-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2008/08/24/win7team/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
danja
44 comments · 4 points
-
polizeros
52 comments · 1 points
-
AndyBeard
69 comments · 4 points
-
Zachary Adam Cohen
35 comments · 8 points
-
dbarefoot
40 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
1 day ago · 22 comments
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
1 week ago · 181 comments
-
2010: the year SEO isn’t important anymore
1 week ago · 67 comments
-
A new addition here: the Meebo bar
1 day ago · 7 comments
-
iPhone developers abandoning app model for HTML5?
1 week ago · 52 comments
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
I have to say, I cannot believe that Microsoft were not working based on a flatter management structure. For a company with the resources MS have, it's always seemed amazing to me that they often neglect to use some REALLY basic business processes.
I use PC's, Mac's and a Linux box (because I write about this stuff.) In view of the tiny share of the overall computer market that Apple has, I'm confused as to why what Apple are doing would have (literally) any impact at all on what Microsoft do with Windows 7 (or anything else.)
I would like to be educated on this if someone can tell me.
Great post Robert.
Jim
TheTechNewsBlog.Com
This was a great idea / article. You put all your cards on on the table and were even selfless in the process. Awesome!! This should be spread around the journalism world. I hope you get inside and are able to cover Windows 7.
Pete
http://WinningMan.com
Anyone have a link to the emails mentioned that were sent by execs about discussions regarding Apple?
Personally, for the Windows team I think being closed up is a much better way to go. Expectations don't go out of whack and you can make a "big release" to a waiting set of press and bloggers. Apple has that down to a science.
The problem with Microsoft's model is that they rely on outsiders (er, OEMs) so they'll never be able to be as quiet as Apple is. You need to share quite a bit with OEMs to get them to write drivers and make hardware, etc. It's often the OEMs that leak stuff as well.
Being a media student and a keen observer of emerging media processes and its dynamics with corporations, your is an interesting social experiment, which demands a lot of collaborative insights and broad minded approach towards fact finding in open media space.
Look forward t how it develops!
Hemant M,
India
I totally disagree with this statement: "the reason that things haven’t leaked ... is that team members feel much better about the management". I know maybe 100 or so people in various groups on Win7. I can tell you that I've not met a single person since Sinofsky took over who has told me that they feel "good amount management".
Instead I've heard from several people: "Sinofsky comes from Office. He really doesn't get Windows or the culture behind it. He's been put in this position in order to preserve the product rather than improve it. The reason nobody talks about Win7, is cause there is nothing to say.". And then they leave the org (which frankly, makes internal recruiting a lot easier for me.)
On the flat org thing: What happened in the past is that Windows was built from small, dynamic orgs that come together under a PUM in groups of 20 to 50 people. And you really didn't care what happened above you (yes there were many levels, but doesn't matter - you had your own team and goal). Now the individual, independent teams are effectively removed and instead there are massive silos of dev orgs / test orgs and PM orgs reporting up to a VP.
The effect of this is the following: In the Windows XP days, I was in my testers' offices maybe for half the day - the testers was an intricate part of the team and we always understood what each other were doing.
In Vista, the PUMs were removed and the testers were now on a different team. So I saw them maybe once a day for a few minutes and the rest of the time they were doing their own thing. (Guess what happened when developers and testers don't talk? Quality suffered, and it showed.)
In Win7, with even more management removed (and thus less individualized teams), meeting with testers became a weekly thing. I didn't even know some of my testers, and I certainly have no clue what they were doing. (They certainly weren't finding bugs - all of our bugs came from partners or customers).
The only reason that Win7 will have any hope of success is because by the time it releases, the market (especially driver writers) will have caught up to Vista, and Win7 is going to be no change from Vista.
Personally I wonder what could be done to improve the product anyway. I'm finding I'm using the OS less and less and the browser more and more. The things I wish Vista did was startup from sleep faster. Seriously, that's my one real wish. Yeah, sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out where you are in the file tree. Sometimes it's hard to find the control panel you need. But those are little nits and only bug me once in a while. Start up off of sleep bugs me every day several times a day.
Your comment regarding "using the OS less and less" is totally correct.
The OS is becoming less and less relevant as the browser becomes more important.
Interestingly, I now know a number of people who have also ditched MS Office; not for Open Office etc - But for tools like Google Docs etc.
Great post and some excellent comments.
@TheTecNewsBlog
I'm a dev on the Windows Find & Organize team. I came from outside of Windows around the time Sinofsky took over. Previously I'd been in a very small, very agile group that rode the border between Windows Live and Windows.
It took some time to get used to things in Windows, and to a differently structured org. I still think there are some advantages to the PUM model or at least to organizing offices based on feature teams, some of which you touched on.
At the beginning of the Win7 project (my first Windows project) I was uncertain about a lot of things. A lot of people who got re-orged into windows didn't like it and complained a lot then eventually left. A lot of people who had been in Windows left because they felt like the "culture" of Windows was going away.
And you know what I say? Good riddance. Frankly, I think the culture and leadership responsible for Vista was in need of a kick in the pants. After the re-org it took some time for me to find my place and get comfortable in Windows and with basically an entirely new team of people. But in the last year or so I've become a very big fan of Sinofsky and the WEX leadership, and the management of my own team.
One reason I say I'm a big fan is because of how excited I've become, not just about my own work, but about the entire product. I don't think the project would be anywhere near what it is today if we were stuck with the culture or leadership of the last release.
// Just my opinion
// But if Scoble's post is to believed it sounds like there are others
// And no, I'm not one of his "sources" :)
I work for a few thousand end users. They don't ask for new features - they want it to:
Boot faster
shut down faster
open apps faster
copy files faster
Most of my clients who use both mac and PC aren't dazzled by mac's gui - they are impressed with how much faster it boots and opens apps.
They don't need to buy new processors, more memory or "boost" drives - it just does what it is supposed to - work in the background so you can run apps quickly and browse quickly. Is this some secret someone is keeping from MS?
My clients never said - gee I wish I had transparent borders - that would make me much more productive. The companies I support never said - if only things were more rounded and easier to use for people that never used computers before and more frustrating for people who alread know how to do things on computers - we would like to spend money on an OS that does that.
Lets hope this is a step in the right direction.Anyone knows when it is out ?
Thanks
As for being some type of business school case study? MS management has never been known as being innovative. And based on your description, there's nothing all that interesting here. Big companies do management re-orgs all the time. Yawn.
One correction - I'm mostly talking about Windows from a COSD (Core Operating System Division) perspective rather than WEX.
It is here where I think Sinofsky is most out of his element and we're it hurts most losing culture. Office doesn't have the large core that Windows has and you can build the products almost completely independent from each other. Windows has a huge kernel that takes time to change and every change has a ripple effect through the rest of the O/S.
One big complaint I have is that with Sinofsky's new milestone approach it makes it all but impossible to innovate anything in the kernel. You can to a point slap pretty new UI on the existing stuff, but if you want to make a real difference in the Core O/S (like significantly overhauling the way SCM works so we can improve boot time), you can't. Ever.
You don't have time to get your fundamentals right and build on it in the same release, and you are also not officially allowed to target the next O/S release or even an out-of-band release. So how can you ever change anything??
In reality some long-term investments is still being done, but in secret from upper management, with funding hidden in another shipping project. People get away with this, but the fact that we are effectively forced to do in order to have any long term vision doesn't fill me with confidence in management.
Oh also, the reason that we shipped virtually no Ultimate Extra's is because of Sinofsky's strong aversion to out-of-band releases. Boy, do the market love us for that one!
COSD is run by Jon DeVaan. Obviously Steven and Jon have to be in sync because together they own all of the bits in a client Windows install, but at the end of the day you are blaming a VP for what happens outside of his domain.
I also challenge the notion that long term investments are not done. I work on something of this nature myself, and I work within WEX. I will not clarify this any further because PDC is the right time for announcing stuff.
Also, count me in as another person who is happy with what Sinofsky has done for WEX.
If nothing else, it would be a story that Microsoft itself should capture. So much of the history of the company seems to be nothing more than the memory of the victors. The same mistakes are made again and again, and it would be great if someone could at least document what works and what doesn't. I spent hours and hours leading post-mortem meetings that published huge reports that nobody ever looked at again.
A major part of learning is storytelling, and that's what you do well. I hope they'll let you into the tent.
I knew somebody would bring this up.
If DeVaan had any backbone I would agree with you, but as it is he is just channeling Sinofsky.
The new milestone process and flat org initiatives are all coming from Sinofsky.
Still, like back in the days of yore (2003) we are seeing excitement for a Windows release. I wonder what will come of it.
I hope I am not dreaming or so.
Thanks anyway.
Khalid
do meaningfull surveys of what the users
of their products want ? Not doing so and responding
to customer/user "needs" represents some sort
of arrogant or arbitrary group thought there.
Surveys and product previews could have easily avoided
the disaster of Vista.
Why not disclose what is on the drawing board
and allow users to comment rather than "pushing"
the product after it is out ?
The lack of effectiveness in this area may be
a case study in rant policy decisions,
so review and rescind the arbitrary rant policies.