(CTD) was a second-tier component supplier to the auto industry. Their largest customer was Ford Motor Company. CTD had a reputation for delivering a quality product. During the 1980s and the early 1990s, CTD 's business grew because of its commitment to quality. Emphasis was on manufacturing operations, and few attempts were made to use project management theories, approaches, models, methodologies, and concepts. All work was controlled by line managers who, more often than not, were overburdened with work. The culture at CTD underwent a rude awakening in 1996. In the summer of 1996, Ford Motor Company established four product development objectives for both tier one and tier two suppliers: Lead time: 25-35 percent reduction Internal resources: 30-40 percent reduction Prototypes: 30-35 percent reduction (time and cost) Continuous process improvement and cost reductions The objectives were aimed at consolidation of the supply base with larger commitments to tier one suppliers, who would now have greater responsibility in vehicle development, launch, process improvement, and cost reduction. Ford had established a time frame of twenty-four months for achievement of the objectives. The ultimate goal for Ford would be the creation of one global, decentralized vehicle development system that would benefit from the efficiency and technical capabilities of the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the sub supplier infrastructure. STRATEGIC REDIRECTION: 1996 CTD realized that it could no longer compete on quality alone. The marketplace had changed. The strategic plan for CTD was now based upon maintaining an industry leadership position well into the twenty-first century. The four basic elements of the strategic plan included: C First to market (faster development and tooling of the right products) Flexible processes (quickly adaptable to model changes) Flexible products (multiple niche products from shared platforms and a quick-to-change methodology) Lean manufacturing (low cost, high quality, speed, and global economies of scale) The implementation of the strategy mandated superior project management performance but changing a sixty-year culture to support project management would not be an easy task. The president of the company established a task force to identify the cultural issues of converting over to an informal project management system. The president believed that project management would eventually become the culture and, therefore, that the cultural issues must be addressed first. The following list of cultural issues was identified by the task force: Existing technical, functional departments currently do not adequately support the systemic nature of projects as departmental and individual objectives are not consistent with those of the project and the customer. Senior management must acknowledge the movement away from traditional, "over the fence," management and openly endorse the significance of project management, teamwork, and delegation of authority as the future- a new wave of Project Management Life Cycle Mode (PMLC). The company must establish a system of project sponsorship to support project managers by trusting them with the responsibility and then empowering them to be successful. The company must educate managers in project and risk management and the cultural changes of cross-functional project support; it is in the manager 's self-interest to support the project manager by providing necessary resources and negotiating for adequate time to complete the work. The company must enhance information systems to provide cost and schedule performance information for decision-making and problem resolution. Existing informal culture can be maintained while utilizing project management to monitor progress and review costs. Bureaucracy, red tape, and lost time must be eliminated through project management 's enhanced communications, standard practices, and goal congruence. The task force, as a whole, supported the idea of informal project management and believed that all of the cultural issues could be overcome. The task force identified four critical risks and the method of resolution: 1. Trusting others and the system. Resolution: Training in the process of project management and understanding of the benefits. Interpersonal training to learn to trust in each other and in keeping commitments will begin the cultural change. 2. Transforming sixty years of tradition in vertical reporting (Traditional Waterfall Approach into horizontal project management (perhaps Agile manifesto). Resolution: Senior management sponsor the implementation program, participate in training, and fully support efforts to implement project management across functional lines with encouragement and patience as new organizational relationships are forged. 3. Capacity constraints and competition for resources. Resolution: Work with managers to understand constraints and to develop alternative plans for success. Develop alternative external capacity to support projects. 4. Inconsistency in application after introduction. Resolution: Set the clear expectation that project management is the operational culture and the responsibility of each manager. Set the implementation of project management as a key measurable for management incentive plans. Establish a model project and recognize the efforts and successes as they occur. The president realized that project management and strategic planning were related. The president wondered what would happen if the business base would grow as anticipated. Could project management excellence enhance the business base even further? To answer this question, the president prepared a list of competitive advantages that could be achieved through superior project management performance: Project management techniques and skills must be enhanced, especially for the larger, complex projects. Development of broader component and tooling supply bases would provide for additional capacity. Enhanced profitability would be possible through economies of scale to utilize project managers and skilled trades resources more efficiently through balanced workloads and level production. Greater purchasing leverage would be possible through larger purchasing volume and sourcing opportunities. Disciplined coordination, reporting of project status and proactive project management problem-solving must exist to meet timing schedules, budgets, and customer expectations. Effective project management of multitiered supply base will support sales growth beyond existing, capital intensive, internal tooling, and production capacities. The wheels were set in motion. The president and his senior staff met with all of the employees of CTD Company Ltd. to discuss the implementation of project management. The president made it clear that he wanted a mature project management system (PMLC Model) in place within thirty-six months. CASE QUESTIONS 1. Does CTD have a choice in whether to accept project management as a culture? 2. How much influence should a customer be able to exert on how the contractors manage projects? 3. Was CTD correct in attacking the cultural issues first? 4. Does the time frame of thirty-six months change over seem practical? 5. What chance of success do you give CTD? 6. What dangers exist when your customers are more knowledgeable than you are concerning project management? 7. What type of Project Management Life Cycle Model will best fit for the situation in question 6? Please provide adequate reasons. 8. Is it possible for your customers'/owner's knowledge of project management to influence the way that your organization performs strategic planning for project management? 9. Should your customer, especially if a powerful customer, have an input in the way that your organization performs strategic planning for project management? If so, what type of input should the customer have and on what subject matter? 10. If a singular methodology for project management already exists, then how difficult will it be to make major changes to the methodology and what type of resistance, if any, should management expect?