Entity Capex Execution
Are our projects progressing physically, not just spending?
Approved budget: 1,000.0 ₹ m; unchanged since Apr.
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split.
Benefits realisation: 69.3% against a ≥100% target (−30.7 pts).
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split.
Root cause: Two initiatives are at risk: order-to-cash automation and energy efficiency at Plant 02. Cash benefit lags EBITDA benefit.
Initiative status: 5 on track · 2 at risk · 1 delayed; unchanged since Apr.
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split. Plant link: Energy efficiency Plant 02 is one of the 2 at risk.
Committed: 722.6 ₹ m, up 51.2 vs Aug.
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split.
Actual spend: 468.1 ₹ m, up 79.2 vs Aug.
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split.
Physical progress: 59.0%, up 4.2 vs Aug.
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split.
Delayed projects: 0 against a ≤0 target; unchanged since Apr.
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split.
Contractor slippage: 2.5 days against a ≤0.0 days target (+2.5 days).
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split. Plant link: Project 05 · Contractor C-3.
Root cause: Contractor C-3 is 3 days late on M3 civil works for Project 05 (debottleneck).
Capex value at risk: 20.8 ₹ m, down 0.8 vs Aug.
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split.
Progress chain · Entity A1 projects
AnswersAre Entity A1's projects progressing physically, not just spending?