Like the classic boardgame, mining projects can scale the ladder with proven solutions, or face setbacks when risks arise, slowing progress. Modern resources projects must be agile, advancing where confidence is high and slowing where uncertainty demands caution.
What if the future of mining technology wasn’t about thinking big, but starting small? Mining is increasingly adopting the Minimum Viable Project (MVP) approach, developing the smallest viable operation to reduce upfront capital, lower risk and accelerate cash flow. As discussed in part one, this ‘think small’ strategy enables miners to launch streamlined operations that scale over time, adapting to market shifts while avoiding the bundled risks and heavy investment of traditional large-scale projects.
Mining, often seen as slow to adapt, is undergoing a major transformation as new technologies are required in how resources are mined, processed and delivered. Can the thinking from MVP enable a staged, flexible project strategy that supports technology adoption, while keeping pace with a fast-evolving industry?
What trade-offs must be accepted to manage emerging technology, and how do we reduce the fear of taking bold, yet necessary, steps into uncertainty?
The challenge of technology within long-term planning
As the industry pursues goals around safety, productivity, sustainability and decarbonization, integrating enabling technologies is becoming essential. “This introduces additional risk into the path to integration, especially when trying to anticipate the future needs of mines,” says Dr Alan Monaghan, senior vice president of technology and expert solutions.
Large mines, with development timelines often spanning 15 years or more, face the difficult task of balancing long-term planning with rapid technological change. “It’s essential to develop with the future in mind while avoiding unnecessary costs,” Monaghan explains. Predicting the most viable technology solutions decades in advance, without knowing future environmental or social constraints, is a major uncertainty. “This often leads miners to rely on proven solutions that may be outdated by the time a mine reaches Final Investment Decision (FID), let alone initial or full production,” he adds.
Managing technology risk: a snakes and ladders approach
Navigating this landscape requires more agility than typical project delivery and demands a structured approach to technology risk management.
“I describe this using a ‘snakes and ladders’ analogy,” says Monaghan. “If you break up your project scope based on technical risk or solution uncertainty, then every piece doesn’t need to move at the same pace. Project elements can advance faster (ladders) when leveraging proven, scalable technologies, but others risk delays (snakes) when high-risk or unproven components slow progress or force redesigns.”
To manage this, our teams compartmentalise process flows into independent technology modules, each mapped to its Technology Readiness Level (TRL). These modules are assessed for their development maturity and risk and are moved “up the board” during the Front-End Loading (FEL) process when shortcuts or proven technologies exist. Conversely, high-risk or novel modules are flagged early for focused development to avoid downstream rework, or designed as a replaceable module with a backup solution to keep projects on track.
Worley’s snakes and ladders methodology helps project teams:
- identify module groupings and dependencies across the flowsheet
- evaluate current TRL and implementation confidence during FEL stages
- identify constraints (snakes) and acceleration opportunities (ladders)
- prioritise effort toward achieving demonstration plant readiness (TRL7) and ultimately commercial deployment (TRL9).
This allows phased derisking, where each module is independently assessed and strategically advanced through in-house development or external solutions to minimize total cost, effort and risk while preserving optionality.
Applying snakes and ladders
“This methodology forms a bridge between research, demonstration and deployment, and has supported our work across first-of-a-kind projects and our broader technology advisory roles through initiatives like the HILT CRC and Mission Innovation, where forward-looking technologies must be deployed with both agility and assurance,” Monaghan continues.
The snakes and ladders methodology complements MVP thinking in real-world projects. “On a North American graphite project, our project teams helped a customer adopt technologies that prioritised safety and long-term monitoring, while keeping options open for future automation and advanced control systems, flexibility which facilitated the successful FID and stage one expansion of their pilot plant,” says Monaghan. “As market conditions improved, the MVP strategy meant they could scale further and faster, enhancing the plant’s capacity and performance. The ability to integrate new technologies gradually meant the project’s evolution was both efficient and viable long-term.”
Breaking down risks
The MVP approach reduces financial and technical risks while keeping investors and stakeholders informed and engaged. Overall Net Present Value (NPV) may be reduced when compared to a “think big model” but on a risk adjusted basis and in an environment where capital allocations are carefully considered. Incremental advancements drive dynamic, technologically advanced mining operations that are better positioned to meet long-term sustainability goals and deliver strong returns on investment.
“To truly add value to the industry, we can’t wait for easy solutions. Instead, we must champion alternative delivery models and innovative approaches that balance risk management with delivering real value. Breaking large projects into manageable parts and focusing efforts where they matter most is key to our success for customers,” says Monaghan.
