In the beginning, it seemed that Agile would work out great. What do you think is the biggest reason why Agile is failing here?
19 replies (most recent on top)
Perfect, now Chevron’s entire management system is focused on “band aid“ applications: This explains all one needs to know!
I have never encountered a facility that didn’t have and need many bandaids. They make perfect sense and save a fortune.
bifd: Except when you arrive at the point your operation needs band aids you have already failed. Do each step carefully (always time to do it right) and the next step will be on solid foundation. Do half a-s prep with compound band aids each step just makes the operation more dangerous: financially and physically.
Agile is perfect for operations where you need quick solutions to patch problems because you are bleeding cash (LPO) in the meantime. Slap the band aid on fast while you figure out a long term solution.
Agile works great where it is intended to be used in IT software development and the rollout of IT solutions. It does not work well when you try to utilize a hybrid approach with waterfall mixed into the business projects. I feel that at the beginning of each project effort we should visit the project management style that fits the project instead of trying to force Agile across the board.
We have also Chevronized Agile where needed to make it fit projects where it has no business. I agree with the Operations teams in the BUs using Agile is a bad approach.
Just agile that operating facility, oh I forgot to add the pipe work no wonder none of the components work.
Just agile that pipeline, oh wait I had to do wall thickness and steel strength calculations. I thought it was vendor led solution, oh wonder why we just had a spill.
Just agile that well, oh wait we have collapsed tubing. No worries we will make upgrades to it when we replace it.
Just agile that wellhead and tree, oh wait we just had a blow out. How could that be we told the vendor we wanted it quick and cheap and they didn’t check the material specs and bolts.
We overdo, over specify and overbuild a lot. But the pendulum has gone too far especially with technical items. Don’t worry the generalist they put into the high up spots because of D&I and ESG will not catch the issues they are the ones actually causing the issues. We will be like BP one day. I take pictures as the company erases emails and teams channels so I will be ready when I am called to the stand.
Biggest reason Agile is failing is that it was forced on the staff, without any value statement at all.
@6oon: Agreed, maybe for the software development work… which is about zero percent of the direct money making effort.
Because it's not always "fit for purpose", but they're trying their best to shoehorn it in anyway. For the software development work it was designed to facilitate I'm sure it works great...but not so much outside of that context.
@krd & @lgr I agree 100%, just wait until we have to develop something technical again and it is something more then a rinse and repeat exercise. This is when the failures will occurs. Just like the LNG plant we built, the TLP that still doesn’t work and don’t forget the 20k project that’s being built now. Major issues will be seen and covered up, major issues already exist and are being covered up.
Because we have an overwhelming green/red e-color population (especially in LT) and these folks like detailed plans with specific committed deadlines months in advance.
Those plans are never realistic anyway.
Agile is the exact opposite. Short-term committed time-boxes of 2-4 weeks based upon what the teams have capacity to do.
LT doesn’t want to hand over that much authority. Hence the conflict.
@krd, absolutely correct. The dark side of Agile is that it nurtures no career development whatsoever (hence how technical training disappeared as Agile rose in the company), and tacitly assumes massive employee turnover, as is the case in the IT world. MW loves high turnover, it keeps the payroll down.
Agile was a natural profession once the deadwood were cleared out in 2016 and more flexible staff moved up.
The departure of so many experienced petrotech folks over a short time in 2016, and the focus on project sprints under Agile, broke the community of practice networks and fed management’s ideas that petrotechs were interchangeable cogs rather than life-time-learners that needed to be developed and nurtured to maintain a pipeline of experts within the company.
I'm sure there are pockets of IT where Agile has worked. That's what it was designed for, where timing is critical (remember 'We always have time to do things right'?) and repeated failures cost nothing. The rest of Chevron doesn't operate that way. There are three root causes: 1) Management is always looking for something trendy to latch onto, Agile just happened to be it; 2) High-pot 'champions' had little understanding (and no experience) at Agile beyond the buzzwords; 3) Workers saw no value in Agile other than constant meetings and micromanagement.
What is your evidence it is failing? I have seen quite a few excellent agile projects reach completion. We are getting really good at it at this stage.
Because we’re not a tech company run with agile
“Seemed it would work out great” to whom? Not to anyone who had actually participated in oil and gas operations! Just another example of inexperienced MBA’s with new ju-s of cool aid looking for a reason to be employed. It does not work because it was never fit for purpose!
bc it's not really agile. It's a ba----dized version of waterfall masquerading as Agile