Como Tool and Die was s second-tier component supplier to the auto industry. Their largest customer was Ford Motor Company. Como had a reputation for delivering a quality product. During the 1980s and the early 1990s, Como’s business grew because of its commitment to quality. Emphasis was on manufacturing operations, and few attempts were made to use project management. Line managers who, more often than not, were overburdened with work controlled all work. The culture at Como underwent a rude awakening in 1996, In the summer of 1996, Ford Motor Company established four product development objectives for both tier one an tier two suppliers:
• Lead Time: 25-35 % reduction
• Internal resources: 30-40% reduction
• Prototypes: 30-35% reduction (cost and time)
• Continuous process improvement and cost reductions The objective were aimed at consolidation of the supply base with larger commitments to tier one suppliers, who would now have greater responsibility n vehicle development, launch, process improvement, and cost reduction. Ford had established a time frame of 24 months for achievement of the objectives. The ultimate goal for Ford would be the creation of one global, decentralize vehicle development system that would benefit from the efficiency and technical capabilities of the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the subsupplier infrastructure.
STRATEGIC REDIRECTION: 1996
Como realized that it could no longer compete on quality alone. The marketplace had changed. The strategic plan for Como was now based upon maintaining an industry leadership position well into the twenty-first century. The four basic elements of the strategic plan included:
• 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