4 Critical Planning Mistakes That Can Doom your Automotive Program Launch

About this series
 This is the first in a four-part series for senior leaders at Tier-1 automotive suppliers responsible for winning new OEM programs and delivering flawless launches. I've spent more than three decades leading programs across North America, Japan and China from the OEM bid phase through program launch. 

Focusing on 4 key program milestones (4 SOTs) will help stakeholders quickly gain visibility on potential failures and help to develop mitigation strategies. These are:

1. Start on Time – Has the start date been determined based on achievable task durations?
2. Staff on Time – Are people with the appropriate skill sets available at program start?
3. Spend on Time – Are financial resources available to be spent per the program timeline?
4. Source on Time – Are suppliers onboarded early enough to provide design input and achieve the program deliverables?

We have seen the same pattern repeatedly derail even the most promising programs.

Before the Launch
Between winning the OEM’s program award and officially kicking off the launch, there’s a narrow but critical window where decisions lock in cost, timing, and quality outcomes. Too often, this “pre-launch” work is treated as an afterthought. In reality, it’s where your launch success is won or lost.

In this article you’ll learn how programs go off track before kickoff, why the damage is hard to reverse, and how to avoid these traps. Parts 2–4 will cover execution discipline, cross-functional risk management, and how to keep programs steady under pressure.

Mistake #1: Making Poor Planning Assumptions 

 In more than three collective decades of leading global programs, I have noticed the same traps repeat themselves. Whether it was building program management capability or guiding global launches, the pattern was consistent. Launches don’t fail because teams lack talent. They fail because of poor assumptions that no one stopped to validate. Once those assumptions are baked into the plan, even the best teams can’t undo the damage later.

Here are some typical assumptions which are made that should be verified before kickoff:

• Plant capacity: A low-cost plant is assumed to scale, but no one checks if it has the human and physical resources to reach launch volumes. The result is overtime, quality fire drills, and missed shipments.
• Supplier readiness: Tier-2 & 3 suppliers are expected to keep pace, but their tooling or validation lags months behind. By the time gaps show, the whole supply chain is at risk.
• Timelines vs. reality: Schedules are set from revenue targets, not what operations can support. This creates impossible promises that hurt credibility.
• Ownership clarity: In global programs, roles for product, process, and delivery often span regions. If ownership isn’t clear, every late change becomes an argument instead of a decision.

Each choice may feel small, but together they create missed milestones, quality issues, and last-minute chaos. You don’t launch a program so much as you create the conditions that determine whether it will succeed or fail.

Mistake #2: Not Treating Quoting and Kickoff as Strategic Acts

Quoting is your first test of readiness. This is when leaders check assumptions, align resources, and confirm the team can deliver.

Too often, quotes may include timelines that are too ambitious and supply chains that go unvetted. Later, these issues turn into change requests, delays, and program chaos.

The best leaders work differently. It’s not that they’re cautious but they’ve seen what happens when early assumptions go untested.

• They ask tough questions about Tier 2 & 3 suppliers, plants, and team capacity. Weak links are often hidden one or two layers down the supply chain. Ignoring them shows up as launch delays months later.
• They reject schedules that only look good on paper. A launch date that looks good to Finance but ignores readiness almost always costs more in rework and firefighting.
• They treat kickoff as proof of preparation, not a ceremonial event. Teams either walk away confident that the plan is solid or prepare for chaos.

This approach gives teams clarity and confidence. Without it, confusion and crisis follow.

Mistake #3: Not Designing the Environment and Hoping for Recovery 

Once execution begins, the environment you’ve designed is the environment your team inherits. You can’t expect them to “make it work” if the system is broken.

Strong organizations make their commitments early.

• Plants and suppliers are prepared to meet launch volume on realistic timelines. We have seen the opposite first-hand where suppliers celebrated winning a bid, but were months away from tooling readiness, putting the entire program in jeopardy.
• Programs are fully staffed and equipped before critical deadlines, not in reaction to them. Program capability must be built in early so teams can focus on engineering and launch. They should not have to scramble for resources midway.
• Governance structures are in place to manage issues before they escalate. Without clear ownership, we have watched late design changes turn into week-long cross-regional debates instead of quick decisions.

The best leaders do not establish programs and hope for the best. They create an environment that allows delivery teams to focus on execution, not get stuck in reactive management.

#4 Not Leveraging Best-in-Class Organization Best Practices 

Mature automotive organizations make deliberate choices before committing to a launch. They:

• Make sure teams are staffed and equipped to achieve key milestones.
• Have consensus from plants and suppliers on the program timeline that match real readiness, not wishful thinking.
• Look at the data to judge capacity and say “no” to new business if it would overload teams or put existing programs at risk 

Closing Thought

The job of a senior leader is to create the conditions where execution can succeed. Ask yourself:

• Are we quoting timelines that have buy-in from all internal and supplier stakeholders and sets the program team up for success?
• Have we aligned plants, suppliers, and teams on achievable customer and internal milestones?
• Do we understand that the customer’s program award timing may not coincide with our achievable program start (Start on Time)?
• And are we willing to invest resources before the customer’s award to insure a successful program launch?
• Can we stop ourselves from telling the team to “get the award and you will get the resources?” As this almost always means the program will not Start on Time.

The strongest leaders use these questions to pressure test their programs early, long before the first milestone is missed. If the answer to any of these is ‘no,’ the program’s trajectory is already set. 

No amount of effort later will undo poor early decisions. But if you get these choices right, you’ll build a launch that runs on clarity and momentum, not crisis management. You’ll strengthen customer trust, and increase your odds of gaining more program awards with that OEM. This is critical when you have 25-30 customers and 2 to 3 of account for 50% of the revenues,. Your reputation is key. 

Next in the series: Innovation in the Launch Plan? That’s Where Failure Begins