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.

15 questions · about 6 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?

The issue is recorded, but nobody clearly owns it. The finder moves on, and it “drifts.”Ownership is usually established, but with delay and occasional gaps.The finder owns it until it is resolved or explicitly delegated. No ambiguity, no exceptions.

Question 2

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

Significantly slower. We treat this as the unavoidable industry norm.Aware of the gap, but urgency is episodic rather than structural.We operate as a continuous task force from kickoff through SOP. Speed is structural, not a sprint.

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?

‘The team’ or ‘the department’ is responsible. Individual accountability is weak or unclear.Most roles are named, but overlaps and gaps create confusion under pressure.Every key role is one named person with explicit responsibility, authority, and accountability. No 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, line management, and committees.Usually, the project lead, but functional management can and does override.The project lead has real authority that takes priority over the functional matrix.

Question 5

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

Constantly. Team members are frequently pulled away from project tasks. Silos are the norm.Occasionally. Some tension exists, but the project usually gets priority when it matters.Rarely: the organization is genuinely projectized. Line managers actively support the project.

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; accountability dissolves between stages.A lead engineer takes informal responsibility for most features, without a formal mandate.A designated Feature Owner with explicit cross-functional accountability follows each feature from inception to delivery.

Question 7

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

They are absorbed without assessment. Scope grows quietly, and nobody pushes back.They go through a change process. However, the impact on timeline and budget is noted but rarely enforced.Every change is assessed for impact on the project triangle and approved by the project sponsor before acceptance.

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. The project lead accepts it as normal.Addressed after months, when the damage is already visible in project results.Addressed promptly. The project lead actively monitors team performance and acts quickly.

Question 9

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

Rarely discussed. The team sees its work as a job, not as a product with a real purpose.Some engineers care, but it is not consistently part of how the project is led.Deeply embedded. 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: including with AI tools?

Essentially none. Engineers do it all manually, including traceability, reports, and peer reviews.Partial: some scripts or AI tools are used, but gaps and inconsistencies remain.Systematically automated from project start, including AI-assisted documentation. Engineers focus on engineering.

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.Informally assigned to one or more engineers as a secondary responsibility.Yes: a Project Tool Engineer 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 to project-specific suppliers, not COTS.

Question 12

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

Arm’s length: they deliver to spec, and we deal with problems when they surface.Reasonably integrated: key suppliers participate in relevant reviews, but ownership of outcomes remains unclear.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.We have a response process, but resolution is slow, and the project suffers in the meantime.Supplier risks are proactively monitored. 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.Apply critical and systems thinking consistently: root cause, interdependencies, risk minimization, and disruptive options.

Question 15

When projects struggle structurally, how does your organization typically respond?

The “hottest” methodology is implemented based on anecdotal evidence.With some critical evaluation, but management pressure or consultant fashion often drives the final decision.By diagnosing the actual root cause and applying what fits the specific context, regardless of what is currently fashionable.

Please answer all 15 questions first.

—/ 45 — —% 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/