This three part series is based on the ACARP project report "Implementation of Roadway Development Strategy", written by Michael Kelly and published in October 1999. The following discussion of results of the ACARP project has been adapted from this study.
Discussion of Results
1. Information Is The Key
Better use of information was recognised as the number one area for potential improvement in the original business plan meetings, but it wasn't until the implementation of these ideas began that the power of information was properly recognised in practical terms.
Most mines, not just those participating in the study, have a large information gathering machine that collects, collates, and summarises production and maintenance data. In most cases the information flow is 90% upwards with very little being returned to the originator.
This type of information flow is not helpful in improving the roadway development process, but rather provides senior site and offsite staff with an historical record of what has happened. With roadway development, invariably this record is not adequate for business needs, and senior staff produce future budgets based on current performance plus an improvement level of 10%.
When one looks at individual shift performances, peaks are often more than 300% more than the average, so a mere 10% improvement seems quite achievable. Unfortunately, nothing in the system has fundamentally changed and the following year's figures seem depressingly similar. The missing improvement link for these mines is the power of the data that they are already collecting.
The project has revealed several key points about the use of this data which will enable not just a 10% improvement, but closer to a 30% improvement in rates with the same people, same machines, and virtually the same method of mining. The key points are:
Information should be analysed not averaged
Information must be tied to improvement action. It is better to match the analysis to action, than to have many graphs and no resultant improvement work. Effective improvement processes must be based on longer-term issues and not the immediate cause of a single breakdown.
Information should be 50% downwards
Effective two-way communication is necessary, especially with face workers and immediate supervisors. Relevant information about panel performance and future panel plans needs to be presented to these groups and a mechanism - not a suggestion box with no effective responsibility - where they have real responsibility for improvements.
Setting effective KPI's is essential
Effective KPIs for development include face cycle times (uptime rates), pillar cycle times, metres per week and cutting hours per week. They do not include metres per shift.
Metres per shift does not recognise natural variation and encourages short-term performance at the expense of longer-term sustained performance improvement and cycles beyond the immediate face cycles. It is the reason many mines' peak development shift performance is 300% higher than their average.
Feedback loops are a necessity for exception reporting
Most mines use some type of exception reporting where only faults are reported and items in good condition are not reported on. Once a fault is reported it is imperative that, when it is fixed, a report of that action is available to the source. This will ensure that the right problem is fixed and encourages further observation and fault reporting.
2. A Systems Approach requires integration of people and technology
A systems approach is more than just good management. It is about effective improvement for roadway development. This improvement may be continuous, stepwise or a combination. A systems approach requires effective integration of people issues with the introduction of new technology.
3. Leave no stone unturned
Several managers said similar things - the only way for sustained improvement is to aggressively look at all aspects of the organisation and assess how they effect roadway development. Bottlenecks in overall performance should be the target, but any changes need to be assessed for negative impact on other parts of the system. In this evaluation two models were invaluable. These were process mapping (Gantt chart) and a hierarchy of the levels at each mine.
4. An organisational structure should support the core business
The structure should reflect that the longwall and development are the mine's core business. One finding of the study was the significant impact of panel and mine cycle processes on roadway development outcomes. These processes are often extremely difficult to change with a number of examples of people coping in spite of poor maintenance systems or insufficient exploration and hazard mapping.
Before a systems approach is introduced everyone needs to understand that an outcome may be a required change in behaviour and support in this area is crucial. The biggest threat to this approach comes from traditional middle management.
5. Maximise the power of the organisation
In a traditional workforce the only people with effective power are the manager and in-charge levels. These numbers are small and it is therefore difficult for them to make sustained process improvements.
In a systems approach when workers are empowered to improve process knowledge and have the ability to influence the process positively the result is a far greater momentum of change.
6. Implementation takes time and commitment
The implementation of a systems approach for roadway development improvement is not a short-term exercise. Whilst improvement of up to 100% over a two to three year period could be expected and a 30% improvement within six months was demonstrated at Central, many of the changes require substantial modifications in organisation, measurement systems and maintenance and planning practices.
The change in culture from a traditional to an empowered one also takes time. Some estimates are for a five-year time frame to essentially embed a new culture. A complete change in less than two years is unrealistic.
