Question

Google to Alphabet: Ten Things We Know to Be True Are Google's founding principles — Things We Know To Be True — still valid in the newly reorganized Alphabet, a diverse company with a market value of $475 billion? If not, how should they be changed? Who is the primary customer at Google? What product attributes does this customer value? Given this choice of the primary customer, is a functional structure - with P&L accountability only at the CEO level - appropriate? Is the focus on "organizing the world's information" for end users sufficient to inspire and motivate employees in Alphabet/Google? If not, what should replace these words? Should Alphabet/Google maintain its focus on metrics and performance-driven criteria as it grows and matures? What are the alternatives? What are the risks if it abandons these practices? What are Google's franchise risks? Are more specific boundaries needed to ensure that Alphabet/Google employees do not step over the line of accepted behavior? If so, how should this be done? Will the new Alphabet structure allow Google to be as innovative in the future as it has been in the past? Will it foster more or less creativity? Have Google executives done enough to build commitment and encourage collaboration among people across the company? What else could they do (or change)? As the dominant global competitor, can Alphabet/Google remain nimble and adapt into the future?

          Google to Alphabet: Ten Things We Know to Be True
Are Google's founding principles — Things We Know To Be True — still valid in the newly reorganized Alphabet, a diverse company with a market value of $475 billion? If not, how should they be changed? Who is the primary customer at Google? What product attributes does this customer value? Given this choice of the primary customer, is a functional structure - with P&L accountability only at the CEO level - appropriate? Is the focus on "organizing the world's information" for end users sufficient to inspire and motivate employees in Alphabet/Google? If not, what should replace these words? Should Alphabet/Google maintain its focus on metrics and performance-driven criteria as it grows and matures? What are the alternatives? What are the risks if it abandons these practices? What are Google's franchise risks? Are more specific boundaries needed to ensure that Alphabet/Google employees do not step over the line of accepted behavior? If so, how should this be done? Will the new Alphabet structure allow Google to be as innovative in the future as it has been in the past? Will it foster more or less creativity? Have Google executives done enough to build commitment and encourage collaboration among people across the company? What else could they do (or change)? As the dominant global competitor, can Alphabet/Google remain nimble and adapt into the future?

Added by Mariah L.

Question

Please give Ace some feedback