Building an integrated planning system at an industrial enterprise
-
~40B
UAH annual enterprise budget
-
3,000+
employees
-
90+
production facilities
-
+30%
rise in plan delivery
Context
Initial state
The team was engaged to transform the planning system at a large industrial enterprise with a complex structure: 3,000+ employees, 90+ production facilities, a presence across 5 regions, and an annual budget of ~UAH 40B.
The planning system was marked by misaligned plans, a bureaucratic process for producing them, and a low delivery rate. Formal plans existed but did not serve as an effective management tool — which made it hard to allocate resources, prioritize projects, make timely decisions, and track progress toward goals.
Project details
- Industry
- Industrial enterprise
- Area
- Integrated planning
- Scale
- 3,000+ employees, 90+ facilities, 5 regions
- Annual budget
- ~UAH 40B
- Rise in plan delivery
- 30%
The problem
Planning as a bureaucratic exercise instead of a management tool
Analysis of how plans were produced, checks of their consistency, and an assessment of how they were used in practice revealed a systemic problem: plans were produced and approved but did not govern the enterprise’s activity. A significant share of management effort went into finding explanations for missed plans — even though the plans were flawed and misaligned from the start.
-
Misaligned, contradictory core plans
The strategic, operational, production, investment, procurement, and financial plans existed separately — with no single logic or links between them
-
Low planning quality
Plans were produced without a sufficient rationale or a reality check — which made them unachievable from the start
-
Planning for the sake of a plan
The process came down to the formal approval of documents rather than managing activity — plans sat on a shelf instead of governing decisions
-
Inefficient resource allocation
The absence of systematic prioritization overloaded the procurement function, raised inventories, set investment projects back, and led to missed production targets
-
A shift in management focus
Management spent its time explaining deviations from flawed plans instead of managing real priorities and reaching goals
-
A low plan-delivery rate
Plans were systematically missed across all areas — the consequence of all the problems above
How the problem was identified
The problem was identified through a detailed analysis of how plans were produced, checks of their mutual consistency, an assessment of how plans were used in the work, and an analysis of delivery results. The analysis included detailed interviews with process participants and a review of the enterprise’s planning and reporting documents.
The solution
Steps in transforming the planning system
On the basis of the diagnostics, we decided to introduce an integrated planning system — a single interconnected flow from strategy to operational control.
-
Diagnosing the existing processes
We conducted detailed interviews with process participants and analyzed the documents. We described the existing planning business processes in full.
-
Identifying problem areas
We identified flawed, redundant, duplicate, and missing processes — as the basis for designing the new system.
-
Building the target logic of the planning processes
We built the logic of a new, single interconnected flow of processes with all key changes defined: Strategy → Business plan and investment → Production → Resources / Procurement → Finance → Operations → Control and refinement of plans.
-
Forming a single center of competence
We created a single center of competence for planning — as an institutional element ensuring the consistency of all plans and coordination across units.
-
Developing new planning tools
We developed new planning tools and templates that ensure a single standard and the stability of the process system's operation.
-
Defining the processes
We defined and described the algorithms, timelines, and control points of all planning processes.
-
Training those responsible
We identified the key people responsible for the planning processes and trained them so that the system would operate independently.
Results
Measurable achievements after the transformation
The transformation gave the enterprise a logical, mutually consistent planning system that became a real tool for managing activity.
Before the system
-
Misaligned, contradictory plans
-
Planning for the sake of a document
-
A low plan-delivery rate
-
No center of competence
-
Ad hoc resource allocation
-
A focus on explaining deviations
After the system
-
A single interconnected planning system
-
Planning as a management tool
-
#ERROR!
-
A single center of competence for planning
-
Systematic prioritization of resource allocation with clear criteria
-
A focus on managing priorities and goals
Висновок
