BCMMINING TECHNOLOGY
Home / Solutions / Production Reporting
Production deployed
Product maturity · Data and deployment requirements
Most operations do not have a reporting problem. They have four reports that disagree, a shift boundary defined differently in each one, and someone rebuilding the same spreadsheet every morning at five. This puts the definitions in one governed place and makes every dashboard, report, and workbook read from it.
Architecture
Nothing is ripped out and replaced. The fleet system, the historian, and the survey pipeline stay exactly where they are and are read from, never written to. Power BI stays if you like Power BI. What changes is that the arithmetic stops happening in five places at once, and that the plumbing underneath it is not metered per run.
Shift boundaries, crew rotations, and day versus night are defined once and applied everywhere. Two reports covering the same shift cannot return different tonnes, because they are no longer allowed to disagree about when the shift was.
Rehandle is where mine reporting quietly double counts, and every report tends to solve it differently. Here it is resolved once, in one measure family, with the stockpile and pad variants your operation actually runs. Every consumer inherits the same answer.
Mine grid, UTM, and whatever conventions have accumulated over the pit's life, transformed in-database against a surveyed control network. Fleet positions, dump records, and survey products land on the same map without anyone converting anything by hand.
Reports run against a date anchor rather than only against now, so you can reproduce last Tuesday's night shift exactly as it appeared at the time. Reconciliation arguments, incident reviews, and month-end queries stop depending on whether anyone took a screenshot.
Cloud reporting reaches your data through one on-premises gateway on one scheduled refresh, and both fail from time to time, always on the morning somebody needs the number. A second path reading the same warehouse directly means the shift board is still on the wall when the refresh did not run. Not a replacement for what you have, a floor underneath it.
Comparing crews or loading tools on raw tonnes rewards whoever drew the short haul that month. Cycle performance is normalized route by route and pooled only within the same shift type, and the number of routes actually compared is stated on the face of the report so you can see the basis rather than trust it.
Scheduled hours accounted all the way down through down, standby, and operating delay to productive hours, per machine, with availability and utilization falling out of the same arithmetic. Then a delay Pareto that names the categories, so the hours have somewhere to point.
Open-source dashboarding alongside whatever you already own, with capacity and source-system costs agreed in scope. Whether a supervisor gets to see the shift board stops being a licensing decision made in a different building.
What it looks like
Pace against plan, projected end of shift, queue at source and sink, loading tool performance, delay breakdowns, drill metres, mill feed ratio, and an equipment up and down board, on data that updates while the shift is still running.
Screenshots from production systems. Site identifiers, serial numbers and personnel details have been altered. Public demos use synthetic data.
Analysis
The live boards answer what is happening. These answer whether it is any good, which is a harder question because the first thing anyone does with a comparison is look for the reason it is unfair to them. Both of these are built to lose that argument gracefully.
What the crew board is really for: over that window every crew sits within about one percent of the pooled average on route-normalized cycle index, and the spread from best to worst is two percentage points. That is the useful answer. It says the variance worth chasing is not in the crews, and it stops a conversation that would otherwise have run on anecdote for another year. A comparison that can only ever produce a culprit is not measurement, it is a weapon, and it gets treated as one.
What the loading tool board is really for: the delay Pareto is where the hours go from being an accounting exercise to being a decision. Standby hours attributed to no operator, sitting alongside meal and crib standby, are two very different problems with two very different fixes, and neither is visible in an availability percentage.
Scope
The full platform is not the only way in. If your data is already reachable and the problem is that nobody can see it, a dashboard engagement can be scoped around an agreed operational question.
A scoped dashboard engagement built on authorized data, with no warehouse work. Production against plan, payload and cycle analysis, utilization, delay breakdowns, crusher feed, and the specific KPI somebody asks for in every meeting. Honest about its limits: if the underlying definitions disagree, a dashboard will render that disagreement faster and in colour.
A scoped warehouse implementation: source connections, the shift calendar, rehandle logic, coordinate transforms, historical replay, and the dashboards on top. This is the one that makes the disagreements stop rather than displaying them more clearly.
If you are not sure which of those you need, that is exactly what the assessment answers, and a 25 percent assessment credit may apply to eligible implementation within six months, subject to confirmation.
Next step
That question usually locates the problem faster than an architecture discussion. Tell us what you run and which number gets argued about, and the shape of the work is normally obvious within a call.
Production reporting & data
Dispatch and management need consistent shift totals rather than competing spreadsheet definitions.
Built and running in mine operations. The implementation examples show the workflow and outputs. The Technology & Data Assessment defines the data connections, configuration and acceptance criteria for your mine. Public demonstrations use synthetic data.
Software subscriptions provide platform access and include applicable updates, defect fixes and standard product maintenance. Optional Premium Support is $50,000 CAD per mine annually for additional operational assistance under agreed service terms. Custom development, new integrations, custom reporting, specialized analysis and advanced troubleshooting outside support scope are separately billed consulting at $260 CAD/hour, unless expressly included in a signed agreement. All amounts exclude applicable taxes.
Implementation is quoted for deployment requirements. No consulting hours or Premium Support are automatically bundled with software. Estimate software, support and consulting.
Technology & Data Assessment Full pricing and service boundaries →
Related solution modules · Technical case studies · Request an assessment