SAP business one vs Microsoft Dynamics GP - highlights for consultants

In this small article we make not technical data of the side-by side comparison. Would rather we give you opinions from both sides - Microsoft and SAP. Both products were for medium-sized enterprises in the United States, Europe (but Microsoft Great Plains - leaves Dynamics GP version 10.0 - the continental Europe market somewhere in 2008, where Microsoft business solutions will probably put on Microsoft Dynamics NAV - again, this is contingent on progress with project green or now Microsoft Dynamics project). We come to the subject:
o strengthen Microsoft Dynamics GP. Microsoft, and the leader in operating systems, Office products, and also such platforms such as Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SQL Server - can now utilize ERP technology infrastructure, including ERP integration: SQL heterogeneous queries, SharePoint Workflows, web portals. At the same time, long time on the market for such products such as Microsoft Outlook Microsoft the opportunity offers, count on Outlook user experience - Microsoft Dynamics products need no user training (from the interface intuitiveness view) – Microsoft Dynamics CRM Outlook client, Microsoft Dynamics GP have closer integration with Outlook to version 9.0. It is some comments on another Microsoft product - Microsoft Small Business Accounting - integrated where to create invoices and to promote Outlook contacts to your MS-SBA customers with MS Outlook.
o SAP business one. This product was bought by SAP of Israel software development company four years ago. The driven reason was probably the need, enter into small and medium-sized customers, as well as SAP requires such product multilanguage and complex international taxation rules easily adaptable. SAP business one has CRM, ERP/production modules and technical ERP/MRP/CRM for production or maintenance subsidiary of large companies may be used as. SAP business one has modern architecture and design, and this is what might be, select one of the strengths of decision making ERP platform. Microsoft Office must SAP business one integration — e-Mail via MS Outlook client / SMTP to it and to integrate with MS Office on the level of COM objects
o Microsoft Dynamics arguments. At the time when Microsoft Dynamics / Project Green enable Microsoft ERP products work with Microsoft Office technologies, SAP several years behind in this direction is work. SAP is currently shrinking enable Microsoft SAP MySAP integration with Microsoft Office. Microsoft has this strong argument against SAP business one - SAP sets industry experts, which very much and probably business and industry vertical consulting implements come ERP from medium-sized enterprise in General ERP/MRP consulting and expertise first. The result is longer implementation cycle, as well as complexity with SAP business one integration with technology innovative and legacy products
o SAP business two arguments. Microsoft tries to resolve, technical solutions and technologies. It's excellent ERP platform enough, if we give you, which has plus allows good integration tools for Microsoft Office integration with Windows platform itself – can ASP.NET or c#.NET (our comment - can your SAP business one communicate with the outside world with such non-Microsoft platforms as IBM Lotus Notes Domino and Lotus Notes as a document workflow)
o additional Microsoft arguments. There are Analytics out there on the ERP strategic research market, Microsoft in the opinion to the support that business one need SAP technological advances (e.g. development, own Office platform, or more closely with Microsoft Office products) to stay current with the ERP market in 2010...
o additional considerations. SAP has change of course additional bells and whistles, such as language - you can switch keyboard shortcut Cnrtl German, French or Portuguese (Brazil), US English. Microsoft Dexterity has been in previous lighting technician and supports a nice feature and Unicode - not such the question asked by the view from China, India and Arab world.

Survive the changes in Microsoft Word 2003 mail merge

With each new release of Microsoft Office, it seems that in Microsoft's wisdom, that they decide how change, we are the modest merge. In earlier versions of Microsoft Word such as such as Microsoft Word 2000, the process for performing a mail merge was simple. The first step was to create the data source, which was a Microsoft Word document with a simple table in it by default. The next step was that create main document that could be a letter or a brochure. Then the third step was your fields add to perform the main document and then finally the merge.
In Microsoft Word 2003 when you start a new mail merge you should be then the data source that you create a Microsoft Access database aware, that you in fact is not to Microsoft Word document as a data source. To some degree, I welcome this step because I am a passionate supporter, who in fact should all raw data stored in a database of some kind, it does not matter, whether of a Microsoft Access database, a MySQL database or SQL Server. The reason for this is that the database allows it is much more stable as a Microsoft Word document users more than once to use this data and a database, especially if you are working with large amounts of data. You will also notice that the Microsoft Access database, created from the mail Merge Wizard is very simple and contains only a single table with the fields you defined.
The cool thing Microsoft has done with this, is that store your raw data in a Microsoft Access database, you change it in the future this data with other applications allows. Actually, it's much easier to move data in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, or even in a system of commercial database such as Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Access. The new merge functionality, you can filter and sort your data also easy. Another important advantage is that the filter can you on what data you actually want to include in the mail merge process.
I have the problem but is to do with the new Microsoft Word 2003 mail merge process the complexity of a merge. Especially the long winded way, you must insert the merge fields in your document. In earlier versions of Microsoft Word application, such as Microsoft Word 2000 you could add your main document at once simply each merge field. In Microsoft Word 2003 you must first open the mail merge field dialog box each time you want to add a field. That of right, need to add each field by selecting the field and then insert the merge field, and then close the dialog, and then repeat this step for each field. I find more annoying than anything else.
We could of course manually enter each field with the key combination CTRL + F9 (used, insert a field), but a lot of work is that I agree. I think, in future, this is something that Microsoft changes, but I think that only time will tell versions.
I think all in all, this new Microsoft Word 2003 mail Merge Wizard is a positive step, but be a little overwhelming and confusing for the user that the merge can process earlier.

User training: Microsoft Dynamics GP - interface Association

Renamed direction of project green Microsoft Business Solutions products: Microsoft Great Plains, Navision, Axapta, Solomon and MS CRM in Microsoft Dynamics GP, NAV, AX, SL, CRM. Microsoft Dynamics be supposedly final product in the Green Project user through similar interface on all business components can access. At this point (autumn 2005) we don't know exactly how interface looks like, but some directions can be predicted.
o Microsoft Outlook user interface. Microsoft Small Business Accounting published in September 2005, entry level accounting application from the ground up rewrite. Now it's obvious no time, to reinvent the wheel / create new accounting package... but if you are Microsoft... Microsoft having its users and professionals, who are very comfortable in Microsoft Office products and spend much computer time in MS Outlook. Users can create small business accounting and documentation of accounts in MS Outlook (not all, but the innovation way is clear - user should work with business application of MS Outlook) synchronize. This can be very good argument against non-Microsoft systems: Oracle eBusiness/financials, PeopleSoft, IBM Lotus Notes/Domino, JD Edwards, which no simple Association for user interface
o-MS SQL Server DB platform. If products such as Great Plains Software Dynamics - should be there for multi-platform databases. Now it is only on MS SQL Server. Also - which way which Navision - it was on its own C/side database platform, was the rock. Navision is now available on MS SQL Server
o Microsoft Business Portal. Microsoft Dynamics GP simplifies the user interface (as DEX-Microsoft application) to look like Microsoft Office/Outlook interface. At the same time, Microsoft moves more functionality to Microsoft Business Portal: non-current assets, employee self-service, customer order management (former eOrder). Open SDK have Microsoft Business Portal, available for c#.NET programmer and Microsoft Business Portal is.NET application. All the proprietary customization tools, like e.g. Microsoft dexterity with Microsoft Visual Studio are probably replaced in the future.

The secret to the existence of the testing of Microsoft Office Specialist

If you are trying to get ahead in you career today, you will know that the computer skills you have under your belt are what will make the difference between you moving up the ladder or down. When it comes to trying to prove your computer competency in using office applications there is no other certification path that stands out like the Microsoft Office Specialist program. With over 3 million exams now undertaken and well over 2 million Microsoft Office Specialist Certificates issued, this certification has become the one to get to prove your skills in using Microsoft Office.
One thing I have found though is that many people fail these exams first time around and there really is no reason for it. The way the Microsoft Office Specialist exam works is that you will be taken into a room and sat at a computer. On this computer you will be asked by the computer to carry out a series of tasks. Each set of tasks is designed to represent tasks you would be expected to do on a day-to-day basis.
These exams really are a good representation of what people would be expected to do on a day-to-day basis. I should say I am a little bias since I am a Microsoft Office Specialist Master Instructor and my company is a Microsoft Office Specialist Authorised Testing Centre but having trained about 4,000 to 5,000 students through my training centre in Townsville, Australia the certification exams really do represent the skills you would be expected to perform in your workplace.
There are in fact seven exams in the Microsoft Office Specialist Program and they are the Microsoft Word Core and Expert Exams, Microsoft Excel Core and Expert Exams, Microsoft Outlook Core Exam, Microsoft PowerPoint Core Exam and the Microsoft Access Core Exam. If you were a Secretary or Personal Assistant, I would expect at a minimum you would have passed the Microsoft Word Core Exam and the Microsoft Excel Core Exam. If you hold the position of a salesman, I would expect you to have the same certifications as the Personal Assistant or secretary plus the Microsoft PowerPoint Core certification and maybe the Microsoft Excel Expert Certification and Microsoft Access Core Certification.
Ok, so how do we prepare for these exams.
First of all, you need to choose how you want to study for these exams. In terms of passing these exams it doesn't matter whether you want to do a course at a training centre, buy a self paced training program or doing the training on the Internet. Use the form of training that you feel most comfortable with. Me personally, I prefer to use self-paced training where as many of my students prefer classroom based training. Each training method has its own advantages and disadvantages. One thing to note, if you are going to go to a training centre, make sure at the very least they are a Microsoft Office Specialist Testing Centre and that they will give you a training manual and exercise disk to take home with you to keep. If the training centre doesn't give you a manual then don't waste your time with the course even if they might be the cheapest. In computer training, cheapest definitely does not mean the best.
Step 1. Once you have done the course or studied the Self-Paced material make sure you redo all the material within 7-days!
One mistake many people make, is thinking that they can do a two-day computer training course then walk away as an expect. If that's what you think, than it is totally fanciful. Computer Training is like a sport, if you want to be a professional then you must train as a professional. The first step you need to do in any training regime is to go back through all the material you did in the computer training course in the first 7 days after you the finish of the course.
Studies have shown over the years, that each 7 days you don't review your material, you will loose 50% of the material. Each week you don't review the material you loose another 50% which means in 6 weeks or so, you will remember nothing from your course. All in all you may as well, not have done the course in the first place.
Step 2. Write a brief statement in your own words, the key terms used during your course.
The next thing you must DO! Is to write a brief statement in your own words about all the key terms you learnt during the course or in your self-paced material. One of the challenges you will have in the exam is deciphering what they are asking you to do. Sometimes, I have found the language is very difficult to understand because it is written in American English (no offence intended to my American colleagues). In one of my Microsoft Outlook Core Exams, I was certain I was going to fail the exam. The only reason I passed was by identifying the key terms in the text that related to the application and by knowing those I worked out in each question what exactly they were asking me to do.
Step 3. Practice, Practice, Practice - Get lots of Practice Exercises
The next thing you must do is to get as much practice as possible. Most training schools will have structured their material so that at the end of each topic you will have some questions to answer and also some sort of homework exercise to do that will put all the tasks together into one exercise. The key here is to practice as much as possible. Check out the internet for places where you can get lots of practical exercises or make up some of your own.
Step 4 - Do a Pre-Assessment Exam to see if you are ready.
One thing I have learnt from doing these professional exams is that they are absolutely nothing like the exams you would have undertaken at school, college or at University. My recommendation that I would make to anyone sitting computer certification exams is to purchase a pre-assessment exam for the exam you want to take. What the pre-assessment exams do is to test your skills prior to sitting the real exams. Most of the pre-assessment exams I have seen are pretty good and pretty close to the real exams. I personally recommend either the pre-assessment exams from Certiport, Transcender or Self-Test Software.
When you do the pre-assessment exam, you should score 80% or above on the first go. If you don't, do not do what I have seen many people do, and that is to just keep doing the exam till you get all the questions right. What will happen if you do this is you will build up a memory of the questions and you end up knowing the requirements of the question without truly being able to interpret what the question is asking you to do.
Once you have done the exam once; DO NOT under any circumstances re-do that exam for 7 days. This will help stop the memory build up, of the questions.
What you MUST do once you have completed the pre-assessment exam and got a result is to look at the results of the test and find out which questions you got wrong and go back and study those areas more thoroughly. Then, after you have reviewed the material and waited 7 days, then try the pre-assessment test again.
You should in the second attempt score 90% or better. If you do achieve this then you are ready to sit the real exam. If you don't, then you need to follow the same process again for the next 7-days.
After the third time using the same Pre-Assessment exam, I recommend people try a different pre-assessment exam before being 100% sure they will pass the exam. The more you use the same exam, the bigger risk you face in retaining that memory of questions.
Most pre-assessment exams usually come with 2 or 3 different exams to try. If after three attempts of each pre-assessment exam and you still find that you can't pass at 80% or better, I would strongly recommend finding a mentor and also checking to make sure the training material you have purchased is covering the required material.
Step 5 - Pass the Microsoft Office Specialist Certification Exam!
Obviously once you have done this much training and practice and you have passed your pre-assessment exams you are now ready to sit the real exam. One thing to remember, Microsoft Office Specialist Exams are commercial exams and because of this, if you fail the exam, you have to pay to resit the exam. The cost to resit these exams can vary from as low as $80 US to $135 US, in many cases the prices are set by the Microsoft Office Specialist Testing Centre.
The good news is that if you have followed the steps I have outlined, I will be very surprised if you didn't pass on your first attempt.
Step 6 - You Are Finally A Microsoft Office Specialist

When should you use Microsoft SQL Server through Microsoft Access?

Two coolest tools, which ever Microsoft to come from Microsoft SQL Server and Microsoft Access are certainly. Microsoft Access databases are become break, the imposed ban certainly over the last 2 more frequently, such as large corporations with the tool. Many of our large corporate clients and State have development in Microsoft Access for different reasons hindered the security issues, or simply the IT management can include beliefs that they do not want to support the application.
Some of the reasons why not Microsoft Access in their environments to IT departments, are quite valid. For example, are the use of access databases in high security areas such as in the educational Department to store student, Department of Defense information systems, hospitals, patient data storage all the valid reasons why the data in a MS Access database will be stored.
However, one of the most important advantages that has Microsoft Access is the possibility of a software system to create a range of services very quickly. The downside is that Microsoft Access is itself very repeals is and can easily be revoked, without any trace, with a USB stick or CD-ROM. But there are ways to back up Microsoft Access and to prevent data from being lifted.
First, we take a look at Microsoft SQL Server...
Microsoft SQL Server is the tool of choice for many corporate environments, because it is a commercial database. His leading role in the commercial world is to store data that is slightly different to Microsoft Access. MS-Access, while it's a database, is where, such as Microsoft SQL Server stores only the data in tables, and data so that the user enter data database management system that you use to create a fully interactive UI. It must have the ability to use a front-end like ms access.
Microsoft SQL Server, they may contain large amounts of data to store, the elements such as photos, video, text, numbers, and much much more. Now, while I'm sure everyone is to say, "but Microsoft Access can do so", you are right to some extent, but Microsoft Access has very defined limits. Microsoft SQL Server is to Terra bytes worth of data where, such as Microsoft Access can treat only hand around 1 gigabytes of data, without any problems.
Can you use Microsoft SQL Server and Microsoft Access together...
The answer to this question is a clear yes. In fact, is systems MS SQL Server as a data store to develop my preferred method to use and then with MS Access as a front end. Together I combine the two simply SQL tables, Microsoft Access via an ODBC connection.
This method is, what I consider, the best way to create a database system that requires a medium to high security and integrity. There are a number of Gründen-
(1) Microsoft SQL Server is the security in the Microsoft Windows Active Directory security system integrated
2. Microsoft SQL Server can be automatically backed up
(3) It can do incremental backups which means it, can back up instead of only once at night during the day
(4) With the server using the Active Directory environment means that users only need a user name and need to login only once
5. Microsoft SQL Server databases can not easily be reproduced or copied without the SQL Server database administrator (DBA stands for database administrator)
6. It can handle terabytes worth of data, where, how Microsoft Access is questionable more than 1 gigabyte
7. Microsoft SQL Server provides several system processes on the server through stored procedures and DTS (data transformation services), how Microsoft Access client to do requires the processing
I'm pretty sure that most small business owners of this article and say: "Well not I this make" view. Now, let me tell you, you can. A software package called Microsoft Small Business Server Microsoft introduced many years ago. This package includes professional tools such as Microsoft SQL Server and Microsoft Exchange, and they price this package for around $1500 Australian. The main reason they have, was, so that small businesses the opportunity to access to professional resources on an effective and cost efficient price rather than at a disadvantage.
You can buy server in Australia with Microsoft Small Business Server for about $3000 and 4000 dollars, which is far more than that, a few years ago what was competitive. It also means that by you can Microsoft SQL Server available, the systems that they develop as professional as these organizations you can have multi million dollar budget.
The time for the use of ms access alone is really dependent on whether you need your data be mobile. If you do, and the security of the data is not important, is suitable then using Microsoft Access as a data store. For example the other day, a company that puts together mining information on contacts, wanted to distribute their information in a database format for people that want to in the industry know who. In this case, she developed their data in an Access database and distributed it to those who were willing to buy it in this format. Security in her case was not a problem because the customer for this have been paid, so it was installed, the system in a different format, that can use Microsoft SQL Server, rather than to develop Microsoft Access.
If, for example, the data that you store is indeed sensitive or is mission critical but be mobile. For example, you may need the data for a financial planner or loans mortgage broker, then should be stored in this case your data in MSDE. MSDE is in fact a reduction in the version of Microsoft SQL Server, and by design, it is far more secure than Microsoft Access plus it much is more difficult to copy the data.
The bottom line is, if your data is important for your business then principle data store should not MS Access, you should a system to develop, where is stored your data in Microsoft SQL Server and then with MS Access as a front end to edit the data. You should incorporate your SQL Server logins that with your Active Directory security system. If you use this technique, your data will be far more secure than if it only stored in Microsoft Access.

Napoleonic lessons for Google & Microsoft

A little history
Microsoft, the world's largest software vendor, has been around for quite a long time. Its target market is mainly selling operating systems and office applications for the desktop computers. Microsoft products are sold to computer manufacturers, i.e. Dell Computers, who in turn install and ship Microsoft software package to the consumers. So in a sense, consumers end up writing Bill Gates a $100+ check without ever knowing it. This is how Microsoft became to dominate the computer desktop industry and turned Bill Gates into modern day Henry Ford.
Google, on the other hand, is a relatively new company. It blossomed during the dot com boom, and eventually came to dominate the online search engine business. Today, Google attracts more than 200 million unique queries on its search engine every day; statistically speaking, each query generates 12 cents for the company...that is 8 zeros multiplied by 12! Google, for the most part, profits through its search based advertisement technology known as Adwords. Adwords makes online advertisement approachable in terms of easiness and affordability. Adwords, combined with a similar technology called Adsense, made Google endless amounts of cash. Google, today, is the undisputed champion of the online world.
How they became enemies
"When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna" - Napoleon
Until recently, both Google and Microsoft were living in harmony. The masses used Microsoft's Internet Explorer to surf Google's search engine. However, internet's seemingly unstoppable growth since the early 2000 began to attract the attention of many industries. Microsoft executives clearly saw Internet as the next big thing; possibly a market worth pursuing. Meanwhile, Google continued to make unprecedented strides within its search engine market. Having generated enough cash, however, Google took a different direction; founded by technology enthusiasts, Google began to enter various markets unrelated to its search business. Rumors began to spread that Google is building an online "free" Operating System and various other tools such as an alternative version to the dominating Internet Explorer. This, as you might have guessed, ticked off Microsoft, and it took the bait and decided to roll its war drums against Google. Microsoft, by the way, is not the only company that feels threatened by its presence. Other internet giants, such as AOL, Yahoo! and eBay, are also feeling the heat ever since Google embarked on its journey towards dominating any market of technological interest. Google innovated in markets that already existed and, surprisingly, came about to dominating them. For Microsoft, it was a threat worth neutralizing. Today, Google has its hands in web search, email, online videos, calendars, news, blogs, desktop search, photo sharing, online payments, social networking, instant messaging, WiFi, word processors, web hosting, web browser, search tool bars, spreadsheets, discussion groups, maps and more.
Before long, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo! and eBay maneuvered to encapsulate Google's ever-growing strength. Over two hundred years ago, Emperor Napoleon, the Google of his day, found himself in a similar situation. Russia, Prussia, Austria and Britain had decided to go to war.
The drums of war
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - Napoleon
Microsoft's take on this war is quite different from that of Google. Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, has repeatedly alleged that the online market is not a zero-sum game; in other words, it is possible for two or more players to dominate a large share of this market. Microsoft is not used to this. In the past it has decisively eliminated any competition, and taken the throne for itself. Consequently, Microsoft has publicly declared an all out war on Google.
Ironically, Google is the company that is on the attack; it has been aggressively pursuing Microsoft's market. However, using clever tactics, it has intimidated Microsoft to appear as the aggressor, while Google quietly carries on with its business. In other words, Google has lured Microsoft into a rash attack; when it ends up in disaster, Microsoft will have only themselves to blame, and everyone around them will blame them, too. Google will win both the battle of appearances and the battle on the field. Very few strategies offer such flexibility and power.
It takes more energy to take land than to hold it. Throughout history, defensive tactics have won more battles than the aggressors. After the first wave of siege, the aggressor loses the advantage of surprise attack and leaves himself exposed to a counter attack. The defender can clearly see his strategy and take protective action. Napoleon's most celebrated victory, the battle of Austerlitz was a counter attack, defeating a larger army with a kill ratio of 15 to 1. A defensive position has become the perfect way to disguise an offensive maneuver, a counter attack. Google has repeatedly asserted that it is not interested in competing with other businesses; it is a web search business only. They have used this facade to make Microsoft's concerns with the company seem paranoid; a clever move that worked. The fact remains that Google is a powerful secretive company, driven by smart people, and for a cause.
Do No Evil
"In war the moral is to the physical is as three to one"- Napoleon
In his day, most emperors preferred to hire mercenary armies simply because maintaining a healthy army of their own came at too much of an expense. Napoleon reversed this setback by recruiting young French loyalists more eager to fight for a greater France than for the money. As a result, during battle, French soldiers swiftly defeated much larger mercenary armies. My point? Bring people together around a cause and you create a motivated force.
With a 60% stake in the U.S. web search market, one might expect Google to have mottos of the kind "Let Google do the searching" or perhaps "Search fast, search Google". On the contrary, Google's motto is a simple "Do No Evil". Recently, web search companies were asked by U.S. intelligence agencies to transfer private data on user searches over to them; while other web search companies concurred with them, Google saw it as evil and denied. This decision alone drove Google's shares dwindling down several points on the NASDAQ, but Google remained true to its "Do No Evil" maxim. Google has come to be seen as a company driven not by the incentive of making money, but rather by the pursuit of knowledge through technological innovation; as a result, the company has used this justification to convince its competitors that it is not interested in defeating competition, but rather providing easier access to information for everyone, and hence making the world a better place. Google keeps its business silent and only attracts attention to the technological goodies it has brought to the masses. In fact, Google's Machiavellian tactics have worked so well that most of its users do not even know how or if Google makes money.
Google's army of 7000+ employees are loyal to the company. Over at Microsoft, the employees, especially senior executives, feel caged within the company; leaving Microsoft for Google might bring a lawsuit from the company, as it did for Kai-Fu Lee. To Microsoft's credit, Google is simply reaping fruit from the hype that Microsoft once enjoyed. Sooner or later, the quality and quantity of potential employees will inevitably decrease in size as the excitement around Google is neutralized.
Mobility through decentralized command
"Separate to live, unite to fight" - Napoleon
Genghis Khan, like Napoleon, was a master of mobility in war. In a very short period of time, his empire stretched from Korea all the way to Europe. Neither two conquerors could have expanded like they did if it weren't for mobility. Mobility was the key to decisive maneuvering during battle. Varying in size, from 15, 000 to 30, 000 men, each corps was a miniature army headed by a miniature Napoleon. Fluid, Fast, and Nonlinear. At the battle of Ulm, Napoleon completely surrounded the Austrian army within a few hours; cutting off any channels of escape or reinforcements. The Austrian emperor was forced to surrender an army of 30, 000 soldiers.
For a large company like Google, the hierarchy within the company is quite small. Google organizes employees in teams of three to five people. Each team is self directed, while the middle managers provide the required resources to support development within the teams. As a result, Google has fashioned a powerful self-directed decentralized approach towards product development. The consequence of such an arrangement is that there is no keystone employee or manager within the company. It is almost as if the company could run on its own even if it were divided into several smaller pieces. Forbes magazine described the phenomena this way: "Innovation will flourish for as long as the masses are running Google. When management forcefully steps in, the pace of change will slow." Microsoft, on the other hand, has a well known bureaucratic problem. There are over 12 layers of middle managers between executives and the developers. As a result, the company takes the course that its top managers set for it. Instead of allowing innovation to originate from developers, it flows from top level managers to code-monkeys at the lowest base. This is quite common in other companies as well. The natural tendency of a top manager in any company is to want to control the group, to coordinate its every movement, but that ends up tying the company to the past and to the slow moving armies in history. It takes strength of character to allow for a margin of chaos and uncertainty-to let go a little-but by decentralizing army and segmenting it into teams; company managers gain in mobility what they lose in complete control. A critical step in creating an efficient chain of command is assembling a skilled team that shares the same goals and values; once this is achieved, the top managers at Microsoft can contentedly allow the teams to think and direct on their own. As Joel Spolsky puts it, "The goal of any business owner should be to break his/her job into functional pieces that can be replicated over and over."
"The goal of any business owner should be to break his/her job into functional pieces that can be replicated over and over." - Joel Spolsky
Google Achilles:
"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets" - Napoleon
Napoleon demanded unprecedented loyalty from his men. When in 1815, Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to the mainland, King Louis XVIII sent the Fifth Regiment, led by Marshal Michel Ney who had formerly served under Napoleon in Russia, to fight him at Grenoble. Napoleon approached the regiment alone, dismounted his horse and, when he was within earshot of Ney's forces, shouted "Soldiers of the Fifth, you recognize me. If any man would shoot his emperor, he may do so now". Following a brief silence, the soldiers shouted "Vive L'Empereur!" and marched with Napoleon to Paris. The strength of his image echoed in the hearts and minds of, both, his allies and enemies. He described this himself as "I have destroyed the enemy merely by marches"
Whatever a company's strength might be, it is actually a potential weakness, simply because the company relies on it: neutralize it and the company is vulnerable. A company's task is to put its competitor in a situation in which it cannot use its advantage. Google's advantage is its brand.
"Public opinion is the thermometer a monarch should constantly consult" - Napoleon
The Wall Street judges Google's worth in terms of its shares value in the stock market. As of July 29, Google is trading at $388.12 per share, the highest bid/share I have ever heard. However, Google's out of the charts performance in the stock market is a weakness in disguise. Wall Street isn't thrilled with Google's secretive style of management, so the investor loyalty could be swayed quite easily. Google will lose its extraordinary command of the NASDAQ as soon as conditions stop favoring them. Google might have a strong user base, but its investor loyalty is at dismay. Without Wall Street's backing, Google will lose its share not only in the stock market, but in the public relations department as well. Google feeds off its brand, so any successful attack on its image will cripple the company even when it continues to generate cash.
Google depends on its hype. But hype does not stick around forever.
What Can Microsoft Do
"To extraordinary circumstances we must apply extraordinary remedies" - Napoleon
Google is successful not just for its technological innovation, but also for the command structure that makes this innovation possible and. Hence, to solely attack Google's technology is a mistake since Google will always manage to innovate with quick decisiveness, as it has in the past. Google's Achilles heel is its Adwords system; its money machine. Without it, Google can neither grow nor innovate.
The general rule for defeating any large army is to launch the attack on as narrow a front as possible. Whereas a defender must defend all their borders, an attacker has the advantage of being able to concentrate their forces at one place. By releasing, what seems to be a product every week, Google has stretched too thin. Aside from search and email, Google products are essentially at the mercy of another competitor, say Microsoft. Microsoft, with its MSN Search, cannot possibly defeat Google in search business, it is Google's core business and the company will protect it however possible. Sun Tzu stated this in the Art of War as "Put your enemies in a spot where they have no place to go, and they will die before fleeting. If they are to die then, what can they not do? Warriors exert their full strength. When warriors are in great danger, then they have no fear. When there is nowhere to go, they are firm, when they are deeply involved, they stick to it. If they have no choice, they will fight to death."
"Put your enemies in a spot where they have no place to go, and they will die before fleeting. If they are to die then, what can they not do? Warriors exert their full strength. When warriors are in great danger, then they have no fear. When there is nowhere to go, they are firm, when they are deeply involved, they stick to it. If they have no choice, they will fight to death" - The Art of War
Microsoft should adopt a partial non-competitive strategy. Instead of publicly and pragmatically target Google's main business, it should, with surgical precision, covertly attack products Google doesn't pay much attention to. Google's policy to let beta products become widely accepted organically is a weakness waiting to be exploited.
There are many non-conferential strategies Microsoft can adhere to:
1. The giant can enter markets that Google would never tackle; Microsoft's success in the gaming and music industry strengthens this point. Furthermore, Microsoft can let its allies (i.e. Yahoo!, AOL, eBay etc) confront Google in markets Microsoft wouldn't want to.
2. Google, with its recent release of Open Source project hosting, has subtly brought on its side a smart culture of developers who already dislike Microsoft. This form of passive strategy is what Google is best at. CEO Eric Schmidt once stated that a company's success lies in its programmers. Microsoft can hire more talented engineers. If there are two equally intelligent students competing for the top position, all they have to do is study 5 minutes more than the other would. Taking that one extra step in hiring employees will have a significant impact on the company's business.
3. Be more reserved. An attack kept silent has a better chance at succeeding than one that is clearly perceived and understood by the enemy. As Niccolo Machiavelli puts it "No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution."
"No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution." - Machiavelli
4. Decentralize product releases. Instead of passing product decisions through a layer of eleven managers, let the product innovation come from the engineers responsible for designing them. A much more effective road that Microsoft can take is to provide seed capital for other startups releasing products competitive to Google. This has several advantages. Startups are more focused and motivated. Microsoft wouldn't have to expend excess resources into startups since they can also rely on other VC's. Since startups can think and manage themselves, this will decentralize innovation and also rid Microsoft off its 11 layers of management.
5. As mentioned previously, Google's vital organ is its ad delivery mechanism. If Microsoft successfully releases a better system for delivering advertisements, it will decisively capture Google's hold on ad publishers. Due to Microsoft's huge hotmail user base, the company has an excellent opportunity at delivering more targeted advertisements.
6. Lastly, Google focuses a very small team, usually 3 to 5 engineers, on its beta products. Microsoft can take advantage of this by focusing more resources on similar products. Even though, smaller teams innovate faster, larger, more resourceful teams, have a better chance at success. A successful product requires the collective effort of more than just the engineering department.
"Between a battle lost and a battle won, the distance is immense and there stand empires" - Napoleon
Conclusion
Napoleon's tomb In the end, despite his genius, it was Napoleon who became overwhelmed by counter forces and lost. Unprecedented success often causes blindness. My advice for Google is to continue its rapid innovation but also put a tap on its uncontrolled product releases. As for Microsoft, despite the company's several ill conceived tactics, it has a lot of potential for improvement and much to learn from its rival, Google.
Notes:
(1) Some excerpts were taken from "33 Strategies of War".
(2) Despite the critical tone of this article, I can't help but think how dull the tech world would be without either of these companies. I will gladly take down any part of this article if anyone at, either company, is disturbed by it.
(3) I didn't write this solely for the purpose of comparing Napoleon's strategies with that of Google or Microsoft. I wanted to write a piece that gave a strategic analysis for both companies. I wish I could've written some more on this subject, but thought most readers would fall asleep. I can't write, I am an engineer.
(4) Any research on this article was done through Google. The article itself was written on Microsoft Word.