Can a singular methodology be designed to "force" cooperation to occur between groups?

The ill-fated Trophy Project was in trouble right from the start. Mulenga, who had been an assistant project manager, was involved with the project from its conception.
When the Trophy Project was accepted by the company, Mulenga was assigned as the project manager. The program schedules started to slip from day one, and expenditures were excessive. Mulenga found that the functional managers were charging direct labor time to his project but working on their own pet projects. When Mulenga complained of this, he was told not to meddle in the functional manager’s allocation of resources and budgeted expenditures. After approximately six months, Mulenga was requested to make a progress report directly to corporate and division staffs.
Mulenga took this opportunity to bare his soul. The report substantiated that the project was forecasted to be one complete year behind schedule. Mulenga’s staff, as supplied by the line managers, was inadequate to stay at the required pace, let alone make up any time that had already been lost. The estimated cost at completion at this interval showed a cost overrun of at least 20 percent. This was Mulenga’s first opportunity to tell his story to people who were in a position to correct the situation. The result of Mulenga’s frank, candid evaluation of the Trophy Project was very predictable. Nonbelievers finally saw the light, and the line managers realized that they had a role to play in the completion of the project. Most of the problems were now out in the open and could be corrected by providing adequate staffing and resources. Corporate staff ordered immediate remedial action and staff support to provide Mulenga a chance to bail out his program. Corporate provided Mulenga with twelve additional staff members to work on the computer program. In the meantime, nothing changed. The functional managers still did not provide adequate staff for recovery, assuming that the additional manpower Mulenga had received from corporate would accomplish that task.
After approximately $50,000 was spent on the computer program to track the problems, it was found that the program objectives could not be handled by the computer. Mulenga discussed this problem with a computer supplier and found that $15,000 more was required for programming and additional storage capacity.
It would take two months for installation of the additional storage capacity and the completion of the programming. At this point, the decision was made to abandon the computer program.
Mulenga was now a year and a half into the program with no prototype units completed. The program was still nine months behind schedule with the overrun projected at 40 percent of budget. The customer had been receiving his reports on a timely basis and was well aware of the fact that the Trophy Project was behind schedule. Mulenga had spent a great deal of time with the customer explaining the problems and the plan for recovery. Another problem that Mulenga had to contend with was that the vendors who were supplying components for the project were also running behind schedule.After another three months the customer, becoming impatient, realized that the Trophy Project was in serious trouble and requested that the division general manager and his entire staff visit the customer’s plant to give a progress and “get well” report within a week. The division general manager called Mulenga into his office and said, “Mulenga, go visit our customer. Take three or four functional line people with you and try to placate him with whatever you feel is necessary.” Mulenga and four functional line people visited the customer and gave a four-and a- half-hour presentation defining the problems and the progress to that point. The customer was very polite and even commented that it was an excellent presentation, but the content was totally unacceptable. The program was still six to eight months late, and the customer demanded progress reports on a weekly basis. The customer made arrangements to assign a representative in Mulenga’s department to be “on-site” at the project on a daily basis and to interface with Mulenga and his staff as required. After this turn of events, the program became very hectic.

question 4. Can a singular methodology be designed to "force" cooperation to occur between groups?