Sunday, December 11, 2005

Your MOMA knows best

Ron made reference to Google’s intranet, which is known as MOMA, though no one seems to remember how this sobriquet was first assigned. MOMA was designed by and for engineers and for the first couple of years, its home page was devoid of any aesthetic enhancements that didn’t serve to provide information essential to the operation of Google. It was dense and messy and full of numbers that were hard to parse for the uninitiated, but high in nutritional value for the data hungry.

MOMA displayed latency times, popular search terms, traffic stats for Google-owned properties and, at the center of it all, a large graph with colored lines labeled with the names of Muppet characters. I can’t reveal what that graph represented, but if Rizzo or Fozzie started closing the gap with the Great Gonzo, Oscar would not be the only grouch on Sesame Street.

When I worked for the Mercury News, there was constant talk about creating an online dashboard for keeping an eye on the state of the business. The challenge of dipping into all the various legacy databases for circulation figures and ad sales updates proved overwhelming to the company’s limited technical resources, however, and in my time there, no such information could be cobbled together without someone suffering severe peptic distress.

At Google, there was no shortage of engineering talent to harvest business-critical information and lay it out in pretty table rows. As Ron mentioned, with a couple of clicks you could see the AdWords revenue stream real time. I found it a hard not to sip a mouseful of its refreshing statistics at least once a week.

As the company grew, the most useful aspect of MOMA for me was the phone list, which contained the title, email address, IM name, photo, extension and location of everyone on the payroll. The individual’s name would be linked to a list of his or her quarterly goals and objectives, so you could understand exactly where your proposed project was likely to fit in their priority list before you even spoke with them.

My original phone list photo captured my high albedo forehead with such accuracy that my other features were pretty much washed out in the glare of the reflected flash. Even I had a hard time telling who it was supposed to be. So, I swapped it out for a press photo of Mitch Pileggi -- Deputy Director Skinner from the X-Files. His picture looked more like me than mine did and it conveyed a certain gravitas and focus my own photo lacked.

Many other early Googlers used alternative images and titles for their MOMA listings as well. I recall photos of samurai warriors and masked figures with titles like “Shadow Ops” and “Black Ops.” These were later weeded out as part of an upgrade in our overall attention to security. For some reason, my photo remained unchanged. Nooglers looking me up for the first time would inevitably email me, asking about my uncanny resemblance to Mulder’s boss. I’d assure them that the truth was out there.

In fact, the truth was on MOMA. I came to take it for granted that any information I needed about Google could be found on the intranet, from the status of products in development to the number of employees at any point in the company’s history. Ironically, the lack of decent search capability would make some things hard to find in the early days, though Google finally hooked up one of it’s own search appliances to fix that problem.

Having all the information about the state of your employer’s health at your fingertips gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. Not only can you be reassured about the company’s growth trajectory, you can actually see the results of your efforts as increased traffic, improved clickthrough rates or leaps in revenue. Or not. Your failures are also visible to everyone in the company, which provides an even greater motivator to continuously improve performance in the areas for which you are responsible.

Google eventually clamped down on who had access the complete state of the business; ostensibly because such information needed to be restricted unless everyone was going to be registered as an insider and restricted from freely buying and selling the company’s stock. The loss of access to the raw data and the purging of alias photos on MOMA each marked shifts in the culture as Google became a multinational, multi-billion dollar business.

At the time I left, I could still find most of the information I needed on MOMA, but occasionally I’d hit a password protected page and be reminded that the company had officially relocated from small town Kansas to the emerald lights of Oz. And while it had been a fantastic journey, I was surprised to discover that not everything looks better bathed in green.

42 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know what you mean. People still have alias pictures up on MOMA, though of course those don't go on security badges.

11:09 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

I'm glad to hear that. There was point at which we were asked to update photos with "correct" images for MOMA and retake sessions were scheduled. Perhaps that policy has been rescinded or I wasn't the only one who managed to ignore it. Are the photos of new employees or ones who have been there a while?

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Jonathan said...

Doug,

Back at the beginning of Xoogler you said that you were going to write naked prose: you know, no embellishment, etc.

I have to say, though, that your naked prose makes most of our written attempts at finesse sound like grunts and clicks.

Your blog is a delight to read.

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can anyone comment on the rumor that Google has replaced stock option compensation for employees with something called a "Google Unit" which is a stock grant that vests over a period of years?

I've heard this is being done to avoid having to report all this largesse as an expense against earnings under the new FASB regulations.

If this is true, Google has just given a giant "F YOU" to the SEC and investing community.

Instead of awarding stock options, they change the name to something else and claim they aren't giving anything out at all.

By the time all these "google units" vest in 3 or 4 years, the main shareholders will have cashed out completely and couldn't care less if Google's earnings are reduced to a giant negative number from all the added shares.

12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You and Ron has talk a lot about compensations. I heard Google under pay about 20%. Is that true?

12:49 PM  
Blogger Matisse Enzer said...

I've spent the past several months working with a startup that makes heavy use of a Wiki for internal (and external) documentation, project descriptions, etc. and it is a very useful tool. One thing you mentioned struck a nerve with me though - that you could see what people's projects for the near future were - which implies that some thought was given to planning that out - I am very interested in how Google did/does do resource allocation or people, for example engineers' time.

How often are/were estimates made of required resources before allocating people to projects? Are those estimate checked later? New estimates revised based on past accuracy?

2:17 PM  
Blogger http://search-engines-web.com/ said...

////At Google, there was no shortage of engineering talent to harvest business-critical ... As Ron mentioned, with a couple of clicks you could see the AdWords revenue stream real time.

--------
Please consider doing several posts about CLICK FRAUD...

Sooner of later, the topic HAS to be addressed...

Here is the latest in Class Action Lawsuits that use IP address frequency as their concern....

Was this concern expressed during the development of Adwords, and what programatic checks and balances were instituted - are they being refined????

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=221972

Click Fraud Article

3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

doug -
it's kind of a "play nice" policy. i'm not sure how they did it before (relatively recent hire myself,) but if you know the right incantation anyone can change his/her MOMA pictures.

4:17 PM  
Blogger R2K said...

I want my moma :(

R2K..Bathrooms..

7:15 PM  
Anonymous marcus said...

hi doug,

i really enjoy reading your blog. i'm a junior computer science major so it is delightful to read the inside scoop on what seems like Willy Wonka's factory. keep it up!

10:51 PM  
Anonymous sdb said...

just my 0.02 : MOMA came from the Museum of Modern Art ...

11:55 PM  
Blogger Spooky Girl who like Ice Cream said...

Just a thought: MOMA means "my mum" in basque (a french-spanich dialect). Maybe it's a freud things?

As for changing the pics, it like for everything: the more realistic your lie is, the longer it will stay. (think about the wiki)

1:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

M. Enzer (WELL dude) now there's a name I haven't seen in a long time! :)

1:05 AM  
Blogger starbender said...

That was wonderfully interesting!
:)

4:46 AM  
Blogger G Dev said...

Good blog.

--Gautam

6:13 AM  
Anonymous Click here to lose the winter blues said...

Why is it always bad news about the rise of a company?

7:52 AM  
Anonymous researchzilla said...

good lord! as a competitive intelligence consultant, i can only tell you that you just fed a spoonful of sugar to hundreds of folks who are gathering bits and pieces on elgoog...though i've no use for this information, i was surprised to hear that they would adobt a permission level access model instead of just a completely blocked access model (like most major corporations these days)...putting out project data is just too damned risky. connecting to people makes it far too easy for bright and competent CI wonks like myself to figure out where stuff is headed (e.g. uh, just how odd is it that the entire plan9 team from bell came on board within 24 months?).

9:03 AM  
Anonymous Steve said...

'http://search-engines-web.com/' - I don't mean to belittle your concerns, but there's some insteresting analysis of the clickspam article you linked over on Slashdot.

9:07 AM  
Anonymous steve said...

Apologies, temporary insanity on the link. It's here.

9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where can we learn more about these "Google Units" posted by a different Anonymous above? Is there a 10-K or report describing them?

1:05 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I'm not all that familiar with the program as it really wasn't fully implemented until after I left. A quick Google search (what else), brings up a WSJ article that explains:


"They also have been changing their compensation plans, moving away from reliance on stock options, which become worthless if the stock drops. Instead, they have started using Google stock units, or GSUs. That is Googlespeak for restricted stock that takes four years to vest, but will continue to hold value even if the share price swoons. The company issued 61 million GSUs in its second quarter."

1:45 PM  
Blogger Juna Duncan said...

How did your blog get so popular in such a short time? Good job.

Your MOMA is so phat.......

2:13 PM  
Anonymous pete said...

Hmm... ex-employees writing about one of the most secretive and interesting technology companies in the world.
It's not too hard to see why people would want to read that. Plus the writing is excellent!

4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RSS feed please?

Otherwise love it.

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Kenan said...

The actual greatest use of MOMA was the daily menu. Making a B-line to the food I already knew I wanted probably saved me an hour a day over three meals...

2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The WSJ says the Google issued 67 million GSUs instead of stock grants in the SECOND QUARTER ALONE.

If you go to the SECs site, you can find a few "offer letters" to employees outlining their compensation packages. As far as I can see, each "google stock unit" converts into one share of stock, but cannot be redeemed for 3 or 4 years. It is plainly a 1:1 ratio of GSU to common share- the offer letters state so to everyone i've seen so far.

This is a big deal since come Jan 1st google has to start expensing options and stock grants. However, they do NOT have to expense "google stock units" because that language is nowhere in the FASB bill.

If Google had expensed the 67 million GSUs that we know about in the second quarter, then it would have been a negative 24 billion dollar charge against earnings. Since I don't recall ever seeing a 24 billion dollar charge, we can assume this will not show up as an expense at all for several years.

This is quite simply the the largest case of stock compensation deception I have ever seen.

The SEC says you have to start expensing options and stock grants? Google says- fine. We dont do that stuff anymore. We give out "Google Stock Units" which are simply contractual obligations, and thus do not have to be expense. Sorry SEC, next time try to craft more precise language.

Wow. Unbelievable. Why does the only mention of GSUs on the entire internet show up in an offhand remark by a WSJ reporter?

3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, perhaps you are confused? My guess is that you have mixed up dollars with GSUs. (67 million dollars, not 67 million shares) Do you have a link for the offer letters?

4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Google always expensed option grants, even when doing so was neither required nor common, so it's hard to argue that this is a sneaky move to get around regulations. The idea behind GSUs was to give out something whose value was tied to stock price, but that would always be worth something. (Tech companies usually give out options, most of which are never worth anything.)

4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Google "expenses" stock option grants in a footnote but they are not required to start laying it out in full view until Jan 1st- that's when the FASB regulations and Google's own S3 filing say it must begin.

Here's a link to the SEC filing that shows one GSU equals one class A common share of Google:

http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.z61Zc.d.htm

Also, the wall street journal article said there were 61 million GSUs, not 61 million dollars worth of GSUs. here's the link to that:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB112484195945721307-iI70ia22lcLXd7VmPaKkBZxfIFs_20060824.html

5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is clear Google has NOT expensed 61 million GSUs in any way shape or form yet. If they had, we would have seen a 24 billion dollar charge against earnings already. And we have not.

Remember, nobody thought much about pro-forma earnings when Amazon pioneered the use, until every tech company on earth started doing it to make their results look better than they actually were.

Eventually, pro-forma became the laughingstock of the investing public.

Could GOOG be pioneering a new form of employee compensation with the GSUs ?

Investor relations wont give me a straight answer.

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you read the entire WSJ article you will notice the correction at the bottom:

Corrections & Amplifications:

Google Inc. issued $61 million in Google Stock Units in its second quarter. This article said the company issued 61 million Google Stock Units in the second quarter.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quite the interesting read - just read the whole thing from start to finish and ma looking forward to more!
matt

5:07 AM  
Blogger Julián García said...

>>How did your blog get so popular in such a short time? Good job.

I think it was digg or slashdot. Moreover, the blog is well written and nice. And well, as a poster mentioned above, everybody wants to have some details of willy wonka's place...

5:47 AM  
Anonymous Quit Smoking said...

Really Interesting blog..

I hope you keep it up, as you know everyone is interested in Google nowdays, and their world domination.

7:42 AM  
Anonymous Leah said...

Are the two of you still alive? You haven't updated since Sunday! So very unlike you -- I suspect Big Brother has captured you and is holding you prisoner.

That, or one of the higher-ups at Google got to you and is doing a little strong-arming.

Wait -- those are the same things, no?

4:00 PM  
Blogger www.gadgetfreak.org said...

This article was very uhhhhhh... how should I put it. Umm.. Interestin yeah thats it.

P.S. Check out my website www.gadgetfreak2.blogspot.com

4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How are GSUs different from Microsoft Stock Awards?

4:39 PM  
Anonymous yatpay said...

Hi guys. I just thought I'd chime in too and say that this is a great blog. I'm a big fan of Google and this provides a fascinating inside view of the company. Keep up the good work! I'll definately keep reading and telling all my friends!

(Shameless self-promotion: www.yatpay.net)

4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just some commentary on GSUs - that's simply Google's name for restricted stock. Plenty of companies have made this move, from options to stock (starting with Microsoft). Employees get a share of stock, rather than an option at the end of the vesting period. The stock will almost definitely have some value at the end of the vesting period. Options are not such sure things. (who's to say whether the right to buy a share of stock at $417 will be a deal in 4 years or not?. Options are higher risk, higher reward.
Also, much easier to value stock at the time of grant than to value an option as there are several valid methods from which to choose.
Finally, Google always took the high road and showed the vast majority of the expense for early, now tremendously appreciated, options as an operating expense. Way ahead of the curve on this....

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm curios about the relationship between Engineering and Product Managment. Was it cooperative? How was the PM group viewed internally? Did they fall under the 70/20/10 rule? What did they spend their time doing? How big was the team?

8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, what is with that

Full tilt Poker Bonus codes

3:28 PM  
Blogger a- wairua said...

Love this!
When I first loaded Google, they accepted suggestions for inclusion into gmail. These days you cannot even get an answer on PROBLEMS!
Have they grown too big to care ... already???
I have stopped recommending google.

5:44 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home