Would anyone notice? Would there be any downside? Both functions are useless at this point, and bring more friction than benefit.
21 replies (most recent on top)
Age-old formula: A new-hire in IT signs on, gets some training and experience, realizes they have skill and potential and moves on to a tech company. Have seen this happen many times.
If CTC or EMC disappeared… it would mean one less abbreviated word to remember in the Chevron lexicon.
IT work is hard and competitive. Chevron IT people wanna take it easy and chill. They shouldn't complane.
Aren’t most of the new hires in Technology BU’s in Manila, Makati City and Singapore regardless of U.S. based IT Engineers?
90% of IT would be better off working for a tech company.
Finance and IT
What % of the company is petrotech? ~20%. Add in the operations people at plants and facilities about ~10-15%. Tue management ~5%. Someone explain to me what the remaining 60% of the company is doing.
@2xrw: "...It does not help to hire external consultants when you don’t even have the core staff to judge the quality of their work... " That explains the massive cost overruns and frequent downtime in all our LNG projects.
@2xrw, a couple of points: 1) I'm not familiar with those mandatory BU rotations for CTC new-hires (maybe PE/FE?), but I do agree, from observation, that once someone leaves CTC, if is highly unlikely they're going to return. People realize quickly that the closer you are to the bit or production line, the more impactful (and satisfying) your work, and the better chance of hanging on to your job or getting one with another company. 2) Yes, we did ourselves a severe disservice by allowing so many experienced people to leave the last two rounds without any succession planning whatsoever. From recent news, it looks like even MW does a poor job of succession planning.
I have been in CTC (ETC) for 20 years, after a previous 20 years in academia. In my specialty most new hires (MS & PhD) have to rotate into a business unit at least once during their Horizons program, and most do not return to CTC after that rotation. They come in from their academic programs thinking they want to be great researchers, but their priorities change when they start to grow families and realize the greater life-work balance available within many BU positions. Good for them. While neither CTC nor BU positions are more important to our bottom line, the truth is CTC specialists are harder to replace: So management is right to be cautious what they cut for short term savings. That plus the pipeline for those all important experienced (10 yr. plus specialists) was severely decapitated by the large number of folks who volunteered to accept packages during the last two layoffs (the great crew change if you will). It does not help to hire external consultants when you don’t even have the core staff to judge the quality of their work.
I worked in both CTC (well, ETC) first, then a BU. It was an eye-opening experience. CTC is all theoretical and technically myopic, BU has to get results, period. I agree with @1rmr, but that % of CTC that can provide that beneficial type of help is small, maybe 33% of the staff, and all experienced people (>10 yr.). CTC would benefit greatly by putting their Ph.Ds through at least one BU rotation early in their career before having them settle back in CTC.
I retired last year after 33 years, Chevron legacy. Most of my time was spent in the BU’s supporting operations. ETC is necessary because they are able to develop expertise in support of FE (upstream) and DE (downstream). This expertise isn’t realistic to develop in the BU’s. I’m not saying we don’t have expertise in the BU’s, but in ETC they support all the BU’s and develop expertise from individuals who support issues in all BU’s and then support the BU’s as needed. Examples include BU’s that can handle day to day Caesar analysis or common FFS. But there are often times specialized analysis is required that we needed ETC to perform or verify analysis performed by BU’s. Of course the BU’s need to always consider ETC recommendations and take appropriate action, but not follow blindly.
There’s no need to eliminate these two specialized group centers. By pairing down the number of employees and specializing in certain critical areas or functions only, Chevron can achieve a better result for their money. Remember the “KISS” principle.
just hire more lawyers and EMC can go away. I’ll notice.
Correct independents have 25% of the people be do.
We are way over staffed in none petro tech. Why does an energy company need so many people who do not find and produce oil and gas. With that said I don’t want anyone to loose their jobs but let’s be honest too many groups get away with to high of a body count and to high of psg on those bodies
Anyone who wants layoffs to destroy people's lives just to help the shareholders make a couple extra penny's are a special breed of uncaring people. Most likely ultra conservative since they seem to care little for people. Twitter has been a mess with all the layoffs and had a lot of performance issues and tech failures. We are too lean in areas already.
Good luck running the company outsourcing IT to India. The quality is poor much of the time.
Scythe Man cometh
MW please swing your layoff scythe we have become bloated again with far too many soft positions. Wall Street will react well to a slimmer energy focused company. The woke era is coming to an end
Elon Musk cut 75% of Twitter workforce and the company still functions the same as before, so yeah almost 60% of workforce can be reduced without too much impact, most independent oil companies are 25% of chevron employee staffed with similar production for total equivalent resource
Absolutely
—JG