Been at DXC UK a couple of years and just started on my second account. Thought the first one was bad enough but this one I started on recently is unbelievable. I started off with 2 managers. We then raised the issue of not enough technical staff to then receive 2 more managers. So instead of addressing our concerns, we are now being micro-managed by utter incompetent non-producers who fill our day with continuous ‘stand ups’, ‘wash ups’ and data requests for their pointless spreadsheets. How these buffoons feel they are ‘adding value’ is beyond me. Anyone else in this boat?
13 replies (most recent on top)
There was some news circulating that the useless brock may have been fired, is it true?
What account is it, spill the beans…
@ej DXC does not spin up a truly new platform in 12–18 months, especially given their engineering capacity, budget constraints, and the leadership churn you’ve been tracking.
But here’s the real story:
OASIS is built on the same underlying lineage as Platform X — but DXC is deliberately avoiding saying that publicly.
🧩 Why OASIS and Platform X are essentially the same lineage
- DXC has a long history of renaming and repackaging platforms
This is a pattern going back to HPE ES → CSC → DXC days.
Examples:
“Bionix” → quietly absorbed into “Platform X”
“Platform X” → now disappears right as OASIS appears
“Modern Workplace” → renamed 3 times in 5 years
DXC rarely ki-ls a platform; they rename, reframe, and re-message it.
- The OASIS architecture description matches Platform X’s scope
Platform X was marketed as:
A unified automation and orchestration layer
Integrating signals across the IT estate
Driving predictive operations
AI‑enabled automation
OASIS is described as:
A unified orchestration layer
Integrating signals across the IT estate
Driving predictive, agentic operations
AI‑enabled automation
The language is nearly identical — just updated with “agentic AI” buzzwords.
@f4 As someone who works on an account where we’re required to use the client’s tools and follow the client’s processes, I can say there are still plenty of issues. We can’t change the process because “it’s the client’s process”, yet in reality those processes don’t help us do the job efficiently. They’ve been in place so long they’re now seen as ours, which means the client won't invest time or money improving them. So we stay stuck emailing spreadsheets around and storing key files in shared folders that anyone can amend.
There’s also reluctance to provide licensed tools, and in some environments we can’t even connect to the wider DXC network, so we end up cut off from modern tooling altogether. It’s no way to run an IT operation.
What makes it more frustrating is that new suppliers come in and are often given access to integrate with their own toolsets from day one. So clearly it can be done. The issue is that nobody in DXC management seems willing to push hard enough, or explain clearly enough, why better tooling and better ways of working benefit both us and the client.
Streamlining what we do, standardising processes, and using the right tools would help everyone. But I think some people believe we’ve tied things up so tightly that the client is stuck with us. That may have been true once, but it’s not a long-term strategy. Clients are already looking to take work back or hand it to suppliers who arrive with modern systems, efficient processes, and a clearer value proposition. DXC had it chance, and chose not to take it. Whether we can catch up? I suspect the sentiment of most of us is I really don't care, because it won't change my salary, and when the clients moves to a new supplier, I'm pretty sure I should be in line for a package to retire early.
@ej This isn’t a bold new play. It’s the same failed idea tried yet again. Its economics are broken and the market has shifted to smaller flexible engagements. Piling on expensive tools won’t fix an overpriced labor model or make us more competitive especially when clients don’t want to be locked into an unstable vendor with many issues like DXC and when we don’t even have the capital or delivery discipline to run these solutions across our own portfolio.
Cut out the organizational bloat, strip out overhead, get rid of excessive middle management and ki-l the pet initiatives like OASIS so that we can drive our customer rates down and meet clients where they are with their own tools like all our competitors do. Do that or keep losing.
@OP You must be on the same account as me. A few colleagues gone off with stress. Management don’t care one bit, just end up meddling more. Glad I’m not in an office with these clowns as only have to tolerate them on the calls but at least I have the option of muting them. Hope they read these threads just to see how despised they are. Our silence on the calls should speak volumes.
@dh OASIS is included in all managed services deals. No surcharge. It will make it easier for us to preserve margin on our deals. Cheaper to serve our customers.
It is NOT platform X.
It's a game changer, but by all means, continue to hate. Better yet, find another job. There are plenty of us who want to see a turn around.
@dh We sell man hours. It's all we've ever done. But we have priced ourselves now so that we look expensive, especially when everything is on such a go slow. Other supplier sell solutions. Those solutions might be expensive. But clients like that they understand the cost up front, and then the more efficient we can be the better the profit. Which should translate into financial reward for those who make it happen.
@cp every time we launch offerings like Platform X and OASIS our customers keep asking, why isn’t this already included and why do I have to pay extra. Why are we persisting with an approach that’s prohibitively expensive? It is a fool’s errand. The cost structure of these tools makes large scale deployment in DXC so expensive, risky and complex that it often leaves customers even more frustrated. The fix is very simple: strip out overhead, eliminate unnecessary management layers, keep hourly rates low and adapt to client environments. This meets the needs of most customers without the unnecessary frills.
@by Isnt DXC Oasis solving all your problems ? Is it really platform X renamed ?
The whole organisation has managed to tie itself in knots. We’re constantly told we must follow the client’s processes, yet in many cases it feels like we’re the only people still involved. These “processes” often amount to scrappy spreadsheets and Word documents being emailed around shared mailboxes. Nothing seems to have changed in years, except you'll be told you used the wrong version of the form every time you use it
How exactly does all this improve traceability, control and thruput?
Every client has a different way of doing things, so nobody knows how to get anything done efficiently. Middle management and PMs spend huge amounts of time chasing paperwork, then dragging everyone into meetings to debate whether any of it is actually necessary.
At the top, they love talking about automation, streamlining and continuous improvement. But none of it ever seems to translate into real change where the work is actually delivered. Because that of course would cost money to implement.
The clients go elsewhere where they roll in their own processes. The clients accept it - it's only DXC blocking itself in a lot of cases as far as I can see.
I share the same pain as you my friend. Exactly the same stuff what you mentioned and adds zero values to the business. No wonder why the organization is sinking because of these non-performing middle management.
The sooner they get rid of them, better it is for the business
Now imagine having five accounts, like some of us. Actually whole "leverage" idea should be prohibited. It is virtually merging few full time jobs into one FTE for the same salary. Salary should multiply by the number of accounts supported.