Evaluating the causes and effects of inconsistent construction methodologies on mining projects at Company X, Margaret Shaft
Abstract
The study was set in the operations management environment with emphasis on mining. Mining companies undertake projects regularly. These are either stay-in-business or mine expansion projects designed to maintain a competitive edge by increasing the exploitable reserves and resources. Mining projects follow a specific and consistent construction methodology (procedures) during execution in order to meet deadlines and expectations. They are a lifeline. However, this is not always the case.
This study was commissioned to study the causes of inconsistent construction methodologies and their associated effects on major mining projects. To do this, one South African mining company (Company X) was selected for the study and one specific shaft (Margaret Shaft) was chosen. Margaret Shaft has one major complex project currently running, valued at R2.7 billion. This project requires the use of EPCM (Engineering Procurement and Construction Management) companies to design and execute on behalf of the owner.
In the past five years, deviations and changes to construction methodologies have occurred at Company X during execution. This was to the detriment of both the project and operations team. These deviations adversely affected the project schedule, costing, and the quality of work done. During the past five-year period, Company X has undertaken in excess of 50 stay in business projects of which 30 suffered extension of time without scope additions.
The study was qualitative in nature and designed to extract perceptions on the causes of inconsistencies to the project construction methodologies through structured interviews. Project construction procedures or methodologies were identified in the literature as:
* Proper SHERG/On-boarding process planning and resourcing
* Construction methodologies, method statement and risk assessment process
* 3rd party interface process effect on construction
* Change management on site
To achieve this, six senior project managers were selected as a sample. These were the most experienced mining experts making key decisions. Scheduled interviews were conducted and the trustworthiness was achieved by ensuring the credibility, authenticity, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the interviews.
From the interviews, it was found out that the causes of inconsistencies were prolonged on-boarding time, extensive operator training requirements, stringent medical testing failures, lack of right skills, logistical problems, adverse mining ground conditions, delays in local labour requirements among others. The inconsistencies result in major cost overruns and poor production implications to both the contractor and mine.
The study provided recommendations to deal with the causes of inconsistencies that result in delays. These recommendations affect both the client and the contractor