Strategic thinking about long-term ‘above ground’ orebody complexity using scenarios

The prevalent strategic approach in the mining industry is one of planning. However, it is widely recognised that planning does not work in complex and uncertain situations (Mintzberg, 1994), such as those associated with ‘above ground’ non-technical orebody complexity (Trench, Packey and Sykes, 2014). Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (2009) suggest the focus instead should be on strategic ‘thinking and doing’ and using the many ways to think about strategy to make sense of complex, uncertain, and unique situations. They therefore place great value in cognitive flexibility. Scenarios development utilizes several different thinking styles and thus assists with this type of flexible strategic thinking (Figure 1). The ‘Centre for Exploration Targeting (CET) Scenarios’ were developed with the ‘Oxford Scenario Planning Approach’ (OSPA) (Ramírez and Wilkinson, 2016). The OSPA aims more to improve the thinking skills of decision makers, rather than forecasting per se (Wack, 1985a, 1985b). As such, this paper focuses less on the content of the scenarios and instead on the practical value of scenarios in strategizing. CITATION: Sykes, J, Trench, A, McCuaig, T C, Jessell, M and Craske, T, 2018. Strategic thinking about long-term ‘above ground’ orebody complexity using scenarios, in Proceedings Complex Orebodies Conference 2018, pp 60–64 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).