Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

ITC Letter excerpts

We landed on a $147MM cost reduction target or 17 percent, inclusive of what we delivered last year with our Wave 1 activity.....

As we did last year, we looked hard at non-labor, and again inclusive of Wave 1, approximately 40 percent of our cost reductions will come from non-labor.....

The broad organizational structure of ITC will remain largely unchanged although there will be some internal shifts in work to support segment delivery. To meet our ambition targets, we will reduce approximately 117 U.S.-payroll positions (includes closed/vacant positions) and 63 staff augmentation contractors. Concurrently, there will be an increase in positions in ITC due to our Cybersecurity Acceleration Program and the integration of approximately 240 positions from ETC-TC and GCF-IT. We also selectively made some improvements and reshaped some roles to position our function sustainably for the future, while minimizing unnecessary organizational change.

The IT function leadership team worked carefully on determining the scope of our people changes, given ITC had gone through such a large staffing event last year. We are seeking to balance disruption risk, against the need to optimize our people, and give those affected by our organizational change opportunities to compete for new roles. Approximately 50 percent of ITC U.S. payroll employees will participate in the Resource Optimization Management (ROM) process, which will be conducted in two rounds, and the remainder will be closed in position and unaffected by the ROM.

by
| 1080 views | | 14 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+CE3xA4i

14 replies (most recent on top)

Dick Matzke makes a good point. There are more ITC "professionals" in Upstream than drilling managers or geologists combined. Most of the engineers use laptops with wireless connectivity. The apps are off the shelf for the most part.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2MnQ+CE3xA4i

I have seen a Chevron service company charge $2,000 for a six-slide PowerPoint and 70% of the charge was for a PM's time. Chevron is like Enron in its management. Divisions within the company over charge for services and eat up the budget. Stockholders would be shocked.

That may be why BCG is suggesting the biggest cuts in the service companies.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2jjo+CE3xA4i

I graduated in December from Carnegie Mellon with a comp sci degree. I did two externships one with Google the other with Exxon. That being said, I took a position with Chevron and left 2 months later. Chevron is unable to deploy freaking share SharePoint....REALLY!!! Nothing gets done and there is no accountability. It was clear to me that ITC is doomed. I took my sheepskin to another business. Run away from there guys and gals....it's BAD! P.S you don't need a PM for a grade school project or maybe a PM for 40 of the grade school projects.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1OMP+CE3xA4i

The ITC rates are some of the more reasonable rates in the entire organization. The blended Tier 3 rates per hour for those under PSG23 is below $200hr. Our Manila and Buenos Aires staff are talented. (When not out of office due to their plentiful government holidays)

The big issue I see in ITC is that no one knows how to estimate a project properly. I've seen some really insane estimates where the PM accounts for 70% of project labor costs. Crazy, but then again Gorgon is how much over budget?

Funny how ITC is always critized as a cost center rather that a profit center, but how many decades of ITC's budget could be paid for from the cost overruns of Gorgon? The way I see if the rest of the business had to operate like ITC or Downstream in the past two years we would be better equipped to ride out this storm.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1XrY+CE3xA4i

The reason why there is no OC in-house is because ITC keeps getting slashed. Just when we start to build real OC in a particular space, a ROM happens, the folks who know how to do shit get let go (because they are paid well because they know how to do shit) and outside consultsants are brought in who build their own OC then take it with them when the project is done. If you think we are going to be able to build a smart capable ITC paying salaries of $50k a year then keep dreaming.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1rYA+CE3xA4i

i am in ITC. i agree were too fat.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @YOY+CE3xA4i

sometimes its not about cost. its because of attitudes like that why the business doesn't want to do stuff with ITC. slow in delivery. incompetent in support because there's no OC to do the real work in house. too many PMs. not enough people knowing how to do the real work.

framed and planned by project managers, tracked by some unnecessary pmo, and executed by the offshore guys.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hQa+CE3xA4i

Bullshit. Good luck in "the business folks" getting anything done simply having $20/hour folks overseas taking requests. You have a project that needs to be done? Then it needs to be framed, planned, and tracked. That costs money. You don't have the money? Then maybe you shouldn't be requested the project in the first place. ITC only responds to demands from the business.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @q71+CE3xA4i

ITC is still too fat. You bill "the business" $250/hr or whatever and then outsource the actual work to some offshore person at $20/hr or some outrageously low number. We don't need a support team project manager in between us business folks and the real technical experts that aren't in the company.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5Vt+CE3xA4i

The reason is because ITC had been getting slashed repeatly for years to fund the rest of the company. Last year we went thru (what I feel was unnecessary) a ROM that had been announced in Feb 2014 because oil had been "flat" for 4 years at $100/bbl. We also had a huge ROM in 2010. In between, our spend had always been held flat yet demand for our serviced kept growing from "the business." Requiring us to work longer hours with less resources. We've already taken our fair share of cuts folks...especially when times were good. Now it's finally time to cut in other departments and BUs.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @4ZS+CE3xA4i

117 is pretty pathetic. I would have expected a stronger effort from IT. How many IT workers are there? 5000?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @DbO+CE3xA4i

What does it mean that 50% are participating? Certain groups within ITC out of scope? Why not have everyone participate so that people who are "solid 2" performers in groups getting cut don't bare all the burden.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @0F4+CE3xA4i

agreed! That's the biggest crock of corporate bs I've read since yesterday, and that crap originated in PGPA and HR

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @We7+CE3xA4i

Anonymous123398, that's an excerpt from the ITC Letter?? Jeez... No wonder questions abound. What a bunch of mumble jumble. I say; Fire the person who wrote that letter and also fire the person(s) who approved its dissemination!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Ci9+CE3xA4i

Post a reply

: