1)The Authority Paradox- The Impossible Math Your GM Won't Tell You About

I recently spoke to a group of mine managers about why their job is so hard.

The answer isn't geology. It isn't equipment. It isn't people.

It's arithmetic.

Here's what most boards don't realise: the KPIs they cascade down are mathematically incompatible.

A typical GM is handed targets that demand: → 75-85% utilisation on drilling → 75-85% utilisation on trucks → 75-85% utilisation on the plant → Hit monthly tonnage

These aren't made-up numbers. Industry benchmarks push utilisation into this range across production units. Efficient operation, maximum output, minimum waste. Keep everything working.

What's the problem?

The problem is that mining is a serial production chain with variability. And in any chain with variability and interdependency, pushing high utilisation across all links destroys system performance.

We've demonstrated this with a simple simulation. Take six production units in series—each capable of 10 tonnes per hour on average. A "balanced" chain. Efficient. No fat. Everyone busy.

What does it actually produce? Not 10. It produces 5.

Why? Because "10 on average" means sometimes 12, sometimes zero. When one unit drops, it starves everything downstream and blocks everything upstream. The production at any moment is the lowest of all units—not the average.

And here's where it gets worse. When production falls short, the instinct is to tighten up. Resource for 8 instead of 10. Then you produce 4. Resource for 6. Produce 3. The balanced capacity chain death spiral.

So when a board demands high utilisation everywhere, they're inadvertently demanding a balanced capacity chain. And a balanced capacity chain, in a variable environment, is the lowest global efficiency configuration.

The GM knows this intuitively. They live the firefighting. They watch plans die by Wednesday. They see the monthly target slip away while every department reports green on their individual KPIs.

But they can't say it out loud.

Because saying "we need protective capacity" sounds like "we need slack." Saying "the truck fleet should sometimes sit at 60% utilisation" sounds like waste. Saying "we should deliberately unbalance the chain" sounds like incompetence.

The language of cost accounting—born in the factories of Taylor and Ford, refined by GM and DuPont—doesn't have words for "strategic under-utilisation that maximises throughput."

So the GM is caught in an impossible position:

• They can't override board-level KPIs

• They can't simultaneously achieve them

• They can't explain why without sounding like they're making excuses

Trust erodes. Plans get recut. Middle management disengages because they're stuck between targets from above and reality on the ground.

The solution isn't working harder. It's changing what we measure.

The constraint—and only the constraint—should run at maximum utilisation. Everything else exists to protect it. That means buffers. That means protective capacity. That means accepting that non-bottleneck resources will look "under-utilised" by traditional metrics—and that's exactly right.

One longwall operation made this shift. Result: 33% increase in throughput. No new equipment. No new people. Just a different understanding of how value is actually generated.

But here's the hard part: this requires the board to authorise a different definition of success. The GM can't do it alone. The paradigm has to shift at the top.

A question worth asking at your next portfolio review: Are we measuring what makes the system succeed—or what makes each department look busy?