MENU
A major iron ore mining operation in Central Queensland launched a multi-phase Critical Spares Project to resolve long-standing inefficiencies in its asset register and inventory data.
.png)
A major iron ore mining operation in Central Queensland launched a multi-phase Critical Spares Project to resolve long-standing inefficiencies in its asset register and inventory data. Years of inconsistent CMMS records (SAP), duplicate equipment entries, and missing field assets had eroded trust in the system and led to overstocking, reactive maintenance, and inflated inventory values. The impact was operational and financial, with excessive spare holdings, production delays, and poor data visibility across maintenance and supply.
To regain control, the project began with a disciplined Asset Mapping phase, starting with Area & Equipment Planning to establish a clean, verifiable foundation for all future work.
The client is a Tier 1 iron ore mining company operating a mature, 24-year-old site in Central Queensland. The operation includes multiple fixed plants spanning crushing, hoisting, underground operations, and batch processing facilities. With continuous, high-throughput production, the site relies on accurate asset data and reliable equipment performance to maintain efficiency across departments and minimise downtime.
Several issues had emerged over years of operation:
Equipment records were inconsistent, with duplicated or missing entries across functional locations in SAP.
Many assets lacked reliable P&IDs, layout diagrams, or updated engineering drawings, making field identification and reconciliation more difficult.
Assets had no structured criticality assessment, or conflicting ratings across systems, impacting maintenance prioritisation and spares provisioning.
Maintenance and supply teams had developed workarounds due to historical inaccuracy in the asset register, undermining data trust and efficiency.
Over two decades of operation had introduced numerous field modifications, equipment swaps, and undocumented upgrades, making it difficult to match physical assets with existing records or drawings during planning and verification.
Years of equipment changes, undocumented modifications, and inconsistent SAP records had created significant gaps in the asset register. Site teams lacked confidence in the system hierarchy, and critical spares analysis could not proceed without first verifying what assets actually existed in the field.
A structured, field-driven Asset Mapping process was essential to establish a reliable foundation for all downstream phases.
The process revealed hundreds of assets previously unlisted, duplicates that inflated spare part usage, and several items incorrectly classified or assigned. With photographic evidence, drawing cross-references, and site validation, the team corrected the equipment hierarchy and significantly improved SAP alignment.
This enabled the business to proceed with confidence into criticality assessment, BOM alignment, and inventory analysis.
The goal of the Asset Mapping Phase was to deliver a clean, verified and field-aligned equipment register by:
Marlanda deployed a dedicated Asset Mapping team to work shoulder-to-shoulder with site maintenance and reliability leads. The approach was collaborative, disciplined, and grounded in field-level evidence.
By combining system data, physical walkdowns, and technical drawing reviews, the team ensured no asset was overlooked and every record was validated before handover. This set a strong precedent for quality and governance across the remaining project phases.
Asset data was exported from SAP for all targeted plants and operational areas, including equipment numbers, descriptions, and hierarchy positions.
Structured walkdowns were conducted across each area to physically locate and validate listed equipment. High-resolution photos were captured for every asset.
Assets discovered in the field but absent from SAP were logged. Duplicate, retired, or redundant equipment was flagged for review and removal.
P&IDs, layout drawings, and historical documentation were reviewed to support asset identification and ensure complete system coverage.
Face-to-face workshops were held with maintenance leaders to confirm asset presence, functionality, ownership, and classification.
A clean, verified equipment list was delivered, including images, gap notes, and hierarchy recommendations to support criticality assessment and spares analysis.
Working around live operations required careful scheduling and safety coordination. The team adapted its mapping process to minimise disruption, using mobile tools and staged verification across shifts.
In some areas, P&IDs and layout drawings were outdated or missing. The team cross-referenced available information with physical verification and engaged operators and maintainers to bridge information gaps.
Many assets had been installed or modified over the years without updates to SAP or supporting drawings. Through infield walkdowns, drawing reviews, and site knowledge, these assets were successfully identified and catalogued.
Maintenance, reliability, and supply teams each held different views regarding asset structure and ownership. Structured review workshops and collaborative decision-making created a shared understanding of the verified asset base.
All key surface and underground zones have been reviewed, with physical walkdowns completed in high-priority plants including crushing, batch, and hoisting.
Hundreds of assets have already been validated, with new equipment identified and undocumented items captured for inclusion in SAP.
Maintenance and reliability teams now have a clearer, more accurate asset view in critical areas, supporting early-stage criticality discussions and spares analysis.
Technical drawing reviews have surfaced mismatches, helping align field assets with layout documentation and system records.
The Asset Mapping phase remains on schedule, forming a strong base for upcoming phases including criticality assessment, BOM validation, and SAP cleansing.
Investing time in structured area and equipment planning upfront prevented rework during infield verification and ensured full spatial coverage.
Engaging experienced maintenance personnel early helped validate undocumented assets, interpret local modifications, and build stakeholder ownership in the data.
Applying consistent naming conventions and hierarchy rules across teams improved clarity, reduced duplication, and laid the groundwork for accurate criticality and BOM structuring.
The asset mapping work completed to date has laid a solid foundation for the remainder of the Critical Spares Project. As the verified asset register nears completion, the business is well positioned to move confidently into criticality assessment, BOM alignment, and strategic spares optimisation.
The structured methodology used is now proven, scalable, and ready to be applied across other operations. Most importantly, the collaboration between Marlanda and site teams has created lasting governance, improved data trust, and positioned the operation for long-term lifecycle accuracy and supply efficiency.
.jpg)
.jpg)
