This a follow-up to my previous post about my interview process with Google. Once a post gets as long as that one did, I’m sure to forget to say some things. Rather than updating that post, I thought I had enough new to say to warrant a new post.

First is the picture I got of their development process. There are plenty of other places on the Internet about their development process, so I won’t go into detail about what they told me–it pretty much matches up with the available information. It really sounds like they try to match the amount of process required to the specific project at hand. Projects with a huge public impact have lots of process (Google’s front page, indexing, etc.), while those that are newer and much lower impact (stuff in the Labs section, and even graduates of the Labs) have a much more flexible, agile process, designed to get improvements out the door very quickly. I like that–no mandatory bureaucracy where it doesn’t make sense.

Aside from process, however, it seems that they are very intent on giving developers an environment designed to help them succeed. From what I understood, the company actively tries to remove stupid barriers to productivity (needless paperwork, poor IT, bad workstations) and give you whatever you need to do your job how you think best. Obviously, there are rules and standards, but it just sounded more flexible. It really sounded like an ideal development environment: Obstacles removed, needs granted. Now, how much of that is the official “show” they put on for all interviews, who knows, but Google is obviously doing something right.

Bottom-line is that Google is a company of engineers for engineers. They’re the ones in charge of what the company does. That is a very nice place to be if you love coding.

Also, I should mention that the Google Boston office is MUCH smaller than their Mountain View headquarters. The way things are done, while it will still be “Googly”, will most likely have a different feel and pace than at headquarters. I had read many reports on the web about how people worked late hours, on weekends, and basically sacrificed their lives for the company. I did NOT get that impression in Boston. They were definitely smart and very hard working, but it sounded more like the company was flexible and if you got your work done, who cares? (That’s the way things ought to be done for sufficiently self-motivated employees). I did ask about inordinate over-time (mistake on my part?) and work-life balance and I came away with a satisfactory impression. Whether this means Boston is special, or the accounts I read on the Internet were not representative, I don’t know. Probably a lot of the latter, for sure.

I also wanted to address my final link in my last post. I know it can be a little disappointing to read that kind of post and realize it’s not talking about you, because you’re interviewing for jobs. I wouldn’t take it too literally. Maybe my link text is a little black and white. I think the principle is definitely valid, though. The better you are, the more freedom you have to choose where you work and what you work on and the less chance your going to fall into a company’s hiring process. It’s really more about statistics from a company’s point of view of finding the best, not necessarily for individuals.

Hopefully, that’s all I have to say on the subject, but if you have questions, just leave them in the comments and I’ll try to answer them!