Request an FMS Performance Review
A fixed-scope diagnostic that shows where your fleet management system, dispatch practice and data are losing production, sizes each loss in hours and tonnes, and ranks what to fix first.
Why a review
The system that should reveal the losses is often hiding them.
Most mines cannot say how much production their FMS is costing them, because the same system that should reveal the losses is configured, coded and used in ways that hide them. Reports arrive, KPIs are published, and the operation still does not know which problem to fix first.
Signs you need one
- KPIs that operations and the FMS team calculate differently
- Delay and standby codes dominated by "other" or "unknown"
- An optimiser that dispatchers routinely override
- Nobody can reconcile FMS tonnes with survey or plant tonnes
What you receive
Four deliverables, ending in a read-out with named owners.
- 1
Tonnes ledger
Where production went between fleet capability and tonnes moved, by category, in hours and tonnes.
- 2
Ranked improvement register
Every finding with its root cause, confidence, recommended action, effort, owner and expected recovery, ranked by value.
- 3
Configuration and data findings
Specific corrections to road network, assignment rules, definitions and coding, ready to implement.
- 4
Read-out and working session
The findings presented to management, then worked through with the people who will own each action.
The final read-out covers
- The tonnes ledger for the period reviewed
- The ranked register, with the top actions walked through one by one
- What can be done in weeks versus what needs a project
- Where the data could not size a loss, and what it would take to size it
- Agreed owners for each action before the session ends
Example output
What a review hands you, worked through.
Illustrative example. A hypothetical operation, not client data. Every figure is calculated from the assumptions below, and the ledger reconciles: capability minus losses equals tonnes moved.
- Haul fleet
- 30 trucks, 290 t target payload
- Loading units
- 6
- Period
- 30 days, 24-hour operation
- Cycle
- 32 min measured, 27 min without excess queue, load and haul time
- Ledger: tonnes per lost hour
- 644 t, the ideal rate (290 t per 27 min)
- Recovery: tonnes per regained hour
- 516 t, the current rate (275 t per 32 min)
1. The tonnes ledger
Where 12.81 Mt of fleet capability went. Select a bar for the hours behind it.
- Fleet capability12.81 Mt
- Tonnes moved7.74 Mt
Queueing1,173 truck-hours, 756 kt per 30 days
Three trucks queued at one shovel while another loading unit waits for trucks.
2. The ranked improvement register
Findings ranked by expected recovery. Recovery is a range, never more than the loss it addresses, and regained hours are valued at the fleet's current rate, so no row assumes another has already been fixed. A finding the data cannot size yet is listed as such rather than given a number.
| Rank | Loss category and finding | Truck-hours | Tonnes impact | Root cause | Confidence | Recommended action | Effort | Owner | Expected recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | QueueingTrucks queue at two loading units while others hang for trucks | 1,173 | 756 kt | Road network and travel-time model not updated as the pit advanced; static shovel priorities. | HighMeasured from cycle-level FMS data over the full period | Rebuild road network and travel times; re-tune priorities; weekly polygon update routine. | Low | FMS administrator, dispatch superintendent | 242 kt to 363 kt40–60% of queue loss |
2 | DelaysShift change averages 42 min against a 20 min target | 660 | 425 kt | Operators return to the crib for changeover; all units change at once. | HighShift-change delay coded consistently | Hot-seat at the face; stagger changeover by loading unit; align crib transport. | Medium | Production superintendent | 170 kt to 272 kt50–80% of the excess over target |
3 | PayloadAverage payload 275 t against a 290 t target | 655 | 422 kt | Payload system uncalibrated on part of the fleet; last-pass decisions made conservatively. | MediumScale calibration unverified on some trucks | Calibrate payload monitoring; coach loading-unit operators on the last pass; show live payload in cab. | Low | Load and haul superintendent, maintenance | 141 kt to 281 kt5–10 t of the 15 t gap per load |
4 | DowntimeUnplanned downtime following health alarms that were not actioned | 380 | 245 kt | Critical health events reach the dispatcher, not the maintenance planner. | MediumAlarm-to-failure link inferred from timestamps | Route critical events to the maintenance planner with a response target. | Medium | Maintenance superintendent | 59 kt to 98 kt30–50% of alarm-linked downtime |
5 | UncodedTruck time with no valid status or delay reason | 540 | Not yet sizeable | Long code lists; reasons requested after the event; predictable events coded by hand. | LowThe cause of uncoded time is unknown by definition | Auto-code predictable events; prompt at event start; publish the uncoded share weekly. | Low | FMS administrator | To be sizedSized after four weeks of clean coding |
How it runs
From scoping call to read-out
- 01
Scoping call
Agree the questions the review must answer, the data period, site access and who is involved.
- 02
Data and configuration review
FMS exports analysed and configuration checked, before anyone travels.
- 03
Site review
Control room and pit observed across shifts; operators, dispatchers and supervisors interviewed.
- 04
Analysis and read-out
Findings sized, ranked and presented to site leadership and the team who will act on them.
Durations depend mainly on the data period and the number of site shifts. Both are agreed on the scoping call, before any work starts.
Data and access we need
- Cycle and assignment records for a representative period
- Equipment status and delay events, with the code list in use
- Payload records and loading-unit production
- Read access to the FMS configuration, or time with its administrator
- Shift rosters and the current mine plan
- Access to the control room and pit for a small number of shifts
Who takes part
- Sponsor
- General manager or operations managerAgrees scope; attends the read-out
- FMS owner
- FMS administrator or technology leadData extracts, configuration access
- Dispatch
- Dispatch superintendent and dispatchers on shiftInterviews and observation
- Production
- Production and load-and-haul superintendentsInterviews; own most actions
- Maintenance
- Maintenance or reliability leadAvailability and health data
- Crews
- A sample of operators and supervisorsShort conversations on shift
The work itself is done by TBOS's own mining engineers, the people you meet on the scoping call. Meet the team.
Request
Tell us about the operation
This goes straight to the TBOS consultants. The more context you give, the more useful our first reply.
Prefer email? contact@tbosco.com