long as it serves a purpose and solves real problems.

It depends what Microsoft's strategy is. I would hope, they realise that the OS platform itself is becoming ever more irrelevant each passing year. Corporate IT and DirectX/gaming are basically the Window's platforms last Ace cards so as long as they're not planning on using other platforms as some form of crutch to their old cash cow, I don't think there is much to fear. Keeping Windows and games OS's separate in virtualised environments demonstrates they understand this on a gaming level.
I like this post.
 
Interesting that Microsoft is centralizing functions while my company is going the opposite way. The centralized function model did not seem to work for us.

I have no real opinions as to whether this move is good or bad, because I think the quality of the output is usually determined by the quality of the people at the bottom of the pyramid. Executives can make some difference but are vastly overrated, middle-managers are the Plague and the working people you never hear about are the ones that actually matter the most.
 
Interesting that Microsoft is centralizing functions while my company is going the opposite way. The centralized function model did not seem to work for us.

I have no real opinions as to whether this move is good or bad, because I think the quality of the output is usually determined by the quality of the people at the bottom of the pyramid. Executives can make some difference but are vastly overrated, middle-managers are the Plague and the working people you never hear about are the ones that actually matter the most.

A good middle manager is always a benefit, depending on the size of an organization and the project(s) at hand. It's required to maintain a smooth and accurate flow of information from the bottom of the pyramid to the top of the pyramid. Without them upper management wouldn't have the information necessary to make strategic decisions for the company and the workers at the bottom of the pyramid wouldn't know exactly what it is they have to do.

For a small company of 20-30 works, you may not need them. Over 100? At that point the top of the chain would have to spend more time monitoring his workers than doing the things he has to do to make sure the company remains profitable and in business.

That isn't to say you can't have bad middle management, and when it's bad, it can be REALLY horrible for not only the workers under him, but for upper management as well. Because then he's likely not relaying information correctly, which means his team isn't working correctly/efficiently. Upper management depending on his regular reports then get fed incorrect information which leads to incorrect decision making for the company and workers under him get demoralized as the company starts to falter and they don't know exactly why they are doing what they are doing. Or worse yet, have the manager interfering with their work in unproductive ways.

Regards,
SB
 
A good middle manager is always a benefit, depending on the size of an organization and the project(s) at hand. It's required to maintain a smooth and accurate flow of information from the bottom of the pyramid to the top of the pyramid. Without them upper management wouldn't have the information necessary to make strategic decisions for the company and the workers at the bottom of the pyramid wouldn't know exactly what it is they have to do.

For a small company of 20-30 works, you may not need them. Over 100? At that point the top of the chain would have to spend more time monitoring his workers than doing the things he has to do to make sure the company remains profitable and in business.

That isn't to say you can't have bad middle management, and when it's bad, it can be REALLY horrible for not only the workers under him, but for upper management as well. Because then he's likely not relaying information correctly, which means his team isn't working correctly/efficiently. Upper management depending on his regular reports then get fed incorrect information which leads to incorrect decision making for the company and workers under him get demoralized as the company starts to falter and they don't know exactly why they are doing what they are doing. Or worse yet, have the manager interfering with their work in unproductive ways.

Regards,
SB

I've worked under many management structures and never once have I worked in one that benefited from middle managers. Where I work now we have a completely flat organization, where there is one manager per site. Essentially we all report directly to the VP, but we do have our own manager for our site, because the VP is in a timezone 3 hours away. Best group I've ever worked in. I'll be happy if I never have to deal with a low-level manager ever again. They're all shit.
 
Back
Top