"Our research found that many organizations are very much in the dark about their current situation. "
Guess what companies are in the dark and who sponsored this article.
https://hbr.org/sponsored/2017/10/how-to-design-your-it-organization-for-constant-evolution
yeah right and dxc fights with the toilet paper supplier to lower down the pricing. that's just pathetic!
Judge a company by what it actually DOES i.e Executes [clEar], not what it SAYS it will do.
The real innovation thought leaders, have long since gone. But they were never able to get their ideas implemented past the old monolithic fiefdom structure, even when they were here. There was too much politics back then.
The current landscape, in theory, should be easier to implement new ideas. But there is little investment. The company is still acting like phase 1 of 'get fit' and without investment and thought leaders, they are reduced to being spoon-fed by McKinsey on NGDM models - and what a costly disastrous experiment that turned out to be, with clients losing dedicated support and having to fight to get it back. Plus, they are now reduced to copying LEF's white papers when they used to be leaders of that forum at one time.
The focus in NOT on client value, where is should be. No, no, no. The 'C' in CLEAR stands for something else now.
It used to be that the client was first and stakeholder value would be the natural consequence of satisfying the former. Every month in the national or trade press there is news of another project fail attributed to the Frankenfirm DXC - usually govt, healthcare or defence, where DXC is failing or clients taking their contracts elsewhere when they come up for renewal. It's natural, its about de-risking your service when there's very little money around to buffer those headwinds.
DXC's VALUE-CHAIN
"What do the Stakeholders want?" ---> more value. [without truly understanding what value means to a given client].
"How do we get that?" --- > cut costs
"How do we do that?" --> Close sites; reduce expensive onshore labour; reduce pensions, benefits and expenses. Require every expenditure to have a fully approved Business Case and get the Investment Review Board to sit on it for 6 months.
"How about we stop paying bonuses to top tiers when targets are missed - in line with everyone else - and stop international flights for the Level 2's, so that these guys are able to appreciate how it feels to have to present DXC's offerings to a client from your behind kitchen worktop, too?"
---> One WFR for this guy pls, he's been asking too many questions.
They might wrap this up with words about being nimble and de-risking client investment - which, if you have DXC as a supplier, then your risk-investment is going to be a very high anyway!]
"How do we know when we've got there?" --->When we can't attract new skills, when the attrition looks like the dam burst and the clients (the ones that count, not the legacy or the contracts where we know we're no good and their going anyway) perceive no additional or declining value in the services they receive. Stuff 'em!
"Why don't they just sell off the Business?" ---> Because none of the big 3 will buy it yet and besides why should we, value has to hit $100 per share first ($Bonus$). Sure, all the inherent skills have gone and the DXC's method of operation isn't stable and the partners are still not fully integrated after 2 years. So they'd be buying a hollowed out shell, albeit with good supplier agreements in place. isolated bits still handing on and too much expensive and skill-specific legacy and very expensive operating costs compared to your competitors. So they'd want a reduction in the price first once they start due-diligence and see the operating costs.
However, DXC does have something left: lucrative clients. That's where the real value is!
If DXC's model was more stable and their end-to-end actually worked and the ratio of tickets to new implementations and changes were much lower, then it could be transformed without too much disruption to longstanding and loyal (remaining) clients, who have already tolerated far too much impact to their service during this...what do they call it? Oh yes, 'transformation'.
DXC left the 'get fit' 2 years ago, entered the growth, but realised their 'get fit' had left with little agility and skill to grow. So they went back to 'get fit' and ended up making it bulimic. So it acquired partners with leading edge skills and experience, to fatten up its arms, and plugged them into DXC's clients on the other and then stood back and thought 'maybe connecting people to suppliers is all we bring to this party now?
There is too much of a risk in DXC's operations for a new buyer to take a chance and the stock is overvalued. They will likely wait until the transformation is complete in 2020 and observe the value.
At that point, the workforce will only just exceed the number you can fit in a telephone booth; All service commodities will be one-size-fits-all pay-as-you-go with added options if you recommend a friend; The enterprise service desk will be run off a Raspberry-PI in Noida and the only remaining CLOUD will be the one masking Mikey's quick exit.
Well, you know it's BS when they're saying Bill Murray is in the Matrix. Pretty sure that was Ghostbusters...