How the work actually gets done

Problem

Monthly OpEx reviews relied on separately maintained workbooks, so budget owners saw different numbers depending on which file they opened, and forecasts were rebuilt from scratch each cycle.

Approach

• • Standardised the budget structure at cost centre and GL level.
• • Built a single monthly actuals load with consistent cleaning rules.
• • Introduced a run-rate forecast with committed PR/PO overlay.
• • Added variance thresholds so commentary focuses on material movements.

Tools

• SAP GL extracts
• Advanced Excel
• Power Query
• Power BI

Process

1. Budget structure
2. Actuals load
3. Run rate
4. Forecast
5. Variance
6. Review pack

• • Variance is more useful when timing differences are separated from genuine over/under spend.
• • Forecast credibility depends on committed spend visibility, not only on posted actuals.
• • One agreed data source removes most of the discussion time in a monthly review.

Qualitative outcomes only — no financial impact, savings or percentage improvements are claimed.

Problem

Purchase requisition status was tracked by asking stakeholders, which made ageing invisible and left committed spend outside the monthly financial view.

Approach

• • Defined a single status pipeline from composing through to received.
• • Automated ageing calculation from the submitted date.
• • Separated denied and cancelled PRs into an archive to avoid double counting.
• • Published a tracker view segmented by requestor, cost centre and status.

Tools

• SAP Ariba
• Excel VBA
• Power Automate
• Power BI

Process

1. Ariba extract
2. Cleaning
3. Validation
4. Classification
5. Ageing
6. Tracker

• • Ageing bands surface stalled requisitions far earlier than a status list does.
• • Most delays cluster around a small number of steps, not across the whole pipeline.
• • Commitment visibility improves the quality of the forecast, not just procurement follow-up.

Qualitative outcomes only — no financial impact, savings or percentage improvements are claimed.

Problem

CapEx budget was distributed, released and transferred across many WBS elements, making it difficult to see how much of each project's budget was genuinely available.

Approach

• • Mapped budget distribution, release, transfer-in and transfer-out per WBS.
• • Grouped WBS elements by workstream: basebuilding, construction, tool installation.
• • Reconciled commitments against released budget rather than distributed budget.

Tools

• SAP WBS
• CapEx budget distribution
• Excel
• Power BI

Process

1. Distribution
2. Release
3. Transfer
4. Commitment
5. Available budget
6. Reporting

• • Released budget — not distributed budget — is the number that governs spend decisions.
• • Transfers need a visible audit trail or project balances stop reconciling.
• • Workstream level views make portfolio conversations far quicker than WBS-by-WBS reviews.

Qualitative outcomes only — no financial impact, savings or percentage improvements are claimed.

Problem

Recurring report packs consumed analyst time every cycle in copy-paste assembly, leaving less capacity for analysis and increasing the risk of manual error.

Approach

• • Documented the report as a repeatable pipeline instead of a workbook.
• • Moved cleaning and transformation into deterministic, reviewable steps.
• • Templated the output layer so formatting never needs rework.
• • Scheduled distribution to a defined recipient list.

Tools

• Excel VBA
• Power Query
• SQL
• Power Automate
• Power BI

Process

1. Raw data
2. Cleaning
3. Transformation
4. Analysis
5. Dashboard
6. Distribution

• • Most reporting effort is data preparation, so that is where automation pays first.
• • A stable template makes review faster because reviewers know where to look.
• • Exception logic is more valuable than more charts.

Qualitative outcomes only — no financial impact, savings or percentage improvements are claimed.