EY Says Operational Complexity Is Mining's #1 Risk. Is There Something Practical We Can Do About It?
- 7 days ago
- 3 min read
Mine operators suffer this complexity daily. I would like to offer a different perspective, with a better solution.
The complexity we feel is not only in the orebody, but also in our management systems.
In the 1950s, executives tracked 4-7 KPIs. Today, that number has increased to 25 or 50. Each metric made perfect sense when added; they were defensible and aligned with industry benchmarks. But collectively, they have created a system whereby:
Every department optimises locally → but local optimisations are in conflict → so managers spend their days arbitrating → and the "system" is created through compromise.
EY rightly advocates stricter planning discipline and the use of powerful predictive tools. These are important; however, they are more effective when used within a simplified system; otherwise, we end up trying to optimise complexity rather than reduce it.
What if better leverage comes through reducing the number of variables we manage?
There is an inherent simplicity hiding within your mining operation
Eli Goldratt, who developed the Theory of Constraints, recognised the managerial span of attention as the key performance constraint. He also noted something counterintuitive: a connected system is easier to manage than a disconnected one.
Consider this: for four independent problems, four separate solutions are needed. However, for six interconnected problems, linked through cause and effect, the whole system can be improved by focusing on just one of the problems, the constraint.
A mine is a single connected system with just one constraint. Find that constraint, protect it, buffer it, and subordinate everything else to it. The importance of the other steps isn't lost; they find their proper place within the hierarchy. Now, only one step requires monitoring, while the others can be adjusted without risking the entire system.
So, what does this look like in practice?
A coal operation had been averaging 2.4 million tonnes for years. The geology stayed consistent; no new equipment was bought; and the same number of staff were employed. Their problem was that many KPIs pointed in different directions.
Once they identified the operational constraint (the CHPP, not the longwall), everything shifted:
→ Coal production was aligned with what the plant could reliably handle → Haulage was coordinated for flow, not a utilisation target → Maintenance focused on CHPP uptime rather than schedule adherence → The ROM stockpile became a buffer instead of a dumping ground, with clear triggers for action.
Output increased to 3.2M tonnes, unlocking 33% of hidden capacity. No new equipment bought, no additional staff employed.
What the managers said resonated:
"Our Head of Operations came into work one morning, sat at his desk, and felt a strange sense of calm. No urgent fires to fight. He wondered if this was what his role was meant to feel like."
This is not just a story about increased productivity; it is a story about reducing complexity.
When 50 Priorities become One
Attempting to optimise 50 KPIs at once means every decision has a trade-off. For each gain, there's an equivalent loss. Every meeting turns into a negotiation between conflicting goals.
When you focus on one constraint, complexity doesn't disappear, but it becomes manageable:
→ Decision making becomes clearer (does this help or hinder the constraint?) → Delegation is easier (the system is resilient, issues surface early) → Planning is more reliable (forecasting involves one variable, not fifty)
The union at that coal operation claimed it was "the best system in the mine's history." Workers thanked management, “It's great coming to work."
The workers were not thanking management for making them work harder. They were thanking them for making their work simpler.
Building on EY's Insight
EY is right; operational complexity has become the key challenge. The geological and technical factors they highlight are genuine and worsening.
Alongside the external complexities we can't control, there are internal complexities we have built, layer by layer, KPI by KPI, dashboard by dashboard.
As EY suggests, the external complexities require better tools and tighter discipline. But the internal complexity requires something different: the courage to simplify. We need to ask which of our 50 legacy metrics determines our system's performance, and how we should subordinate the rest to those few?
This is not a technological problem; it's a focus problem. And focus, it turns out, creates calm and profit.
A question worth asking: Of your numerous KPIs, which one determines if you will achieve your monthly target? And what would change if everything else were subordinated to that metric?
Comments