Ask anyone in the Quality group to draw the molecular structure for hexane and they will all have to search on Google.
24 replies (most recent on top)
@6Cow
It has been catching up to them and you see it. People degreed in the Arts will destroy the company inside out.
90% of the managers haven’t been to an actual customer jobsite!
Hail the Queen! Hail the destroyer of Baker Hughes Chemicals!
Sad thing is some of them are attempting fill in roles where once great ones had. My oh my, how the mighty have fallen. Not just Baker, but other places as well. But mostly Baker Haha.
Funny thing is, line all the technical managers and product managers. Ask them what is chemicals business in baker Hughes is. Guaranteed, 90% will fail.
@5JF
Sounds like a solid plan. Let’s continue to go with that.
We’ve got a very clear path to success and recovery- the same we’ve been following for the last 5+years:
- MBA > PHD. As many senior leadership positions as possible should be MBA, especially for managing technical people.
- Field experience is important to us - in the field! No one with any more than two years of field experience should be in a management role. We’ve done our best to root out as much customer experience as possible in management.
- Same goes for customer facing account management. How can you possibly expect someone who has extensive experience of working directly with clients to even comprehend concepts such as “customer intimacy”? Stick with the MBAs!
- Always remember- customers are an inconvenience. Everything you can do to avoid getting new customers is appreciated. Make sure that 100% of entertainment budget goes on existing customers only!
- Nothing telegraphs confidence like a reorganization! Reorg early and reorg often. Be sure to tell all your customers why this reorg will be the silver bullet - customers really want to hear about their vendors’ internal bs.
Stick with this simple five point plan and chemicals will be back to the top in no time!
Whatever a good plan will need someone to do it. A good team leader can make the excellent results from a horrible plan. But a horrible team leader can destroy a good plan. That's the fact.
Unfortunately, the current leadership team is the later one. No offense, but fact. Some leaders went to plant and talk about our capabilities to make carbon zero for the plant. They almost got kicked out of the plant because carbon zero means shutdown of the whole plant. Funny, but real. The advertisement to hire a technical manager clearly stated "professinal knowledge is not important". How to make something happen without any professinal knowledge? Interesting to see the next episode....
Since GE involvement it seems that the competition simply walked away from us.
Too many dreamers at Chemicals. Great ideas, no pathway or plan on how to execute them, then once something gets a little traction...musical chairs 🪑, another new leader with a new vision, and repeat.
How often do you hear someone in a new role having to pick up the pieces from the previous person? Better yet, how often do you hear someone complaining -thus justifying their existence and eventual fail - because of the failure of the previous person?
Remember the big dream of digitization with GE and collaboration with its product lines (Healthcare, etc)
How’d that workout? Lmfao!!!
Read this:
https://pubs.spe.org/en/ogf/ogf-article-detail/?art=7596
Chemicals well in scope in the transition and growth of the Company in the coming years. That’s good. Now, whether they can make it happen with the folks leading the company at the moment is yet to be seen.
@3nrj You’re drinking the Kool-Aid. That BS is the palliative that management come out with to stop chemicals feeling like the ginger step child. Baker has stated that they are transitioning to low carbon energy service - focus on turbo machinery and digital. There is zero application for oilfield chemicals there. However much (or little) revenue chemicals are pulling in is not going to keep the company afloat. Revenues from a sell off? Might keep the wolves from the door for a few months.
Any thoughts on NAM ops director? Another one who plays politics
Not happening. You should take a look at who is top dog in terms of revenue for OFS right now. Baker wouldn’t be selling the number 1 product line at this time.
Ultimately, chemicals will be sold off. It’s not a matter of if, but when. Selling off the Oklahoma chemical plants was part of the plan. Baker Hughes can’t stomach the continuing investments that are required to stay even in minimum compliance. The vision squarely focuses on being the GE of oil field digital technology and equipment. Until sold (or shutdown), they will continue discourage the few remaining talent there. These GE leadership folks really know how to redefine Integrity.
Technology has been starved for years. A lot of talent have been shown the door. Some remain but have little support. Leaders couldn’t care less about them. It’s all about them.
The bad decision makers will simply get moved to lead another group they’re unfamiliar with. The story repeats.
The technology in chemical is destroyed by a series of "claimed" leaders. They are playing politics instead of business. From the top to the bottom, they promote people not based on the knowledge,but siblings of someone, or friends of someone. Look at the manufacture plant. How many really MAKE chemicals. How many use HSE to block production. What will be the outcome? They know, we know. Do they care? Good luck.
When you put a technology leader does not value knowledge and diversity, what more can you expect
Is it as bad as it was early this year or just a couple?
Oxy? What area?
Working in the latest HC reduction as we speak. HR just got the names and vetting them through legal. Oxy k–led us.
Does a 🐻 p–p in the 🌲 🌲 🌲
What about NAM fracking ?
Possible