Context

The organization was executing a large portfolio of ground-mounted solar projects with clear business expectations:

• Achieve ~20% project profitability through early completion
• Improve working capital position by accelerating cash inflows
• Enable project teams to operate independently without continuous head office intervention

While planning processes were detailed and structured, outcomes remained inconsistent and difficult to control.

What the Organization Believed Was the Problem

From management and project teams, the challenges appeared operational:

• Execution plans and cash flow targets were not aligned
• Frequent delays due to land availability, suppliers and resource shortages
• Continuous need for replanning and catch-up schedules
• Lack of real-time visibility across functions
• Gaps between procurement decisions and site execution

Significant effort was being spent in tracking, reviews and follow-ups, but predictability was not improving.

What the Analysis Revealed‍

On deeper analysis, the issue was not in planning detail or monitoring intensity.

The core issue was that execution had no stable reference logic.

• Execution was taking decisions on every disruption, leading to continuous plan changes
• Business targets and execution priorities were not connected
• Procurement decisions were optimizing cost at item level, not project completion
• Multiple work fronts were opened, but closures were not structured
• Handovers between stages were not clearly defined

‍

As a result:

• Baseline plans kept losing relevance
• Cash flow projections were constantly revised
• Projects showed activity, but completion did not move proportionately
• Execution was reactive, not structured.

Shift in Execution Approach and Implementation

The change was to establish a stable execution structure that does not shift with disruptions, and to align all functions to it.

• A standard execution structure was defined for solar projects, covering engineering, procurement, readiness and execution phases, with clear entry and exit conditions
• Projects were broken into defined work packages with fixed handover points, so that each stage could move forward without waiting for partial completion
• A single execution plan was created and used across all functions, replacing multiple disconnected schedules
• Execution sequencing was aligned to cash flow triggers and commissioning milestones, so that project decisions directly supported business outcomes
• Procurement decisions were aligned to this plan, ensuring material availability matched actual execution readiness instead of cost-driven ordering cycles
• Reviews were redesigned to focus on where execution was deviating from the plan and what actions were required to restore flow, instead of creating new catch-up plans
• Streamliner was used to run the plan on a daily basis, track readiness and progress, and ensure all stakeholders were working to the same priorities
• Financial milestones were mapped to execution progress to improve visibility of cash flow impact

‍Outcome

Stable execution plans that did not change with every disruption

• Significant reduction in replanning effort
• Better alignment between procurement and site execution
• Reduction in rework and split orders
• Faster readiness of key areas leading to earlier commissioning triggers
• Improved linkage between execution progress and cash flow
• Projects started moving based on completion of work, not volume of activity.

Key Takeaway for Leadership

In solar EPC projects, delays are often attributed to external uncertainties. However, the more fundamental issue is absence of a stable execution structure. When execution is aligned to clear phases, readiness and business outcomes, projects become predictable and financially efficient.

‍
‍

‍

Read more articles:

Critical chain project management (CCPM): why projects remain late and how CCPM actually fixes it?

Why projects are late even when everything seems managed?

Beyond fragmentation: Toyota's cell manufacturing model offers a blueprint for construction

What if our best attempts to minimize time and cost overruns in projects are pointless?

How we can solve the late project problem

Implementing critical chain in large infrastructure projects

Part 1: Why critical chain is not a science

Part 2: Who said critical chain is not a science?

Part 3: Let’s make critical chain a science

‍