Thread regarding DXC Technology layoffs

Really good point

The major reason for DXCs decline in terms of the BAE contract stems from redundancies from earlier last year. They struggle to retain staff who go above and beyond and are replaced by inexperienced apprentices, who are on a better rate of pay in comparison to staff who have been there longer, it's demoralising. Management don't seek assistance from experienced, knowledgeable staff who crave improvements. The biggest issue is in-house disagreements between support teams and a lack of ownership. They focus more on numbers rather than quality.

@ZplNzhH-qvjo hit the nail on the head - I thought it deserved to be in a thread of its own.

by
| 4372 views | | 15 replies (last July 4, 2019) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+ZQei2Yl

15 replies (most recent on top)

The BAE account team needs to have a hard look at its self. Too many people in the same position for too long at the top making false promises causing delivery failures. You know who you you are.....

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2udx+ZQei2Yl

Now ML has Fcked things up, let hope someone Fcks ML up.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1kpy+ZQei2Yl

I doubt the apprentices and grads will stay very long at DXC. They've got a long future to think of and there are companies out there who appreciate there staff and reward them competitively.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1lwq+ZQei2Yl

Sad. If Lawrie is hell bent on destroying the company I doubt there is anything the average employee can do.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1bxa+ZQei2Yl

@ZQei2Yl-igj There’s some kids on work experience walking around at Chesterfield at the moment, so maybe DXC’s finally found its ideal answer for our replacements. Either that or modern slaves? Hopefully I’ve given them some good ideas.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jjf+ZQei2Yl

The management at DXC is poor. I'm maxed out and they have asked if I can train an apprentice. The company is a joke. Keep laughing though they'll miss me when I'm gone.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1rcy+ZQei2Yl

I concur with @ZQei2Yl-1ggj.....SPOT ON MATE! (Capitals Intended). ML certainly F*cked things up!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1crs+ZQei2Yl

The BAE account was always quite a unique one in CSC that I could see. Only one other globally seemed to ever get the lashings of attention from CSC that they did.

There were higher value contracts out there, but BAE got masses of dedicated resources, a very proactive account team and good results. Few other accounts ever saw this lavish attention.

It clearly worked for both parties though, despite the approach not being the same as that metted out to the others.

I suspect that the Mikey "everything the same" model is actually what has damaged this account. He didn't care that despite it being an oddity, that it was profitable business and the client was broadly happy. No, instead it was forced into the same stupid circus as the rest - an entirely ridiculous one size fits nobody McKinsey kids idea of how an IT service company should work.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ocv+ZQei2Yl

A company like BAe Systems that is investing and leading on technology and innovation cannot afford to have its Business operations undermined by poor and uncertain IT service from DXC. Aside from the cost impact, it has to consider the effect of poor IT on its own reputation and the lack of capable skills with its suppliers, whether they provide good value-add service and is ready to help BAe Systems meet the demands of its own challenging Business plan. That means removing / mitigating areas of high IT risk.

Dealing with DXC (in the UK and France) is medium to high risk at the moment. Basic services continue to be poor, DXC staff churn losing business acumen and client knowledge doesn't help and needing 3 months notice to secure a Project Manager isn't very professional or agile. Then there is the external risk of DXC closing all of its UK operations in the next few years due to lack of new business and legacy that wants to remain eroding DXC's chances of digital growth. BAe Systems has to take mitigative steps now to acquire its own capability to counter those risks to avoid future pain.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1dxo+ZQei2Yl

BAE were more than happy with the service provided by CSC - it's only when Mikey formed DXC with the sole intention of breaking it up and selling it, that BAE got wise to his unethical, self-fulfilling machinations.

Good on you BAE, you're better off without the now, DXC toxic environment.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ggj+ZQei2Yl

I don't blame BAe for taking people and work back with them. DXC is delivering Sh1te...what would anybody do? Good...another nail in the DXC casket!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vin+ZQei2Yl

what about BAE in UK gradually taking work and people back inhouse. Not enough to worry about contracts.. over the years what is left with DXC?

Poor performance people left with DXC.

Very clever.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cck+ZQei2Yl

@ZQei2Yl-osm Remember a lot of the long term staff are the Grads that were taken on ;o)

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @igj+ZQei2Yl

Long time staff earn less than £14.500? Wow

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @osm+ZQei2Yl

Totally agree with this. Also, the fact they just let excellent talent just waltz out the door, even if they had an assigned project, and in some cases, don't have a suitable replacement as a back up. This must, and is, p1SS1ng off clients, such as BAe. I was CR'd and took VR to get out with a package (thanks d!ckheads), and no repalacement was assigned to finish off my task. Unreal, how the hell they are in business. I shake my head!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ani+ZQei2Yl

Post a reply

: