Is Microsoft going the way of the Apple?

MS-Org-Chart

Last Thursday, Microsoft announced that they would be dissolving their current structure and reorganizing. They currently have eight different product divisions, and plan to restructure with four new ones that will be organized around broader functional themes. The main reason for this is to allow for eliminating redundancy and waste, as well as to encourage their nearly 100,000 employees to work more closely with collaborative efforts to build future products. This will make Microsoft look more like its rivals (such as Apple and Google) as an organization – though on a much larger scale – and help it become more competitive in the product areas where it has been losing ground in recent years.

The organizational model used by Microsoft is one that was popularized by Apple (of course), and it focuses on software, hardware, and services rather than individual products or product groups as they had in the past. For example, one executive will be in charge of operating systems now, rather than separate teams developing products like Windows, phones, tablets, and Xbox. In the past, this sparked many rivalries between divisions, and project managers even went to great lengths to avoid dependency on other groups for software, so as to not be “at the mercy of someone else’s development schedule.” This resulted in things like software being developed for one product that had similar functions and features as another existing product. While this should lead to greater efficiencies in product development and can allow better integration among products, it does not address some of the more pressing challenges affecting Microsoft’s current and future revenue stream; for example, as personal computer sales continue to decrease, how does Microsoft plan to adapt its product line?

In my company, we have also begun to realign our departments and personnel around functional groups and are moving away from compartmentalizing each product group within its own line. Is it just coincidence that Microsoft has started doing the same? It certainly is, as Microsoft is the juggernaut of the tech industry and Invivo is a very small subsidiary of a sub-business unit of a division of Philips. In any case, one of the biggest moves came at the end of last week, when it was announced that our already small marketing department would be losing a few members, and everyone else was reorganizing into functional groups where everyone would cover the full product line as it fell under their area of responsibility. As some of our other departments and developers have also realigned similarly, I hope that it will do for us what Microsoft hopes it does for them – increase efficiency and effectiveness.

In light of the above, is your company more like old Microsoft or new Microsoft? If like “old”, do you find that project managers often butt heads with other departments on which they have dependence for aspects of their products or projects? If like “new” do you find that aligning by function rather than products yields better results?

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/technology/microsoft-revamps-structure-and-management.html?src=mv&_r=0

How Will Consumer’s Transparency Influence Google “Glass” Demand?

 

 

Since 1998, Google has had a mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Over the years many would say this goal has been accomplished. Therefore, it is no surprise that Google has “earned their keep” among internet users and has become the face of many home internet search engines around the world. Now Google is stemming off the confines of their internet browser and will be showing the world an entirely new meaning of their mission with Google Glass. With Glass, there are people who think Google will literally be the face of the world for years to come.

 

In my opinion, the idea behind Google Glass is not as ground-breaking of a product as many have made it out to be. The idea for a wearable recording product has been introduced to the market already through Oakley Video camera glasses X300, and the Go Pro Head Video Camera. Also, we have seen wearable headsets for talking on the phone introduced already with technology such as Bluetooth headsets, etc.

 

However, I think Google’s innovation lies in their ability to incorporate and capitalize on their already previously established products using Glass. With features such as their voice command technology being synced with “Google Translate”, their digital voice assistant (“Google Now “) being incorporated to help keep track of your daily habits, “Google Maps” being the products GPS system, and even the Google search engine being at the consumers disposal to use when seeking information from their Glass device. Also, Glass will be able to meet the modern day needs of the cell phone for consumers with technology that lets you record and take pictures instantly. To me the idea behind the quality function deployment of this product is brilliant because it meets the modern day needs for cell phone consumers, and also meets the needs for Google’s consumers and translates all of this into one “grand-daddy” product.

 

But what do you think about the target design of the product? How do you feel about people wearing a live streaming, recordable device on their face? One parent commented, “As a parent, the thought of Google Glasses being anywhere near a place where my small children exposed themselves in the open like a restroom scares the heck out of me”. I think this parents concern is valid and so does Google.

Google has been working a way to tackle this issue of privacy through releasing their product to Google’s developers, journalists and a few other early adopters to test. While there still hasn’t been any release of       information about Google deciding a technological way to fix this, there have been suggestions of adapting etiquette techniques of when and where to take them off.

 

To me it seems unrealistic that everyone will obey “Glass Etiquette.” Also, adapting etiquette techniques could take away the sense of “freedom” Glass truly offers for consumers. If certain restaurants, bars, coffee shops, etc, don’t allow the device to be worn, it seems owning one would be more of a hassle. Thus, this issue of privacy could dramatically impact the demand for their product and Glass’s competitive advantage in the technological industry.

 

If there were restrictions implemented to where Glass can be use, would you as the consumer feel like the product has met your satisfaction? How will this issue of privacy effect the product life cycle of Glass? Why do you foresee a long product life cycle or a short product life cycle?

 

 

 http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/wear-it-well-time-establish-google-glass-etiquette-6C9780067

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/slideshow/googleglass/Google-Glass-7-cool-features/Google-Glass-7-cool-features/itslideshow/18609271.cms

http://www.zdnet.com/google-glass-privacy-concerns-come-to-the-head-7000014431/

 http://www.google.com/about/company/

 

Will YOU give it a shot?

article link : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443890304578006650462123038.html?KEYWORDS=starbucks+gives+single+serve+a+shot

http://www.surlatable.com/product/PRO-1039767/Starbucks-Verismo-Single-Cup-Coffee-and-Espresso-Maker-Champagne;jsessionid=AEB76F3F8A01C00B18498FC92786CC51

Starbucks is currently in the midst of launching their newest product, the Verismo single-cup espresso based beverage machine. The Verismo has unique pods that contain coffee and milk, and when used together, can product a latte. This machine has a unique new sleek style, to better fit on top of a kitchen counter, and is also capable of making shots of expresso. This machine is going to be sold at high- end kitchen good stores such as Sur La Table, and Williams Sonoma, as well as in select Starbucks locations. It will be priced at $199 and and the larger version will be priced at $399.

Previous data has shown in the last year only 4% of coffee makers made a profit from selling espresso machines. This means starbucks is taking a large risk entering the espresso machine market. Chief Executive, Howard Schultz, stated in his most recent interview that Starbucks is making a bet with this new machine.

So, with last year espresso machine sales at a mere 4%, and the Chief Executive officer admitting that this is a big risk, why would Starbucks enter into this market? Well, I believe we can look at Chapter 12, regarding Operations and strategy in a global environment, for some answers. Starbucks has one of the most, if not THE most crucial advantage over competitors; Starbucks has brand recognition. Starbucks differentiates themselves from other coffee shops because they provide an “experience”, which sets them apart from the rest of the many places you can get a cup of coffee. But, their newest product launch had nothing to do with this in store “experience”, rather, it is about bringing Starbucks “experience” into your own home. The competitive advantage is about differentiation, cost leadership, and response. Starbucks new Verismo machine touches upon all three, with a strong emphasis on differentiation because there are currently are no other machines like it on the market. According to our book,Competing on differentiation means, “the uniqueness can go beyond both the physical characteristics and service attributes to encompass everything that impacts the customer’s perception of value- and in this case, the Starbucks customer values their own time, their coffe, and their loyalty to the brand itself.

I think this coffee maker will be successful? Will it be a positive thing for Starbucks?

What strategies and data do you think Starbucks is using to make sure sales of this machine are successful?

The operations managers job is to provide competitive advantage and increase productivity… Do you think the OM Manager is doing this in this instance?