Microsoft: reboot - FT.com A management reshuffle is no substitute for transparency, especially with PCs in decline If many remedies are proposed, Chekhov noted, the disease is likely incurable. So it is with managing maturing companies. Shelves of books about innovation written; stacks of presentations on break-ups, partnerships and acquisitions snoozed through; untold management reshuffles suffered - and we still do not really know what works. Investors need not worry. They care only for prices and future cash flows. So they can shrug at reports that Microsoft will announce a new management structure, perhaps as early as Thursday. Its business units are to be rejigged around a devices/services divide. Results reporting could change too. This may help performance, or not. How could investors predict? There is something investors should demand, though. Everyone knows Microsoft's challenge: its operating system and business software divisions account for 80 per cent of operating profits. These divisions" core products were developed for personal computers. The PC is in decline, so those profits need protection or replacement. Investors deserve a clearer view of the strategy for doing that, and a reporting structure that allows them to see if it is working. While Microsoft's overarching strategy has never been clear, its reporting structure has at least made it clear that, profit-wise, one product effort (server software) has been a smashing success while three others (online services, Xbox, phones) have been failures. Any new structure must deliver at least that much clarity. And if Microsoft is committed to devices, investors should get systematic unit volume reporting. If software sales are becoming services sales, they should be told how the licence sales/subscription sales mix is shifting one quarter to the next. Failing this, they should assume the patient is unlikely to recover.