The Misalignment Between Planning and Execution
Across projects we’ve observed or been asked to recover, a common scenario plays out. Significant time and capital are invested in planning. Feasibility studies are technically sound. Environmental and community considerations are addressed. The economics check out.
But once the study is complete, momentum fades. The project team disbands or scales back. There is no continuity from study to site. Execution is expected to “just happen” — often led by an internal team that lacks structured delivery support. Procurement slips, contractors arrive late, and planned schedules begin to drift. Before long, the gap between intent and reality becomes too wide to close.
Well-Established Models, but One Leaves a Critical Gap
Most juniors rely on one of two familiar models:
The Tier 1 EPCM model, designed for large, institutionally backed assets. It provides structure, governance, and depth—but the cost, scale, and complexity make it out of reach for many juniors.
The Owner–Consultant model, where external consultants deliver the study, then exit. The execution phase—contracting, scheduling, and site mobilisation—is left to the owner, often without a dedicated delivery framework to support them.
The problem lies in the second model. While the study may be sound, the absence of an embedded execution partner often leads to a breakdown in delivery discipline. Plans become disconnected from site realities. Decisions turn reactive. And promising projects begin to unravel just as they should be gaining traction.
The Consequences: Cost Overruns, Drift, and Lost Momentum
This structural gap is not a theoretical risk—it shows up consistently in the form of cost overruns, missed schedules, and project drift.
According to industry research, the majority of mining capital projects suffer cost increases of 20–30%, with juniors particularly exposed due to tight staging of funds and high investor expectations. Without continuity from planning to execution, even technically sound projects risk becoming distressed or delayed.
What’s often missing is not expertise—it’s structure. No single party is accountable for seeing the project through. Technical consultants are out. Contractors are in. Owners are left to bridge the divide—often without the tools, systems, or bandwidth to do so.
A Gap the Industry Has Yet to Address
Despite decades of evolution in mining project delivery, this middle ground remains underserved. There are established delivery models for large-scale projects and proven consultants for early-phase studies—but little exists for those projects that fall between: too complex to be run directly by the owner, but not large enough to warrant Tier 1 EPCM engagement.
It’s a space that has long been accepted as a grey area—something juniors are expected to figure out on their own. But in a market where capital efficiency is paramount, and where the cost of delay is measured in lost confidence, that’s no longer sustainable.
What’s Needed: A Fit-for-Purpose Delivery Framework
What junior projects need is not a cut-down version of Tier 1 EPCM, nor an outsourced project manager. They need:
- Continuity from study to execution, without adding unnecessary layers
- Lean, embedded oversight that works alongside consultants and owners
- Fit-for-purpose project controls that align scope, cost, and performance in real time
- Execution discipline without institutional overhead
In other words, a delivery partner that acts as an extension of the owner—focused not just on managing tasks, but on ensuring the project gets built as planned.
Conclusion: The Missing Link Between Planning and Performance
The mining industry has made great strides in exploration, study quality, and stakeholder engagement. But until it closes the execution gap for juniors, capital will continue to be lost between concept and completion.
This is the space where TacminMadini has quietly operated since the 1990s—delivering structured, embedded support for mining projects that can’t afford to get execution wrong. We don’t replace consultants or Tier 1 EPCMs—we support the projects they were never designed to serve.
Because in mining, the hardest part isn’t discovery. It’s delivery.
