|
On January 06 2014 00:47 MightyAtom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2014 00:03 Chexx wrote:
what do you think about korean work culture? I like the socializing part after work which is why I would like to try working in SK after finishing university. It's brutally tough, not because its a lot of work, but because the hours can be unnecessarily long, and things are not very efficient in a systematic way and deadlines are nutty, but yet, everything always gets done and done properly (that may be debatable, but as long as it gets the results lol). The socializing after work 'hwae-shik' can be official or informal with your buddies (in which case it is just normal socializing), but a lot of the younger generations don't like it as they think they are being forced to drink, especially the women, but if you like that kind of thing, then you're in the right place (I personally liked it too).
so true and I'm not even in South Korea
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
|
On January 06 2014 00:47 MightyAtom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2014 00:03 Chexx wrote:
what do you think about korean work culture? I like the socializing part after work which is why I would like to try working in SK after finishing university. It's brutally tough, not because its a lot of work, but because the hours can be unnecessarily long, and things are not very efficient in a systematic way and deadlines are nutty, but yet, everything always gets done and done properly (that may be debatable, but as long as it gets the results lol).
Thats what I experience at Kiup Bank in the last 6 months or so. Kinda frustrated that late stay at the office is pretty usual while I could have finished way sooner & with less issues (and the overtime payment is not worth it lol). Shortcut or clever way are not encouraged. I'd say their working style is somewhat conservative, which is rather sad in a time when everyone writes "result-oriented" in their CV.
|
Happy New Year hyung! Good to hear from you
|
I'm assuming you've read a bit about how Gabe Newell non-traditionally handles his company, Valve Software. I'm just curious to know what you think about that type of structure in a business and if you think it's generalizable to other businesses.
|
Korea (South)1897 Posts
On January 12 2014 02:30 fly.stat wrote:
I'm assuming you've read a bit about how Gabe Newell non-traditionally handles his company, Valve Software. I'm just curious to know what you think about that type of structure in a business and if you think it's generalizable to other businesses.
Well first off, hi to everyone!
Second off, thanks for this question, it gave me a good mental break to think and refresh myself on this..
well, I think Gabe is great and obviously he is quite intelligent, but also extremely knowledgeable about his market/industry and where it is going. I think this is what gives him such great insight and he was/is ballsy/confident to bank his entire management philosophy on this; and it has worked, so he is pretty awesome ^^
In the same respect, to really understand his business management structure you need to get that it is built on his business model infrastructure which not only allows for Gabe to have his zero layer management structure, but also that, for his business model infrastructure- this zero layer management structure is the ideal for how to maximize and specialize on what the business model infrastructure provides/allows for- over that of the existing industry.
But what makes him ballsy is that it seems as though he started with this flat management style as a response to what he saw the game development industry moving towards - this flat management style wasn't something he just added in after he had their own established distribution and marketing channel (i.e. steam distribution & the marketing via player game contributions). I think the other thing is that they had a massive hit game that really solidified their financial position - so that with being private, again gave them a lot of space to make their flat management system work (i.e. no massive do or die pressure to produce work).
Fundamentally, what Gabe has done is via steam is really create a platform position in the game industry, the same thing as Facebook or even Youtube, but beyond advertising, the virtual items are like fashion items for what is important to the geeks/nerds. Since their business model really is based on a platform position, their focus can be simply development to create a hit game that allows for user generated content to add value to the game 'platform'. So if you buy that line of understanding- then they are in a special position to just focus really on creating a hit game because of the network platform position (i.e. established network player base, nearly zero cost marketing with high value ideal consumers, aka the steam player), so, when you're separated/insulated from the effects of short term intense competition, you can do away with marketing departments, strategic departments & of course the need for hierarchy management as hierarchy management is extremely necessary in time pressured competitive environments. i.e. if you don't do it first, then you die and the other guy lives.
So an extreme opposite example would be war- competition is an extreme time pressure- meaning you simply don't have all the luxury in the world to 'think' about what to develop, you have limited resources to use (unlike digital goods/code, where if you have talented programmers they can pump out code like no tomorrow), and there is limited information before you are forced to make a decision. Sometimes business is like that because they are not in a platform network position (actually most are not), but another case in war where it can be flat is a navy seal team of 12 going off to assassinate a target. They all are basically extremely talented in what they do in general combat, they specialize in one thing specifically like hand-to-hand, sniping, urban warefare etc. BUT, they are also supported by an huge infrastructure of intelligence, equipment, training and logistics. What I'm saying is that Steam, by their business model (and of course, not taking anything away from it, in fact, Gabe is awesome and ballsy) allows them to have such a flat business management model.
You'd only be able to have such a model where the individual's productivity is not based on any other resource other than time and personal focus/talent (e.g.. coding, greeting card writer) and that productivity can be transformed/realized as profit/revenue immediately (e.g. analog farming ^^, you milk the cow, you can sell the milk) and the product itself allows it to be resold and yet via revenue share the new product by-product can provide continued revenue for the platform provider and the reseller/re-inventor (e.g. a intellectual patent); but of course my examples are all tongue in cheek because this is exactly what most external network business do, such as a telecom network (line rentals, equipment, phones), to facebook (game revenue share) to even Amazon via book reviews and affiliate codes and of course itunes and mobile apps.
But what make Steam's management structure a necessity is that the work and creative genius that needs to go into really creating a hit game opposed to the luckbox nature of a mobile app or the pure creative genius/talent of a hit song, is a fucking lot and it needs that creative freedom, but also crazy productivity together to create that. I dont' think that is a formula that Gabe himself has perfected from this model either (i.e. creating a hit game), but he has done it better than most other companies out there- but one thing that works perfectly that affords his company the ability to work like this and be financially healthy enough to engage this way is of course the platform business model (which I can't say enough is awesome and ballsy considering when he did it) - but if someone wants to disagree on the the hit game thing that this flat management structure produces - all I'm saying is that, this isn't the 100% formula for it, but it probably does the next best and most consistent job towards that objective, but if it was 100% then they wouldn't have remade Dota as Dota2, now would they have ^^ keke (not that I'm complaining, cause I'm a HUGE fan of both), but again, as a professional management consultant and also in a similar industry (and from the game industry way way back when), I think the flat management style is a real second place to the actual set-up and positioning of the company business model as a whole to have the vision and foresight and insight to set it up that way, which regardless makes Gabe awesome and ballsy.
^^
edit:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-06-microsoft-we-should-have-been-building-something-like-steam
I just found this, but if you read it, Phil is dumb, Steam already is an established platform even it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, you don't just wake up one day and decide to reinvent yourself as a platform, it has to be positioned from years out.
|
On January 05 2014 23:56 MightyAtom wrote:
BLANK
The only thing I haven't figure out is what I can contribute to TL, I can't really write about business or my experience in business for a while longer, its just a bit too sensitive. From the last 6 months I've been absent from TL on all levels and it's not something I wanted to do, but when I realized I really couldn't write about my travels or work in detail and I wasn't ready to open up an ask me anything about being a man Korean style, well, I thought about what I could write and came up blank.
You have a process. You constantly think about growth and how to hit the next level. Your storytelling style relies on specifics, but, do you really need them?
ABOUT A BOOK
So what I'd rather do then is leave you with a book you should read, cause it is a great book, and I got so much out of it, in that it simply is an extremely well written book on so many levels; I'd say it is nearly as good a 'Good to Great'. It's not a heavy book, but I think it is a clear simple and significant book. The title is 'The power of Habit' by Charles Duhigg, It's not a self help book etc, and while I think I can apply the business principles easily enough, the personal ones, not so. But I think without getting into details about it, it is one of the better books I have read in the last 3 years, and I think that is saying a lot.
This has been on my to-read list for three weeks. Now it's in my Amazon order history. Another one along similar lines is Mindset, this one goes into specifics that Good to Great references and even analyze's portions of Collin's book itself.
Also, if you're looking for something awesome to get your kids, check these out.
RC Helicopters on Amazon are phenomenal - really fun, $100+ off, and they're freaking durable - I bought two so I could replace the second one once I broke the first one from horrible flying, but it just won't break and its gotten to the point where I just fly it into stuff. Really great for chasing pets.
Plus, they say, if you want to fly a drone, fly one of these first. So if you ever decide to pony up the $1500 it is right now to get an industrial drone to go get you bagels, you don't even have to worry about it. Your son can take care of it.
|
wow this is interesting
+ Show Spoiler +On January 13 2014 02:13 MightyAtom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 02:30 fly.stat wrote:
I'm assuming you've read a bit about how Gabe Newell non-traditionally handles his company, Valve Software. I'm just curious to know what you think about that type of structure in a business and if you think it's generalizable to other businesses. Well first off, hi to everyone! Second off, thanks for this question, it gave me a good mental break to think and refresh myself on this.. well, I think Gabe is great and obviously he is quite intelligent, but also extremely knowledgeable about his market/industry and where it is going. I think this is what gives him such great insight and he was/is ballsy/confident to bank his entire management philosophy on this; and it has worked, so he is pretty awesome ^^ In the same respect, to really understand his business management structure you need to get that it is built on his business model infrastructure which not only allows for Gabe to have his zero layer management structure, but also that, for his business model infrastructure- this zero layer management structure is the ideal for how to maximize and specialize on what the business model infrastructure provides/allows for- over that of the existing industry. But what makes him ballsy is that it seems as though he started with this flat management style as a response to what he saw the game development industry moving towards - this flat management style wasn't something he just added in after he had their own established distribution and marketing channel (i.e. steam distribution & the marketing via player game contributions). I think the other thing is that they had a massive hit game that really solidified their financial position - so that with being private, again gave them a lot of space to make their flat management system work (i.e. no massive do or die pressure to produce work). Fundamentally, what Gabe has done is via steam is really create a platform position in the game industry, the same thing as Facebook or even Youtube, but beyond advertising, the virtual items are like fashion items for what is important to the geeks/nerds. Since their business model really is based on a platform position, their focus can be simply development to create a hit game that allows for user generated content to add value to the game 'platform'. So if you buy that line of understanding- then they are in a special position to just focus really on creating a hit game because of the network platform position (i.e. established network player base, nearly zero cost marketing with high value ideal consumers, aka the steam player), so, when you're separated/insulated from the effects of short term intense competition, you can do away with marketing departments, strategic departments & of course the need for hierarchy management as hierarchy management is extremely necessary in time pressured competitive environments. i.e. if you don't do it first, then you die and the other guy lives. So an extreme opposite example would be war- competition is an extreme time pressure- meaning you simply don't have all the luxury in the world to 'think' about what to develop, you have limited resources to use (unlike digital goods/code, where if you have talented programmers they can pump out code like no tomorrow), and there is limited information before you are forced to make a decision. Sometimes business is like that because they are not in a platform network position (actually most are not), but another case in war where it can be flat is a navy seal team of 12 going off to assassinate a target. They all are basically extremely talented in what they do in general combat, they specialize in one thing specifically like hand-to-hand, sniping, urban warefare etc. BUT, they are also supported by an huge infrastructure of intelligence, equipment, training and logistics. What I'm saying is that Steam, by their business model (and of course, not taking anything away from it, in fact, Gabe is awesome and ballsy) allows them to have such a flat business management model. You'd only be able to have such a model where the individual's productivity is not based on any other resource other than time and personal focus/talent (e.g.. coding, greeting card writer) and that productivity can be transformed/realized as profit/revenue immediately (e.g. analog farming ^^, you milk the cow, you can sell the milk) and the product itself allows it to be resold and yet via revenue share the new product by-product can provide continued revenue for the platform provider and the reseller/re-inventor (e.g. a intellectual patent); but of course my examples are all tongue in cheek because this is exactly what most external network business do, such as a telecom network (line rentals, equipment, phones), to facebook (game revenue share) to even Amazon via book reviews and affiliate codes and of course itunes and mobile apps. But what make Steam's management structure a necessity is that the work and creative genius that needs to go into really creating a hit game opposed to the luckbox nature of a mobile app or the pure creative genius/talent of a hit song, is a fucking lot and it needs that creative freedom, but also crazy productivity together to create that. I dont' think that is a formula that Gabe himself has perfected from this model either (i.e. creating a hit game), but he has done it better than most other companies out there- but one thing that works perfectly that affords his company the ability to work like this and be financially healthy enough to engage this way is of course the platform business model (which I can't say enough is awesome and ballsy considering when he did it) - but if someone wants to disagree on the the hit game thing that this flat management structure produces - all I'm saying is that, this isn't the 100% formula for it, but it probably does the next best and most consistent job towards that objective, but if it was 100% then they wouldn't have remade Dota as Dota2, now would they have ^^ keke (not that I'm complaining, cause I'm a HUGE fan of both), but again, as a professional management consultant and also in a similar industry (and from the game industry way way back when), I think the flat management style is a real second place to the actual set-up and positioning of the company business model as a whole to have the vision and foresight and insight to set it up that way, which regardless makes Gabe awesome and ballsy. ^^ edit: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-06-microsoft-we-should-have-been-building-something-like-steamI just found this, but if you read it, Phil is dumb, Steam already is an established platform even it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, you don't just wake up one day and decide to reinvent yourself as a platform, it has to be positioned from years out.
what other places do you see a flat structure working extremely well? where do you see the drawbacks and disadvantages?
|
Korea (South)1897 Posts
On January 13 2014 02:53 KurtistheTurtle wrote:wow this is interesting + Show Spoiler +On January 13 2014 02:13 MightyAtom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 02:30 fly.stat wrote:
I'm assuming you've read a bit about how Gabe Newell non-traditionally handles his company, Valve Software. I'm just curious to know what you think about that type of structure in a business and if you think it's generalizable to other businesses. Well first off, hi to everyone! Second off, thanks for this question, it gave me a good mental break to think and refresh myself on this.. well, I think Gabe is great and obviously he is quite intelligent, but also extremely knowledgeable about his market/industry and where it is going. I think this is what gives him such great insight and he was/is ballsy/confident to bank his entire management philosophy on this; and it has worked, so he is pretty awesome ^^ In the same respect, to really understand his business management structure you need to get that it is built on his business model infrastructure which not only allows for Gabe to have his zero layer management structure, but also that, for his business model infrastructure- this zero layer management structure is the ideal for how to maximize and specialize on what the business model infrastructure provides/allows for- over that of the existing industry. But what makes him ballsy is that it seems as though he started with this flat management style as a response to what he saw the game development industry moving towards - this flat management style wasn't something he just added in after he had their own established distribution and marketing channel (i.e. steam distribution & the marketing via player game contributions). I think the other thing is that they had a massive hit game that really solidified their financial position - so that with being private, again gave them a lot of space to make their flat management system work (i.e. no massive do or die pressure to produce work). Fundamentally, what Gabe has done is via steam is really create a platform position in the game industry, the same thing as Facebook or even Youtube, but beyond advertising, the virtual items are like fashion items for what is important to the geeks/nerds. Since their business model really is based on a platform position, their focus can be simply development to create a hit game that allows for user generated content to add value to the game 'platform'. So if you buy that line of understanding- then they are in a special position to just focus really on creating a hit game because of the network platform position (i.e. established network player base, nearly zero cost marketing with high value ideal consumers, aka the steam player), so, when you're separated/insulated from the effects of short term intense competition, you can do away with marketing departments, strategic departments & of course the need for hierarchy management as hierarchy management is extremely necessary in time pressured competitive environments. i.e. if you don't do it first, then you die and the other guy lives. So an extreme opposite example would be war- competition is an extreme time pressure- meaning you simply don't have all the luxury in the world to 'think' about what to develop, you have limited resources to use (unlike digital goods/code, where if you have talented programmers they can pump out code like no tomorrow), and there is limited information before you are forced to make a decision. Sometimes business is like that because they are not in a platform network position (actually most are not), but another case in war where it can be flat is a navy seal team of 12 going off to assassinate a target. They all are basically extremely talented in what they do in general combat, they specialize in one thing specifically like hand-to-hand, sniping, urban warefare etc. BUT, they are also supported by an huge infrastructure of intelligence, equipment, training and logistics. What I'm saying is that Steam, by their business model (and of course, not taking anything away from it, in fact, Gabe is awesome and ballsy) allows them to have such a flat business management model. You'd only be able to have such a model where the individual's productivity is not based on any other resource other than time and personal focus/talent (e.g.. coding, greeting card writer) and that productivity can be transformed/realized as profit/revenue immediately (e.g. analog farming ^^, you milk the cow, you can sell the milk) and the product itself allows it to be resold and yet via revenue share the new product by-product can provide continued revenue for the platform provider and the reseller/re-inventor (e.g. a intellectual patent); but of course my examples are all tongue in cheek because this is exactly what most external network business do, such as a telecom network (line rentals, equipment, phones), to facebook (game revenue share) to even Amazon via book reviews and affiliate codes and of course itunes and mobile apps. But what make Steam's management structure a necessity is that the work and creative genius that needs to go into really creating a hit game opposed to the luckbox nature of a mobile app or the pure creative genius/talent of a hit song, is a fucking lot and it needs that creative freedom, but also crazy productivity together to create that. I dont' think that is a formula that Gabe himself has perfected from this model either (i.e. creating a hit game), but he has done it better than most other companies out there- but one thing that works perfectly that affords his company the ability to work like this and be financially healthy enough to engage this way is of course the platform business model (which I can't say enough is awesome and ballsy considering when he did it) - but if someone wants to disagree on the the hit game thing that this flat management structure produces - all I'm saying is that, this isn't the 100% formula for it, but it probably does the next best and most consistent job towards that objective, but if it was 100% then they wouldn't have remade Dota as Dota2, now would they have ^^ keke (not that I'm complaining, cause I'm a HUGE fan of both), but again, as a professional management consultant and also in a similar industry (and from the game industry way way back when), I think the flat management style is a real second place to the actual set-up and positioning of the company business model as a whole to have the vision and foresight and insight to set it up that way, which regardless makes Gabe awesome and ballsy. ^^ edit: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-06-microsoft-we-should-have-been-building-something-like-steamI just found this, but if you read it, Phil is dumb, Steam already is an established platform even it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, you don't just wake up one day and decide to reinvent yourself as a platform, it has to be positioned from years out. what other places do you see a flat structure working extremely well? where do you see the drawbacks and disadvantages?
ah this is too heavy of a question for me to answer now that i'm exhausted from work again lol.
In elite management consulting or any elite team where you need specialists and a very specific task, flat works great like a navy seal team or even an audit team where everyone really needs to contribute overall, but they have their specialty to really make the end results great. other than that, it wouldn't work where the product and productivity requires more than just your specialty, i.e. manufacturing - as it is by coordination in which a product is made and to ensure quality control etc. You can win a mission with a flat structure, but you won't generally win a war where there are many divisions to coordinate to create a greater effect that the sum. The coordination needs an hierarchy full stop, without that organization, it would simply take too much time get your result - even it would be better in the long wrong, you may be dead before then as your enemy crashes your tea party.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 13 2014 02:13 MightyAtom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 02:30 fly.stat wrote:
I'm assuming you've read a bit about how Gabe Newell non-traditionally handles his company, Valve Software. I'm just curious to know what you think about that type of structure in a business and if you think it's generalizable to other businesses. Well first off, hi to everyone! Second off, thanks for this question, it gave me a good mental break to think and refresh myself on this.. well, I think Gabe is great and obviously he is quite intelligent, but also extremely knowledgeable about his market/industry and where it is going. I think this is what gives him such great insight and he was/is ballsy/confident to bank his entire management philosophy on this; and it has worked, so he is pretty awesome ^^ In the same respect, to really understand his business management structure you need to get that it is built on his business model infrastructure which not only allows for Gabe to have his zero layer management structure, but also that, for his business model infrastructure- this zero layer management structure is the ideal for how to maximize and specialize on what the business model infrastructure provides/allows for- over that of the existing industry. But what makes him ballsy is that it seems as though he started with this flat management style as a response to what he saw the game development industry moving towards - this flat management style wasn't something he just added in after he had their own established distribution and marketing channel (i.e. steam distribution & the marketing via player game contributions). I think the other thing is that they had a massive hit game that really solidified their financial position - so that with being private, again gave them a lot of space to make their flat management system work (i.e. no massive do or die pressure to produce work). Fundamentally, what Gabe has done is via steam is really create a platform position in the game industry, the same thing as Facebook or even Youtube, but beyond advertising, the virtual items are like fashion items for what is important to the geeks/nerds. Since their business model really is based on a platform position, their focus can be simply development to create a hit game that allows for user generated content to add value to the game 'platform'. So if you buy that line of understanding- then they are in a special position to just focus really on creating a hit game because of the network platform position (i.e. established network player base, nearly zero cost marketing with high value ideal consumers, aka the steam player), so, when you're separated/insulated from the effects of short term intense competition, you can do away with marketing departments, strategic departments & of course the need for hierarchy management as hierarchy management is extremely necessary in time pressured competitive environments. i.e. if you don't do it first, then you die and the other guy lives. So an extreme opposite example would be war- competition is an extreme time pressure- meaning you simply don't have all the luxury in the world to 'think' about what to develop, you have limited resources to use (unlike digital goods/code, where if you have talented programmers they can pump out code like no tomorrow), and there is limited information before you are forced to make a decision. Sometimes business is like that because they are not in a platform network position (actually most are not), but another case in war where it can be flat is a navy seal team of 12 going off to assassinate a target. They all are basically extremely talented in what they do in general combat, they specialize in one thing specifically like hand-to-hand, sniping, urban warefare etc. BUT, they are also supported by an huge infrastructure of intelligence, equipment, training and logistics. What I'm saying is that Steam, by their business model (and of course, not taking anything away from it, in fact, Gabe is awesome and ballsy) allows them to have such a flat business management model. You'd only be able to have such a model where the individual's productivity is not based on any other resource other than time and personal focus/talent (e.g.. coding, greeting card writer) and that productivity can be transformed/realized as profit/revenue immediately (e.g. analog farming ^^, you milk the cow, you can sell the milk) and the product itself allows it to be resold and yet via revenue share the new product by-product can provide continued revenue for the platform provider and the reseller/re-inventor (e.g. a intellectual patent); but of course my examples are all tongue in cheek because this is exactly what most external network business do, such as a telecom network (line rentals, equipment, phones), to facebook (game revenue share) to even Amazon via book reviews and affiliate codes and of course itunes and mobile apps. But what make Steam's management structure a necessity is that the work and creative genius that needs to go into really creating a hit game opposed to the luckbox nature of a mobile app or the pure creative genius/talent of a hit song, is a fucking lot and it needs that creative freedom, but also crazy productivity together to create that. I dont' think that is a formula that Gabe himself has perfected from this model either (i.e. creating a hit game), but he has done it better than most other companies out there- but one thing that works perfectly that affords his company the ability to work like this and be financially healthy enough to engage this way is of course the platform business model (which I can't say enough is awesome and ballsy considering when he did it) - but if someone wants to disagree on the the hit game thing that this flat management structure produces - all I'm saying is that, this isn't the 100% formula for it, but it probably does the next best and most consistent job towards that objective, but if it was 100% then they wouldn't have remade Dota as Dota2, now would they have ^^ keke (not that I'm complaining, cause I'm a HUGE fan of both), but again, as a professional management consultant and also in a similar industry (and from the game industry way way back when), I think the flat management style is a real second place to the actual set-up and positioning of the company business model as a whole to have the vision and foresight and insight to set it up that way, which regardless makes Gabe awesome and ballsy. ^^ edit: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-06-microsoft-we-should-have-been-building-something-like-steamI just found this, but if you read it, Phil is dumb, Steam already is an established platform even it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, you don't just wake up one day and decide to reinvent yourself as a platform, it has to be positioned from years out.
Wow, I didn't expect that kind of a response! I forgot that I asked you this question until today LOL (last semester GOGO).
That was really interesting. I don't know shit about business, but you really explained it well. I actually feel sort of bad that I prompted that detailed of a response. Thanks! <3
|
On January 22 2014 03:02 MightyAtom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 02:53 KurtistheTurtle wrote:wow this is interesting + Show Spoiler +On January 13 2014 02:13 MightyAtom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 02:30 fly.stat wrote:
I'm assuming you've read a bit about how Gabe Newell non-traditionally handles his company, Valve Software. I'm just curious to know what you think about that type of structure in a business and if you think it's generalizable to other businesses. Well first off, hi to everyone! Second off, thanks for this question, it gave me a good mental break to think and refresh myself on this.. well, I think Gabe is great and obviously he is quite intelligent, but also extremely knowledgeable about his market/industry and where it is going. I think this is what gives him such great insight and he was/is ballsy/confident to bank his entire management philosophy on this; and it has worked, so he is pretty awesome ^^ In the same respect, to really understand his business management structure you need to get that it is built on his business model infrastructure which not only allows for Gabe to have his zero layer management structure, but also that, for his business model infrastructure- this zero layer management structure is the ideal for how to maximize and specialize on what the business model infrastructure provides/allows for- over that of the existing industry. But what makes him ballsy is that it seems as though he started with this flat management style as a response to what he saw the game development industry moving towards - this flat management style wasn't something he just added in after he had their own established distribution and marketing channel (i.e. steam distribution & the marketing via player game contributions). I think the other thing is that they had a massive hit game that really solidified their financial position - so that with being private, again gave them a lot of space to make their flat management system work (i.e. no massive do or die pressure to produce work). Fundamentally, what Gabe has done is via steam is really create a platform position in the game industry, the same thing as Facebook or even Youtube, but beyond advertising, the virtual items are like fashion items for what is important to the geeks/nerds. Since their business model really is based on a platform position, their focus can be simply development to create a hit game that allows for user generated content to add value to the game 'platform'. So if you buy that line of understanding- then they are in a special position to just focus really on creating a hit game because of the network platform position (i.e. established network player base, nearly zero cost marketing with high value ideal consumers, aka the steam player), so, when you're separated/insulated from the effects of short term intense competition, you can do away with marketing departments, strategic departments & of course the need for hierarchy management as hierarchy management is extremely necessary in time pressured competitive environments. i.e. if you don't do it first, then you die and the other guy lives. So an extreme opposite example would be war- competition is an extreme time pressure- meaning you simply don't have all the luxury in the world to 'think' about what to develop, you have limited resources to use (unlike digital goods/code, where if you have talented programmers they can pump out code like no tomorrow), and there is limited information before you are forced to make a decision. Sometimes business is like that because they are not in a platform network position (actually most are not), but another case in war where it can be flat is a navy seal team of 12 going off to assassinate a target. They all are basically extremely talented in what they do in general combat, they specialize in one thing specifically like hand-to-hand, sniping, urban warefare etc. BUT, they are also supported by an huge infrastructure of intelligence, equipment, training and logistics. What I'm saying is that Steam, by their business model (and of course, not taking anything away from it, in fact, Gabe is awesome and ballsy) allows them to have such a flat business management model. You'd only be able to have such a model where the individual's productivity is not based on any other resource other than time and personal focus/talent (e.g.. coding, greeting card writer) and that productivity can be transformed/realized as profit/revenue immediately (e.g. analog farming ^^, you milk the cow, you can sell the milk) and the product itself allows it to be resold and yet via revenue share the new product by-product can provide continued revenue for the platform provider and the reseller/re-inventor (e.g. a intellectual patent); but of course my examples are all tongue in cheek because this is exactly what most external network business do, such as a telecom network (line rentals, equipment, phones), to facebook (game revenue share) to even Amazon via book reviews and affiliate codes and of course itunes and mobile apps. But what make Steam's management structure a necessity is that the work and creative genius that needs to go into really creating a hit game opposed to the luckbox nature of a mobile app or the pure creative genius/talent of a hit song, is a fucking lot and it needs that creative freedom, but also crazy productivity together to create that. I dont' think that is a formula that Gabe himself has perfected from this model either (i.e. creating a hit game), but he has done it better than most other companies out there- but one thing that works perfectly that affords his company the ability to work like this and be financially healthy enough to engage this way is of course the platform business model (which I can't say enough is awesome and ballsy considering when he did it) - but if someone wants to disagree on the the hit game thing that this flat management structure produces - all I'm saying is that, this isn't the 100% formula for it, but it probably does the next best and most consistent job towards that objective, but if it was 100% then they wouldn't have remade Dota as Dota2, now would they have ^^ keke (not that I'm complaining, cause I'm a HUGE fan of both), but again, as a professional management consultant and also in a similar industry (and from the game industry way way back when), I think the flat management style is a real second place to the actual set-up and positioning of the company business model as a whole to have the vision and foresight and insight to set it up that way, which regardless makes Gabe awesome and ballsy. ^^ edit: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-06-microsoft-we-should-have-been-building-something-like-steamI just found this, but if you read it, Phil is dumb, Steam already is an established platform even it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, you don't just wake up one day and decide to reinvent yourself as a platform, it has to be positioned from years out. what other places do you see a flat structure working extremely well? where do you see the drawbacks and disadvantages? ah this is too heavy of a question for me to answer now that i'm exhausted from work again lol. In elite management consulting or any elite team where you need specialists and a very specific task, flat works great like a navy seal team or even an audit team where everyone really needs to contribute overall, but they have their specialty to really make the end results great. other than that, it wouldn't work where the product and productivity requires more than just your specialty, i.e. manufacturing - as it is by coordination in which a product is made and to ensure quality control etc. You can win a mission with a flat structure, but you won't generally win a war where there are many divisions to coordinate to create a greater effect that the sum. The coordination needs an hierarchy full stop, without that organization, it would simply take too much time get your result - even it would be better in the long wrong, you may be dead before then as your enemy crashes your tea party.
Consulting firms are usually like that, most still have an hierarchy but it is very informal.
The problem of course is that consulting firms are usually small enough that you can manage through a resourcing calendar or HR coordinator.
It works for gaben because statistically his staff are professionals who do their jobs and chances are they all love their job enough to keep doing their jobs.
Not every organisation is like that, some one has to be the infantry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
