8 NOVEMBER 2024UNRAVELING 'BEST PRACTICE': A CALL FOR CONTEXTUAL SOLUTIONSBy Geoffrey Potgieter, Geotechnical Manager, PanAustIn the realm of professional practice, the term "best practice" often emerges as a guiding beacon, promising optimal outcomes in various fields. However, this straightforward concept is laden with complexities and ambiguities. What exactly constitutes the "best" in "best practice"? Is it about cost efficiency, safety, operational effectiveness, or something else entirely? This article seeks to unravel the intricacies of "best practice," challenging the notion of its universality and exploring its subjective nature. It underscores the importance of contextual understanding in applying these practices, paving the way for a more nuanced, situation-specific approach. By examining the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all mentality and advocating for tailor-made solutions, we can explore what makes a practice "best."The simplest way to demonstrate the inherent weakness of "best practice" is by relating it to the classic project management principle: "Fast, Good, or Cheap: Pick Two." This principle reflects the inherent trade-offs in every system--a scenario that achieves two of these objectives usually compromises the third. This intricacy is a critical lens through which the notion of "best practice" should be viewed. By way of illustration, two mines owned by the same company mining the same commodity, separated by less than 200 km, both recognize the need to conduct damage mapping within the tunnels used to access the underground orebodies. Both mines employ slightly different mining methods, are of different sizes, are of different ages and have different exposures in terms of access frequency. Immediately, it is evident, when reading the purpose statement in the preface of the two procedures, that while there are commonalities, there are many more differences. While the same data are being collected for apparently the same reason, the way in which that data will be used varies significantly.Mine A ­ "This procedure is to ensure that all mapping and data collection regarding underground rock mass and ground support damage is undertaken consistently and to the same standard. Standardization is imperative for ensuring quality control, auditable processes are followed, and methods are consistently followed by all persons. Systematic data collection of initial rock mass conditions prior to and during activities provides a fundamental baseline point for any meaningful back analysis and numerical model calibration."Mine B ­ "This document aims to provide geotechnical engineers with a clear guide on the data, process, and frequency of damage mapping at [redacted] underground and surface operations. The document is to aid in a consistent approach Geoffrey PotgieterIN MYOPINION
< Page 7 | Page 9 >