Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.Get your price
121 writers online
Strategic Business Acumen: Achieving Google’s Mission
To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful – Google
Google has been known as the primary catalyst in bringing out the innovativeness and creativity in this very dynamic Internet surge. Google opened expansive opportunities to each and every user around the world from its inception in 1998 by Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Ojala, 2003). Moreover, Google has brought anew life on various internet-related products and services. From the past, Google is coined as Internet search engine along with the renowned services such as Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Videos, Google Images, Gmail, Google News, Google Phone, Google Calendar, Google Groups, Google Translate, and Google Books. Subsequently, Google had another quantum leap from the time Google Mail was introduced in 2004 and fossilized its image in becoming as the largest email provider. In 2010, a driverless car phenomenon became a reality from the introduction of Google Car (Poczter & Jankovic, 2014). This project aimed to provide a “profound effect on energy consumption, efficiency, and traffic accidents” using the hybrid technology and innovation (Poczter & Jankovic, 2014, p. 7). The commitment, teamwork, responsiveness and flexibility to technological advancements marked the mental faculty of the renowned developers of Google. The strategic vision emanates from all of its employees where quality and productivity is the primordial movers leading to deliverable outcomes enjoyed by majority of the consumers. Along with this, the mission sheds out creativity and innovation on its products and services set the standards that contributed to the continuous growth of their success. Parnell (2010) vibrantly surmised that business strategy and organizational performance are significantly link together. In this regard, a need for strategic clarity should be embedded as a prima facie evidence in achieving both organizational vision and mission. This holds true in the case of Google. Each employee is provided with a working environment that makes it conducive for massive production of technologically well thought of products and services. In line with this, employees are highly motivated to look into their ideas and novelty contributions that are beyond the “normal areas” (Collin, 2008, p. 2). Furthermore, the system utilized by organization intertwines collaborative praxes to critically appraise all the input, processes and outcomes expected from any project planned, initiated and implemented. These are exemplified in the two flagship programs including AdWords and AdSense where win-win situations are guaranteed. Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010 cited in Mysen, 2008) categorized organizations namely (1) those that are dominated by internal, process-oriented value systems, tend to focus on economic performance, directed at maximizing economic gains, and only adopting sustainability in developing strategic business units that positively affect the bottom line; (2) those that are dominated by social, or human-relations oriented values, and support social entrepreneurship in the organization; (3) those with open-systems values that recognize the importance of the wider social and economic external environment; and (4) those whose rational-goals values motivate sustainability because of reducing cost and increasing operational efficiency.
Coalescing Google’s Information System and Business Strategy
According to Chi-Hung et al. (2012) conclude, “the capability of information systems could have a direct and significant effect on the quality of IT strategy implementation, and how the quality of this process could affect e-business performance” (p. 197). This finding is in conjunction on how Google utilizes its IT resources. Employees are prompted on free and open access to IT. Through this, it maintains openness on the available resources and collaborative approaches for possible integration on the projected products and services. Software like Oracle maintains the customer relationship management, GoogleApps, algorithmic application for security reasons and among others. More to this, detective and corrective measures are all integrated where security engineers monitor any forms of probable viruses, spywares and Internet traffics. Chi-Hung et al. (2012) revealed that collaboration capability is imperative and can be achieved through cross-departmental communication. Corollary, an individual is not a stand-alone entity that works in silo but rather group-sharing capability within the organization is also highly important. On the contrary, if this domain is unattended by the organization would lead to low degree of internal cooperation, high-introduction expenditure, long-introduction scheduling, failure in system integration or rigidity of system process (Chi-Hung et al., 2012).
Supporting Google’s organizational and business strategy
The organizational culture exemplified by Google is heightened with innovation and synergistic thinking. Aside from considering the employees’ level of satisfaction and motivation, it continues to develop nexus on the products and services they offered. The working milieu is intended for continuous progress and sustainable growth through a more responsive and updated IT infrastructures. Mayer (2012) strategically crafted nine notions of innovations along with organizational culture. Since Google is organized using information that is universal, accepted, needed and wanted, it enables also the organizational strategy to look into the structure, and control system. These include behavioral and interpersonal process elements (McGuiness & Morgan, 2005). Organizational culture and climate should be complementary because both of this will continue develop a shared value-laden vision. Consequently, a dynamic strategy outcome should be linked to “strategy process to each type of strategy dynamic outcome: the process should be matched to the type of strategy dynamics, rather than to generic strategy content or level (business, corporate or international)” (Chakravarthy and White, 2002 cited in McGuiness & Morgan, 2005).
Porter’s three generic strategies and Google
Porter’s three generic strategies provide a frame of reference on the “firm’s competitive behavior is an important domain for practitioners, theorists, and policymakers (Ormanidi & Stringa, 2008, p. 55). On the other hand, it illuminates competitive advantage and strategy that would serve as an instrumentality to provide continuous and sustainable market and business of an organization. There are three generic strategies that are engrained with competitive behavior namely: (1) structure of industries, mainly defined by the degree of concentration, market share distribution, etc., (2) conduct of firms, which involves firms’ actions in terms of their price setting, advertisement spending, technology, etc.; and performance of firms/industries, mainly defined by measures of profitability but which were especially related to the extent of market power (Ormanidi & Stringa, 2008). On the other hand, Porter also suggests that towards competitive edge, organizations need to look into five competitive forces including threat of new entry; intensity of rivalry among existing firms; pressure from substitute products; bargaining power of buyers, and bargaining power of suppliers. To address and alleviate these five forces, organization requires conglomerated efforts on commitment and stronghold organizational support.
Figure 1 Porter’s 3 Generic Strategies
In a world where competition prevails, any organization may experience compartmentalization of its integrated components. Human resources, the hierarchical structure, information, products, services and among others should be properly deliberated on how these facets can contribute towards business niche. In the case of Google, despite the recognition it receives from the users and consumers, the organization is often faceted with multitude risks. However, what makes Google remain as the top grossing Internet-based organization are the identified and differentiated strategy it employs. Google commits itself on employee engagement and lifelong learning preparation. Employees are treated with equal rights towards knowledge development and management and provided with continuous support from top to bottom approach. There is culture of adaptation and responsiveness on significant impact of technological advancement adapted to make the entire system operational, functional, yet secured. Furthermore, the IT infrastructures are properly maintained with security experts and software appurtenant to the technological advancements. In terms of the services to the worldwide web, Internet search engine has become more easy and accessible. Users and consumers would rather consider fast-paced process of search with universality concepts. In addition, Google never stop in scaffolding its products services with a macro view of environment, strategy and firm performance (Stefanovic, & Milosevic, 2012). In this regard, Google develops progressively because these three domains are integrated without fragmenting one from the other. Predominantly, among the attributes explained, Google maintains the utilization of differentiation strategy.
Google’s strategy and the type of market disruption it has created using a dynamic environment perspective
Market disruption hinders the expanding growth and progress of certain organization. One big challenge that remains among leaders in the organization is on how to cease the barriers towards competitive behaviors and business strategy. In a knowledge-based economy, competition would always be the game. Whenever Google is derailed in their current products and services developed, competitors would always at the loopholes particularly those who have been at the topmost ranking internet-business environment. Google as a company where it maintains participatory action to alleviate any form of disruption, Reinhardt (1998) suggests the following modalities that include: (1) firms must discover or create a willingness in consumers to pay for public goods; (2) firms must overcome barriers to the dissemination of credible information about the environmental attributes of their products; and firms must defend themselves against imitation
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.
Your essay sample has been sent.
Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now
Are you interested in getting a customized paper?Check it out!