Estimating mine planning software utilization for decision ... · ESTIMATING MINE PLANNING SOFTWARE UTILIZATION FOR DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES 1 ... Estimating mine planning software

ESTIMATING MINE PLANNING SOFTWARE UTILIZATION FOR DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES 1

IntroductionThis paper outlines the development of a new methodologyto define and measure mine planning software utilization inthe South African platinum group metal (PGM) miningsector. Although the calculations can be done for anycommodity, in this paper the calculations were restricted toPGMs as South Africa is the world’s number one platinumproducer, producing 73 per cent (4.12 million ounces) ofthe annual global platinum output in 2013 (JohnsonMatthey, 2014). According to Statistics South Africa(2014), PGMs generated almost 23% of South Africa’smining income during 2013.

An initial data-set showing the mine planning softwareproviders, their corresponding software solutions, as well asthe software capabilities and information on the number oflicences was collected and compiled in 2012 in an onlinedatabase. The database development and implementationwas published in the Journal of the Southern AfricanInstitute of Mining and Metallurgy in 2013 (Katakwa, et al.,2013). In 2014 the data-set was updated with additional andnew information. Using the updated data-set, amethodology was developed to measure mine planningsoftware utilization for PGMs in order to ultimately informdecision-making strategies for utilization of the software in

the PGM sector.Utilization is a well-known word within the mining

industry because of its ties with the level of productivity.Higher utilization is often leads to higher productivity,hence better profit margins. From this point of view,utilization is an important factor regardless of the size ofany operation including those in the PGM sector. The rootof the word ‘utilization’ comes from the word ‘utilize’,meaning to ’make practical and effective use of’ (OxfordEnglish Dictionaries, 2014). By using this definition,software utilization can be defined as the effective use ofmine planning software in South Africa, but in general,utilization is associated with overall equipmenteffectiveness, which is one of the key performance-basedmetrics. It is important to understand the fundamentalsbehind these metrics.

Overall equipment effectivenessIn the literature, utilization is associated with time in such away that it can be defined as the measurement of time usedto perform effective work. In the mining industry, in bothsurface and underground operations, better equipmentutilization often leads to higher of productivity, hencegreater profitability.

GENC, B., MUSINGWINI, C., and KATAKWA, T.P. Estimating mine planning software utilization for decision-making strategies in the South Africanplatinum group metals mining sector. The 6th International Platinum Conference, ‘Platinum–Metal for the Future’, The Southern African Institute of Miningand Metallurgy, 2014.

Estimating mine planning software utilization for decision-making strategies in the South African platinum group metals

mining sector

B. GENC*, C. MUSINGWINI*, and T.P. KATAKWA†

*University of Witwatersrand†Cyest Technology

This paper discuses a new methodology to define and measure mine planning software utilizationin the South African platinum group metals (PGM) mining sector within an evolving data-setframework. An initial data-set showing the mine planning software providers, their correspondingsoftware solutions, as well as the software capabilities and information on the number of licenceswas collected and compiled in 2012 in an online database for software utilized in the SouthAfrican mining industry. The database development and implementation was published in theJournal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in 2013. In 2014 the data-setwas updated with additional and new information.

Using the 2012 and 2014 timestamps, a methodology for estimating the software utilization wasdeveloped. In this methodology, three variables, namely commodity (i), functionality (l), and timefactor (t) were used to define and measure the software utilization in order to ultimately informdecision-making strategies for software utilization by various stakeholders. Using six differentfunctionalities – namely geological data management, geological modelling and resourceestimation, design and layout, scheduling, financial valuation, and optimization, utilization forPGMs was measured. This paper presents the methodology employed for measuring the mineplanning software utilization. The work presented in this paper is part of a PhD research study inthe School of Mining Engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Keywords: PGM sector mine planning software utilization, database, South African miningindustry.

‘PLATINUM METAL FOR THE FUTURE’2

Although there are a number of ways to measureperformance against the various metrics, the most widelyused measure to determine performance against capabilityof the equipment is Overall Equipment Effectiveness(OEE). OEE measurement is also commonly used as a keyperformance indicator (KPI) in Total ProductiveMaintenance (TPM) and Lean Manufacturing programmesfor measuring production efficiency (Vorne Industries,2008).

There are six factors, also known as the ‘Six Big Losses’,which are the main causes of production losses. TPM andOEE programmes aim to control these six factors.(Nakajima, 1998) listed these six factors effectingequipment utilization as:

• Breakdown loss• Setup and adjustment loss• Idling and minor stoppages• Reduced speed loss• Quality defects and rework• Start-up loss.In the TPM model, Nakajima (1998) furthermore

formulated utilization using availability, performance rate,and quality rate as shown in the following formula:

Equipment effectiveness = Availability × Performance rate× Quality rate

In this formula, equipment effectiveness defines themeaning of equipment utilization and is calculated bymultiplying equipment availability by performance rate andquality rate. Figure 1 shows time factors effectingequipment utilization. In Figure 1, operation time isassociated with total available time for a given period, asthis can be anything from a shift of the day to a wholemonth. As shown in Figure 1, loading time can becalculated by deducting downtime from the operation time.

Availability can be calculated by dividing loading timeby operation time. As the loading time calculation isalready given, the availability formula then is (Shirose,2013):

Furthermore, speed loss time is the lost time caused byoperating below the planned speed, and can be calculatedby using the actual time to make the production quantityminus the design time to make the same quantity asformulated below (Shirose, 2013):

Speed loss time = Parts produced × (Design cycle time −Actual cycle time)

Cycle time is the time taken to produce one unit. Designcycle time used to calculate the equipment’s designedproduction rate, and actual cycle time used to calculate theequipment’s actual production rate. Design operating timeis the time the equipment should have taken to produce theunits and is the difference between the loading time and thespeed loss time. Performance rate is the ratio of the design

operating time to loading time (Shirose, 2013) as shownbelow:

Quality loss time is the time lost making nonconformingmaterial. Valuable operating time is the time the equipmentspends making conforming material. Quality rate is theratio of conforming units produced to total units produced(Shirose, 2013), as shown below:

Quality loss time = Nonconforming units × Actual cycletime

Although OEE is a very powerful tool to measureefficiency, hence utilization; it is fundamentally designedfor equipment utilization, which can be defined as hardwareutilization. The aim of this study is to define softwareutilization in the South African mining industry. AlthoughOEE gives some ideas regarding utilization, it is notdesigned to establish a framework that can bring a newapproach towards mine planning software utilization.

El-Ramly and Stroulia (2004) tried to explain softwareutilization. They stated that there are a number oftechniques available to understand how often the softwareis being used as well as to what degree it is being used.Many software systems collect, or can be set up to collect,data about how users use them, i.e. system-user interactiondata. Such data can be of great value for programunderstanding and re-engineering purposes. Sequential datamining methods can be applied to identify patterns of useractivities from system-user interaction traces (El-Ramlyand Stroulia, 2004).

Despite the fact that user data may be available in someinstances, using the data mining methods based on the userbehaviour to measure mine planning software utilization isinappropriate when considering the size of the SouthAfrican PGM sector and user privacy. By selecting thenumber of targeted mining sites, limited research outputcould be possible but most probably would not be sufficientto satisfy the whole PGM mining industry in South Africa.

To achieve a successful research initiative that covers theentire South African PGM mining sector, a methodologywas developed in such a way that utilization of the mineplanning software that is used in PGM mining sector couldbe measured. The next section defines this measurementframework.

Software utilizationBy using an analogy to the one given earlier, softwareutilization can also be defined by associating many-to-many, one-to-many, and many-to-one relationships betweenentity types. In this association, the relationships betweensoftware vendors, commodity, functionality, and time factorwere used to develop the following terminology:

{Ci, Fl} → Sk={i ,l}

where Sk is the software that performs tasks on commodity(i) and functionality (l). In the market there is usually morethan one software solution specifically designed forcommodity (i) and functionality (l). In order to identify andevaluate each particular software solution, a new index (m)is used so that Sk

(m) is defined to represent a unique softwaresolution whereas k={i,l} is an index which is a specificcombination of {i,l}, and

Figure 1. Time factors effecting equipment utilization (afterShirose, 2013)


m=1, 2, 3…M

where M is the total number of software solutions. Forexample, assume there are three software companiesnamely X, Y, and Z. Each of these three companies mighthave a number of software solutions, i.e. software companyX has three types of software namely; X1, X2, and X3;company Y has only one type, namely Y1; and company Zhas two types of software, namely Z1 and Z2. Table I showshow to find M.

From Table I, the total number of available softwaresolutions, M, is 6.

Using a similar approach, the utilization of the softwaresolutions can also be defined as such:

ui,l(m) is the utilization of the software that performs task

on commodity (i) and functionality (l) by using software(m). Although there is no rigid definition of the softwareutilization, it is defined as a numeric value that falls into therange between 0 and 1 inclusive, i.e.

By doing so, performing further analytic development onthe software utilization can be accomplished. Furthermore,the utilization formula can be extended by considering timefactor (t) to the following:

where fi,l(m,t) is a quantity factor that relates to the software

that performs a specific task on commodity (i) andfunctionality (l) using software (m) at a specific time (t),and wi,l

(m,t) is the weighing factor, which will handle themissing data-related issues and/or other factors such asmarket capitalization of the companies. For instance, fi,l

(m,t)

can be defined as the total number of sites. For example, ifthe market capitalization of the software companies X andY are US$1 million and US$100 million respectively, but ifboth companies have a software solution with the samefunctionality, then the weighing factor for the smallcompany will be higher than that for the larger company.Furthermore, the price of the mine planning software aswell as support availability plays an important role whenconsidering the weighing factor.

Software utilization is already defined in a generic way.However, the software utilization can also be defined in aspecific way, i.e. the relative utilization (r). Relativeutilization can be considered as a weighed softwareutilization and can be formulated as:

Calculating relative utilization leads to a weighed marketshare of the software utilization. In the calculation ofrelative utilization, three variables were used to generate theresults, namely:

• Commodity (i) • Functionality (l)

• Time factor (t). For example, the following results calculated for only one

commodity, (i) namely PGMs, using six differentfunctionalities (l) (Katakwa et al., 2013) namely:

1. Geological data management2. Geological modelling and resource estimation3. Design and layout4. Scheduling5. Financial valuation6. Optimization.Six functionalities listed by Katakwa et al. (2013)

originated from the Open Group’s Business ReferenceModel, which categorizes not only the functionalities ofmine planning software, but also mine value chain stagesand mining methods (The Open Group, 2010). The OpenGroup’s Business Reference Model illustrates how thevarious software solutions interact with each other. Figure 2shows the names of available mine planning softwaresolutions and their functionalities along the mining valuechain.

The time (t) factor has two timestamp indicators showingdifferent data collection dates, namely:

• September 2012, t=1 • April 2014, t=2.By using all three variables, the weighed software

utilization, hence the market share of each participatingmine planning software solution, was calculated. The data-set was extracted from the updated database, and theprogramming language GNU Octave was used for the dataanalysis and the calculation of the software utilization perfunctionality for the selected PGM commodity using twodifferent timestamps as mentioned previously.

It is important to note that if fi,l(m,t) is 0, it means that the

subject software either does not support the specificfunctionality or does not support the specific commodity.Furthermore, when calculating ui,l

(m,t) and wi,l(m,t), the value is

set to 1 as at this stage of the calculation it was decided thatthe weighed software utilization did not have any impact onthe calculation of the relative software utilization. Thesoftware_identities, which uniquely identify each particularsoftware solution, are not named in this research work, andthe solutions have been numbered randomly.

Results for PGMsIn this section, mine planning software utilization forcommodity (i) PGMs was calculated. Six functionalities (l)with two timestamps (t) were used for the calculations andthe results for each functionality with two timestamps arepresented as tables and figures, respectively. Accordingly, atotal number of {6(l) x 2(t) = 12} tables for eachcommodity was created. According to the functionality listprovided earlier, the first functionality, ‘Geological DataManagement’ was used with two different timestamps toproduce the first sets of two tables. After generating thetables, pie charts were created for each table for easyinterpretation of the results. Consequently, using thefunctionality list, the remaining tables and figures werecreated in a similar manner.

Table INumber of software solutions by company

Name of software company Company X Company Y Company ZName of software solution X1 X2 X3 Y1 Z1 Z2

m 1 2 3 4 5 6


Figure 2. Available mine planning software solutions and their functionalities along the mining value chain


Table II shows the names of the software providers thatparticipated in this study, as well as the locations of theirheadquarters. Note that data on CAE Mining was onlymade available in the April 2014 data-set. The resultspresented here do not cater for either the mining methods orthe type of mine (whether it is a surface or an undergroundoperation).

Geological data management software results for PGMsTable III shows the market share of the individual softwaresolutions for commodityPGMs using the functionalityGeological Data Management as at September, 2012, whileTable IV shows the same results using the secondtimestamp, i.e. April 2014. Figure 3 illustrates the data fromboth tables in graphical format. Note that fi,l

(m,t), wi,l(m,t), ui,l

(m,t),and ri,l

(m,t) in the column headings in Tables III to XIII weredefined in the previous section.

There is a significant difference between the two piecharts in Figure 3; CAE Mining’s Geological DataManagement Solution software with a 47% market share inthe April 2014 chart is clearly visible. Pegs Lite and MRMhave each a 16% market share in this field.

Geological modelling and resource estimation softwareresults for PGMsTable V shows the market share of the individual softwaresolutions for the commodity PGMs using the GeologicalModelling and Resource Estimation functionality as atSeptember 2012, while Table VI shows the results using thesecond timestamp, April 2014. Figure 4 is a graphicalrepresentation of both tables.

When comparing the diagrams in Figure 4, similar to theprevious results, there is huge difference between the twopie charts; Studio 3 - Geology is the leading software with a

50% market share in the April 2014 chart. MRM andCADSMine software have a 19% and 18% market share inthis field, respectively.

Table IISoftware providers and their locations

Software provider Location of headquartersCAE Mining Saint-Laurent, Canada Cyest Corporation Johannesburg, South AfricaGeovia Paris, FranceMaptek Adelaide, AustraliaMineRP Solutions Centurion, South AfricaRungePincockMinarco Brisbane, AustraliaSable Johannesburg, South Africa

Figure 3. Geological Data Management functionality software utilization for PGMs

Table IIIGeological Data Management functionality software utilization

for PGMs as of September 2012

Table IVGeological Data Management functionality software utilization

for PGMs as of April 2014


Design and layout software results for PGMsTable VII shows the market share of the individual softwaresolutions for the commodity PGMs using the Design andLayout functionality as at September, 2012 while TableVIII shows the same results using the second timestamp,April 2014. Figure 5 illustrates the graphical representationof both tables.

There are some differences between the two pie charts inFigure 5. Although MRM and CADSMine software still hasthe biggest slices from the pie, with a 25% and 24% marketshare respectively in the Design and Layout software field,

Table VGeological Modelling and Resource Estimation functionality

software utilization for PGMs as of September 2012

Table VIGeological Modelling and Resource Estimation functionality

software utilization for PGMs as of April 2014

Figure 4. Geological Modelling and Resource Estimation functionality software utilization for PGMs

Table VIIDesign and Layout functionality software utilization for PGMs as

of September 2012

Table VIIIDesign and Layout functionality software utilization for PGMs as

of April 2014


Studio 3 – Engineering software is in the third place with a13% market share in the PGM sector using the Design andLayout functionality.

Scheduling software results for PGMsTable IX shows the market share of the individual softwaresolutions for the commodity PGMs using the Schedulingfunctionality as at September 2012, while Table X showsthe results using the second timestamp, April 2014. Thedata in Tables IX and X are illustrated graphically in Figure6 and Figure 7 respectively.

A comparison of Figure 6 and Figure 7 does not revealmuch difference; MRM and CADSMine software still havethe biggest market shares in the Scheduling software field,with 17% and 16%, respectively.

Financial valuation software results for PGMsWhen comparing the results for the Financial Valuationsoftware between September 2012 and April 2014, it wasnoted that both timestamps were identical, indicating thatthere were no changes between the two different data-sets.Because of this, there is only one table, Table XI showingthe market share of the individual software solutions for thecommodity PGMs using the Financial Valuationfunctionality results for both timestamps. Similarly, FigureVIII represents both timestamps and is a graphical

Figure 5. Design and Layout functionality software utilization for PGMs

Table IXScheduling functionality software utilization for PGMs as of

September 2012

Figure 6. Scheduling functionality software utilization for PGMs as of September 2012


representation of Table XI.Figure 8 indicates that MRM is the leading software

solution with a 30% market share in the PGM sector whenit comes to Financial Valuation software. BentleyEvaluation and Carbon Economics both have a 21% marketshare in this section.

Optimization software results for PGMsTable XII shows the market share of the individual softwaresolutions for the commodity PGMs using the Optimizationfunctionality as at September, 2012, while Table XIIIshows the results using the second timestamp, April 2014.

Figure 9 is the graphical representation of both tables,Table XII and Table XIII.

When comparing the diagrams in Figure 9, there is anoteworthy difference between the two pie charts; Studio 3– Geology has emerged as a new leader with a 49% marketshare in April 2014, and is followed by MRM with an 18%market share in the Optimization software field.

ConclusionIn this paper, a methodology for the evaluation of mineplanning software utilization in the South African PGMmining sector was developed. In this framework, threevariables, namely commodity (i), functionality (l), and timefactor (t) were used to calculate the results. The calculationscan be done for any commodity in a similar manner. Sixfunctionalities, namely Geological Data Management,Geological Modelling and Resource Estimation, Design andLayout, Scheduling, Financial Valuation, and Optimization,were applied using two different timestamps (September

Table XScheduling functionality software utilization for PGMs as of

April 2014

Figure 7. Scheduling functionality software utilization for PGMs as of April 2014

Table XIFinancial Valuation functionality software utilization for PGMs


Figure 8. Financial Valuation functionality software utilization for PGMs

Table XIIOptimization functionality software utilization for PGMs as of

September 2012

Table XIIIOptimization functionality software utilization for PGMs as of

April 2014

Figure 9. Optimization functionality software utilization for PGMs


2012 and April 2014). By using this newly developedframework, utilization of the various mine planningsoftware solutions was measured. This information can beused to ultimately inform decision-making strategies onsoftware utilization by software developers, miningcompanies, educational institutions, and consultingcompanies.

It is important to note that data on CAE Mining wasmade available only in the April 2014 data-set. Whencomparing the results, the CAE Mining market share isclearly visible in the PGM sector, especially in the field ofGeological Data Management, Geological Modelling andResource Estimation, Design and Layout, andOptimization.

ReferencesEL-RAMLY, M. and STROULIA, E. 2004. Mining

software usage data. . ICSE 2004. Proceedings of the26th International Conference on SoftwareEngineering, Edinburgh, Scotland, 23–28 May 2004.MSR 2004: International Workshop on MiningSoftware Repositories 25 May 2004. IEEE ComputerSociety, Washington DC. pp. 64–68.

JOHNSON MATTHEY. 2014. Platinum 2013.www.platinum.matthey.com [Accessed 19 June2014].

KATAKWA, T.P., MUSINGWINI, C., and GENC, B.2013. Online database of mine planning andperipheral software used in the South African miningindustry. Journal of the Southern African Institute ofMining and Metallurgy, vol. 113, no. 6. pp. 497–504.

NAKAJIMA, S. 1998. Introduction to Total ProductiveMaintenance. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

OXFORD DICTIONARIES. 2014. Utilize. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utilize?q=utilize [Accessed 15 June 2014].

SHIROSE, K. 2014. Equipment Utilization Metrics.http://www.ombuenterprises.com/LibraryPDFs/Equipment_Utilization_Metrics.pdf [Accessed 15 June2014].

STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA. 2014. Publications.http://beta2.statssa.gov.za/publications/P2041/P2041January2014.pdf [Accessed 24 July 2014].

THE OPEN GROUP. 2010. The exploration and miningbusiness reference model. https://collaboration.opengroup.org/emmmv/documents/22706/Getting_started_with_the_EM_Business_Model_v_01.00.pdf[Accessed 21 July 2014].

VORNE INDUSTRIES. 2008. The Fast Guide to OEE.http://www.vorne.com/pdf/fast-guide-to-oee.pdf[Accessed 15 June 2014].

Bekir Genc Senior Lecturer, Wits University

Bekir Genc is a senior lecturer of the School of Mining Engineering at the University of theWitwatersrand. He holds a M.Sc. (WITS) and a B.Sc. (ITU). He has over 15 years’ of experiencein the mining industry. He currently lectures in the areas of Computer Skills, ComputerApplications in Mining and Computerised Mine Design. He is doing a PhD about Mine Planningand Peripheral Software in South Africa. Mr Genc presented papers at international conferencesand authored peer reviewed journal papers. He is member of the SAIMM.

Documents

Estimating mine planning software utilization for decision ... · ESTIMATING MINE PLANNING SOFTWARE UTILIZATION FOR DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES 1 ... Estimating mine planning software