I'm at Google HQ in Paris this week, taking part in Google Partner programme training. Eduserv recently became a partner and I'm lucky enough to be the person chosen to come and learn all about the Google Appliance and what it can do for the enterprise.

I've got a bunch of observations, some of them fairly random, both about the environment embodied by the Google office but also about the technology and approaches put forward by the Appliance. This post will focus on the "environment of Google"; later I'll spend a bit more time reflecting on the GA itself.

So. Google: who are they, what do they represent, and how does this show itself in the environment that is their French HQ?

As you'd expect, they're cool. Uber cool. Physically, the sense of space and light is very striking. From the reception area (Google colours, beanbags, GA in rack on wall, fizzy pop machine) to the conference area in which we're getting trained (blisteringly fast wifi, really comfortable chairs, stuff that *works*..), the entire experience is one of freedom and openness.

Offices here either seem to be open plan - in which case they're incredibly spacious, with maybe half the number of people per square footage than you'd find in a "normal" office environment - or glass-fronted. That's to say that by the look of it even if you're an exec who is important enough to have your own space, you still essentially "share" it by virtue of the visibility factor. It's hard to say why, but this feels very important: ultimately - this environment says - you're important, but above that we're all in this together.

The fact that Google is global is also highlighted in the number of video conference suites with what look like dedicated VC terminals, cameras, etc set up permanently for anyone to use.

Google also walk the walk - passing people's machines, it's obvious that Google Calendar and Gmail are in use all the time. I haven't been spending *too* much time spying over people's shoulders but I can't say I've seen Outlook so far..

The space factor is interesting in the obvious encouragement of "thinking". The 70/20/10 Google rule is well known: 70% product / 20% R&D / 10% "really weird" (my words) - there's an encouragement of *deliberate space* to allow for this thinking. Ditto in the physical space, there are paintings which people have been encouraged to add to, mobiles and wall hangings, posters demonstrating the flexibility of Google working, not to mention the inevitable bean bags and big cushions. The brand permeates the entire building, whether in the colours of the walls and shapes on carpets or the endless Google Doodle miniatures posted on the walls. It's light, fun, colourful, engaging and informal.

I got talking to one of the execs last night and we spent some time pondering innovation in this environment and I asked him whether innovation per se was "practised" here or whether it just existed. The answer, as you might expect, is that innovation is *absolutely inbred* into the Google DNA. Larry and Sergey (as they're referred to) began with an approach which then reflected itself in the people they hired, which reflected itself in the people *they* hired, and so on. Google isn't innovative deliberately: it just is, and always has been. It's as much a part of the way of being here as breathing or walking. This in itself is a bit of a revelation, and I think an important bit of learning.

That's all well and good *if* you are a company starting with this agenda. It's also well and good if you've got the revenues to support that 30% of time spent "not making money". The question for many other businesses is much more complex - "how do I take a company which has grown quickly and is dependant on a service revenue stream, and raise the importance of innovation?". Put more simply: "how the hell do I go about *retrofitting* innovation?".

It's a hugely tricky one, and I don't (yet!) have the answers. I'm sure that part of the challenge is in *doing* and not *saying*: that somehow if you focus *too* much on "whether we're being innovative" then you're probably, by definition, NOT being innovative. If you read my other blog you'll have heard this many, many times. It's not rocket science but it is, for many people, a leap of faith that it sometimes very hard to act on.