Slashdot Mirror
Steve Ballmer Reorganizing Microsoft
Nerval's Lobster writes "Microsoft's big reorganization has begun. Rumors had persisted for weeks that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was planning a massive, once-in-a-lifetime reorganization of the company he's been running for quite some time. Now the plan is out in the open, and things are going to change in huge ways. Microsoft will coalesce around 'a single strategy as one company,' CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a really lengthy memo posted on Microsoft's Website,
'not a collection of division strategies.'
The company's product portfolio — from Windows and Xbox to enterprise applications — will be regarded and operated upon in a holistic manner. Ballmer wants this
'one company' approach to extend how Microsoft handles its advertising, marketing and consumer-service operations. Ballmer also wants to knock down the walls that have slowly grown between Microsoft's various divisions, at least as far as engineering's concerned. The new 'engineering culture' will apparently facilitate collaboration 'across the company,' with an emphasis on cross-group contributions (and maintaining secrecy, of course, for the giant projects). Read on for much more on how Microsoft is reorganizing all its internal groups, as well as a rundown of who's in and who's out on the executive level."
Microsoft's big reorganization has begun. Rumors had persisted for weeks that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was planning a massive, once-in-a-lifetime reorganization of the company he's been ruining for quite some time.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
He's an idiot.
n/t
More tablet interfaces on the PC, more attempts to lock on the tablet as TV, more stupidity around attempting to turn a Gaming Console into a Media Center that replaces the tablet, the PC and everything else.
Or does he surprise us? Nope. He won't. We have seen what the plan with Windows 8 and instead of understanding that move was stupid they are going to attempt to force it in with all the power they can muster.
.
Unless and until Mr. Ballmer is shown the door, he will just continue re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and Microsoft will continue its slow voyage to the bottom...
Unless you are Apple.
Fantastic, because what I really need from Microsoft is more synergy between my office applications and the Xbox.
"Ballmer also wants to knock down the walls"
Nah, too easy.
I was going to say "Steve Ballmer Reorganizing Microsoft ... he's starting with the chairs"
I distinctly hear the sound of swirling water
"Ballmer also wants to knock down the walls"
Nah, too easy.
Well, I don't know 'bout that. After all, if there are no walls, why do they need Windows?
Ballmer wants this 'one company' approach to extend how Microsoft handles its advertising, marketing and consumer-service operations.
Ballmer showing what parts of the company he thinks are important is what this looks like to me.
I rag on MS a ton, sometimes unfairly, but even they don't deserve to be stuck with Ballmer.
based on Marketing department... WINNNNing
If this Dilbert cartoon does not hit the nail on the head, I don't know what does.
Julie Larson-Green, also in charge of Surface and games.
Mother of Metro.
Champion of Ribbon.
what SQL server needs is more tiles
The following image came to my mind: a huge zeppelin, quickly losing height, desperately but uselessly releasing ballast: you know - and they know - it is doomed to crash and you keep staring at it waiting for it to finally meet its doom. People inside are panicking, restlessly shuffling around, trying their best to save their asses in the upcoming crash.
Maybe MS is doing the same thing as BlackBerry?
BlackBerry's "engineering culture shift" has folks moving into "open concept collaboration spaces."
These consist of 6x6 desks arranged in a quad facing inwards, so you're always staring at 3 other people. The workspace dividers are 6" high, no shelves, no personal space. Chairs are back-to-back, so if you and Joe lean back at the same time you'll concuss each other.
Employees are being instructed to not voice their opinions on the move or they'll face discipline. I have heard everyone is very excited and energized by the new collaborative environment that's being shoved down their throats.
Most of the posts are hate, but good for Microsoft. It is a step in the right direction. Anyone who works/worked there will tell you the organization is very segregated. Business units fight one another and things aren't done in a cohesive manner.
But, Apple is very segregated as well and they seem to do alright. Perhaps it is just the culture at Microsoft that is the issue.
Perhaps they will finally end their silly employee review process as well - as people I know at MS absolutely hate it.
If they want the "engineering culture" to "facilitate collaboration across the company", they can start by getting rid of the Stack Rank review process. Why would I want to collaborate with someone who I'm competing for a top spot on the review chart with?
I know it's popular to predict doom and gloom for Microsoft but I really don't understand what Balmer is thinking.
If they are transitioning to a devices and services company that kind of means they are transitioning away from the things that have made them successful.
I'm actually kind of giddy at the thought of some real competition in the corporate arena, seeing as how Microsoft continues to drop the ball.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Knocking down the silos in an organization is generally a good thing. That said I doubt Ballmer knows what to do next. The smartest thing he could do is choose a successor.
Ballmer doesn't have vision. He doesn't understand the mobile market. Windows 8 was a disaster and MS continues to lose ground to Apple. The introduction of XBoxOne couldn't have been worse - great hardware crippled by licensing BS. Surface is overpriced and underselling next to Ipad and Android tablets.
I'm only suprised he hasn't been forced out.
Brings forth the mental image of Ballmer looking critically while interns strain to hold up a couch, saying "Two inches to the left. Hrm, ok, now two inches to the right. Now another two inches to the left..." for an hour before having them set the couch back down exactly where it was.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Operating Systems Engineering Group. Terry Myerson will lead this group, and it will span all our OS work for console, to mobile device, to PC, to back-end systems. The core cloud services for the operating system will be in this group.
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.
Applications and Services Engineering Group. Qi Lu will lead broad applications and services core technologies in productivity, communication, search and other information categories.
Cloud and Enterprise Engineering Group. Satya Nadella will lead development of our back-end technologies like datacenter, database and our specific technologies for enterprise IT scenarios and development tools. He will lead datacenter development, construction and operation.
Dynamics. Kirill Tatarinov will continue to run Dynamics as is, but his product leaders will dotted line report to Qi Lu, his marketing leader will dotted line report to Tami Reller and his sales leader will dotted line report to the COO group.
Advanced Strategy and Research Group. Eric Rudder will lead Research, Trustworthy Computing, teams focused on the intersection of technology and policy, and will drive our cross-company looks at key new technology trends.
Marketing Group. Tami Reller will lead all marketing with the field relationship as is today. Mark Penn will take a broad view of marketing strategy and will lead with Tami the newly centralized advertising and media functions.
COO. Kevin Turner will continue leading our worldwide sales, field marketing, services, support, and stores as well as IT, licensing and commercial operations.
Business Development and Evangelism Group. Tony Bates will focus on key partnerships especially our innovation partners (OEMs, silicon vendors, key developers, Yahoo, Nokia, etc.) and our broad work on evangelism and developer outreach. DPE, Corporate Strategy and the business development efforts formerly in the BGs will become part of this new group. OEM will remain in SMSG with Kevin Turner with a dotted line to Tony who will work closely with Nick Parker on key OEM relationships.
Finance Group. Amy Hood will centralize all product group finance organizations. SMSG finance, which is geographically diffuse, will report to Kevin Turner with a dotted line to Amy.
Legal and Corporate Affairs Group. Brad Smith will continue as General Counsel with responsibility for the company's legal and corporate affairs and will map his team to the new organization.
HR Group. Lisa Brummel will lead Human Resources and map her team to the new organization.
Some Feng Shui will help Microsoft's energy flow.
Any reputable consulting company would start with the suggestion that Ballmer fire himself.
Microsoft has been technically stagnant for most of the thirteen years since Ballmer took over (which is reflected in the company's flat stock price since 2002). The string of product failures under Ballmer is cringe worthy: Vista, Kin, Zune, Windows 8, Windows phone, Surface, never-ending security problems, etc. Almost every major computing trend during that time (portable music, phones, tablets, social media, etc) under Ballmer has been mishandled. About the only thing the company has done right is the Xbox and I don't think that makes them any money. It's only the legacy of the corporate purchases of the Windows OS and Office that keep the Microsoft going. And that trend was started long before Ballmer ever took office.
They've been quite busy destroying Windows so they will no longer be needed. Tearing down walls is just the next logical step.
Microsoft will consolidate all its major operating systems, including Windows, Windows Phone and the software that powers the Xbox, under Terry Myerson, who handled engineering for only Windows Phone before.
I wonder if this will lead to any significant rethink of things on the desktop side. Windows 8 has a bit of an identity crisis going on; perhaps Win9 or whatever they decide to call it will solve that problem now that all of the OS design groups are under one tidy grouping.
People who are left behind all came of age when Microsoft had almost mythical powers. It could squelch competition by FUD, All it took was an announcement of vaporware and the funding for start-ups who could compete would just evaporate. These guys simply are not capable of competing on a level playing field. And the playing field is tilted against Microsoft now. The earlier era minions of Gates have earned the enmity of vast sections of the computer professionals. And so many of their partners fear them and do not trust them.
Unless it is something radical like splitting the company into an OS division, a consumer products division, corporate server products division and all competing at full throttle it is not going to work.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Nowadays, most of the software industry works together in open technologies that are widely used, like Linux, BSD, Apache, Webkit, Firefox, LLVM, PHP, OpenGL, Freetype, Android, etc. This is one of the reasons about why we've seen so many amazing products come out in such a short time the past decade.
Microsoft still believes they can do everything by themselves and they are starting to really fall behind. They were never a very efficient company, as their products reached maturity by iterating several years over several versions. Now, instead of accepting that the world has decided to embrace open technologies as foundation to most products, they are desperate to find ways to stay competitive with their current business model, and aggressively go after those who use open technologies to get patent money.
Why is it so difficult for Ballmer and Gates to admit that they can't compete anymore, no matter how many times they restructure their company? It's one company vs the world at this point.
I found a quicker fix for my dad's poorly performing new laptop. I removed the Norton virus. I did something similar with McAfee for a friend when it decided that the best way to protect her from the dangers of the internet was to disable her networking stack.
Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run.
Expect to see more undocumented syscalls for Office Apps, IE, SQL Server, SMB, etc, etc.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I did something similar with McAfee for a friend when it decided that the best way to protect her from the dangers of the internet was to disable her networking stack.
Well... you've gotta admit, it has a point there...
Taking a different approach from most of these comments, I think a reorganization is exactly what Microsoft needs. It has long been known that the individual departments of Microsoft rarely communicate well between themselves and often seem actively hostile towards one another. I remember reading an article (when Office 97 came out, so this shows how far back this problem goes) about how the OS team was upset that Office utilized a goodly number of non-standard tricks rather than using the standard APIs. Thus, moving forward the OS team had to add in shims into their OS to ensure that its Office suite would continue to function in later versions of Windows. Or years later, how PlaysForSure didn't, on the Zune. Each division had its own methods and goals and rarely would they consider the needs of the other divisions. So a re-organization that helps solve some of these issues is probably long overdue.
(incidentally, a telling graphic of this problem is the following cartoon)
On the gripping hand, I have to wonder if Balmer is really the best person to enact these changes; he hasn't inspired confidence with his recent (or any?) decisions. Similarly, I suspect that this "one company approach" is less to solve internal problems and more to officially shift the whole company from product-based development (e.g., write a program and sell it to the customers) to a service-based company (e.g., continual subscription-based access to its portfolio of services). , which is a direction Microsoft has been edging towards for over a decade.
it will all suck. total reorg with the same CEO who fostered the cluster? -- yah, sure, ya betcha then. Sven. so put some gas on the wood chipper and let's get it ready.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
My Buzzword Bingo card was completed in the first 3 paragraphs of Ballmer's memo. By the end, I only had a few unmarked spaces on each card.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
FTFA: "launching Windows 8 and Surface, moving to continuous product cycles, bringing a consistent user interface to PCs, tablets, phones and Xbox "
I've never heard so much Fail mentioned in one sentence before. If those are supposed to be the largest representative of Microsoft's successes in the past decade, they are really, really, really screwed.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I'm looking at this and figuring out what part of it really changes anything. Lumping together gaming and hardware is silly, for example. I remember a hiring freeze at MS Gaming Studios across the entirety of their projects, regardless of whether specific groups were turning a profit. An easy metric to examine when your teams are scattered across the nation (world?), but they didn't bother.
Now MS Gaming Studios is lumped in with the group responsible for Zune and Surface? and presumably Windows Phone? One more reason to go PS4 if you really need a next-gen console.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Sure, he could have fixed the security problems but it would have been costly and risky and meant sunsetting the Windows OS as we know it.
He *could* have setup an OS skunkworks in some other city, given them talent from the Windows division, all the Windows source code and documentation, a couple of billion dollars and told them to write a new version of Windows with no strings attached and the only limitation being that it had to run Win32 applications and be much more secure.
No consideration need be given for upgrades in place, other MS divisions or products, and borrowing ideas from Linux, BSD and Apple would be encouraged (aka, Not Invented Here Not Allowed).
Hopefully we would have ended up with a singular (ie, no bullshit server/desktop differentiation) operating system with in-built virtualization like VM/CMS, security and flexibility and none of the bullshit that holds back Windows because some wanker with stock options in another division won't play along.
Customers (other than programmers) don't care of the code bases are the same for windows phone, surface and xbox.
But they do care if the UI is the same. They hate it, as we've seen with Windows 8.
The problem is that "consolidation" has the potential to help Microsoft, but it hurts customers. Since Microsoft is used to having a monopoly, they don't care. But their monopoly is fraying around the edges, with "cloud" services, smartphones/tablets, and BYOD taking off. They could have kept things going indefinitely if they followed the Raymond Chen route: obsessively focus on backward compatibility, and thus remain the path of least resistance for businesses that buy a ton of licenses. But Ballmer wants to be Steve Jobs, so he's betting big, and in due time it will cost Microsoft everything if they don't reverse course.
I would have thought that Microsoft's biggest problem at the moment is that all the different divisions are not separate enough. The biggest thing holding Microsoft back is their seemingly inexplicable need to make everything run on Windows only (Office is the notable exception).
This blind adherence to making everything run on Windows may have been a strategic move in the 90's but it's really doing them no favours today. Take SQL server for example. It's a very good database product, but it only runs on Windows. While Windows has a large share of the server market, Linux (and other flavours of *nix) is just as large if not larger. If they were serious about pushing SQL server, they'd do what other database companies do and release their product on multiple platforms. Oracle/Postgres/DB2/etc all run on Window and common flavours of *nix. It makes no sense to hold SQL server back unless it's to give Windows a unique selling point.
The same can be said of a lot of their other products. Visual Studio is IMHO the best IDE out there, yet it's Windows only. MS Office is the standard office suite, yet it's not available on the major mobile operating systems (Android and iOS). Not releasing MS Office for iOS/Android is as ridiculous as not releasing it for the Mac. They've clearly decided that the Mac market is targeting and it's worth noting that Microsoft's Mac Business unit is doing well financially.
Making their other products run on non-Windows platforms may jeopardise the sales of Windows licenses, but it's almost certain to improve the sales of everything else. The question is whether the increase in sales will offset the loss of Windows licenses, and I'm in no position to answer that. My gut feeling is that it will be better for the company in the long run as they will no longer be tied to the fortunes of Windows. This separation may also benefit Windows in the long term as it won't be able to use the other MS products "exclusives" as a crutch and will have to stand on its own merits.
This is the sort of shake-up of Microsoft that I think is necessary. Anything else is just a waste of time and akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as others have alluded to.
I once noted at an Exchange demonstration (put on by a professional Microsoft Evangelist) that not all of the new features in Exchange were supported in the new version of Outlook, which seemed odd. He confessed that the two teams are not allowed to talk to each other during initial development because of NDAs. The two divisions of the company are kept in the dark from each other, even though the two products are designed to work together.
I think many large companies suffer from their size.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
If thousands of Microsoft employees can't do that, why should I even try to fix that mess?
Because Windows 8 cripples it as a gaming machine, Ubuntu is a step up. My younger brother just bought a new machine with Windows 8 on it and spent a weekend trying to get several games to preform, some from steam some he has physical media for. It didn't work so he formatted it and against my advice put a pirated version of windows 7 on. It seems to be work fine now, but if he has any further issues he won't be able to return it with a pirated windows 7 OS.Ubuntu is a great alternative to windows 8. I have it running on my machine and have great success getting all my the Linux games running and almost all of my non-linux games run under wine. Besides more and more gaming companies and publishers are writing games for Linux.
Also we're not personal tech support for Microsoft. I use to do the tech support thing for friends and family, but it's a lose lose for me. You fix their machine and the next time something breaks, because of their bad habits or a windows update, it's your fault and you end up having to do more support. Since Win8 I refuse to help, If anyone want's me to do tech support for them they get a Linux distro, and since installing it for my in-laws, 2 out of 4 siblings and my wife I haven't been asked to fix anything. At first I was nervous that it'd be too much of a change for them, but I see my in-laws at least once a month, both love Ubuntu and have no problems with it.
better idea all use the same rendering engine.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Aside from Windows itself, I'd offer SharePoint as the most wide-reaching product that the company produces. To deploy and work with a SharePoint installation crosses all boundaries between servers to end-user software.
This being the case, a brief examination of a few pieces of it can illustrate the walls between the various groups.
Firstly, there are around 6 distinct People Picker controls in use through the product. That's the dialog where you pick a user from AD or whatever authentication provider you're using to either give them rights or attach them to something. All do exactly the same thing, some look exactly the same, and some look different. But there are 6 of them.
Interface customization in SharePoint is a huge mess. You can create an application page and deploy it to the server. You can customize other page types with SharePoint Designer. You can use InfoPath to customize list forms. Now you can even take some random HTML you made in a text editor or dreamweaver and run a process to create a new layout from that as a template. I could keep going about the various customization vectors (if you can think of another manner, I've probably done that too). Even the pages making up the functionality that ships with the product don't follow any sort of reasonable pattern. Sometimes you're looking at an InfoPath form, and sometimes an HTML form, and sometimes you're kicked to an application page that looks distinct from other application pages doing the same thing for other services. Some functionality is in web parts, and some are in delegate controls.
Go to the administration settings for PowerPivot, and you get something that looks different than the settings for Excel Services. Then look at PerformancePoint. All are serving very similar functions, and providing very similar settings, but it's like learning Mandarin and then needing to also pick up Cantonese to set up the next thing that is ostensibly part of the same product.
They've taken some steps to unifying parts of the product in SharePoint 2013, but there is still a long way to go before it can be called cohesive. If they can break down some of these walls for Microsoft as a whole, then maybe it'll make SharePoint more solid as an offering.
Then again, if it wasn't a mess and made sense I'd be an order of magnitude less valuable as a SharePoint guy.
We trained hard ... but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
--Gauis Petronius Circa 50AD
I hate the 'ribbon'...
Metro and Windows 7 were "Her idea" as well...
Her career represents all that causes otherwise good developers to make total crap and eventually quit the industry in disgust.
She's the Sarah Palin of computing.
Thank you Dave Raggett
"important" should not be a matter of opinion, but of objective profit measurement.
But what if you have something that is making good money now, but another division that could be making an amazing amount of money if managed differently?
If you just base things on objective profit measurements, you'll never undertake the risky projects that can also have order of magnitudes better reward.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...because organization is not the problem. Microsoft has operated under the 'look out for number 1' principle for so long that it permeates their culture. Every employee, manager, executive, and group ruthlessly guards their own self-interests at the expense of everything else...corporate goals, customer needs, company reputation, and so on. The general company principles appear to be a) gouge customers, b) drive competitors out of business, and c) undermine partners. These are the principles that built Microsoft and they probably can never be changed. Operating in this way has smothered innovation to the extent that computers pretty much operate exactly as they did 20 years ago other than being faster and more powerful (thanks to hardware innovation out of Microsoft's purview). If it were not for Steve Jobs and Apple, we would still be using cellphones that made calls and played simple games, we would be listening to music on CDs that had to contact a central server run by Microsoft before they could be played, and laptops would be the size of a countertop pancake griddle and put out about the same amount of heat.
or else by 2020 when Win 7 reaches EOL it'll see MSFT reach EOL with it
I doubt even Microsoft would have made it to 2020 on its previous course, mostly because it didn't really seem to have one, so it's not surprising that things are changing.
Whether things are changing in a good direction is a different question. Microsoft have, with some justification, dominated business desktops for decades, and they have a serious presence in the server room/back office as well. They appear to be almost throwing that away and betting the farm on mobile and clouds with this new strategy.
If I were a betting man myself, I'd wager that the current cloud/software-as-a-service trend is going to overstay its welcome long before 2020. Objectively, there just isn't enough in it for the customers and it's being sustained more by groupthink than actual merit. When CIOs stop being cool just because they're moving everything "into the cloud", they'll start evangelising the security and reliability and performance and financial benefits of having everything in-house, under their direct control.
If I were in Microsoft's position, I'd be tempted to build a client/server model based on "private clouds" for business, probably with a three-way split between back-end tools, portable devices, and less portable but more flexible/multi-purpose devices. I'd want a unified set of ideas in the software and I'd want silky smooth data sharing and real-time collaboration and easy software management around the network, but I'd expect a different presentation style for the software in each of the three cases. They've got the war chest and continuing revenues to wait out the current cloud boom. They could be better placed than anyone else in the industry to lock up the business market for another generation, if they could just offer the right balance between cloud/mobile flexibility and depth/power of traditional business computing, without the cheap-and-nasty feel of most cloud and mobile experiences today.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.