The Pit Falls Of Benchmarking And How To Avoid Them

When done properly, benchmarking is an extremely effective tool for assessing ones performance, finding areas for improvement, and identifying strengths. However, when done improperly it can be an exercise in futility and result in incorrect observations and conclusions. A primary pitfall of benchmarking is collecting too much unreliable information. Surprisingly, the evolution of data storage and the ease of data collection are not helping with better data collection. Instead, it is just allowing one to collect more information, while at the same time inundating one with too much data. Additionally, the process of data collection can be tedious and is often times delegated to the least experienced individual resulting in unreliable and incorrect data collection and entry. Another primary pitfall of benchmarking is metrics that are cost based or poorly designed. Cost based metrics typically involve comparing unit mining costs ($/tonne). Between mines, unit mining costs are not very well correlated and have become further complicated by significant regional cost variations and mining inflation in the last years. Likewise, poorly designed metrics lead to poor benchmarking results. Examples of poorly defined metrics include: metrics that rely on information that is difficult to collect, metrics that are poorly defined, metrics which are too site focused, and metrics that measure low consequence practices.