Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Can we finally agree Agile failed?

With lagging performance and the creation of ENGINE - isn’t this all implicitly (or explicitly) mean agile failed and we can move on? Stop this performative nonsense and focus on work?

Btw - as I see this as a core problem of chevron. These project are so precious to the execs, everyone is afraid to say out loud it didn’t work. So instead of abandoning bad ideas, they exist in a zombie state, adding to layers of pointless bureaucracy to nowhere. Constantly astonished at how spineless our middle management is about managing up - but it also makes perfect sense when you look at our political promotion process. Perhaps engine can start there….

by
| 1492 views | | 9 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1uoLYlOm

9 replies (most recent on top)

Is agile going away or here to stay?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2umr+1uoLYlOm

They used Agile in Process Control Network Engineers at the refinery, let that lunacy sink in… you can’t Agile PCN on the DMC. MW got enamored with the latest tech and processes and went ba--s to the walls and clueless to the disaster it’s been to Chevron.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2rvo+1uoLYlOm

@bnv darn straight … if we hadn’t done Agile we would have been incredibly efficient and there’d be no ENGINE … make sense to me

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1gmw+1uoLYlOm

Agile was sold as the thing that was to drive efficiency. If it had succeeded there wouldn’t be a need for ENGINE.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bnv+1uoLYlOm

@joz: only problem with Agile was it “was used and applied to areas it should not have been”. LOL! Ok, well there at least we agree, it should not have been applied to anything related to the petroleum industry! Isolated teams focused on working as rapidly as possible to produce prototypes and then recycling as needed might work well for software development, but less useful for projects requiring integration of multiple highly trained specialists making bets on holes that cost 100 million each. Redos cost a lot more than just making a few new user input menus. It also changed the whole focus to micromanager mo--ns rather than building long term communities of practice to grow skilled practitioners within each discipline and building company competency long term. All and all, Aglie was a complete disaster for our company!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mfm+1uoLYlOm

So many comments on every thread prove that it's obvious to all and sundry that chevron is top heavy with woeful management. What's disappointing is that it's not explained by greed. When you promote walking facades, you hard wire their resistance to any threat of improvement.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hod+1uoLYlOm

I’ve never worked with so many smart people that lack critical thinking skills.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ohv+1uoLYlOm

It’s not the tools that are the problem. It’s that we promote, support, and only invest in mediocre people, chosen by mediocre leaders.
And this has nothing to do with DEI. Chevron lacks a healthy population of outside talent. It only supports internal myopic employees without subject matter expertise.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hww+1uoLYlOm

Not really. Agile didn’t fail as much as it was used and applied in areas where it shouldn’t have and it was never really bought into by some groups/teams. Should we have blamed CPDEP when performance lagged and we had multiple ROMs and reorgs over the past 15 years? No, the issues go beyond a framework.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @joz+1uoLYlOm

Post a reply

: