If googlers dont have an internal org chart they can check, then how do they verify who is on what team?
Something doesnt add up. Because that seems like a bare minimum to collaborate at all.
Something doesnt add up. Because that seems like a bare minimum to collaborate at all.
Now you're getting a clue why Google had like 3-4 competing communication tools at some point lol
They could have been Slack if they didn't transmogrify it into a social media platform (Google+) and then throw out the baby with the bathwater when it failed.
So it clearly cant be the case.
Ask their managers? But then how do their managers verify?
It's a hierarchical org chart. If you're really not sure ask Sundar.
It's likely any Googler can verify the identity of any other by looking up their username but it's unlikely that the same tool would do something like tell you how the YouTube recommendation algorithm works or who would know that.
They will know the names of frequent collaborators and something about the scope of relevant work but it's not like everyone at Google needs intimate knowledge of every workstream. At that scale it's unlikely anyone has the full picture.
> chart they can check, then how do they
> verify who is on what team?
Having worked at some very large companies, none of which published org charts, it's done by word of mouth and making informed guesses.
"Alice, I saw you were the last editor of this document. Are you still on that team, or can you point me to the best PoC?"
Searching for the tree root starting from a tree leaf is easy, but searching for the right leaf starting from the root takes a lot more effort.
Aside from the huge array of stuff they've built in house, the "List of mergers and acquisitions by Alphabet" wikipedia page has 264 entries. Some of those bought other companies.
You really think some guy in some offshore office for low pay, with his boss hounding at him about his KPIs, is going to go out of his way to bother with this?