Why the gap between plan and actual is where mining value quietly erodes
A mine plan is a carefully optimised sequence: mine these blocks, in this order, to these designed shapes, to deliver the tonnes and grade the business has committed to. The plan balances grade, strip ratio, equipment movement, blending and cash flow. But the plan is only as good as its execution - and execution always departs from the plan to some degree. The question that plan compliance reporting answers is: by how much, where, and with what consequence? A mine that consistently mines slightly off-design, or out of the planned sequence, erodes value through ore loss and dilution in ways that do not show up clearly in the headline production number until the grade reconciliation goes sideways months later.
Best-practice plan compliance reporting makes execution quality an explicit, measured KPI. It compares the as-mined survey to the design, measures how much of the planned sequence was actually achieved, and quantifies the ore loss and dilution attributable to mining departing from the design. This turns a vague sense that 'we're a bit behind plan' into a specific, attributable picture: which areas were mined out of sequence, where the floors and walls deviated from design, and how much grade was lost to dilution as a result.
The metrics that belong on a mine plan compliance dashboard
- Schedule adherence - planned vs actual tonnes by mining area and period; did the right areas get mined in the right order?
- Sequence compliance - whether mining followed the planned sequence, or jumped ahead and left planned areas behind
- Dig-to-design conformance - how closely as-mined floors, walls and crests match the design surfaces and solids
- Ore loss - designed ore left in the ground or sent to waste; a direct loss of recoverable metal
- Dilution - waste material mined and sent as ore, lowering delivered grade against plan
- Advance rate vs plan - for underground, development metres and stope turnover against the schedule
- Volume reconciliation - as-mined survey volume against the planned volume for each area
Dig to design: comparing the as-mined surface to the plan
The most powerful comparison in plan compliance is the as-mined survey against the design. Each pickup of the pit floor, walls and crests can be compared to the designed surfaces and ore solids to measure exactly where mining went deeper, shallower, wider or narrower than planned. This spatial comparison is where ore loss and dilution are actually quantified: where the floor was dug below the designed ore base, the extra material is dilution; where ore was left above the designed floor, it is loss. Reporting that brings this spatial conformance analysis into a regular review - rather than leaving it to an occasional survey exercise - is what gives mine planning and operations a shared, objective basis for the conversation about execution quality.
Linking plan compliance to grade reconciliation and production
Plan compliance reporting is most powerful when it is read alongside grade reconciliation and production reporting rather than in isolation. A grade shortfall at the mill can have several causes - a geological model issue, a grade control problem, or simply that mining did not follow the design and diluted the ore. When the plan compliance dashboard shows that a particular area was mined off-design with measurable dilution in the same period the grade reconciliation went negative, the two pictures together point directly to the cause. This is why plan compliance belongs in the same Fabric dataset as production and reconciliation: each explains the others.
Periodic plan review vs a continuous compliance dashboard
Periodic plan review vs unified plan compliance dashboard
| Aspect | Periodic plan review | Unified compliance dashboard |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule adherence | Assessed at month-end against the monthly plan | Tracked continuously against the short-interval plan |
| Dig-to-design conformance | Occasional survey comparison, done manually | Every as-mined survey compared to design automatically |
| Ore loss and dilution | Estimated retrospectively, if at all | Quantified from the as-mined-versus-design comparison |
| Link to grade reconciliation | Separate exercise owned by a different team | Same dataset - dilution explains the reconciliation variance |
| Shared view | Planning and operations debate the numbers | One objective plan-versus-actual picture both teams trust |
The Power BI and Fabric architecture behind plan compliance reporting
On a typical SolveBI deployment we land the mine schedule and design solids (Deswik, Vulcan, Datamine, Micromine), as-mined survey surfaces, the grade control model and dispatch movement records into Microsoft Fabric, then build a plan-versus-actual model in Power BI. Mine planning sees schedule and sequence adherence; the surveyor and engineer see dig-to-design conformance and volume reconciliation; operations sees its execution against the short-interval plan; and management sees ore loss and dilution trended against the grade reconciliation - all from one dataset with consistent geometry and period logic.
Common mistakes in mine plan compliance reporting
- Measuring tonnes against plan but not sequence. Hitting the tonnes by mining the wrong areas in the wrong order stores up problems downstream.
- No dig-to-design comparison. Without comparing the as-mined surface to the design, ore loss and dilution are invisible.
- Loss and dilution estimated, not measured. A factor applied to tonnes is a guess; the as-mined-versus-design comparison is a measurement.
- Compliance reviewed only at month-end. By the time a monthly review flags a sequence problem, several weeks of off-plan mining have already happened.
- Plan compliance divorced from reconciliation. Read together, dilution and a negative grade reconciliation explain each other; read apart, neither makes full sense.
From a vague sense of being behind plan to a measured, attributable picture of execution quality.
Book a free 30-minute consultation with a SolveBI consultant. We'll map your schedule, design, survey and dispatch data, and design a plan compliance dashboard that makes ore loss, dilution and schedule slippage visible while you can still do something about them.
