An activity as highly extractive as the mining industry, and highly asset-intensive for production, is prone to demand technology to achieve efficiency, operational safety, reduced environmental impacts, or in short, sustainability.
And indeed, their demand for technological tools to achieve their goals leads to the selection of providers with different objectives, scopes, timelines, and above all, resources.
Technical debt is defined as a set of decisions made during the development of technological tools that affect the quality of the final product, in terms of non-functional requirements such as a) Code quality issues related to complexity, duplication, or lack of documentation, b) Architecture issues such as inability or complexity to integrate between components or modules, lack of them, or use of obsolete versions, and c) Quality control issues, deployments, or absence of automated controls.
The origin is mostly situated in an excessive focus on functional requirements of technological products during their development, due to less time available for better positioning in the market, insufficient or poorly defined scopes, or simply due to lack of knowledge.
But the mining industry acquires technological capabilities through providers, in small processes, large processes, or throughout the value chain, so that when selecting its provider, it acquires all or part of this technical debt and incorporates it into its processes.
This gives rise to many hidden problems, some, others not so much, related to instability of solutions that generate high demand or even an over-cost in maintenance, reaching the limit of service level agreements; inability or complexity for scaling or integration with other systems in the environment such as ERPs or others; and most importantly: Gaps or potential security vulnerabilities. Below, we show some of the most significant problems:
a. High demands for support and maintenance place the provider at an economic limit that can impact the quality of their services.
b. High security vulnerability due to inadequate practices, obsolete technology, or gaps in source code or architecture.
c. High dependency on the provider, which in the event of a discontinuity of any component or element of the technological tool, can compromise even the continuity of the mining process it serves.
d. Inability or excessive complexity to scale the tool as production goals increase.
e. Inability or excessive complexity to integrate with other solutions in the mining ecosystem.
f. Inability or excessive complexity for necessary customizations in the dynamics of mining operations.
g. Incompatibility for future updates of the environment, whether by other types of machinery, protocols, complementary technological tools such as TPMS, asset managers, or others.
Non-functional requirements are sparsely detailed in selection processes where functionalities predominate in the operational environment to meet in the short term, the main efficiency needs of mining processes.
There are many strategies associated with managing technical debt and emphasize some factors depending on each industry. In the case of the mining industry, there are some which we share below.
First, aligning each technological tool to be acquired with a comprehensive architecture of the operation, standard, or with some roadmap to be established in the medium or long term, this will provide context, long-term projection, and lifecycle to the technology to be acquired.
Second, the focus on non-functional requirements must be balanced, especially since technical debt is primarily a financial problem, which like any debt generates interests that are translated into gaps and that finally can generate in mining operations problems listed lines before, and that finally end up becoming a profitability slayer of the operation.
Third, within the non-functional requirements, the most important and available is the management of the information security of the provider, through its internal product development processes or those of its maintenance services. Not only limiting itself to reviews of its policies, audits, or certifications, but also the existence of automated tools to avoid the generation of gaps that end up affecting mainly the operation. Others are related to the roadmap of their products, in such a way as to supervise before the acquisition the compatibility with that of the mining operation.
Fourth, like any financial tool, the diversification of suppliers reduces the risk of dependence on a single company, limiting the risk before integration.
In summary, technical debt is a significant challenge in mining operations technology that can have significant consequences if not managed properly. However, with a proactive approach to technology management and careful implementation of new solutions, mining companies can minimize the risks associated with technical debt and maximize the potential of technology to improve their operations. This entails incorporating technical debt into business risk management for more effective mitigation.
