⌘K
Operating model v3.2 Living document

Operations

Gold Fields · Owned by Adetola Okafor · COO · Last edited 2 days ago by Marcus Chen
72
Model health
Aligned · improving
Building blocks
3 / 10 approved
2 ready to approve
Contributors
23 people
+19
AI suggestions
7 open
3 require leader input
Connected assessments
4 active
Last run 4 days ago
Block 03 of 10 Capabilities In review

Capabilities 6 capabilities

The distinctive abilities your function uses to deliver its services. Method 8 drafted these from industry norms (mining · operations) and your approved mandate. Review, refine, or challenge each capability — they become the spine of every process, role, and KPI that follows.

Method 8 drafted 6 capabilities · 4 days ago
Based on your mandate, industry maturity baseline for mining operations, and 3 reference Gold Fields documents. I've flagged 1 potential overlap and proposed 1 capability that's missing from your draft.
3.1

Production planning

Core 94% confident

The ability to translate the mine plan into executable production targets across pits, plants, and shifts — accounting for grade, capacity, and constraint.

Marcus Chen
Head of Mine Planning
Target maturity 4 · Managed · current 3 · Defined
Tactical scheduling Capacity modelling Constraint management Scenario planning · AI suggests
Marcus Chen 2 days ago
Should we split tactical scheduling from the weekly plan-of-the-week? They're owned by different leaders today.
Reply Resolve Ask AI
Priya Iyer yesterday
@Adetola agree with Marcus — and I think we need an explicit short-term re-planning capability for grade variability.
Reply Resolve
3.2

Operational performance management

Core

Daily / weekly tracking of safety, throughput, quality, and cost against targets — with closed-loop response when variance exceeds tolerance.

Priya Iyer
Performance lead
Target maturity 5 · Optimising · current 2 · Reactive
AI suggestion · potential overlap
This capability overlaps with 3.4 Daily operating discipline on the closed-loop response element. Consider either merging them or making 3.4 a sub-capability of this one.
AI · NEW

Risk & assurance

AI suggests adding

The ability to identify, prioritise, and verify operational risks (safety, environmental, asset integrity) — and to give independent assurance to executives that critical controls are in place.

Why I'm suggesting this
Your ISO 45001 assessment shows safety-critical controls sit ambiguously between Operations and Compliance. 7 of 10 reference mining operating models we trained on have an explicit Risk & Assurance capability — yours doesn't. View 3 references ↗
Confidence · 82%

This operating model powers 4 live assessments

Every change here flows automatically into the assessments below. See how →
Health check
Quarterly diagnostic of operating-model fitness across all 10 building blocks.
Live 42 / 47 completed
Open assessment
Capability gap assessment
Where you are vs where you need to be on each of your 6 capabilities.
Live Updated weekly
Open assessment
Team understanding
Validate the team knows our capabilities, services, and roles — and where they fit in.
Live 88% alignment
Open assessment
Interface diagnostic
Where do Operations and adjacent functions hand off? Stress-tests the interfaces.
Draft · auto-generates when Interfaces block is approved
Awaiting Interfaces ↗