Executive Summary

Vibgyor Schools operates a large network of campuses where infrastructure readiness directly impacts admissions and regulatory compliance.By April 2024, brownfield projects were averaging 8 months in cycle time, design teams were overloaded, greenfield starts were at risk, and backlog had accumulated over multiple years.

Through portfolio-level control of work-in-progress, structured annual demand planning, disciplined design sequencing, and readiness before execution, Vibgyor reduced brownfield cycle time to 2.5 months, initiated greenfield projects on schedule in January 2025, cut requirement inflow nearly in half, and achieved more than 90 percent on-time performance across the portfolio.

Brief of the Environment

Vibgyor operates 35 to 40 running schools across cities. Each year the organization manages brownfield projects within existing schools, greenfield development of new campuses, and compliance-driven changes mandated through CBSE inspections.

All projects must be completed before the start of the academic year. If infrastructure is not ready, admissions cannot proceed. The deadline is fixed. The demand is not.

Brownfield work includes classroom additions, lab upgrades, floor expansions, facility improvements, and revamps. Greenfield projects follow a defined milestone path to align with admission cycles. Over time, as the network expanded, the volume of concurrent projects increased significantly.

Realization has worked with Vibgyor since 2012 on both greenfield and brownfield initiatives. In earlier years, Vibgyor had set a target of delivering six greenfield schools within a year but was able to complete only two to three due to execution constraints. During that phase, Realization partnered to improve greenfield delivery reliability & achieve 6 schools in a year target.

By April 2024, with brownfield congestion increasing and greenfield starts at risk, Vibgyor called upon Realization again to restore structural control over the portfolio.

Situation When We Engaged

We were re-engaged on 29 April 2024 at a time when the brownfield portfolio had become increasingly difficult to control.

The average brownfield cycle time had stretched to approximately 8 months. Around 35 brownfield projects and 2 greenfield projects were underdesign and procurement load. Design resources were spread across multiple schools simultaneously. Projects were open in many locations, but closures were slow.

Between September and December each year, school principals submitted additional infrastructure requirements driven by marketing projections. These requests were valid and business-linked. However, they arrived in waves during a compressed window. Because the academic deadline remained unchanged, many projects spilled into the next cycle. Over successive years, this spillover accumulated into a persistent backlog.

Revamp projects for six schools had been pending since 2019 because there was no clear execution window available.

Cashflow constraints further complicated execution. Initial budgeting inaccuracies created treasury challenges. Vendor payments were often released based on urgency rather than structured sequencing. In several instances, execution had started without complete drawings or purchase orders, increasing coordination effort and creating avoidable delays.

Greenfield projects added another layer of complexity. Management’s intent was to begin greenfield work in January so that Sales Office could be achieved by 30 September and the building made ready by 30 December. However, greenfield progress was exposed to uncertainty in statutory approvals. Legal stages such as Plinth CC, additional FSI and CC had unpredictable turnaround times. Observations from authorities required rectifications and resubmissions, and approval cycle time was not fully within operational control.

The system was not failing due to lack of effort. It was overloaded and reactive, with no structural mechanism to control inflow, prioritize decisively, and finish sequentially.

Management Expectation & Target

Management’s objective was not incremental improvement. The expectations were explicit:

• Reduce brownfield cycle time materially.
• Ensure greenfield projects could reliably start in January
• Create a process that could absorb recurring annual demand without portfolio congestion.
• Release capacity from brownfield so that strategic projects were not delayed.

This required more than expediting individual projects. It required redesigning how work entered and moved through the system.

Solution Implemented

1. Limiting Work-in-Progress

At the time of engagement, approximately twenty projects were active simultaneously, including eighteen brownfield and two greenfield projects. Resources were spread thinly.

After analysing actual design touch time and execution capacity, active projects were limited to six at any given time. The portfolio initially started with four brownfield and two greenfield projects. Projects were categorized into three priority groups:

Priority 1: Projects directly linked to admissions.
Priority 2: Projects required for CBSE compliance.
Priority 3: Other projects not directly linked to immediate revenue.

Work progressed in this defined sequence, closing projects school by school instead of partially advancing many at once.

2. Consolidating Annual Demand

To eliminate ad hoc inflow, a structured workshop was instituted in June each year. All principals and relevant departments were required to submit their infrastructure requirements for the next 12 to 18 months in a consolidated manner.

This replaced the earlier pattern of staggered submissions during the marketing cycle and provided forward visibility for planning and budgeting.

3. Rationalizing Design Load

It was identified that many schools followed repetitive floor layouts and standard configurations. Certain design tasks did not require external consultants and were internalized. Design closure was then aligned school-by-school, rather than partial progress across multiple campuses.

This reduced context switching and shortened design turnaround time.

4. Enforcing Execution Readiness

Execution was not allowed to commence for brownfield projects without complete drawings and purchase orders. For greenfield statutory approvals, documentation was prepared comprehensively before submission to reduce iterative resubmissions. Cashflow visibility was brought into weekly reviews. Payment releases were linked to the defined priority list instead of being driven by vendor pressure or escalation.

Together, these changes shifted the portfolio from parallel overload to controlled progression.

Result

The impact became visible within the same academic cycle.

• Brownfield average cycle time reduced from 8 months to 2.5 months (70% improvement).
• In January 2025, execution of two greenfield projects at Gorai and Borivali were initiated. This represented the quickest structured start of greenfield projects by Vibgyor.
• Revamp projects that had been pending since 2019 were scheduled for execution in 2025 once capacity was released.
• The annual requirement list from principals reduced from approximately 380 nos. to 190 nos. after consolidating demand through the formalized workshop.
• Across the portfolio, Vibgyor achieved more than 90 percent on-time performance.

More importantly, the organization regained control over its infrastructure pipeline. Capacity planning became predictable. Priorities were transparent. Greenfield execution was no longer constrained by brownfield backlog. The system is now capable of absorbing annual demand without structural overload.

‍