Recognising the disconnect before it compounds
At one multi-phase operation, planning teams were confident the fleet had enough life to carry the next five years of production. But performance data suggested otherwise. Units were running at lower availability than expected, maintenance interventions were increasing, and operational delays were compounding across haul routes.
The leadership team wasn’t resistant to change. In fact, they’d recently reviewed replacement options and had three rebuild quotes in front of them. But what was missing was sequence, structure, and clarity on cost alignment. Rather than adding another report, the decision was made to revisit the core question: What should this fleet be achieving — and what’s preventing it? This time, it wasn’t just a maintenance or CAPEX question. It became a planning, production, and commercial discussion — anchored by structured insights and a view that brought all three together.
Reframing the question: From performance to potential
What surfaced was not underperformance, but misalignment. Units were being evaluated against history, not capability. Benchmarking hadn’t been refreshed since site conditions had changed. Pit geometry had narrowed, access profiles had shifted, and the fleet was being asked to do more with less — without the planning framework to support that request.
By modelling performance against ideal conditions — not just recent averages — the site gained a more realistic baseline. It wasn’t just about the trucks. It was about what the trucks could do if constraints were removed and the broader mine plan aligned. This reframing brought clarity: not every rebuild was necessary. Nor was every replacement urgent. What mattered was matching investment to operational timing — and embedding that logic in the life-of-mine plan, not a standalone spreadsheet.
From fleet plan to mine plan — making it real
As the picture evolved, the team shifted focus from equipment options to strategic alignment. Rebuilds were now phased into production targets. Budgeting followed the mine schedule, not the calendar. And for the first time, operations, planning, and finance shared the same view — not just of costs, but of intent.
There were no sweeping changes. No new systems. Just quiet coordination, grounded in logic. Each decision gained weight because it sat within a broader structure. Trade-offs became visible. Rebuild timing aligned with shutdowns. Replacements were linked to supplier lead times. And capital decisions were validated not just by cost, but by consequence — what would happen if they weren’t made.
Avoiding a common outcome: A good plan that gets ignored
In many operations, a sound strategy already exists — but it’s disconnected from delivery. Procurement isn’t briefed. Maintenance isn’t resourced. Operations aren’t prepared. The result is predictable: missed windows, reactive rebuilds, and capital spent twice.
That’s not a failure of logic. It’s a failure of structure. When implementation is assumed rather than planned, momentum breaks. In this case, the structured equipment strategy didn’t just reach execution — it became the mechanism that pulled execution into alignment. Because the plan had been built to reflect real constraints, its implementation didn’t depend on perfect conditions. Flexibility was built in. Scenarios had been tested. Decision gates were in place. So when priorities shifted mid-year, the team adjusted without losing control.
What makes this work in practice — and how to begin
This isn’t a study that ends with recommendations. It ends with execution readiness. Each step — from benchmarking to planning, alignment to rollout — is designed to move strategy out of isolation and into the operation itself.
But the real value isn’t in the structure. It’s in what the structure reveals:
- Where costs are hidden.
- Where rebuilds can be deferred (or should be brought forward)
- Where deployment isn’t the issue — planning is.
- Where decisions can finally be owned, not debated.
For mines looking to shift from reactive decisions to long-term control, this is where that process begins.
Let’s apply this — site by site, fleet by fleet
The response to our original article made one thing clear: there’s no shortage of interest in strategic fleet planning — but there’s often a gap between intention and implementation. If your operation is navigating rebuild timing, capital decisions, or shifting performance constraints, we can help apply this strategy to your unique conditions — with no disruption, no upfront commitment, and no templates. Just a clear, structured pathway built on your mine’s data, constraints, and objectives.
We don’t begin with a pitch. We begin with a conversation — focused on your fleet, your plan, and what it will take to move from uncertainty to execution readiness. To get started, contact Sarel directly to schedule a confidential, site-specific strategy discussion:
Sarel Blaauw or email him directly at sblaauw@tacminmadini.com.au
Let’s move beyond reactive planning — and into controlled, capital-aligned execution.
