5.5 Maturity models

While not audits in themselves, maturity models provide a method of evaluating performance where organisations have established organisational maturity targets.

Maturity models map the characteristics that organisations and programs exhibit as they improve from vulnerable and reactive towards compliance and then to proactive and resilient (see, for example, the Hudson Ladder 2001 in the Risk management leading practice handbook (DIIS 2016a, Hancock 2010). This ‘journey model’ approach enables key characteristics of various risk elements to be defined, ranked then reviewed. Maturity of key elements and overall programs can be evaluated over time.

Five phases of maturity can be applied, progressing from the least mature ‘vulnerable’ category through to ‘reactive’, ‘compliant’, ‘proactive’ and ‘resilient’.

Figure 11: The Hudson Ladder
1. Vulnerable 2. Reactive 3. Compliant 4. Proactive 5. Resilient
Source: DIIS (2016a); The Minerals Industry Risk Management (MIRM) maturity chart, based on the Hudson Ladder, http://www.innovation.gov.au/resource/Documents/LPSDP/LPSDP-RiskHandbook.pdf.

The more mature an organisation or program, the more robust the systems are to proactively address impacts with evaluation and auditing combined with open communication to continually improve those systems. Industry and government can apply this approach.

For example, the risk assessment and evaluation of corporate and government policies and government programs can be undertaken using maturity models. The maturity model approach provides a measure of how well developed a program is as both systems and organisational culture mature. A maturity model was developed Unger et al. (2012) to support the implementation of the Strategic Framework for Managing Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry (MCMPR–MCA 2010). A review of leading practices provided 14 elements of maturity, which were aligned to the five chapters of the framework. This model also provides an evaluative tool as programs develop over time.

Table 3: Elements of a mature abandoned mine program integrated with the Strategic Framework for Managing Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry

ITEM

MATURE PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL MODEL

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

1 Data/information management

CHAPTER 2:

DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT

2 Jurisdiction-wide knowledge of health, safety, environment and socioeconomic impacts
3 Site-specific rehabilitation and management plans for high-risk sites
4 Leadership, legislation, policy and guidance to address abandoned mines

CHAPTER 3:

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

5 Legislation, policy and guidance to prevent new abandoned mines
6 Risk assessment and prioritisation of programs
7 Abandoned mine program leadership and capacity/skills
8 Funding: sources, mechanisms and resources
9 Focus on beneficial post-mining land/water uses

CHAPTER 1: VALUING

ABANDONED MINES

10 Heritage conservation—indigenous, cultural and industrial
11 Secondary mining opportunities
12 Resourcing in partnership

CHAPTER 4:

RESOURCING AND PARTNERSHIP

OPPORTUNITIES

13 Stakeholder engagement at jurisdiction level
14 Communication and networks CHAPTER 5:

 

INFORMATION SHARING AND

‘LEADING PRACTICE’

Table 4: Maturity chart content for Item 1: Data information and management, Strategic Framework for Managing Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry

1. VULNERABLE

2. REACTIVE

3. COMPLIANT

4. PROACTIVE

5. RESILIENT

Spatial database/ information management Spatial database/ information management Inventories and data exist only for sites of concern raised by communities, landowners or other stakeholders Jurisdiction-wide database exists

 

An estimate for liability can be determined

Data cannot be compared across jurisdictional boundaries

Definitions and size classifications vary between jurisdictions

No specific data manager

Jurisdictional database exists for all abandoned/ legacy mine features

 

Can delineate risks by feature as well as by site

Full liability estimate undertaken

Spatial database is publicly accessible

Regular review and update of data

Personnel dedicated to data/ information management

Data for priority sites current, of sufficiently high quality and supported by metadata

In addition to proactive descriptors:

 

Databases include appropriate metadata to meet ISO standards

Full liability calculated and updated regularly

Dataset compatible across jurisdictional boundaries—risk and opportunity assessment can be undertaken on national values such as heritage, water, biodiversity and regional development

Regular collaboration at national level on datasets and information management

Source: Unger et al. (2012); ISO 19115-1:2014 Geographic information—Metadata—Part 1: Fundamentals,

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=53798.

In Figure 12, using Western Australia as an example, the maturity model approach highlights maturity, based on web-accessible information in early 2013. The maturity of the government’s state-wide inventory is evident in Figure 12, with scores based on the Hudson Ladder (1= vulnerable, 2 = reactive, 3 = compliant, 4 = proactive, 5 = resilient) (Unger et al. 2014).

Figure 12: Maturity model approach for Western Australian example
Maturity model approach for Western Australian example

Note: numbers and abbreviated descriptions refer to items in Table 3.

Hancock (2010) applied the maturity model approach for evaluation of risk management systems (under ISO 31000:2009) for communicable diseases in the Papua New Guinea mining industry. This model evaluated the maturity of each element of risk of the work health and safety and medical management systems in the Ok Tedi, Porgera and Lihir mining operations. Figure 13 shows an example of this maturity ranking from Porgera.

Figure 13: Risk management maturity profile for communicable diseases at Porgera
Risk management maturity profile for communicable diseases at Porgera

Share this Page