The question behind the paper
Between 2003 and 2013, Australia’s reported mining fatality rate fell by about 80%. Over the following decade, however, improvement stalled, with the industry averaging roughly seven fatalities a year despite continued investment in regulation, training, technology and safety systems.
This paper asks whether the remaining plateau is partly a production-system problem. It examines how balanced capacity, chronic operational instability and pressure to catch up may consume the time, attention and protective capacity required for high-reliability performance.
The paper has started an industry conversation
37,507 impressions · 135 reactions · 58 comments · 19 reposts
LinkedIn response recorded approximately two weeks after publication.
The argument in brief
• Balanced capacity removes the margin. When every part of the production chain is expected to operate at maximum utilisation, little protective capacity remains to absorb ordinary disruption.
• Disruptions cascade. Equipment failures, changing ground conditions, weather, absenteeism and supply delays spread through an interdependent production chain.
• Catch-up consumes attention. Repeated replanning and recovery pressure reduce the time and cognitive capacity available for maintenance, verification and responding to weak signals.
• Flow changes the operating conditions. Protecting the constraint, controlling work release and preserving sufficient capacity elsewhere can stabilise production while increasing output from the same resources.
What the practitioner evidence shows
Across more than 90 mining interventions on three continents, shifting operations towards flow-based production was associated with output improvements of 10–40% using the same resources. A consistent but initially unexpected observation was an accompanying improvement in safety outcomes.
These practitioner observations do not establish that flow-based production causes better safety performance. The paper therefore presents the relationship as a hypothesis and proposes research using production variability and safety-precursor data to test it.
Questions for mining leaders
• Is production stable from day to day, or is the monthly result repeatedly rescued through catch-up?
• Can the operation slow down or stop to address a weak safety signal without creating a production crisis?
• Is every production unit expected to maximise its own utilisation, regardless of the effect on overall flow?
• How much supervisory time is spent replanning, expediting and recovering from disruption?
• Are maintenance, control verification or learning activities postponed when production falls behind?
• Does the operation have enough protective capacity to absorb normal variability without compromising output or safety?
What should be tested next?
The paper proposes testing whether production instability—not simply the production rate—is associated with safety performance.
• Does daily run-of-mine production variability correlate with the frequency and severity of safety incidents?
• Do operations whose 12-month average output is 25% or more below demonstrated daily capability experience higher incident rates?
• When an operation moves towards flow and reduces that gap to below 20%, do production stability and safety measures improve together?
• During Queensland’s 2024–2027 critical-control implementation period, do more stable mines adapt more successfully than highly variable mines?
The proposed thresholds are practitioner-derived and have not yet been independently validated. Historical and prospective research is required.
Frequently asked questions
What does the paper argue?
The paper proposes that mining’s persistent safety plateau may be partly connected to the design of production. Balanced-capacity operations can create chronic instability and catch-up pressure, weakening the conditions required for high-reliability performance.
Does the paper prove that flow-based production improves safety?
No. The safety improvement is a recurring practitioner observation across more than 90 interventions, not established causal evidence. The paper presents a testable hypothesis and proposes independent research.
What is balanced capacity?
Balanced capacity is the conventional practice of resourcing every stage of a production chain to approximately the same nominal output and attempting to maximise the utilisation of every resource.
What is protective capacity?
Protective capacity is deliberately retained capability at non-constraint stages. It allows those stages to recover from disruption, replenish buffers and protect the output of the entire production system.
Where can I read the complete paper?
The paper is open access through the Journal of Industrial Safety. Use the DOI link or download the official PDF from this page.
About the author
Hendrik Lourens, FAusIMM, is CEO of Stratflow and a member of the AusIMM Health & Safety Society Committee. His work applies Theory of Constraints and flow-based production principles to improve operational stability, production predictability and the organisational capacity required for high-reliability performance.
The paper draws on more than 20 years of practitioner experience and over 90 mining interventions across Africa, South America and Australia.
What should be tested next?
The complete perspective article is available open access from the Journal of Industrial Safety.
Lourens, H. (2026). Breaching the mining fatalities plateau: Financial pressure, operational instability, and the case for flow-based safety. Journal of Industrial Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinse.2026.06.002