Many mines implement FMS at great cost — and never really derive the full benefit. Why is this?
Life is interesting in the dawning of the information age. There is no doubt that incredible wealth will be generated through coming to terms with the true value of information and how one can leverage it in every aspect of business and life in general. The availability of data in every shape and form has made it possible to understand and optimise processes throughout all industries, and it continues to expand.
All the above being said, I do believe there is a risk in "leaving" things to be magically "fixed" by systems. In my humble opinion, many systems are purchased and employed with the assumption that they will override the broken or inefficient existing practices by their sheer power and optimisation ability (which is what they are sold on) and that improvements will come streaming out the other side. And this is not just in FMS — I have seen the same in a wide range of systems, including ERP rollouts.
What do I mean when I refer to "leaving" things to be fixed by systems? FMS, as with systems large and small, are tools, not magic wands—no matter what the sales executive will tell you. If the operation is not well managed and understood, an FMS may actually bring you very little benefit. It may end up, as in so many cases, as a very expensive data recording tool.
The entrenched local optima rule
Eli Goldratt, in his audiobook Beyond the Goal (2005), discusses the reality that new management and integration systems (specifically referring to ERPs in this audiobook) will require the un-doing of some established management practices and rules to enable the system to bring maximum benefit. He discusses what he calls the entrenched local optima rule—where the supervisor was always required to make sure that the team remained busy all the time to do as much as possible.
Where an ERP is introduced that integrates across the organisation, the system may actually indicate that the right thing for a supervisor to do, in some cases, is nothing — when there is sufficient stock in the system. But unless the local optima rule is undone, "busy teams" will remain the measure of effectiveness. No wonder the rollout of ERP and other systems has spawned a massive implementation and "customisation" industry: in countless cases, the expected benefit of implementing an ERP is diluted by actually re-designing it to accommodate the retention of "current".
An under-trucked example
Let's consider an under-trucked operation with multiple loading faces. Local optima (at shovel-unit level) will push every shovel to have trucks queuing so that the shovel can load continuously at maximum productivity (maybe hourly dig rate). When there is a shortage of trucks, all the shovels will be pushing for priority — and you know what they say about the person who shouts the loudest.
What the shovels won't necessarily have sight of are elements such as truck congestion rates on ramps through to dumps or tips, truck fuel levels and potential queuing at the fuel stop, the impact of inspections, and maybe hundreds more factors impacting system (not just unit) performance. In this case, the focus should be on optimising truck-fleet (and again, not unit) performance.
Now, surely an FMS can assist and indeed optimise while taking all these variables and scenarios into account? Yes, it has the potential to do so — but only if the operation gives it the freedom to do so. And this freedom rests on the release of the local optima rule (each shovel pushing to dig as much as fast as possible). And this often requires not just a memo, but a culture change.
The point
A poorly managed fleet will remain lacking in performance with or without an FMS.
In order for optimisation-driven systems to operate successfully, there has to be a clear understanding of the "as-is", the "to-be", and what is required to move from one to the other. This can be aided by an FMS, but it will not magically appear because an order is signed for implementation.