HONICKER CORPORATION Background Honicker Corpration was as a high-quality manufacturer of dashtxwds automobiles trucks. Although it serviced mainly US. automotive and truck manufacturers, the opprtunity to expand to a worldwide supplier was quite apparent. Its reputation was well-known wuldwide, but it was plagued for years with ultra- )nservative senicr managemem lealership that prevented growth into the international marketplace. When the new managernent team cank on txard in 2009, the conservatism disappeared. Honicker was cash rich. had large txyrowing power and lines of credit with financial institutions, and received an AA-quality rating on its small amount of cormrate debt. Rather than expand by building manufxturing Exilities in various countries, Honicker decided to go the fast route by acquiring four companies arourxi the world: Alpha. Beta, Gamma, and Delta Companies. Each of the four xquired companies serviced mainly its own geographical areas. The sen- ior managenwnt team in each of the fcNJr companies knew the culture in their geographic areas and had a gcxxl reputation with ttrir clients local stakeholders. The CECision by Honicker to leave each company's senior management teams intt provi(kd that the recessary changes, as established by corporate, could be implemented. Honicker wanted each company to have the manufacturing capability to supply parts to any Honicker client wuldwide. But doing this was easier said than dork. Honicker had an enterprise project management methodology (EPM) that worked well. Honicker project management and so did the majority of Honicker's clients and stakeholders in the United States. Honicker recognized that the biggest challenge would to get all of divisions at the same level of project managennt maturity and using the coqx)rate-wide EPM system a modified version of it. It was expcted that exh of the fmJr acquiri companies might want changes to be made. The fcwr acquired divisions were all at different levels of proct managernent maturity. Alpha did have an EPM system and believed that its awoach to project management was sugprior to the one that Honicker was using. Beta Company was just beginning to Leam project management but did not have any formal EPM system, although it did have a few project man- agenEnt templates that were being used for status recrting to its customers. Gamma and Delta Companies were clueless about project managenW1t. To make matters worse. laws in each of the cuJntries where ttr acquired companies were located other stakeholckrs that had to serviced, and all of these stakeholders were at different levels of project management maturity. In sonw countries governrnent stakeMlders were actively involved twcause of employnunt procurement laws. whereas in ottkr countries governnult stakeholders were passive participants unless health, safety, environmental laws were broken. It would certainly be a formkfable task developing an EPM system that would satisfy all of the newly acquired companies, their clients, and their stakeholders. Establishing the Team Honicker knew that there would significant challenges in getting a pro- ject agreement in a short amount of tine. Honicker also krrw that there is never an Equisition of equals; there is always a "landlord" and "tenants," and Honicker is the landlcrd. But acting as a and exerting influence in the process could