Common Planning Problems (Underground Mining)

Common Planning Problems

1. A problem right at the start is getting agreement on definitions and terminology. As an example literature frequently refers to production rates per shift. What is often not stated is the shift length; if the rate is an average for all shifts, including non production shifts, or for only shifts where coal is cut; if it includes non production shifts is it for all or only planned non production. The rates actually used are not important as long as everybody is clear as to what is meant and is consistent, and as long as comparative information is adjusted to the same basis.
   
   
2. It is obvious that any plan will only be accurate if the information included and the assumptions made are correct. With a new mine there is no experience in that location (though nearby mines may be able to provide this), no historical performance information and no historical costs available. As a result it will be no surprise if some variation between plan and actual results becomes apparent. When the vagaries of economic conditions are added to this, the likelihood of performance being exactly as planned is low. It is seldom likely after a few years' production that a mine layout closely resembles the original plan except where conditions are fairly simple or were well known in advance. It will be necessary to continue refining and adjusting the plan throughout the life of the mine.
   
   
3. While it would appear self evident that such a complex organization with so many variables as a modern coal mine would require a high standard of planning, it is the writer's opinion that this is an area of the operations that is frequently poorly handled.
   Typically when a mine is first envisaged a project team is set-up involving a good range of expertise, the team usually increasing in size as the project advances and, because a very large investment is being made for a long term return on that investment, planning is very detailed and of a good standard. However the mine has no history to provide typical production rates, etc, and only has information from exploration which may have missed important factors.
   Once the mine reaches the production stage and the project is "completed", it is typically handed over to an operating team, the project team being dispersed, moved to another project or absorbed into the operating team, and it is from this point that planning tends to take a back seat. To start with a plan is already in place suited to what is known at that time and there is no reason to change it so planning has a low priority. Planning departments are often set-up within the management structure, staffed by personnel with other duties and frequently staffed by personnel with limited experience. There is often a high turnover of staff in planning departments as personnel progress to other more senior functions. As the lease becomes better known and various constraints (internal or external) become apparent the need to change the plan arises and the importance of planning increases, but this is not always recognized by an upgrade of planning departments.
   
   
4. As well as the issues noted above, there are other factors which also act against planning being fully satisfactory
   
   • It is important that operational personnel are involved in the planning process, but in the eyes of operational personnel, planning for tomorrow will always be a lower priority than production today (after all, without the latter there will be no tomorrow).
     
   • Typically a plan drawn-up by one or two individuals will be overviewed and agreed to by the operational personnel, but the latter have little time available to give the plan the attention it requires.
     
   • There is a tendency for realistic plans which are not acceptable economically to be made acceptable by applying increased performance to the same resources - the "wishful thinking plan".
     
   • In the past the detailed planning/scheduling process was a tedious manual process and assessing alternatives was time consuming. Now there are excellent computer modeling processes available which make the process easier but which require a degree of expertise to operate properly. Consequently the computer model is frequently drawn-up by an expert in the modeling process overseen by an expert on the mine rather than the whole process being carried out by one person who knows both. This has potential for error and it suggests a large degree of refinement is required for planning programs to ensure end users are able to develop and use the planning models. It also reflects the junior status often attributed to planning (compared to production), the lack of computer literacy among more mature mining personnel and the lack of mining experience of a new generation of fully computer literate engineers.