Google Running Amuck: Defining Strategies for Growth - Essay Example

 Google Running Amuck: Defining Strategies for Growth Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3 Porter’s Generic Strategy………………………………………………………………….3 Analysis and Evaluation of Google Strategy……………………………………………...4 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………...9 References………………………………………………………………………………..10 Introduction The concepts which Google has applied to business have allowed it to become one of the leading providers in technology. The organizational structure, release of products and the development that is associated with how one works within the company is providing a different outlet to what is occurring within the company. This is combined with the different associations that it has developed in terms of growth for the company. Currently, the number of products, interest from consumers and the growth of the corporation has led to a different set of complications for the company. There is now the need to create a set of controls over what is available with Google and the components which are associated with this. Interchanging into different approaches with the organizational environment to control the expansion and to balance the different efforts of the company are creating different alternatives for Google. Examining and evaluating the best way for Google to transform the current strategies for control can then build a different outlet for the company. Porter’s Generic Strategy The analysis of Google will be done through Porter’s generic strategy (see Appendix A). This is being used over Bowman’s clock because of the relationship which it has toward the company. In Bowman’s clock, there is a focus on low price, value, hybrid concepts and differentiation. While Google has these, it also creates an expectation that the price, value and other concepts are linked directly to the value which is created within the corporation. The approach Google has with free items and cost setting as well as the ability to maintain a standard above competitors doesn’t provide the right approach for the specific concept used. In Porter’s strategy, there is the ability to look at the details of Google, specifically with initiatives in cost differentiation and leadership as well as the focus of the company. This will provide a more accurate analysis with the organizational structure that Google has developed. Analysis and Evaluation of Google Strategy The concept that Google has created is one that is founded with the flat structure of the company. The organizational environment is one that enhances creativity and a different initiative to assist with continuous growth (see Appendix B). While the company has over 10,000 employees, there is a focus on allowing individuals to work within small groups while strategically planning the implementation of different components. This is combined with the ability to continuously create products that are remaining ahead in technology. The advantage of Google is based on the large variety of products that began to be initialized from the beginning of the corporation (see Appendix C). The products from the search engine and the components added into this, such as search engines, have allowed Google to stand ahead of other competitors that are involved with technology. While the different ideologies of Google are allowing them to remain ahead, there is also a sense of not having the right application to the organization and environment. There is now an expansion that has occurred so rapidly that Google is unable to maintain the control of the company. This is occurring over the number of products offered, the low to no cost initiatives and the need to continuously develop ideas through the employees. The main risk is that the products begin to lose value or expand too far to cause Google to lose it’s reputation among consumers for offering the best value with free items (Kutcher, 2009: 1). The concepts that are driving Google forward can be analyzed with the use of Porter’s generic strategy and the way in which this is setting the company apart. The analysis is as follows: Overall Cost Leadership – The cost leadership is one of the defining points of Google. Every product has a free and paid option with most being available to users for free. The main cost comes from businesses that are interested in advertising products through the Adwords program. The range of products offered for free is now including the search engine databases to the mobile applications available. While this has allowed Google to have a strong basis of clients, there is also a question of how effective this will be in the future toward maintaining the free products while continuing with the revenue of the company, specifically because of the rapid expansion that is within the company. Cost Focus – The benefits of cost focus come from getting the right approach to products through the free and paid versions, allowing them to remain ahead of competitors. However, the cost focus is now limited to the free products, causing the expansion into new products either not being able to have the right amount of testing before being released or having other difficulties within the corporation. Differentiation – The differentiation that is a part of Google is currently leading over 90% of the market for search engine shares (see Appendix D). This is combined with the other search engines that are not as well known because of the lower number of products. This is allowing Google to remain on the cutting edge and ahead of others with what is offered. However, as technology increases, there will also be more competition that begins to move into the main approaches that Google is now using. Differentiation Focus - The differentiation focus that Google has is one that continues to benefit as it remains ahead of consumers. The focus now is to expand into new products. However, this creates a stronger risk for Google because of the recognized name and the potential of not having the right controls over the products. The result is the need to look at controls while lowering the amount of risk for the company. The first approach which needs to be taken with Google is re-examining the risks that are now in the organizational environment. Identifying where there is a lack of control with the release of products and determining how the organizational environment can alter to change these risks can help Google to maintain the expansion of the company and the needs which it has. The main approach is based on using business process models, specifically which create an understanding of what the risks are and lowering these with different strategies and components that are required for the business. This will create a different understanding of the needs with business processing and strategic approaches that will alter and control the overall processes used by Google (Lambert, Jennings, Joshi, 2006: 187). Another concept which Google can apply is to continue to work with the strengths of the internal environment to place the necessary controls. There are specific ideals that are used with teamwork, approaches to creating products and ideologies that are in the workspace. This is combined with standards and expectations that are a part of the company. The strategy which can be applied is to take the strengths of the external environment and to begin to refine the risks and strategies which can be created in return. The process with this is based on identifying, measuring and limiting the different concepts within the environment (see Appendix E). By doing this, there will be the ability to begin to transfer the process, challenges and the advantages that are associated with the corporation (Nocco, Stulz, 2006: 8). The strategies which can be built with this ideology can be furthered with the understanding of processes that are used within the workspace. This is associated with the expectation of combining the values that are a part of the work area. The more in which risks can be integrated into new strategies within the company, the easier it will be to define and understand the specific needs for the corporation while monitoring and controlling the growth of the corporation (Neiger et al, 2006: 122). This particular approach is one that becomes important because of the business cycle that continues to move through life cycles, all which is dependent on the risk of the company. The life cycle is one which has a sense of popularity over a given period of time then slowly begins to move out of focus from what is occurring. The life cycle is what initiates the main risks and causes difficulties with how one is focusing on the needs for the corporation. To change this, there is the need to continue to monitor and manage the risks while allowing the new products to quickly gain recognition and monitoring and controlling the new products at different times (Mendoza, Yue, 2008: 17). The concept of creating new approaches to strategies and monitoring is one that has to be followed by the nature of Google and the way in which the organization has been approached. There are specific dynamics that are created with entrepreneurial approaches and the growth which is created from these. This is combined with decisions which are made with entrepreneurial risks that are based on increasing ventures and continuing to grow. The nature of entrepreneurial business is one that is created specifically with the understanding that taking risks also drives forward the business so it can continue to thrive. Even when there is an expansion into larger corporate offices and ventures, this creates an alternative perception because of the foundation of the company and the structure which continues to drive the company forward. Re-examining these dynamics and how they are approaching the business for both the risks and strengths of the company can help to redefine specific needs while monitoring the growth of the company. Combining this with economics, organizational environment and other perspectives by consumers and the macro environment can then create the right alternative and approach to building more controls and monitoring the dynamics of the corporation (Norton, Moore, 2006: 215). Another concept to consider with the dynamics of Google is from the way in which the risk relates to the products that are created from the company. This is based on the supply chain that continues to grow from the company while creating a specific set of values that are expected to be maintained. This builds a sense of vulnerability to the environment while creating specific applications that are required to continue within the company. Ensuring that there is a sense of maintenance with the supply chain and lowering the vulnerability with the amount of risk and controls that are monitored can help to change the approach to the company while developing the correct approach to the needs of the company (Peck, 2007: 127). The concepts related to Google combine with suitability, acceptability and feasibility for end results. Changing the strategy for products is suitable, specifically because it lowers the amount of risk and creates controls. This will help to counteract the entrepreneurial risk and the high amount of risk from the supply chain, life cycle and the approach to the organizational environment. The acceptability is one that works specifically because of the strengths of Google. The strategies will build on the different goals that Google has already defined, specifically from the foundation of the organization. This will help to redefine and create the needed alternatives that are a part of the company while evaluating a different approach to what is needed in the corporation. The feasibility will be based on creating the controls and other aspects so there are more alternatives within the corporation. By doing this there is the ability to create and redefine the concepts which are a part of Google. Conclusion The concepts that are associated with Google are offering new possibilities within the marketplace. However, this is one that requires more approaches that are based on the risks that are identified with the corporation and the approaches that are associated with the growth of the company. While the company currently is able to offer more in terms of the available options for growth and is ahead of competitors, there is also a higher amount of risk with the amount of growth that has occurred. Altering this approach and building the right perspective can help to create and define the different needs within the company while establishing a stronger approach for Google. References Agichtein, E, E Brill, S Dumais. 2006. “Learning User Interaction Models for Predicting Web Search Result Preferences.” Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Technology. Calandro, J. 2006. “An Introduction to the Enterprise Risk Scorecard.” Measuring Business Excellence 57 (1). Evans, MP. 2007. “Analyzing Google Rankings through Search Engine Optimization.” Internet Research 15 (1). Fox News. 2011. “Mark Zuckerberg Dominates Google + Popularity Ranking.” Fox News. Retrieved December 4, 2011 from: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/05/mark-zuckerberg-dominates-google-popularity-ranking/. Goldman, E. 2005. “Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism.” Yale Journal of Law and Technology 15 (1). Gretzel, U. 2006. “Consumer Generated Content: Trends and Implications for Branding.” E-Review of Tourism Research. 13 (2). Halliday, Josh. 2011. “Google Chrome Becomes UK’s Second Most Popular Web Browser.” The Guardian (July). Hollenbeck, CR. 2006. “Consumer Activism on the Internet: The Role of Anti – Brand Communities.” Advances in Consumer Research 32 (1). IBN. 2011. “Top 10: Changes Google Introduced in 2011.” Retrieved December 4, 2011 from: http://ibnlive.in.com/photogallery/5366.html. Kutcher, M. 2009. “Google Inc: Running Amuck?” Lambert, James, Rachel Jennings, Nilesh Joshi. 2006. “Integration of Risk Identification with Business Process Models.” Systems Engineering 9 (3). Levesque, M. 2006. ‘The Effect of Aging on Entrepreneurial Behavior.” Journal of Business Venturing 31 (2). Mendoza, EG, VZ Yue. 2008. A Solution to the Default Risk Business Cycle Disconnect. New York: Routledge. Neiger D, L Churilov, M Muehlen. 2006. “Integrating Risks in Business Process Models with Value Focused Process Engineering.” ECIS 2006 Proceedings. Nocco, Brian, Rene Stulz. 2006. “Enterprise Risk Management: Theory and Practice.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 18 (4). Norton, William, William Moore. 2006. “The Influence of Entrepreneurial Risk Assessment on Venture Launch or Growth Decisions.” Small Business Economics 26 (3). Peck, H. 2006. “Reconciling Supply Chain Vulnerability, Risk and Supply Chain Management.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 9 (2). Schwarzkopf, D. 2006. “Stakeholder Perspectives and Business Risk Perception.” Journal of Business Ethics 57 (1). Wangberg, SG, HK Andreassen. 2008. Relations Between Internet Use, Socioeconomic Status, Social Support and Subjective Health. UK: Oxford University Press. Yao, S. 2011. “A Dynamic Model of Sponsored Search Advertising.” Marketing Science 13 (1). Appendix A: Porter’s Generic Strategy Appendix B: Google’s Corporate Strategy Compared to Competitors Appendix C: Google Products Appendix D: Google Differentiation Appendix E: Sample of Business Processing Model Read More