Production came first—but planning made the difference
When we arrived, the pressure was on output. Targets were being missed, and leadership needed results—fast. We started where we could deliver immediate traction: simulation-led fleet planning, built on digital twins that reflected actual site conditions, haul distances, and production constraints.
But planning alone wasn’t enough. Tacmin.ai engineers provided the next layer—real-time equipment performance analytics, drawn directly from Controller Area Network (CAN Bus) data. This allowed us to pinpoint where, when, and how machines were operating under excessive load, suffering inefficiencies, or heading toward failure.
Armed with these insights, we restructured fleet deployment, adjusted task allocation, and optimised routes. Output stabilised quickly. More importantly, the operation gained the tools and visibility needed for ongoing performance control and long-term fleet reliability.
After production relief came the harder shift: Maintenance
With production back on track, the focus turned to the deeper problem—how to sustain it. That’s where cracks in the maintenance process became harder to ignore.
We tried to implement a simple coordination layer early on. But it didn’t hold. The data was there, but the routines weren’t. Forecasting spares didn’t work if the planning window kept shifting. Dashboards were built, but not used—because they weren’t embedded in the team's daily process.
So, we slowed down! We worked side-by-side with the asset managers to understand how decisions were made—not how they should be made. We sat with supervisors to see how job cards were prioritised. We mapped out where the gaps were—not on paper, but in practice.
Where structure met reality
As the rollout progressed, we didn’t push a generic model—we worked alongside the team to shape TacForge around the real responsibilities they were already trying to manage.
Fleet execution, maintenance planning, inventory, IT coordination—it was all happening, but without alignment. TacForge gave them structure: plans matched actual crew capacity, performance data was pulled straight from OEM and CMMS systems, and inventory moved from spreadsheet chaos to real-time visibility.
Dashboards found their place in toolbox meetings. Supervisors stopped juggling planning and tasking separately. And for the first time, planners, trades, and supply leads were all working off the same page. It wasn’t seamless. But it was grounded. And it worked—because it was built from how the site operated, not how someone thought it should.
From field solution to formalised system
This approach wasn’t new to Tacmin. We’d been doing this work for years—supporting asset-intensive sites with practical, site-ready systems. But until this project, those solutions were informal. Tactical. Delivered case by case.
What this remote African mine gave us was the opportunity to pause, refine, and formalise—building on Australian standards, codifying proven planning structures, and turning years of field experience into a repeatable framework.
That’s how TacForge was born. Not from a product plan—but from working the problem until the solution became clear.
Why this matters now
Owner-maintained fleets are becoming more common. But structure hasn’t caught up. Many operations still rely on disconnected systems, legacy spreadsheets, or overcomplicated software that never lands. That’s not just a risk—it’s a waste of good people.
TacForge gives operations a framework they can stand on. Built with the field in mind. Delivered without disruption. And refined from real-world lessons—not theory.
Let’s structure it properly this time.
TacForge – Structured asset control for owner maintenance
Sarel Blaauw or email sblaauw@tacminmadini.com.au
