The Rules of Software Rules of thumb for managing software projects.

You guys think we could start a social network about awesome hair?

I think Google really does “get” social. They just don’t know it.

Recently there’s been a lot of talk about Larry Page’s decision to tie Google’s bonuses to the company’s overall social strategy, and whether Google can actually “do social.” Skeptics could credibly argue the company won’t be able to make the switch, perhaps using the following arguments:

1. Google’s history shows it doesn’t understand how to build a social application. Google Buzz isn’t Facebook, Dodgeball never became Foursquare, and Google Wave is…well, what the heck was Wave even supposed to do?
2. Google is trying to buy its way into something that fundamentally doesn’t map to its core — which is, specifically, search.
3. Google isn’t as innovative as other companies anymore. It didn’t invent Facebook, it didn’t start Twitter, and it couldn’t even buy GroupOn.

But personally, I disagree. My feeling is that, while Google certainly has its share of problems, I think Google very much does get social in a more basic sense. They just don’t know how to position it as such:

1. Google Search is social because it fundamentally recognizes that, no matter how good an algorithm could be, there is no way it can truly succeed without incorporating the work done by hundreds of millions of people. PageRank doesn’t sound like a social algorithm, but asking the entire web to make suggestions and recommendations based upon what they feel is appropriate enough to link to sure does.
2. Google Advertising is social because it was built on an idea that, no matter how good an advertising agency or media channel might be at estimating an audience, it was unlikely they could do a better job than simply outsourcing that whole process out to the buyers themselves and letting them work out the implicit price through an auction.
3. Google Maps is social because Google always encouraged others to extend it, build upon it, and embed it into other web sites and applications. Whenever I think of the phrase “mash-up,” what immediately springs to mind is the idea of “Google Maps plus something.”

But one could certainly ask, well, is this really social? Isn’t the real social about people posting status updates on Facebook, micro-blogging on Twitter, and checking-in on Foursquare? I believe the breakthrough contribution of these apps is that they’ve defined social as lowering the barrier to entry for people to participate in the web. But if you look at Google Search, GMail, Docs, and Maps (not to mention YouTube), whether by in-house development or through acquisitions, isn’t this what Google has been focused on for years?

I think the real challenge is whether Google can cross-over from viewing its audience as semi-techies who understand a little HTML to a much broader audience: those hundreds of millions (or billions) who have so incorporated the web into their lives that they don’t even see it as “the web” anymore — it’s just simply a part of what it means to go through their day. They’re not “participating in the web” so much as just chatting with those people who are important to them. And if Google wants to build participatory tools that actually work, they’re going to have to recognize this fact. But if their fundamental DNA is to empower people at scale, then at least they have a shot.

So this lowly blogger thinks Google can do it, but only if they recognize their own core values a little bit more strongly and perhaps adhere to a few small tweaks to their approach:

1. Quit chasing Facebook. Trying to “make a Facebook that isn’t Facebook” is like a movie studio trying to “make a Star Wars that isn’t Star Wars.” As Yoda might say: knock this off, you must.
2. Leverage Google’s core assets. Hundreds of millions still use Google to find things, and in doing so contribute to what John Battelle so cleverly referred to as the “database of intentions.” Additionally, despite the rise of Facebook and Twitter, GMail absolutely remains a killer app, and I don’t think a day passes that I don’t check Google Maps for something. Lowering the bar for participation in any of these apps seems like it could pay off. I don’t love the “+1″ approach — seems like a rip-off — but at very least it’s lowering the bar.
3. Consider hiring a liberal arts person or two. Google’s culture of outstanding engineering is a core strength to be sure. But social tools tend to take as much from the gaming industry as they do from productivity tools, and games require all those nuances that humans (not computers) tend to love: aesthetics, design, wit, charm. Warm and fuzzy can live in harmony with hard-core engineering. Look at Apple. It can be done.
4. Keep encouraging experimentation. Google Buzz was a bad mis-fire because it essentially cheated the old “don’t be evil” value. Don’t do this again. But despite its (terrible) positioning, Google Wave was actually an intriguing idea, as are a lot of ideas that Google throws up against a wall (no pun intended there.) True innovation always requires taking a few chances.
5. Stay true to your core values. For the a long while, Google always hung its hat on that “don’t be evil” mantra. Build open systems. Don’t push advertising down people’s throats. Focus on speed and simple, clean user experience. These things still apply to social systems. (Just ask Facebook about the terrible Beacon idea to see if they don’t.)

I started this blog primarily as a way to help me organize my own thoughts about what it takes to build a successful software team, and so it’s this last idea that I’m the most preoccupied with: recognizing your core values, and then applying them to new challenges as you go.

I think Google really does have some fundamentally solid DNA. If they are able to utilize that to develop their social strategy, they can succeed. I for one would like to see it.