Škoda Power is a leading European steam turbine manufacturer executing complex EPC and manufacturing projects globally. The organization manages long-duration EPC projects ranging from 500 to 700 days, alongside high-volume internal manufacturing programs.

At any given time, approximately 160 projects were being executed in parallel across engineering, procurement, manufacturing, and installation functions.

Business Challenge

Despite strong technical capabilities and structured planning processes, execution outcomes were inconsistent.

On-time delivery performance was at approximately 60%, and management did not have a clear view of the overall portfolio. While individual project issues were tracked, there was no integrated understanding of how projects were progressing collectively.

Capacity planning lacked a reliable system, leading to frequent resource conflicts. Multiple project teams competed for the same resources, and prioritization was often driven by escalation rather than logic.

As a result, while activity levels remained high, completion did not progress proportionately, and delays continued to accumulate across the portfolio.

Approach

The transformation focused on establishing a structured execution system across the portfolio using CCPM principles, supported by a centralized platform.

1. Portfolio-Level Alignment

All 160 projects were aligned into a single execution pipeline and sequenced based on due dates. Work-in-progress was deliberately reduced by approximately 40% to stabilize execution and improve focus on completion.

2. Constraint-Based Execution

Execution was anchored around real capacity constraints:

• Assembly capacity limited to 4 turbines at a time
• Rotor welding dependent on a single critical machine
• Engineering calculations handled by 3 specialized resources

These constraints became the basis for planning and prioritization across all projects.

3. Standardized Planning and Control

Standard project templates were created with reduced and realistic timelines. Buffers were introduced to manage uncertainty, and plans were actively maintained and used to drive execution decisions.

4. Governance and System Visibility

A structured governance mechanism was introduced, supported by a centralized system providing real-time visibility into project status, priorities, and risks across the portfolio.

This enabled management to move from reactive decision-making to proactive control.

Results

The impact was significant and measurable:

• On-time delivery improved from ~60% to ~90%, with a target of 95%
• Project lead times reduced by approximately 30%
• Throughput increased, with assemblies in the pipeline rising from 20 to 27 (~30% increase), with capacity available up to 35 assemblies
• Total project lateness reduced from ~4,500 days to ~500 days

These results reflect a substantial improvement in execution predictability and control without increasing capacity.

Key Takeaway

The improvement was not driven by additional resources or tighter monitoring, but by structuring execution at the portfolio level.

When execution is aligned to a common system, with clear sequencing and constraint-based prioritization, organizations can achieve faster and more predictable outcomes even in complex, multi-project environments.

‍

‍

‍

‍Read relevant 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 can we 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

Unlocking On-Time Delivery in MRO