It has been a long, long time in the DNA history that CSC Management understood transformation. Even CSC had a proprietary Catalyst Change Management methodology across (what was) Domains of change. There was quite a lot of investment in its method, publishing, training and although never fully deployed, it was used on a few successful change programmes that tailed off after 2009. After that change programmes together with the Consultancy arm of DXC was wound down until removed completed, with CSC then relying on external consultancy firms like McKinsey that were able to implement ill-fitting models to a business they didn't fully understand. High performing teams (a kind of agile Dev-Ops) and later the disastrous POD models (a costly 'lo-cost' mess). Other companies who also adopted Kinsey's models, threw them out when they saw the idea only worked on paper. DXC was then formed and although they didn't know it, was sitting on a lot of cost, including a lot of HPE cost that was kind of hidden in a very creative way. DXC saw CSC had lots of presidents, vice presidents, Chief Executives officers, Finance officers. Sure they were all cut to increase the speed of decision making and save costs. This was called a transformation journey. But it was supposed to be a 3 yr duration and ended up being endless. It ended up with only central decision making when the objective had been to make decision making faster (it was far slower). They continued to cut staff to the point where services fell over; new projects were announced and project teams would arrive at a client staff on Monday to find they were just 1 person of a team of 10 who had been cut on the Friday. Staff morale plummeted and clients left.
Probably the most destructive transformation the company has ever seen and continues to witness. There was no real assessment of the risk impact of given changes before they were made. It was kind of 'lets cut all this and see what happens' methodology. There was no real evaluation of whether the delivery model was set up to optimise delivery and decision making (as there were no real defined roles, responsibilities or even a process!) to meet changing technology client needs. They tried cutting the staff in the new models to see if that worked, then they cut the models and re-invented them with new names, but had since lost all the skills.
The longest running IT transformation in history is really just a grounded oil tanker far out at sea with a leaky hull and its remaining cargo is now 2/3rds of its starting value and worth less than half of what they thought (and still think) it should be worth. Any transformation should have been done quickly, to have created a sense of urgency. Allowing it to continue this long means employees lose faith in the objective (as is now the market and the die-hard investors who've not seen dividends since Covid). Though initial high hopes were there when the new captain took over, morale has continued to plummet to the point where key people have been told to add the odd positive comment on here because senior management are getting tired of constant negative posts on social media. The morale issue affects everyone in the engine room and makes it hard to power the ship forward. But as the vision of direction also seems to have hit a fog bank and obstacles still block the way, then it will need some real observable positive action to change attitudes. Like a change of leadership team for example. It's not a question of using old tech like Platform-X - the lifeboat that is full of holes or Modern Workplace that probably was modern back in 2016. Everyone now just wants to see a buy-out to inject new life.