Production-to-Cash Lifecycle
Where is value leaking between production and cash?
Production vs plan: 91.3% against a ≥100% target (−8.7 pts); Plant 02 (78.4%) accounts for 7.6 of the 8.7 pts gap.
Root cause: Plant 02 made 95.2 of 121.5 kt planned. 78.2 h of unplanned downtime cost 14.8 kt (56% of its 26.2 kt shortfall), led by asset P02-03 on Line L2 (29 h of downtime). RM-1 cover is the secondary risk (4 days to breach).
Dispatch delays: 10.9% against a ≤5% target (+5.9 pts); Plant 02 (16.0%) accounts for 4.4 of the 5.9 pts gap.
Root cause: Plant 02: 36 of 225 dispatches late (16.0%), about twice the rate at the other plants, while it runs at 78.4% of plan.
DSO: 52.0 days against a ≤45.0 days target (+7.0 days); weakest plant on dispatch delays is Plant 02 (16.0%).
Booked at entity level; plants shown by its driver (SIG-012).
Root cause: Customers are paying more slowly (receivables are held at entity level). The linked plant signal is Plant 02, where 16.0% of dispatches were late, which delays invoicing.
Daily collections: 38.6 ₹ m/day, up 0.8 vs Aug; weakest plant on sales vs plan is Plant 02 (77.6%).
Booked at entity level; plants shown by its driver (OPS-002).
Production at risk: 30.9 kt, down 7.3 vs Aug; Plant 02 contributes 79% (24.3 kt).
Cash-upstream obligation: 27.2 ₹ m, up 1.6 vs Aug; Plant 02 has the largest share of production at risk (79%).
Booked at entity level; plants shown by its driver (SIG-007).
Root cause: The projected Plant 02 shortfall (24.3 kt of production at risk, case INC-SYN-0142) reduces the cash available to send upstream.
Production → Dispatch → Billing → Collection → Cash → Upstreaming · Entity A1
AnswersWhere is value leaking between production and cash for Entity A1?
Each stage: actual, plan, forecast, leakage, constraint, trust, owner.
Leakage by stage · ₹ m (FCST)
AnswersWhich lifecycle stage leaks the most cash?