Axora speaks to mining professional Mohammad Kajee from TechIServe Consulting, a start-up consulting firm focused on business transformation, digital transformation and smart solutions across the industry.
We discuss the differences between mining HQ and mine site and ask whether a gap could hinder innovation and prevent new technology adoption to tackle industry challenges.
Tell us a bit about your mining career and the different roles you’ve undertaken.
I have spent the bulk part of my career at the JSE-listed mining house Exxaro Resources Limited. I initially spent the former years of my career moving between a few of Exxaro’s operations to get ops experience and develop an understanding of the mining value chain.
I was fortunate to be given an opportunity as Junior Engineer, Business Excellence at the corporate office where I was part of the team to utilise Lean Six Sigma and Design Thinking principles to drive functional improvement within the corporate functions.
I then moved back to operations in a Business Improvement capacity at Exxaro’s greenfields Digital and Connected Belfast Coal Mine. I was involved in operational excellence, business reporting, business unit strategy facilitation and the Digital@Exxaro program.
For my final role, I was part of the Innovation Management team as Senior Specialist Innovation at the corporate office. We looked at different approaches and vehicles driving innovation philosophies to source and apply emerging technology further into Exxaro’s mining operations.
Q. What are the main differences between mine site vs HQ objectives?
In my view, the objectives are different, and rightly so. It is also dependent on the organisation's operating model.
In a centralised/functional model, the mining sites and operations objectives are very focused on producing volumes in a safe manner and most impactful to that site's financial bottom line.
HQ would have a more holistic objective to create the most value for the organisation with longer-term views at play, providing functional support and guidance to operations.
In a more decentralised organisation where the majority of decision-making lies at the site, some of the longer-term objectives would be in control on the site, with HQ being more of a strategic guide.
Q. Do you think there is a gap (in terms of innovation) between HQ and mine site?
It would depend on the structures of the organisation and the different roles that exist in the organisation from an innovation perspective. Innovation being the buzzword that it is, is included in many job specs, and this creates a gap. It is especially the case when the execution of organisational innovation objectives does not clearly sit with specific roles.
Q. If there is a gap, how can head office and mine site come together to support their organisation’s innovation goals and strategy?
There needs to be clear communication and structure in place to delineate the lines of who focuses on what type of innovation. I don’t think there is a “one size fits all” approach, but if the innovation goals are clearly defined upfront, the roles and responsibilities of the relevant key players can be identified.
What also needs to be considered is funding for innovation initiatives and where that lies.
Q. In what ways have your previous companies tackled any gap?
The most important way was to build good relationships and keep open lines of communication to create alignment. Being informed of the priorities of mine sites also assists in tackling the gap.
Informing and communicating how HQ innovation teams support longer-term organisational priorities with the mine sites is also key. I previously mentioned having a structure in place. Shortly before departing Exxaro, we worked on creating a systematic approach to innovation, which looked at embedding it within the existing organisational business planning and strategy cycles. The process of doing this was intended to be included in the upcoming cycles, the success or failure of which would only be measurable in the medium term.
Q. Would you say safety, efficiency, cost saving, and ESG are the main short-term and long-term priorities for both HQ and mine sites?
Safety is always the main short and long-term priority for any mining organisation. Cost savings is tricky because I strongly believe that trying new ideas and technologies shouldn’t be done in a manner that restricts capital deployment. We should look at capital effectiveness as opposed to cost-saving and cost-reduction exercises.
In my view ESG has always been there, but not with the same amount of emphasis we currently see. ESG does seem to be on its way to shifting from being a short-term priority to a main long-term priority.
Q. Is there anything you’d change about your career and the path you’re now on?
Not at all. I am grateful for the guidance, mentorship, and opportunities in my career. It has been interesting and sometimes challenging, but ultimately, the exposure and roles I have seen myself in have been key in the decision to try and co-build something of my own in a new startup.
Mohammad holds a qualification in Electrical Engineering from the University of Cape Town. His experience spans a variety of roles within the mining industry, with extensive experience in business and continuous improvement in driving functional and operational excellence. His expertise lies in digital transformation, emerging technology, and innovation within operations and corporate functions. He has since moved on from mining and now works on building his consultancy with his new partner Bilal Essop, whose most recent role was emerging tech lead at PwC South Africa.
