Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

FINAL EXTRACT FROM SHELL’S LEAKED TRANSFORMATION PLANS

By John Donovan

Published below is the final multi-page segment from Shell’s leaked internal document mentioned in a Reuters/New York Times article published last week: Shell Plans 400 Job Cuts at Dutch Projects and Technology Department. The plans are much greater in scope than suggested by the headline. Their implementation will result in a managerial jobs upheaval and significant job cuts as a consequence of the acquisition of BG Group and the decline in oil prices. Once again, I have left in the page numbers, which appear at the foot of each page and sometimes interrupt paragraphs. The formatting is not 100% accurate but the content is correct.

Contracting & Procurement

Contracting & Procurement (CP) has been on a constant change path over the past 15 years to drive efficiency, to leverage buying power and to centralise and offshore CP Operations. In 2016 a major step up journey was launched and implemented to shape and operate “most competitive supply chains” on behalf of the businesses and to act as a “commercial powerhouse”. With that CP has moved to a delivery organisation structured in geographic GM-ships aligned with the Upstream and IG Operating/ Production Unit structure and has kept its global delivery organisation for the Downstream business.

Although the entire CP organisation reports under PT, the CP delivery organisations that are providing direct support to the DS, Upstream and IG business operations constitute the majority of the overall CP organisation and have already been adjusted as described before. The requirement to adjust the CP organisation as a result of the Projects & Technology Delivery Models is therefore limited to two areas:

1) CP Projects: proposal to set up a CP EPC Management team and to adjust the Global Supplier and Category Management organisations accordingly. The existing CP Supplier Management organisation will cease to exist and new teams for EPC Management and Supplier Ecosystems will be introduced.

The new EPC Management team will be responsible to roll-out differentiated contracting archetypes for capital projects with a few selected global contractors to perform selected

75

pre-FEED and FEED engineering services as well as execute projects post FID. This new group will consist of 7 new EPC Management position plus 1 existing CP Manager EPC role which will cease to exist end of 2018. The team will provide a single face to our main EPC contractors and drive commercial outcomes on every project that utilises them. To provide a similar integration for the non-EPC global relationships, we propose to merge the remaining supplier management activities with the existing category management teams. This will be reflected in a new Enterprise Category Management (ECM) team for Supplier Ecosystems consisting of 4 positions and 1 extra Global Category Manager position each being added to the ECM Equipment and Offshore teams.

2) CP Functions & Technology: proposal to enhance the Technology delivery organisation through additional capability and capacity within C&P Technology & Innovation (T&I), aligned to the Technology VP ships. The Technology Delivery Models work stream proposes a significant shift towards using third parties, who are expected to deliver specific technologies more efficiently and effectively. This will include more emphasis placed on off the shelf Technologies vs. internally developed Technologies, with the creation of a Sourcing Strategy at the outset of each Technology Programme covering; reuse, buy, collaborate, make decisions and section of the most appropriate Delivery Vehicle. Additionally, this enhanced capability will ensure that a robust market connect is in place to facilitate Effective Technology Commercialization and contractual deployment and replication. The CP Functions & Technology organisation will be instrumental in implementing and managing third party contracts and it is therefore proposed to add an additional 18 FTEs to deliver an annual external spend increasing from $368m to c.$960m (+ further $249m PTT in 2018). This will enable the creation of three distinct capability and organisational grouping: 1) Technology Delivery – focus on E2E technology procurement and commercilization aligned to VP ships/BTC’s, 2) Technology Center Procurement – Delivering against the site specific demand for STCH, STCA & STCB and 3) Technology Commercialization CoE – Lead high complexity, value, risk Technology Commercialization deals, create and roll out best practice and standard methodologies and engagement with Shell’s Innovation Vehicles.

The existing Category and Supplier Management organisations in CP Projects have no dedicated EPC focus which will be required to support the new Differentiated Projects Delivery contracting strategies. The current split set-up of category and supplier management has led to some inefficiencies which can be improved by merging the supplier management for non-EPC activities with the category management teams in the Projects CoE (this is existing and proven to be efficient model in CP Wells already) and the EPC related activities with the new EPC Management team. Additionally, this focused EPC Management team will have the specific skillsets required to deal with the complexities of EPC negotiation and performance management.

The existing Technology CP organization currently focuses almost entirely on external procurement activities on behalf of the Upstream Technology Organization only. With the consolidation of all Technology within one PT organization, the CP team needs to scale accordingly and acquire the skills required to engage in the Downstream & Midstream Technology market place. Effective Technology Commercialization can only be achieved through the deployment of skills that are not traditionally found within CP, for example cross industry collaboration, de risking through licensing and selling Shell’s Technology as an investment opportunity, in addition to pure procurement/commercial ability. Moreover, significant value based opportunity has been identified in driving the externalization of Technology. This necessitates a need for CP to understand the internal costs and drivers to identify and deliver against opportunities to outsource, collaborate with others or buy external services more extensively than is undertaken today in order to achieve a total cost reduction.

76

As a result the scope of the role and the team of the GM CP Technology & Innovation will grow substantially. As a consequence of the significant changes the current GM position is ceasing to exist and a new GM role will be created. therefore significantly changing and is therefore planned to be posted.

All other positions down to GM level in PTC are not changing as a result of the Project & Technology Delivery Model.

Consequences for the Netherlands (The impacts of the below changes, to NL positions can be found in the tables attached)

Positions ceasing to exist:

In PTC/CT 5 current CP Technology and Innovation positions will cease to exist a result of the introduction of the new and broader CP Technology and Innovation organisation

In PTC/PMS the current Supplier Manager role ceases to exist as a consequence of the discontinuation of the global Supplier Management organisation and the introduction of the new EPD Management and Supplier Ecosystem teams

4 positions ceased to exist and were consulted in the 2016 CP TOM organisation (as per CP TOM RFA 2016) are removed in accordance with the NL People Principles.

New positions

As a result of the introduction of the new EPD Management and Supplier Ecosystem teams 2 new positions are created

Through the introduction of the new and broader CP Technology and Innovation organisation 7 new positions are created

Transfer between Technical Divisions

The Downstream PMO will sit under PTC going forward following the logic that the PMO roles should sit with the PT EVP who is the lead for the respective business which the EVP PTC is for Downstream. One role will therefore be moved from PTD/T into PTC/PM

P&T Human Resources

The below proposed changes aim to align the P&T HR organisation to the proposed new P&T organisation defined by the Delivery Model Review.

Based on the HR business partnering model, at EC- 2 level, it is proposed to align the HR VP roles with the new P&T EVP roles. At EC-3 and below level, the objective has been to minimize the impact of the Delivery Model change.

In parallel to this change the Shell HR Function has started a journey to world class, focusing on three areas: a refreshed people strategy, optimising the HR organisation and improving the employee experience through applying digital technologies. The HR PT organisation will therefore undergo a further review as part of the HR Function journey to world class, this will be consulted if and where needed in a separate RfA.

77

The HR Learning and OE organisation is undergoing changes and the HR PT Learning and OE team is in scope for the HR Learning and OE reorganisation and will also be consulted if and where needed in a separate RfA. The P&T Delivery Model changes are taken into consideration in the Learning & OE reorganisation.

Consequences for the Netherlands (The impacts of the below changes, to NL positions can be found in the tables attached)

Total number of PT HR NL positions currently supporting the Business in scope of this review is 27. In the proposed organisation there will be 25 positions. This number does exclude the following PT HR organisations, which are out of scope for this RfA (as mentioned above):

  •   Policy Processes & Systems Learning & OE
  •   Change & Engage
  •   Talent Development
  •   HR in the CountryThe following roles will cease to exist:
  •   VP HR GS Downstream
  •   VP HR Projects & Engineering Services
  •   VP HR P&T Innovation, Research & DevelopmentThe following new role will be created:

 VP HR Technology
Furthermore, as a result of the above 13 positions will change reporting line, reference indicator and

or job title.

Summary of the NL consequences

FINANCIAL ASPECTS

The proposal will help P&T to achieve its financial competitiveness objective of reducing its global total cost base to around $5bn by the end of 2018.

This would mean cost reduction of around 35% when compared against the baseline of 2015 Actual, inclusive of opportunities in overhead reduction where possible.

The delivery model changes should also contribute towards the achievement of PT2020 financial targets, including 20%-30% reduction in the unit development costs of P&T-led projects.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

When reviewing the different parts of the organisation a number of alternatives where considered: For Projects and Engineering:

  1. A fully end-to-end Project organisation (pre- and post-DG3),
  2. A consolidated asset support organisation under Technology

A fully end-to-end Project organisation (pre- and post-DG3):

When looking at the appropriate organisational structure to implement more commoditised projects, we considered where concept engineering should sit functionally and organisationally and at which point overall accountability for a project should move to the EVP Projects & Engineering. The Front End is characterized by considerable TECOP ambiguity and subsurface uncertainty, which can

79

influence, drive and often alter scope up to DG3, requiring Concept Engineers with a broad engineering skillset with appreciation of technology, subsurface and wells issues, an ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity together with strong collaborative leadership behaviours. Upstream Development (for Upstream projects) and Technology (for Downstream projects) are appropriate organisations to develop and maintain these capabilities. With respect to when overall accountability should move to EVP Projects & Engineering, DG2, Concept Select (CS) and DG3 are potential transfer points. The early Select phase is dominated by subsurface development planning and technology integration, which requires Concept Engineers to work in an integrative and iterative manner with the subsurface team and / or technology teams and therefore precludes handover at DG2. From Concept Select, facilities definition increases, however, scope is still evolving resulting in CS as a transition gate not being as ‘clean’ as DG3, with a Proposal to Commence Project (PCP). DG3 on balance is the best transition point, but this still requires effective engineering, execution and CP input to concept select and into post CS deliverables.

A consolidated asset support organisation under Technology:

When looking at the consolidation of asset support activities, we considered establishing the new Asset Support organisation under Technology. Technology-related support to assets (e.g. GTL) for bespoke technologies were already proposed to move to the new Technology directorate, as part of a Centre of Expertise (CoE) model, consistent with the approach taken for Chemicals and Refining Technologies. Moving all asset support into Technology would have expanded the scope of the Technology organisation well beyond its core mandate. The skillset of engineers involved in asset support is also different from the typical skillset required for technology development. The preferred option was therefore to create an Asset Support team in Projects and Engineering under the VP Engineering and Asset Support. This creates clarity of mandate for both the Technology and Projects and Engineering directorates and reflects the common engineering skillset required to support projects and assets.

For Technology:

As mentioned above a number of pain points were identified in the current P&T design which include:

  • Lack of consistency on end-to-end (E2E) accountability/not having a ‘single point of contact’ for technology delivery across different technical divisions and many interfaces and overlap between activities.
  • Inability to effectively translate business demand into required technology and suboptimal business commitment for deployments, leading to depressed deployment rates.
  • Lack of transparent information and robust capabilities to deliver this, leading to suboptimal portfolio management and decision making on technology development activities (high pass rates in early stage gates).
  • Insufficient leverage of external innovation ecosystems, with instances of in house technologies being less competitive than those available on the external market.

80

The organizational design options which were considered as part of the Delivery Model proposals are within these parameters, with the overarching principle that creating an end to end Technology organization is the key enabler for other changes. Different VP-Ship constructs were discussed during design. A summary of the decision points are detailed below:

  • Putting Catalyst research, manufacturing and sales in one VP-Ship, and Technology Licensing in the Innovation Excellence VP-Ship. This option was not chosen for the following reasons:

o Catalyst R&D supports a number of shell businesses (Integrated Gas, Chemicals, Refining, New Energies) and is important differentiator: both now and for the energy transition. This needs a seat at the leadership team table, with a VP who has technical/scientific depth in this arena;

o CRI/Criterion have a substantive NIBIAT growth agenda and sizeable FTE. The VP running these businesses needs to have operational and sales experience;

o Combining Catalyst R&D and CRI Criterion would mean the R&D role would sit at the GM level – losing visibility at the Technology Leadership team level;

o There are substantial synergies between the customer base for CRI/Criterion and in current and prospective licensing customers. This would be lost if Technology Licensing moves to Innovation Excellence.

o PuttingTechnologyLicensingalongsideCRI/CriterionalsomeansthereisoneVP with P&L responsibility rather than two;

o The primary focus of Innovation Excellence is to assist with ensuring commercial thinking is integrated into technology maturation from the outset and that there active, transparent and consistent portfolio management of technologies as they progress through the funnel – leading to objective decision making and a “fail fast” mentality allowing us to focus on the remaining winners. If Technology Licensing were to sit in this VP-Ship there is a danger that the associated P&L would dilute the focus of the Innovation Excellence VP.

  •  Putting New Energies with Integrated Gas rather than Chemicals:
    o Whilst this combination has the benefits of optically aligning with business construct, it would require splitting the process development capability (which is currently housed in PTI/D). This would make it harder to offer meaningful career development and create teams which would potentially be below critical mass size at different junctures as technologies move through the funnel.

o There are also additional synergies between skillsets required for the execution and management of externalization associated with Long Range Research in Chemicals (focused on Methane to Products) and New Energies (Dense Energy Carriers, Advanced Energy Storage)

o In addition, the BTCs (Business Technology Committee) for Integrated Gas and New Energies are entirely separate. Therefore, placing New Energies with Chemicals does not create additional interfaces for the Business

  • Putting Global Commercial Technology and Fuels Technology together:

81

o An early proposal for the new organization considered putting Global Commercial Technology and Fuels Technology together, as they are both product chemistry related technologies and there are potential synergies in their operations.

o However, this was tested with the business and discounted due to the substantive growth agendas for both Retail and Global Commercial, and the prominence of technology in those growth plans. Both retail and Global Commercial wanted direct line of sight on these teams and felt they would be better served in the pursuit of their business objectives by keeping these elements separate.

 Which aspects of PTU/T and PTU/G would move into the single technology organization: o There was early alignment that GtL should move into the single technology organization due to the bespoke nature of the technology. We considered leaving gas processing and gasification in Development but determined that these had strong technology components and high synergies with GtL and therefore believed that keeping them together and moving them into a single technology organization would be simpler, create less interfaces and led to better benefits for the business (in terms of the BTC interface).

o We also considered putting LNG in the technology organization, but decided against this given that the vast majority of our LNG technology leverages third party designs and consequently what we deploy is more engineering led rather than technology led.

RISKS AND MITIGATIONS

By nature transformation and change journeys provide opportunities but also have associated risks that require appropriate risk management and delivery model is no exception to that. Lessons learned from recent transformations and best practices including from Tea Clipper are taken into account and will be going forward. Existing networks including PT2020/LSPTR are leveraged and further complemented to keep lines of communication strong and focused. Positive element is that from the engagements it is sensed that the simplification and streamlining this change brings is broadly supported.

Risks are categorized by Organizational Capability (Organization Capability Development Model): People, Processes, Culture, Structure and Leadership leading to Business Results. Change Assessments (CA) have been executed, and will continue to be updated, to identify key areas of change, impact and risks per TD. A selection of already identified risks and mitigations are included below. PTLT owned change plans will further address risks and proposed actions. Key risks are also registered and reviewed separately.

In the area of People it is I recognized that P&T has gone through multiple changes over the last years including SMARAGD and BG related changes with a risk of organizational change fatigue which can have multiple consequences (incl. in safety, business continuity, wellbeing). Specific areas of attention are, and will be further, identified as part of the change assessments. Short term post embargo submission end of June and mid July 2-3 weeks of one-to-one with staff is planned (level by

82

level) to share the impact of DM Wave 1 design on individuals in an open, transparent and sensitive manner. Care for people is a core value underpinning the plans with open communication.

A second risk addressed is losing or not sufficiently developing technical capabilities/skill sets required to deliver against business requirements, unlock people productivity and creativity.

For Projects key roles associated skills sets have been defined. Existing skill sets continue to be important but commercial skills become increasingly important and experience in a broad range of topics is required in this context. The Shell Project Academy will be updating Project Management Job Competence Profiles to ensure that project managers gain critical experiences to progress through competence levels.

Asset Support is building on existing technical capabilities and skillsets to create career paths that develop deep technical expertise as well as more multi-skilled engineering roles with a focus on differentiating capabilities. This will enable P&T staff to focus on providing high value capability for maximum productivity and impact to the bottom line instead of dealing with routine work and excessive administration. Asset Support staff at all levels will feel ultimately that they are part of a bigger purpose and that their work is much more valued by their business partners.

There are three key shifts that will shape the ways of working, will empower people, unlock productivity and creativity. First the move from managing risk through rigorous compliance, frameworks and standards to enabling credible and competent people in our projects to use their experience, judgement, expertise and their engagement with others to make risk based decisions. Secondly moving from checking our suppliers at the end of their work process to see that they meet our requirements to engaging with our suppliers to understanding how they do work and how we can enable their productivity and quality and how that can deliver better outcomes for us. And last moving from giving the technically best answer with any disciplined perspective to providing solutions that the total picture of a system, either a project or asset.

Technology retains internal capability where it is differentiating against the external market and makes increased use of third parties where competitive and commercially available alternatives exist. Business Technology Committees (BTC), as part of business LTs, have embarked on a process of aligning the portfolio of programmes to meet the business requirements. Internal capabilities/skillsets will be developed in accordance with the technical function improvement plans within this context. The design was stress tested to ensure continued ability to absorb and train graduates (e.g. in chemicals, LRR & digitalisation) and identify critical mass for core capabilities to retain internally. This to address the risk that increased external collaboration negatively impacts our ability to grow our talent (e.g. insufficient opportunities to place graduate talent) leading to long term erosion of internal capability & loss of long term competitive edge.

Within Technology staff and key capabilities will be more co-located in Technology hubs for easier collaboration, less duplication and more structured job and career growth opportunities. To be fully prepared to monetize open innovation opportunities an upskilling of CP capability is required. As part of the change process, selected contracting & procurement capabilities must be strengthened to enable the commercial benefits of improved sourcing strategies and demand management are realized.

83

Externalization would hold vendors accountable for essential work and provide faster and easier access to results. We will increase our use of Lean and “Agile” development methodologies, for faster, iterative development we need to learn through doing and take the time educate all employees on the basic principles so they can distinguish between Systems Engineering, Agile and Lean, Scrum and Kanban and can choose which principle and methodology to apply for their context.

In the area of Leadership the risk of lacking change capable leaders is recognized. Specific attention is focused on the broader leader population, to support them in their key role of communicating and guiding their employees through the change journey. Individual Capability Sessions (micro sessions) to enable change capable leaders are ongoing in June and July (the brain science of change, building your capacity for change) and will continue in September (building your team’s capacity for change). In addition, during July and August the most senior leaders (EVPs and selected VPs) will host cross PT sessions in small groups on the topic of the PT purpose and what this means for them as an individual leader, to create a platform for open discussion and personal story-telling around managing the change and the future direction of PT. Further plans in this area are being developed. Great people who do great work can be relied upon to embrace and help drive the change and target is early identification of top change champions. Selection of the best leaders is also an important element that is further discussed in the next section on resourcing.

In the area of Culture the risk of ineffective behavioral change limiting transformational change has been identified. Changes in Culture and Behaviors are key for the success of the Delivery Model. This is applicable across P&T but most prominently in the new Technology organization. A very specific approach to support employees going through this change, and to involve people who are interested in the design of the new ‘way of working’, is being developed within the Technology organization that will be supported by specialists. Broader P&T rollout will be based on Technology and the existing PT2020 change programme.

In the area of Business Results the risk of losing ability to deliver against business requirements is identified. Active engagement on LT level have been executed in all Lines of Business (LoB). Much of the in country set up is aligned with LoB aspirations. Business was represented in the Design Team to test the design against business requirements including potential changes in portfolio and uptick of activities that can be envisioned within the businesses. In Projects & Engineering the intention is to use contractors /contingent workers to ensure headcount stability within the establishment organization and deal with an uptick in activities.

Changes in portfolio and/or uptick of activities because of an increased oil price do not have a marked increase on Technology maturation, which is by its nature, a long term and more steady activity. The DM proposals have been tested against businesses with a specific growth agenda for technology (chemicals, new energies, global commercial and fuels) and have taken their objectives into account in the design. In Technology some specific risks have been identified with proposed mitigations:

The risk of value leakage due to increased collaboration. Mitigated by ensuring the collaborations scope is focused and manageable, with suitable contract protection. Use of sourcing strategy is proposed to promote healthy competition in supply chain, and prevent one partner becoming

84

dominant. Ensure low competitive overlap, symmetrical learning opportunities and compatible goals are factored in partner selection.

Risk of increasing licensing revenue becoming dominant behavior, leading to agreements which require high levels of technical support, detracting from our ability to ensure support for Shell’s own business . Mitigation by clearly communicating rational and incentives for licensing team. Maximum threshold levels (25%) for technical service support in license agreements.

Risk that the Business Technology Committee (BTC) model drives short term funding decisions at the expense of strategic or transformative technology aims (e.g. CO2, digitalization). Mitigation by use EC discussion to highlight transformational themes and agree steer for BTCs. Use GTC briefing on key themes, ensure presentations to BTC on opportunity space relevant for their areas – but BTC decides. Maintain shareholder funding for Long Range Research – not BTC

To ensure business continuity during the implementation a best practice business readiness methodology (also used in Tea Clipper) will be applied including involvement of impacted parties, self-assessments and checkpoints that increase in frequency towards Go-Live.

RESOURCING APPROACH

RESOURCING OBJECTIVES

  • Act with Honesty, Integrity and Respect
  • Adhere to the NL People Principles 2016-2021, which came into effect on July 1, 2016.
  • Commit to a fair and transparent resourcing process for all affected employees
  • Maximize talent optimization – retain the best technical talent
  • Enhance diversity – we aim to move towards group D&I targets, and specifically reflect PT footprint in our diversity profile
  • Clear Resourcing Process: via OR and with a maximum of 5 applications per employeeRESOURCING PROCESS

    EC-1 level resourcing will be appointed by MDC. EC-2 level will be resourced via placement.
    The remaining P&T organisation will be resourced in consecutive waves for EC-3 and EC-4 & below.

    Applications will be via OR according to global resourcing timelines, which are subject to engagement with employees and employee representatives. There may be step outs from global resourcing timelines for certain groups of employees who would be informed separately if this were the case.

    APPLICATION PROCESS IN OR

    Positions will be posted on the Open Resourcing system for a minimum period of 10 calendar days. Employees can apply to a maximum of 5 roles. In limited circumstances

    SELECTION CRITERIA

85

The overall criterion for selecting employees for positions will be that the candidate meets the requirements of the position as described in the job posting. In addition, the following will be considered when making selection decisions:

  • Professional skills and experience
  • Leadership skills and demonstration of the Leadership Attributes – with focus on skills required to lead in the future
  • Sustained performance and potential
  • Individual preferences
  • Capability and skills to meet future business needs In addition, relevant country legislation and policy will be taken into consideration.Hiring Managers will be expected to shortlist and rank candidates. Interviews may be carried out but are not mandatory.

    LOCATION

    All positions will have an identified physical location (only one). In preference, roles will be located in one of three P&T hubs, or where asset proximity is key – then the relevant asset location. Roles will not be posted as “virtual” but exceptions for virtual working may be made for a very limited number of individuals during the selection process, where critical Talent, D&I and niche skills are distinct drivers. Exceptions will require approval of the relevant P&T Country HR lead and relevant VP HR. Note flexible working will be encouraged in line with P&T and country policy best practice.

    TRANSFERRED VOLUNTARY SEVERANCE

    Transferred Voluntary Severance, per the process in the NL People Principles 2016-2021, will be applied at the end of the process.

    SUMMARY OF IMPACT ON EMPLOYEES IN THE NETHERLANDS

  • EC-2: Placement
  • Positions ceasing: 719 employees (mix of staff at risk, 280/impacted & potentially at risk, 439)
  • Location change: 41 employees
  • Changes to reporting lines, job titles, ref indicators or no change: 1483 employeesMITIGATING ACTIONS
  • – The NL people principles 2016-2021 will apply to this re-organisation.
  • – The NL Redundancy Arrangement (LOR) 2016 will apply to employees with Base Country NL.
  • – For non-base country NL employees International Mobility policy appliesCOMMUNICATION TO STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS

    Shell’s approach to communication and change management remains to give it great focus and priority through times of change. We have highlighted each of the key moments in the change process at which we wish to communicate broadly to our staff. The key moments that have been identified are;

86

  • –  Moving past the design phase and into consultation
  • –  Leader and Staff 1:2:1s
  • –  Consultation embargo lifting
  • –  Consultation advice received/move into resourcing
  • –  Completion of resourcing
  • –  “Go live”

At each of these key moments we are putting in place an approved communication plan which features a range of activities from ECHB-led communication to Technical Division-led townhalls to open lines sessions to ensure staff have opportunity to ask questions. Our HRiB and HRiC will supplement the more structured communication activities, with ongoing support for line managers to have effective team meetings as we move forward with the Delivery Model work.

In each instance, we will have a structured approach to develop a set of consistent materials, that is then supplemented by each Technical Division. All material is subject to approval by HR to ensure it links to the consultation process, that we are consistent in our messaging and that we help staff to understand the proposals and the rationale behind them, in the most straightforward way possible. For those who are potentially impacted we ensure that they receive one to one communication from their line manager in a timely, professional and respectful way, in keeping with our People Principles. We are also investing time in P&T XLT and Technical Division XLT meetings to ensure relevant leadership are equipped to lead the communication with their teams. Additionally, the Organisation Effectiveness (OE) team is running a programme of learning and support sessions for our senior leaders (EC-2 and EC-3) to ensure they have access to materials that will help them engage with their teams, but also reflect on their own personal experience of change. This work has input from our Shell Health colleagues to ensure we make use of the Care Toolkit that has been developed for use across Shell and which is highly relevant for P&T as we go through a period of organisation change.
OE and Internal Communications (IC) are also putting together a communication initiative with the PTLT to provide staff with the opportunity to spend some time with the leadership teams in small groups discussion P&T’s overall purpose. Whilst this is not directly related to the immediate demands and challenges of the change process; it is important to give staff the opportunity to stay connected with the overall reason why the Delivery Model work is needed and what the P&T needs to be to support Shell achieve its overall vision. We will encourage all leaders to be highly visible and available to their teams, regardless of location, and ensure that leaders take full ownership of both the proposals and the communication process. The PTLT have committed to lead this initiative by example.

During the next few months, the workstreams will be developing their thinking around ways of working needed to support the intentions behind the organisation design work, and any general skill- building that may be required in addition to the more immediate communication activities mentioned above.

INTENDED TIMELINE

Links for earlier extracts from the same document:

Part 1: Shell’s 88 page global transformation plans leaked to John Donovan: 31 July 2017

Part 2: Shell’s proposed global organisation changes: Part 2: 2 Aug 2017

Part 3: Shell’s leaked global organisation changes: Part 3: 2 Aug 2107

Part 4: Leaked Shell Transformation Plans: Part 4: 4 Aug 2017

Part 5: Shell Leaked Transformation Plans Part 5: 7 Aug 2017

Part 6: Shell Leaked Transformation Plans Part 6: 8 Aug 2017

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: