Breaking Boundaries in the Computing Market
Micheal Lewis
MGT450: Strategic Planning for Organizations
Carol Jones
December 19, 2011

Abstract
Objective: To analyze Google strategy for 2009, identifying core competencies and inefficiencies to objectively provide solutions while utilizing what has been learned from the course.
Data sources: A search was conducted of ProQuest, Google.com, and other technology related websites.
Review methods: information was gathered and reviewed from Google’s business page, other technology based websites, the textbook case study and scholary sources and then cross referenced for credibility.
Criteria: evidence supporting original mission statement and core beliefs, technology reviews from credible critics and peers. Evidence matching outlined requirements.
Results: Scenarios that generate ideas and solutions which apply to a fast expending company. A better understanding to be achieved in operating a successful internet based business while maintaining responsible corporate citizenship.
Conclusion: The analysis of Google’s strategies for 2009 when conducted thoroughly will reveal simple measures and solutions to seemingly complex situations by approaching one issue at a time.

“You can make money without doing evil.” – 6th principle of Google’s corporate philosophy.
Google is successful in living up to its mission statement and promise to the world to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful. With all of the new products being developed and present, Google is becoming closer to a renewed and improved sense of that mission. With more success, come more challenges. Let it be a focus to master each challenge and to not stretch too far too quickly. It is advised to instead perfect and improve existing technologies and products. Google should catch up with itself, as the opponent is a veteran of successful OS development and marketing, as well as the development and marketing of many successful products simultaneously. Currently we are in the middle of a technology battle with Microsoft. With Yahoo! settling a 10 year deal to have Microsoft’s Bing as their imbedded search engine (Burrows & Hof), we find ourselves not only developing new software that is comparable to Microsoft, we also now find ourselves in need of actively defending our stakes as leaders in search engine technology. While we maintain relative control in that field, it will be necessary for us to redirect more resources to maintain that control. Our search engine technology is not only our beginning but the core of our success. If we hope to expand further into our current projects, we must ensure that our standings in the field are safe. By taking on projects involving operating systems development and production software, we have drawn the attention of our fiercest competitor, possibly too early. Microsoft has very deep pockets and it can be assumed that they will defend their position as leader in operating systems development with as much ferocity as we would for our own search engine technologies. As Google’s plans are somewhat public, it would seem that we have captured a tiger by the tail. At this point, we cannot afford many errors nor can we afford any pauses in the development of our current and future projects. While we no longer have the luxury of surprise, it is imperative that we conduct ourselves in a careful and strategic manner for the upcoming challenges we will face. Before we venture further, there are other issues that must be addressed as well. First of which would be staffing. It is reported that the employees do not feel engaged in their jobs. They are experiencing difficulties in staying motivated and enthusiastic about their efforts. Additionally, we are lacking the necessary skill advantages we should have if we seek success in our expansion. In retrospective consideration, the pressure that we currently experience from Microsoft could possibly be directly related to the manner in which we attempt recruiting such employees.
Former employees reveal that people are leaving because many employees don’t feel that their efforts will make the same amount of impact as the company matures from its startup days. Compounding the problem is the fact that Google does not appear to provide much in the way of formal career planning. Often these tasks would be addressed by a company’s Human Resources (HR) department, but it appears as though Google’s HR department is viewed by many as being quite impersonal (Anderson, 2009).
The company must spend time and effort creating a new awareness of how valuable our employees are to us and our customers. They are an integral part in our company’s performance. Additionally, Human Resources must be refreshed and updated in its policies involving employee relations. Over time it has become stale and cold to the employees as the company had previously become content in being the leader in web information with virtually no competition. With further work on the operating systems and the developments they bring, paired up with Microsoft being an entity we can rally against, hopefully this issue will resolve itself. In the mean while, perhaps we should focus more on scouting and recruiting talent to speed up the recruitment process as opposed to the classified and job placement ads posted on our website; which consequently could ultimately reveal our hand. Another issue that we face is the potential absence of profit gain from the Chinese market. With a population of 1.3 billion, 25% of the market share is not bad standing, however, the development of our upcoming projects and the protection of our core developments could benefit greatly in any increase that we can gain. The local opposition Baidu, controls 77% of China’s internet search market (China Investment Weekly, 2009). In the February 2006 case between Google and China, “the concern was providing China with a version of a search engine that omitted references to the 1989 events of Tiananmen square, terms like “freedom” and “Falun Gong” the banned religious group” (Dan & Haddow, 2008). We can choose to pursue a larger share of this market, though with China’s censorship policies against topics like spirituality and alternative government or practically anything that is foreign to China, it would seem that doing business in China would oppose our principle of “You can make money without doing evil” (Google).
One of the things we can do should we decide to stay is to localize our Chinese headquarters’ strategies to be more specific to the culture and current trends. Perhaps, an incorporation of a strategy that we similarly use with our Android OS in which we share revenue with in this case our advertisers would attract more businesses to advertise with us. Naturally we would not be issuing payments in the ways we do with our Android partners, instead we can reflect this as a reduction in fees for Chinese businesses that choose to use our search engine or purchases advertising from our domain. We must also consider an in-depth research into the local culture so that we may better understand what our consumers there respond to and are searching for.
Microsoft’s concern with threats posed by Google arose shortly after its IPO when Bill Gates noticed that many of the Google job postings on its site were nearly identical to Microsoft job specificationis. Recognizing the position announcements had more to do with operating-system design than search, Gates e-mailed key Microsoft executives warning, “We have to watch these guys. It looks like they are building something to compete with us.” Gates later commented that Google was “more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with.” (Gamble/Thompson, 2011, p. 397)
At Google, the mission statement is to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful. Our advanced search engine technology, PageRank, has laid an impressive foundation that allows Google to explore into designing operating systems. This is a bold move, as it places Microsoft’s attention squarely on us. Since Microsoft’s release of Bing, and Yahoo!’s integration of it, our top two competitors seek to eliminate our secure hold in the search engine market. As we work to improve upon our core strengths and to resolve our inadequacies it would be beneficial to recognize both within our newly acquired competitors.
We do maintain an advantage over Microsoft in regards to search engine technology. Microsoft until lately has always focused more on its operating systems and its gaming platforms. The same, however, when reversed must be considered as we develop Google’s operating systems to compete with the veteran software giant. This is relatively new territory for Google. It is important not to lose focus on the uniqueness that will set aside the Android and Chromium operating systems from Microsoft’s Windows operating system. One of the strong points at Google has always been the respect for our users privacy. This will be a great advantage in our favor as we challenge Microsoft’s notorious security issues as well as its ever growing reputation as being “the establishment” (Strickland & Crawford, 2009 ).
Some would argue that Google’s expansion into the operating system and production software (Google Docs) is a direct affront to the industry giant, Microsoft; one that Google is not fully prepared to take on. Others are hopeful and feel that it is about time. At what expense does Google face this new direction? True, Google may be stretching itself thin as it leaps into the computing market with the Android 2.0 mobile operating system, the Chromium desktop operating system, the multiple Office-like software applications for online use, GPS turn-by-turn navigation, web browsing (Chrome), and many, many applications to work with Chrome and Android 2.0. The released projects are already well received, and in shortcomings with task management can be resolved with proper talent recruitment. It is thought imperative that any future products be held in development until they are more than adequate, while current products earn their places in the market and generate the profits necessary for a stronger structure of growth. It is easy to miss the long term effects and/or damages when a company is focused on the daily race to be better, faster, and more, each day.

References Anderson, J., (2009, June 24). Google’s Staffing Problems Have Much To Teach CIOs [Web log post]. Retrieved from The Accidental Successful CIO: http://www.theaccidentalsuccessfulcio.com/ staffing/what-cios-can-learn-from-googles-staffing-problems Burrows, P., & Hoff, R.D., (2009, July 29). Yahoo Gives in to Miccrosoft, Gives Up on Search. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from
Dann, G., & Haddow, N.. (2008). Just Doing Business or Doing Just Business: Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and the Business of Censoring China's Internet. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 219-234. Retrieved December 18, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1466679481).
Gamble, J. E., & Thompson, A. A., Jr. (2011). Essentials of Strategic Management (2nd ed.). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Google. (n.d.). Corporate Information. [Mission Statement]. Retrieved from Google website: http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/index.html POLICY AND GENERAL NEWS; Baidu commands 77 pct of search engine market in Q3. (18 December). Interfax : China Investment Weekly. Retrieved December 18, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1949143051).

References (Cont.) Strickland, J., & Crawford, S.,. "Will Google destroy Microsoft?" 26 February 2009. HowStuffWorks.com. <http://computer.howstuffworks.com/google- microsoft.htm> 19 December 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2009/tc20090728_826397.htm