Hey let's give our employees multiple time entry systems which they need to VPN into and then get mad at them when they focus on getting the work done and not entering c-ap DAILY.
Grade A management talent.
18 replies (most recent on top)
Theres to much management so they have to think of useless procedures to justify their existence so they come up with these additional processes and procedures.
Mike Ssaid he was getting rid of layers of management as the customers were saying theres too many layers. 3 months later we are getting more layers.
So mike can you be clear why your getting more layers in now when we dont need useless overheads and what's changed in the last couple of months that your doing a full u turn?
@6wke+16yWKUdo why not make it simple and fill out your time sheet every day. Anything after that its too hard to remember everything you worked on that day.
Funny how management do not like employees modifying monthly timesheets in the subsequent month, in order to act ethically. But wait - Sal and his cronies don't fill in timesheets at all, otherwise we might find out exactlywhat they do each day and night.
I love how we're only allowed to input one timesheet week at a time. Then halfway through the month, there's a panic to complete everything until the rest of the month. It's really really stupid. Just let us input timesheets for the whole month!
- I.P.
The new CIO and his minions have not delivered a single thing in the last six months. The same ahole who owned the integrations of HPE/CSC is now leading the separations. Brilliant, give him a proper raise.
I don’t think anyone has registered ‘ClusterF***’ as a Corporation trading name yet. They would need a new CFC logo - one with different font types, sizes and angle of rotation to get the meaning across to clients quickly.
Exactly, it wasn't meant to function, it was a financial vehicle for the enrichment of Mikey and a handful of others.
Literally a fire sale with some cheap advertising plastered on the front.
Only I believe now under new management they are trying to make a go of it.
Trying.
I'm sure eventually enough of it will fall away to leave something small enough they can control in a sensible way, but a $25bn company will have become a $1bn one by the end of it and then bump along as a specialist at whatever - probably something legacy.
I wonder when the name change will come.... its got to be on the cards.
The whole DXC merger was never ment to bring up a fully intergrated new company. It was only build to work temporarily. Mike L. tried to sell the complete delivery organsisation several times, and failed.
So DXC got only interim logo, design, processes, ...
Mike S. is now selling some parts. Company will be splitted into the good, the bad and the ugly.
Customer contracts and staff are sorted.
CSC/HPE set up a large transformation programme 3 years ago to address the integration of people, tools and process. The Governance was poorly executed with poor communication amongst those who needed to know pre-contract. By the time of contract signing, the transformation budget had been exhausted and many workstreams were still pending review/approval of business cases that likley still remain in perpetuity. Most teams and staff were cut within the months that followed. Most of the HPE board realised their fate was sealed and left.
The only delivery I recall was: a black and white logo produced by Seigal+Gale that no-one understood, A McKinsey set of engagement templates (redacted from their use with other clients) and a paid-for Website complete with funded freelance white-paper articles to supplement some CSC and HPE case studies. The photographs themselves sent the network to a crawl.
Then sh– the fan when DXC due dilience had failied to spot some accounting details (a lesson for all future mergers) whereby HPE had classed some leased capital assets as "operational" assets under a $250m threshold. DXC subsequently discovered these assets were generating revenue of $1.0 billion (which exceeded the threshold) and sought arbitration through the courts to get HPE to indemnify DXC in the matter.
Supply and demand processes were still undefined. A third of country accounts were poor at predicting revenue. Some accounts submitted forecasts that look like they've spent 10 minutes on it with ongoing streams and no indication of what new leads they were pursuing, if any. Supply needed 3-6 months lead time to source a Project Manager and not necessarily with sector experience or technical knowledge. Low-cost centres put up Junior PM's (often grads with 1 year of DBA projects put onto high-risk, busienss crirical work in unfamiliar sectors). I am sure they must have sorted that out by now, as it was pretty frightening back then.
Red on resource and delivery timescale became so common, that regional management started to filter the ordinary reds from the critical reds, claiming some reds could be managed in the account and should be amber. So all the lack of resource onces became amber unless it threatened revenue greater than £1M which was a target ever reached anyway. Red risks and issues on RIOM were ignored and became wallpaper (not sure if that tool was every used properly - sledgeghammer to crack a walnut)
Lack of processes meant a lack of clarity of responsibilities in the end-to-end delivery and client and account frustrations grew over 'one hand doesn't know what the other is doing' type issues. This led to anxiety, stress and people wanting to leave. The older ones holding out for voluntary redundancy in Europe.
DXC has never recongised the people-dimension in the transformation. There is no worth in people. They are just resources. Experience no longer counts. Resource is to be treated like any other asset. Buy a new cheap resource, after the project completes, fire them. Then buy another new and cheap resource for the next project. Experience walks out of the door and is not passed on. Hence why the same mistakes are repeated. There is no continuity unless a person stays - even if the knowledge is IN their head and not on recorded anywhere. Its a disposable workforce now. HR will continue to massage the 3 bell curve to squeeze out more 4's from the good performing ones in the middle and the Ethics survyes will continue to be issued so that everyone knows it is still a word in the English Dictionary, like an old forgotten custom.
DXC is fully aware of the low morale issue and its dehabilitating effect upon productivity. I noticed it has recently sought to remediate this with a new 'cheer up or get out' strategic campaign.
This is a company that is fed up; has not seen growth in 3 years and watched revenue slump from $21B to just short of $7b and with the pandemic and a fierce and challenging market where similar enterprises have not had to deal with the same internal challenges and whose stock has weathered the storm better than DXC's.
A successful transformation?
DXC continues to struggle with resolving its own internal challenges faced from inception such as controlling cost, having a clear operating model, enabling effective and efficient end-to-end processes, having clear delivery accountability (some recent improvements now); ongoing product management support; improved internal toolsets, improved staff skilling, effective people management with renumeration/reward - likley everyone who the business going through the pandemic.
But with these struggles stil ongoing after 3 years, can DXC really claim to be a client expert in Business Process transformation?
I knew someone who programmed his cell phone to automatically input a weeks worth of time as he just worked on the one account / WNS code.
DXC was initially formed for one thing only: to make as much money for Mike Lawrie to bail with. People and processes were an afterthought. Maybe under Salvino it will become an actual corporation with a focus and mission.
Absolutely agree. Every week, I've to fill in THREE timesheets. THREE! And each one of them goes to a different type of management. It's time to abolish this MBA-tier nonsense.
DXC was formed over three years ago by the 'merger' of CSC and the Enterprise Services bit of HPE.
It's crazy that three years down the line former CSC people are still using the timesheet system that they previously used and the former HPE people still use the timesheet system that they previously used.
I can understand there being disparate systems for the first 6-12 months as the two companies combine, but over three years later?
Whoever was in charge of integrating the two companies should hang their head in shame. Actually scratch that, they were probably let go due to WFR as integration was an unnecessary cost and so here we are!
Be patient, we have working on a system, wherein your customer will fill in your timesheet, that way we know that the data entered is accurate and employees cannot cheat the system. .. And you can concentrate on helping the customer and not doing admin work!
Any CEO's trust DXC to implement their technology? Anyone?
We had to do TES over the phone once, count yourself lucky ;o)
DXC/CSC are clueless.
Amen