VALVE CASE ANALYSIS

1. Why has Valve been so successful?

Because they prioritized the design of the company over the design of the product. Not because
they did not value the end-product, but because they believed that a good company design
would bring in and of itself a good product. The company focused on being a conduit for
creativity, providing its employees with freedom to create and innovate.

In the same way, they never pushed against innovation, but rather welcomed it, as was the case
with Counter-Strike, lack of job titles, organization charts, and the preservation and use of
Cabals. They valued good human resources and sought to preserve them within their ranks.
They not only allow for their employees to make mistakes, but rather incentivize it,
understanding that out of mistakes comes data, and out of data comes a better product.

The model for T-Shaped hiring gives way to good collaboration, since no-one finds themselves
out of their depth when working with other co-workers. This, added to Stack-Ranking not as a
threat of firing or probation, but as a means to determine employees worthy of incentives and
being carried out by peers, is a great way to foment company culture by turning traditionalism
on its head.

I believe that all of these factors are conducive to a great work environment where the right
people can work on products they believe in with the opportunity to mess-up without the
threat of being fired for it, and this makes for a successful company.

2. Should Valve start producing hardware? How?

I think they should not. It is not that they would not be able to, the case outlined various ways
in which Valve could churn out a good hardware product. It’s that they cannot do so without
compromising the aforementioned company design and identity. All of the alternatives present
within the market are extremely rigid and require the company to sacrifice this essential aspect
of their success for a product that would have to compete in an extremely closed, competitive,
and unforgiving market.

This is a case where finding what the customers want and giving it to them would not be the
best option. My consideration is that Valve should stick to what they are good at and not
venture on the untrodden path.