What Did Ray Ozzie Actually Do At Microsoft?

Not another Bill Gates

Mike Sax, founder of sax.net, a marketplace for .NET components and parts for building mobile apps, said:

“Ray Ozzie had impossibly big shoes to fill. Bill Gates not only had the ability to deeply understand all of Microsoft’s technologies and define a common direction for them, he also was a brilliant business mind. On top of that, Bill had the respect and authority within Microsoft to have everyone passionately work towards a common vision.

“If you put aside expectations for Ozzie as a second Bill Gates and only evaluate him as a software architect, he did very well: Microsoft’s products have become higher quality over the years, they integrate better with each other and products from other vendors, and they’re quickly embracing cloud computing. What’s not to like?”

Ozzie’s departure does leave a void. However, not one as big as folks might think. Microsoft does not need a Chief Software Architect in the way that Gates was. And Ozzie never attempted that, What Microsoft needs is some overarching ubergeek who can look at and piece the various parts together to play well under one roof.

And there are folks in-house that come to mind that can do that. A couple of names that quickly come to mind are S. “Soma” Somasegar and Amitabh Srivastava. Somasegar is senior vice president of the Developer Division at Microsoft, and Srivastava is senior vice president of Microsoft’s Server and Cloud Division with responsibilities for Windows Azure and Windows Server and a core member of the Red Dog team that delivered Windows Azure. They could do it. No need to go outside the company and get someone unknown to the masses.

Besides, Ballmer says he is not going to fill the role of chief software architect now. And, again, he doesn’t need to.

Multiple presidents

Al Hilwa, an IDC analyst, takes a practical approach with his view on the subject:

“From reading the latest org chart, Microsoft has organised into multiple autonomous groups and probably has decided that its businesses are too diverse to have an overarching chief software architect.  Now they have multiple presidents likely with their own architects, and so a chief software architect might end up being chief of very little.

One could ask it is difficult for outsiders to succeed in leading Microsoft. My answer is that to some extent, yes it is difficult. This is a common problem with companies that experience early-stage meteoric success in that their rapid success creates a distance between internal execs and outsiders who are seen as not having been responsible for the greatness.  You will generally find that companies accept outsiders more easily when there is a significant sense of crisis, which Microsoft is not really close to by the numbers. They do have challenges for sure, but it appears that they are working through them, especially in mobile and cloud. I would say, with very few exceptions, there are no visionaries, there are only companies willing to change.”

Still you need a hand in there to sort of guide things, even subtly.

And as the famed anonymous Microsoft blogger, Mini-Microsoft, indicates, perhaps that hand should not be so subtle. Talking about the infamous Bill gates reviews and the impact they had on the company, Mini-Microsoft wrote in an 18 October post:

“The rigor of a focused, intellectually deep and sturdy software development declined with BillG’s departure. No more technical assistants. No gauntlet of the BillG review. On his way out of the company, Bill anointed Ray to serve as Chief Software Architect. I don’t think that was Ray’s idea. In fact, I can only imagine him tilting his head and saying, “Wha-?” He didn’t take a broad view of Microsoft at all, but rather focused on growing the Groove momentum into other areas for the future.