...never worked. Because the core businesses (Windows and Office) were $10B products. Investing a little bit to get a 0.1% move in revenue there, brought in $10M more. It was bloody difficult to persuade anyone that the $ should be invested in a brand new startup idea, rather than re-investing it in the core, growing business. And who can blame them?
There were two businesses that mattered, and everything else was a distraction. Actually after a while, the combination of Windows Server and SQL Server became a business that mattered, too.
In those days, everything else was a weed that might/could grow, if it could shoot up and grab some attention and look pretty, before the groundskeeper just snipped it off at the base.
If you look at what succeeded at Microsoft since then, it has not been "investing in some some small thing." It has been MASSIVE investments in things, like Azure and Xbox. Of course, MSFT also made MASSIVE investments in plenty of things that did not work out.
But the point is, proposing to start with a brand new small thing, was a sure way to be asked to get with the program, or leave the company.
After all, if the idea of starting something new gets you asked to leave the company, the company itself is probably hostile to new proposals, so it's fundamentally against what I'm talking about.
I don't disregard what you're saying- but it's a huge mentality shift, to be able to do things like this.
I also think it'd be beneficial to run such an organization in a smaller side-company, similar to what Alphabet does, than merely as a new department inside of a huge monolith like a Microsoft. Otherwise, you risk just this sort of thing, and being able to consistently maintain a culture of creation in something meant to last a century or longer is incredibly difficult.
[1] http://www.extent.nl/about-us/people/eckart/ [2] http://www.topicus.nl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates
(The company is famous for Gore-Tex. The structure is famous in part because Malcolm Gladwell used it as an example in his discussion of Dunbar's number in The Tipping Point. But I guess it was studied lots before then.)
"HR resources" is redundant.
No, its not. It does expand out to have a repeated word, but the reference is different (the HR resources -- Human Resources resources -- are resources dedicated to the Human Resources function.)
Let alone the other answer ("HR" == "other engineers"), which is brilliant, the HR department is the greatest weapon a large firm can deploy. Do you want insurance in case your kids get sick? Do you want days off to relax after a month of hard work? Do you want to ensure your boss ain't making inappropriate advances?
Why on earth would a smart people want to be burdened with all of those works? Why on earth would a smart people hitch non-core work onto main work hour? Why on earth would a smart person refuse to delegate?
"HR resources" is redundant. Such arrogance.
But, this is something I've thought of often over the last several years. If perhaps, a better angle would be to build a business around Unix-style philosophy, of "Do one thing, and do it well." Then, you simply start over with another brand new, small thing, and grow it from there, while lending it the HR resources of the core.
The closest company to trying something like that, that I know of, is Google. But even there it seems they've hit some stumbling blocks.