Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft reorganizes

microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 283 posts

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#211

Post by mikestew »

hga wrote: post #129
mikestew wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has been doing stack ranking long before 2006. I left in 2005'and attended stack rank meetings, where managers indirectly decide your review score before you even get the form from HR. it goes back to at least the late 90s, IIRC.

Were those in the bottom rank shown the door in due course?

There was certainly mention of "up or out", and a bad review or two would bring about the PIP stick (which seems to be only legal CYA before the firing, not for any hopes of real improvement). And, frankly, it was a long time ago and I haven't gone to any effort to remember details. I will say that in general it was as screwy and demotivating then as it is described to be now.

It was based on a model proposed by Ballmer's hero Jack Welch. What Ballmer forgot is that Welch himself said the "trim the bottom 10%" model didn't work once a company got larger than a certain size.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#213

Post by hga »

mikestew wrote: post #211
hga wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were those in the bottom rank shown the door in due course?

There was certainly mention of "up or out", and a bad review or two would bring about the PIP stick (which seems to be only legal CYA before the firing, not for any hopes of real improvement). And, frankly, it was a long time ago and I haven't gone to any effort to remember details. I will say that in general it was as screwy and demotivating then as it is described to be now. It was based on a model proposed by Ball…

Thanks!

The only detail I was interested in was the timing; the Wikipedia citation of 2006, which I will stop using, did strike me a bit recent.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#214

Post by mullingitover »

nitrogen wrote: post #198
onedev wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what amazing products Microsoft is working on.

The new Kinect, were it not locked into the new Xbox and used for creepy advertising-related purposes, would be an amazing product.

After the NSA revelations, the absolute last thing I plan to do is install a high-resolution, always online camera from Microsoft (or any major US corporation for that matter) in my living room.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#215

Post by city41 »

venomsnake wrote: post #81
criley2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people want Microsoft to be "less closed", then they should stop avoiding Microsoft for platforms like Google and Apple, who are whooping Microsoft's ass by being far more closed. Between the anti-open Google+/Play/Hangouts universe and the anti-open iOS iGarden, I'm surprised that it has taken Microsoft this long to catch up to their anti-open competitors.

Openness has nothing to do with abandonment of microsoft. It has all to do with the fact that they could not deliver good mobile device. And still can't. They made errors on every step of the game - allowed carrirs to have saying on the devices, abandoned all lessons learned from PCs and building ecosystems and threw an inferior iOS me too (the UI was better though, the ideology the same)

WP8 is the best phone OS out there. I absolutely love my Nokia Lumia after owning several iPhones. The mobile device is not the problem, the app store on the device is.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#216

Post by dredmorbius »

jccooper wrote: post #122
cs702 wrote: post #88

I almost choked when I read Microsoft's new mission statement: "our strategy will focus on creating a family of devices and services for individuals and businesses that empower people around the globe at home, at work and on the go, for the activities they value most." In other words, Ballmer wants the company to "focus" on being everything to everyone! Not a good sign for the business. -- PS. Compare Ballmer's long,…

I think the important thing is what's missing: "software". Apparently, Microsoft, the world's biggest software company, is no longer interested in software. I wouldn't call this a great idea, considering "core competencies" and how well their products in the "devices and services" divisions are faring, but it is, at least, forward-looking.

Interesting. More specifically, the company built on shrinkwrap and preloads is facing a world where neither is generally accepted.

This leaves business and government markets, as well as gaming, and possibly services / online platforms with advertising-based revenue.

Meantime, Microsoft still have to support their legacy. Even some of the EOL products, which, despite best efforts, still live in places which have the power to command fixes.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#217

Post by OGC »

cs702 wrote: post #88

I almost choked when I read Microsoft's new mission statement: "our strategy will focus on creating a family of devices and services for individuals and businesses that empower people around the globe at home, at work and on the go, for the activities they value most." In other words, Ballmer wants the company to "focus" on being everything to everyone! Not a good sign for the business. -- PS. Compare Ballmer's long,…

Why the hell are people arguing about a tautology? That statement is so incredibly vague, it could mean anything.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#218

Post by VladRussian2 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #163

This is the change : "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 capabiliti…

>So in the past each part of Microsoft seemed to operate both as a independent business (and sometimes competitor with other parts of Microsoft) and part of the whole. This re-aligns the company as a systems company focused on delivering a specific solution.

that is a MBA speak. The reality is that horizontal partitioning is periodically replaced with vertical, and vice versa ... that is MBA action.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#219

Post by Silhouette »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #210
Silhouette wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PC sales are declining and selling Windows & Office licenses is not going to make it This is the part I don't understand about the new spin from MS. Sales cycles are obviously extending, but how many offices in the universe don't run on PCs? Surely Microsoft are still making a lot of money selling business software, and in several fields their software remains dominant. There is plenty they could do to improve that b…

It's not sufficient that the market still exists, but it is no longer growing much and is beginning to show signs of shrinkage. Ya, you can still make money there, but less and less overtime. Good to get on top of these things and find other cash pandas.

Finding new/growing markets is all very sensible, but prioritising doing so at the expense of an existing and much larger market seems an odd choice unless you're really sure you're onto a winner.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#220

Post by kyllo »

kenferry wrote: post #192
kyllo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the TL;DR is that they are currently organized into (almost) self-sufficient business units by product category, but now they are going to switch to being organized into interdependent departments by job function category. This is a huge shift for MS.

This is very interesting to me, and I'd like to know more about what didn't work in the previous structure. I worked at Apple for a long time, and if I could have changed one thing organizationally it would have been to go _from_ the functional decomposition _to_ the product decomposition.

I agree that, at least for a large company, product/vertical structure is better than functional/horizontal structure, and I think that Microsoft is just too big to be one company at all anymore, and that they should have split off into separate subsidiary companies of a holding company, each with a clear product category and mission, somewhat like GE. Then they can even sell the money-losing ones if the board wishes.
Post reply on HN