"Google, Inc. in 2014": Case Study Analysis

Case Study Analysis
The article "Google, Inc. in 2014" in the attachment, please read it.
Use Framework: SWOT analysis this case and
answer all the questions(4) below:
1. Google currently enjoys approximately 70% market share of US searches, and well above 90% in many other countries. Do you expect the search business to become more concentrated (i.e., dominated by fewer firms)? Is search a winner-take-all business?
2. In renewing its deal with AOL, could Google afford to pay AOL more than 100% of the revenue generated from AOL searches? How did Microsoft’s maximum affordable bid for AOL’s search traffic compare to Google’s?
3. Currently 95%+ of Google’s revenue comes from online advertising. How important is it for Google to pursue alternative revenue streams? Which alternatives are the most promising?
4. Do you view Google’s distinctive governance structure, corporate culture, and organizational processes as strengths or potential limitations?
NEED TO SUMBIT ON THE Turnitin. Will check similarity.
Make sure you did your own work, use your own language to answer all the questions.
Case Study Analysis: Tips and Tools
Tip 1. Contextualize the case. There is a method to my madness. Cases generally correspond to a particular set of concepts and theories. Keep this in mind as you prepare your analysis.
Tip 2. Read the case actively. The goal is not for you to grab your highlighter and speed through the case. Instead, ask yourself questions, wrestle with the core decisions, and think through multiple scenarios.
Tip 3+. William Ellet argues that there are “four types of situations” that you will often see in cases, for each here are some tips:
- Problems
o Define the problem in the case. This may not be obvious.
o Then, be able to diagnosis the problem using the various tools you’ve acquired throughout your business training.
- Decisions
o Identify the decision options.
o Determine the criteria by which to evaluate the decision options.
o Accumulate as much evidence as possible to support your decision.
- Evaluations
o Again, determine the appropriate evaluative criteria.
o Make the evaluation that is most consistent with the evidence provided by the case and the key criteria.
o Be sure to be holistic in your evaluations – think about positive and negative aspects.
- Rules (This is particularly critical for quantitative analyses)
o Know the information you need to apply a rule (For example, what data is necessary for a break-even or NPV analysis)
o Know how to obtain this information.
o Know how to apply the rule.
o Make sure your data is accurate.
Tools
Ellet provides a nice model for analyzing cases. There are five key phases of the process.
1. Situation
a. Figure out the big picture first; ask yourself, “What is the situation in the case? What is going on here?
2. Questions
a. Develop questions about the problem, namely:
i. What do you need to know about the situation?
b. Think through issues related to the decision, namely:
i. What are the decision options? Any seem particularly strong or weak? What is at stake here? What are the key criteria to base your decision?
c. Questions about the evaluation, in particular:
i. Who or what is being evaluated? Who is responsible for the evaluation?
3. Hypothesis
a. Here is where your analytical work gains momentum. Develop your perspective on the case.
b. Review the aforementioned questions – now begin to develop your answers for each set of questions.
4. Proof and Action
a. Ask yourself, what evidence is provided by the case that supports my hypothesis? What additional evidence do I need to collect?
b. Equally important for our course, also consider how would I implement my recommendations?
5. Alternatives
a. Spend some time critiquing yourself, ask the following:
i. How else could this problem be defined? If defined differently, would I have the same hypothesis?
ii. Where are the weak links in my analysis?
iii. What is the potential downside to my recommended decision? What is the strongest counter evidence?
iv. How thorough have I been in my analysis? How might a different course of action be proved?