CORE SPICE Project Pain Check

Chinese OEMs deliver full vehicle programs in 18–24 months. European Tier-1s average 48–60. The gap is not just technology — it is how projects are led. This pain check tells you where your project stands across seven dimensions that determine development speed and quality.

16 questions · about 10 minutes · score yourself honestly

Dimension 1 — Urgency & ownership

The foundation of China Speed: continuous task-force intensity, zero tolerance for dropped balls

Question 1

When a team member identifies a critical project issue, what typically happens?

It gets logged and assigned without alignment with the assignee, or the issue remains unassigned.It gets logged, but ownership often remains unclear for days.The finder usually addresses it or explicitly hands it off with confirmation.The finder owns it until it is resolved or explicitly delegated (with a direct handshake).

Question 2

How does your project’s development pace compare to the most competitive players in your market?

Significantly slower. We accept this because that’s the industry norm.Slower but aware of it. Urgency spikes near milestones but fades in between.Roughly competitive. We maintain a reasonable pace but have no systematic way to increase it.We operate as a continuous task force from kickoff through SOP. Speed is structural, not episodic.

Dimension 2 — Leadership, role clarity & organizational structure

Shallow hierarchy, named individuals, real PM authority — and no silo that holds the project hostage

Question 3

How are key project roles defined and assigned?

Roles are loosely understood. ‘The team’ or ‘the department’ is responsible as a collective.Some roles exist on paper, but overlaps and gaps make accountability unclear in practice.Most key roles are assigned to named individuals with reasonably clear responsibilities.Every key role is assigned to one named person with explicit responsibility, accountability, and authority, as defined in the team chart. No vague committees, no shared ownership.

Question 4

When a project decision needs to be made quickly, who has the authority to make it?

Unclear. Decisions circulate between the project, functional management, and committees.Mostly functional line managers. The project lead negotiates rather than decides.The project lead, in most cases, with occasional escalation to line management.The project lead has real authority over project members. The functional matrix has little or no priority.

Question 5

How much do functional or line managers compete with the project for your team’s attention, priorities, and loyalty?

Constantly. Team members are regularly pulled to department tasks and meetings that override project work. Silos are the norm.Frequently. Functional management competes with the project and often wins, as they own the budget.Occasionally. Some tension exists, but the project generally gets priority.Rarely. The organization is genuinely projectized; line managers have a support role outside the team chart.

Dimension 3 — End-to-end responsibility & scope control

Who owns outcomes — and who defends the project triangle under pressure

Question 6

Who owns a customer feature from requirements through to final verification (testing)?

Different people at each phase. Handoffs are the norm, and accountability is distributed across the stages.The project lead tracks it, but there is no single accountable owner.A lead engineer informally takes responsibility for most features.A designated Feature Owner with explicit cross-functional accountability follows a feature from inception to its delivery.

Question 7

When new requirements or change requests arrive mid-project, what typically happens?

They are absorbed without further assessment. Scope grows quietly, and nobody pushes back.They are discussed, but usually accepted. The team feels pressure to please the customer.They go through a change process, but the impact on timeline and budget is noted but rarely enforced.Every change is assessed for impact on the project triangle: scope, time, and budget, documented, and approved by the project sponsor.

Dimension 4 — Team effectiveness & sense of purpose

Motivated engineers who understand why the product matters outperform process-compliant teams every time

Question 8

How are underperforming or disengaged team members handled?

Rarely addressed. It is politically too difficult to address performance issues. The project lead sees it as an “it is what it is” norm.After months, the damage is already visible in the project results. The project lead may or may not report team issues to the sponsor.Within weeks, usually with coaching before any escalation.Promptly. The project lead actively monitors and rates team performance and addresses issues quickly.

Question 9

Does your team genuinely understand and care about what the end product does for the product’s end users?

Rarely discussed. The team sees its work as a job, not as a product with a real purpose.Somewhat. Some engineers care, but it is not part of how the project is run.Generally yes. The project lead regularly connects the work to the product’s meaning.Deeply. The team understands the product’s importance and draws genuine motivation from it.

Dimension 5 — Automation & AI leverage

Repetitive work is a motivation poison.

Question 10

How much of your repetitive documentation, traceability, and compliance work is automated?

Essentially none. Engineers do it all manually, including traceability, coverage reports, and peer reviews.Some scripts exist, but coverage is partial. AI tools are used informally — if at all.A significant portion is automated or AI-assisted, but gaps and inconsistencies remain in manual work.Systematically automated from project start, including AI-assisted documentation. Engineers focus on engineering work.

Question 11

Is there a dedicated tool or automation engineer role established from the beginning of your project?

No. Tool issues are handled ad hoc by whoever has capacity.Not formally. One or more engineers handle it as a secondary responsibility.Informally assigned and reasonably effective.Yes. A Project Tool Engineer was established at kickoff with a clear automation roadmap.

Dimension 6 — Supplier & ecosystem integration

In complex MtO projects, the weakest supplier link defines your SOP date. Applies only to suppliers delivering project-specific components, not COTS.

Question 12

How are your key suppliers integrated into the project’s development and quality processes?

Sporadically. They deliver to spec, and we deal with problems when they surface.Periodic review meetings. Some visibility but no shared ownership of outcomes.Reasonably integrated. Key suppliers participate in relevant project reviews and meetings.Fully embedded. Suppliers operate in a shared project zone with aligned tools, processes, and accountability.

Question 13

When a supplier delivers late or with quality issues, how does your project respond?

Reactive crisis. We absorb the delay and scramble to compensate internally.Slow escalation to line management. The resolution takes a long time or is “left for dead,” while the project suffers.We have a defined response process and usually recover within an acceptable time.The project lead proactively monitors supplier risks. Mitigation is triggered before failures occur.

Dimension 7 — Effective systems thinking mindset (ECST)

Critical and systems thinking — the difference between fixing symptoms and fixing projects.

Question 14

When your team encounters a recurring problem, how do they typically approach it?

React to symptoms. Fix the immediate issue and move on. The same problem returns.Look for the direct cause, but rarely examine systemic connections or side effects.Usually ask why it happened and consider broader impacts before deciding on a permanent solution.Apply critical and systems thinking consistently. Root cause, interdependencies, risk minimization, and disruptive options — they are all systematically considered.

Question 15

What drives quality on your project day to day?

External audits and formal assessments. Quality is something that happens to us periodically.QA checklists and process reviews are the answer to process headaches. They are often disconnected from how we actually work.“Processes are important, but…” — what matters is the final result anyway.An internalized quality culture. The team builds it right because they own the result.

Question 16

How does your team handle trade-offs between speed, quality, and scope when under pressure?

Speed always wins. Quality and scope are quietly compromised under deadline pressure.Decisions are reactive and often inconsistent. Whoever shouts the loudest wins.The project lead usually mediates, but trade-offs are not always made transparently.Trade-offs are made explicitly and rationally. The result is full awareness of the consequences and consistent stakeholder alignment.

Please answer all 16 questions first.

—/ 64 — —% effectiveness

—

Want a detailed read for your specific project?

Roman Mildner offers a free 30-minute CORE SPICE diagnostic call for project leads and QA managers. No sales pitch — just an honest assessment of where your project stands and what would move the needle fastest toward China Speed.

unitedmentors.com/en | | +49-221-2605266

Reset and start over

CORE SPICE is documented in Car IT Reloaded (Springer, 2025) and at projectcrunch.com/tag/core-spice/