Dairy · Case study
A ₹18 crore dairy expansion funded, built and running at 86% OEE
A 20,000 LPD chilling centre with loyal farmer supply, 5% gross margins and no way to fund the value-added plant that would fix them.
- Client
- Sahyadri Dairy
- Location
- Kolhapur, Maharashtra
- Duration
- 22 months
- Engagement
- Project fee + success fee on sanction
Headline result
5% → 24%
Gross margin
18 months after commissioning
The situation
What we walked into
Sahyadri had built genuine procurement strength across 41 villages but sold every litre as bulk chilled milk to a larger dairy, at a margin that could not fund its own growth.
The promoters had approached two banks independently over eighteen months. Both files stalled: the first on projections a credit officer described as 'aspirational', the second because the proposed site had no viable effluent solution.
A machinery supplier had quoted a ₹24 crore turnkey plant with capacity for eight product lines. Nobody had asked whether the procurement curve or the market could support eight.
What we did
The engagement, phase by phase
Including the phase the client least enjoyed, which in most of our case studies is the second one.
Phase 1 · Weeks 1–3
Pre-feasibility and a harder question
We modelled contribution per litre for nine candidate products against Sahyadri's actual month-by-month procurement curve. Only paneer, ghee and a small shrikhand line survived the analysis. The recommendation cut the proposed project from ₹24 crore to ₹18 crore, and the number of product lines from eight to three.
Phase 2 · Weeks 3–7
Site reappraisal
The original site failed on effluent load and would not have received Consent to Establish without a disproportionate treatment investment. We appraised three alternatives on freight, power, water, labour and effluent cost, and the selected site reduced projected annual operating cost by ₹34 lakh.
Phase 3 · Weeks 5–12
DPR, subsidy sequencing and sanction
A 118-page DPR with every capital number traced to a quotation, CMA data in the lender's format, and an AHIDF interest-subvention application filed before the machinery order — which preserved ₹2.4 crore of benefit the earlier attempts would have forfeited. Sanction came 3.1 months after submission.
Phase 4 · Months 4–18
Independent tendering and commissioning
We wrote the technical specification and ran a three-vendor tender rather than accepting the original turnkey quote. Evaluated on total cost of ownership, the selected package came in 12% below the incumbent's revised bid with a stronger performance guarantee. We chaired the weekly site review through to trial production.
Phase 5 · Months 18–22
Operating system handover
Workstation SOPs, a daily production board, preventive maintenance calendar and four weeks of supervisor training. OEE was baselined at 61% in month one and reached 86% by month four of commercial operation.
Measured outcome
The numbers, with their baselines
These are the metrics written into the engagement letter before work started.
₹18.2 Cr
Project funded
Term loan ₹11.4 Cr, subsidy ₹2.4 Cr, promoter ₹4.4 Cr
₹6 Cr
Capex avoided
Versus the original eight-line proposal
₹14 Cr → ₹41 Cr
Revenue
FY23 to FY25
86%
OEE on primary line
From a 61% commissioning baseline
41 → 96
Farmer suppliers
Villages served
3.1 months
Time to sanction
After two failed attempts over 18 months
Engagement visual
Two banks had already said no. Anuradha's first act was to tell us our own project was too big — which was not what we wanted to hear, and was the reason the third bank said yes.
Dairy
Bring us the version of this problem you have
We will tell you on the first call whether it looks like the engagement above, and roughly what the equivalent work would cost.
- Call
- +91 98765 43210
- Response
- Median 5h 40m in business hours