Realizationindia

March 10, 2025

Case Studies

6 Months Turnaround of Project Performance at YD Group

Introduction

YD Group is a leading steel processing equipment manufacturer, supplying large steel producers undergoing capacity expansions. Each project involves designing, manufacturing, and assembling thousands of components, with execution cycles spanning 6-18 months. Timely project delivery is crucial, as delays impact cash flows, working capital, and market positioning.

However, YD Group was facing persistent challenges in executing projects within planned timelines, leading to prolonged cycle times, bottlenecks in assembly, and unpredictable deliveries.

‍

Key Challenges
The Challenge: Why Projects Were Getting Stuck
Despite their expertise, YD Group was struggling with systemic inefficiencies across all project phases:
1. Engineering Phase:
     o Frequent design changes disrupted workflows.
     o Manufacturing support interruptions consumed engineering bandwidth.
2. Manufacturing Phase:
     o Handling 4,000–8,000 parts per project made coordination complex.
     o Delays in ordering and receiving critical components created unnecessary queue times.
3. Assembly Phase:
     o Limited assembly space and resource constraints slowed progress.
     o Work interruptions due to missing parts forced last-minute project switching.

The Business Impact
1. Cycle times were significantly overshooting plans.
     o Project cycle time: 14.5 months (planned: 9 months)
     o Assembly cycle time: 14.2 days (planned: 8.7 days)
2. Throughput was stagnant—only 2.1 projects were getting completed per month.
3. Frequent project switching due to missing materials further worsened productivity.

YD Group was considering project dashboards and tracking tools to improve visibility. However, visibility alone wouldn’t
fix the inefficiencies—fundamental execution changes were needed.
‍
Our Work
The Solution: Cutting Through the Chaos
YD Group partnered with Realization Technologies to challenge conventional project management practices and introduce a radically different approach. The focus was on reducing system overload, improving prioritization, and eliminating multitasking inefficiencies.
Key Changes Implemented
1. Dual Pipeline Structure: Limiting Work in Progress (WIP)
     o Active projects in assembly were reduced from 18 to 11 to prevent overload.
     o In the project phase, a strict "one-out, one-in" rule was implemented to stabilize workflow.
2. Focus-&-Finish Strategy
     o Instead of planning work based on technical dependencies, work fronts were planned in structured batches to ensure one team’s progress directly enabled the next         resource group.
     o This significantly reduced idle time, improved coordination, and eliminated fragmented progress.
3. Constraint Management
     o Assembly was identified as the primary bottleneck—resources & planning were realigned to optimize & accelerate this phase first.
4.  Full-Kitting Before Assembly
     o No work started in assembly unless all required components were available upfront—eliminating constant stops and restarts due to missing parts and rework.
‍
Key Results
The Results: A Radical Shift in Project Performance
1. Throughput Increased
   o Projects completed per month: Increased from 2.1 to 2.6 (+37.6%)
    o Assemblies completed per month: Increased from 62.5 to 79.2 (+26.7%)
‍
2. Faster Project Completion
    o Overall project cycle time: Reduced from 14.5 months to 10 months (+45%)
    o Assembly cycle time: Improved from 14.2 days to 10.57 days (+28%)
   o Average delay on new projects: Dropped from 5.5 months to just 23 days (+81%)
‍
3. Operations Became More Stable
   o Cleared backlogs in ordering & assembly, streamlining workflows.
   o Reduced inventory level sand rework, cutting unnecessary costs.
   o Better resource utilization across departments.
‍