Paper accepted by the Institute of Mining & Metallurgy (IMM), London, for publication in its Transactions

DECISION-MAKING USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

IN MINING ENGINEERING

V.N. KAZAKIDIS
School of Engineering, Laurentian University,
Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6, Canada

Z. MAYER
School of Engineering, Laurentian University,
Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6, Canada

M. SCOBLE
Department of Mining Engineering,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada

Synopsis

Experience and intuition have traditionally been central to decision-making in mining because of the frequent lack of quantitative data.

Qualitative analysis is based primarily on the judgement, knowledge and experience of one or more experts. In cases where limited

information is available, then subjective probabilities, based on general professional experience, knowledge, and opinion of experts, can be

the basis for analysis. A methodology for qualitative decision-making using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) mathematics and

sensitivity analyses is presented herein. This paper presents a series of case studies in different mining scenarios to demonstrate the

application of AHP. These relate to: investment analysis of new technology; ground support design; tunnelling systems design; shaft

location selection; and, mine planning risk assessment. A review is given of the AHP methodology for qualitative decision-making based on

field applications.

1. Introduction

Mining engineering was often regarded in the past as “an art rather than a science”. Experience and intuition have

been central to decision-making because of the frequent lack of quantitative data including geology, grade

distribution and ground conditions, as well as environmental, social and economic factors. Uncertainty in data has

significantly impeded reliable decision-making, particularly over resource allocation and timing of activities. Mine

planning and design frequently needs to account for high operating risk. Mining processes relate to multi-functional,

1
interrelated activities. Reliable qualitative or quantitative data analysis to evaluate risk as well as its impact in the

mining life cycle is both challenging as well as significant. The increasingly holistic nature of decision-making in

mining engineering, for example relating mining and mineral process design to environmental and social factors,

makes the need to integrate qualitative input more attractive.

The decision-making process may be qualitative, quantitative or a combination of the two. The problem

structuring and analysis process is conceptualised in Figure 1. Qualitative analysis is based primarily on the

judgement, knowledge and experience of an expert (or team of experts).1 When experience and expertise is strong

within an analytical team then an emphasis can often be placed upon a qualitative analysis. However, in cases where

there is limited experience or high complexity, then a quantitative analysis may be more appropriate. In a

quantitative analysis the focus is on facts and data associated with a problem and a mathematical formulation that

encompasses the objectives, variables and constraints of the particular problem.2 Quantitative analysis has

traditionally been the subject of operations research and management science. In mining it has been closely

associated with discounted cash flow, risk, reliability and simulation analyses.3-6

According to Forman and Selly7 :“in many enterprises the decision process entails great time and effort in

gathering and analyzing information. Much less time and effort go into evaluating alternative courses of action.

The results of the analyses (there are often many, for example financial, marketing, operations, and so on) are

intuitively synthesized to reach a decision. Research has shown that although the vast majority of everyday

decisions made intuitively are adequate, intuition alone is not sufficient for making complex, crucial decisions”.

In an example of qualitative assessment, Gido and Clements8 relate how a contractor’s proposal evaluation can

be made using a scorecard approach. In a case study, the selection criteria include the company experience, the time

schedule and the overall approach, in addition to the quoted price. Each proposal is then ranked using the weighted

evaluation criteria, and a score from 1 (low) to 10 (high) is assigned for each of the criteria corresponding to the

particular proposal. At the end, the proposal that has scored the highest total mark is the optimum one based on the

selected criteria, weights and scores.

Whether a qualitative or quantitative analysis is conducted, it is often the case that the probability of a certain

project parameter value needs to be estimated. Objective probabilities can be estimated when actual information is

available for the parameter concerned. Data may exist for parameters, such as the costs, grade, tonnage and

dimensions of a mineralized body, etc. This can be used to derive objective probability distributions. However, in

2
cases where limited information is available, then subjective probabilities, based on general professional experience,

knowledge, and opinion of experts, can be the basis for analysis.9 Whether intuitively or analytically, an expert is

called to provide a best estimate of the anticipated parameter value, its variability (in some form) and its significance

to the particular analysis. These expert opinions can be then used for simple estimates of input parameters in

deterministic decision models, sensitivity or risk analyses. In essence, the required input information is obtained by

probing and questioning each of the experts involved. Referring to mine feasibility analysis, Bilodeau10 states that

“the estimation of subjective probabilities is the most important factor determining the realism and effectiveness of

the analysis process”.

This paper focuses on qualitative decision-making analysis in mining operations. The AHP approach enables

qualitative analysis using a combination of subjective and objective information/data.11 Although most often used

for decision-making on a corporate level, AHP has not been used extensively to model decisions pertaining to the

planning and design of mines. Available AHP software, such as Expert ChoiceTM represents a multi-attribute

decision-making tool that has been studied as a potential means for modelling mining processes. This paper reviews

the AHP approach and how these studies show its application for decision-making in a variety of mining scenarios.

2. Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) represents a potentially powerful and flexible decision-making process to

help set priorities and make the best decision when both qualitative and quantitative aspects of a decision need to be

considered. By reducing complex decisions to a series of one-on-one comparisons, then synthesizing the results,

AHP not only helps decision makers arrive at the best decision, but also provides a clear rationale in doing so.

Designed to reflect the way people actually think, AHP was developed more than 20 years ago by Thomas Saaty and

continues to be highly regarded and widely used as a decision-making tool.11

The four main steps in the AHP methodology are as follows: 12

1. Model the decision problem and list the hierarchy of interrelated decision elements: decision criteria and

the decision alternatives;

2. Undertake pairwise comparisons;

3. Calculate the relative priorities or weights of the elements;

3
 4. Determine the priority ranking of the decision elements.

Both quantitative and qualitative criteria can be compared using informed judgments to derive weights and

priorities. In this way, the relative importance of one criterion over another can be expressed. The information is

then synthesized to determine the relative ranking of the alternative criteria. AHP works by arranging the necessary

information into a hierarchal tree (pairwise matrix) of criteria and alternatives.13,14 The ranking of the priorities

within this matrix is obtained by finding the eigenvector solution of the matrix. The AHP method determines the

ranking by raising the pairwise matrix to powers that are successively squared each time. The row sums are then

calculated and normalized, and this process is iterated until the eigenvector does not change from its previous

iteration, or until the difference between the row sums is smaller than a prescribed value. The resulting eigenvector

gives the relative ranking of the rating criteria. Pairwise comparisons are then used to determine the preference of

each alternative over another for each of the rating criteria. Computing the eigenvector then determines the relative

ranking of the alternatives under each criterion. In summary, the AHP method provides a logical framework to

determine the benefits of each alternative. Figure 2 demonstrates the mathematical principles underlying the

process.

Expert Choice is an example of commercially available AHP software that uses AHP to prioritize possible

decisions (Figure 3). It automates the AHP process, saves and iterates all of the results, performs various sensitivity

analyses, and outputs various tables and graphs of results.

According to Ugo16, the primary applications of the AHP include:

• predicting likely outcomes;

• planning projected and desired futures;

• facilitating group decision-making;

• exercising control over changes in the decision-making system;

• allocating resources;

• selecting alternatives;

• comparing cost/benefits ;

• evaluating employees and allocating wage increases;

• performing project/risk analysis;

4
 • determining site selection;

• examining “what if” scenarios.

3. AHP Decision-Making Process

The AHP decision-making analysis follows the sequence below:

1. Define the goal or decision problem.

2. Build a model by creating rating criteria and alternatives (possible decisions).

3. Consult with experts or a review committee to refine the model.

4. Rate the criteria and alternatives against each other using pairwise comparisons by inputting subjective

and/or actual data.

5. Synthesize objective and subjective inputs to obtain a prioritized list of the alternatives.

6. Manage the decision with documentation, reporting and sensitivity analysis.

Consider a simplified example based on the process of equipment selection, for example, the selection of

scooptrams for a mine. First, the decision criteria and objectives need to be defined. In this case, three decision

criteria might be chosen: performance, reliability and price. Suppose that the mine has narrowed the choice to three

scooptram models (A, B and C). The hierarchical representation of this decision problem is demonstrated in Figure

4. The model is structured as follows:

State the Objective:

• To select the best scooptram for the mining situation

Define the Criteria:

• Performance, Reliability and Price

Pick the Alternatives:

• Models A, B, C

The second step in performing an AHP analysis is to “rate” each criterion and alternative against each other.

The weights are numerical, and should increase as the relative importance of each criterion increases. Figure 5

shows an example of how the criteria are weighted. It demonstrates how the price has been assigned 50% of the

5
importance, whereas performance carries only 35% and reliability only 15%. Next, the alternatives must be rated

against each other for these criteria. For simplicity, each rating has been valued on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 represents

poor, while 10 is outstanding), see Figure 6. In this case, Model B has the best Performance rating, with an 8, then

Model C with 7, followed by Model A with the poorest performance rated at 5. It is important to note that such

values would likely be subjective and obtained by a professional in the field, whereas under the Price criterion,

actual cost values have been used. The final weight matrix will be:

5 / 20 8 / 17 9 / 19  0.350 0.395
[ final ] = 
options   objectives        normalized
 x  weightings  = 8 / 20 3 / 17 4 / 19 x 0.150 = 0.725  →
 weightings  3 x 3   3 x1 7 / 20 6 / 17 9 / 19  0.500 0.620
     

0.2270  Model A : 22.70%

→ final scores → 0.4167  →  Model B : 41.67%
 
 0.3563  Model C : 35.63%

Please note that to create the options matrix, the value assigned to each objective is divided by the sum of the

column. Figure 7 identifies the final selection, showing the criteria and the alternatives, as well as their respective

overall rankings. Model B is indicated in the same Figure to be the best choice, with a ranking of 41.7%, followed

by C and then A with only 22.7%. Figure 8 demonstrates how to undertake dynamic sensitivity analysis. This is

used to dynamically change the priorities of the criteria to determine how such changes can affect the priorities of

the alternatives. By comparing the two diagrams, it can be seen that by giving Reliability a greater importance, and

by lowering the significance of Price, then the overall rankings of the scooptram models change, with Model A

becoming the optimum alternative.

4. Mining Scenarios

The following mining decision-making scenarios were considered in order to evaluate the range of application of the

AHP methodology. A description of the goal, rating criteria and alternatives used in each AHP analysis is presented.

The scenarios analysed included:

6
 • Drilling Technology Investment Analysis;

• Ground Support Design;

• Tunnelling Systems Design;

• Shaft Location Selection;

• Mine Planning Risk Assessment.

For each scenario, different aspects of the AHP approach and software features will be demonstrated through

various types of sensitivity analysis. The framework for each model is different, as well as the methodology used in

its creationg the models. Consultation with industry experts was required to determine the weighting and importance

of each of the criteria employed, as well as the alternatives.

4.1 Drilling Technology Investment Analysis

This model was created from an example introduced by Dessureault and Scoble.12 The hierarchical representation is

shown in Figure 9. Here, the objective of the model is to appraise the impact of new blasthole drilling technology by

determining which of three options is preferable: purchase new drill technology, retrain the drill operators, or

maintain the status quo.

Figure 10 summarizes the rating criteria and alternatives, as well as their respective overall weightings. The six

criteria on the left side of the Figure are those that the mine had determined to be the most important factors

involved in making the particular decision. It can be seen that Cost is the most important criterion in making this

decision, accounting for a 41% weighting, as compared to say Culture, which is considered to be least important

with only 3% weighting. From the top right corner of Figure 10, it can be seen that Purchase Drill Technology was

determined to be the best alternative in meeting the goals. Figure 11 depicts another aspect of the sensitivity

analysis, the “head-to-head” sensitivity.

The “head-to-head” sensitivity allows direct comparison of two alternatives, with reference to each specific

criterion. It can be seen that Purchase Drill Technology is clearly best in terms of Fragmentation, Design, Safety,

Blending and Culture, although sometimes only marginally. In considering Cost, however, Retrain Drill Workers is

7
the best. This attention to sensitivity is useful in cases where the margin between two alternatives is small. It

provides a clear picture of what criteria each alternative excels or lacks in, as well as by how much. In this way, it is

possible to identify where a specific alternative under consideration is lacking the most, and where improvements

can be made.

4.2 Ground Support Design

The selection of the type of rockbolt support system is used here to demonstrate another perspective of the AHP

approach. The various types of bolt support systems used in mines have been discussed, for example, by Hoek,17

Stillborg,18 and Charette and Hadjigeorgiou.19 The goal in this study was to create a model in which the user could

determine the appropriate rockbolt system for use in given conditions. This model allows the selection and rating of

several support system features, including:

• required lifespan of the bolt;

• local ground conditions;

• ease of installation;

• cost of installation;

• maintenance costs;

• yielding characteristics of the bolt;

• strength characteristics of the installed bolt;

The model also provides flexibility in choosing between manual or automated bolt installation in conjunction

with screen or shotcrete, since these affect the ease of installation as well as the overall cost. Once complete, then

the model evaluates the bolt system for the selected ground conditions and performance requirements. It is

important to note that in this model the outcome is dependent on the subjectivity of the input parameters. The input

of experienced ground control personnel would be critical in establishing the input parameters. A model such as this

can be useful in evaluating the bolt alternatives that are best for given ground conditions or a required lifespan of an

opening at a pre-feasibility or feasibility stage. It can also be used, for example, to select the best bolt system while

8
keeping cost considerations or restrictions in mind, as well as to perform sensitivity analyses on several “what if”

scenarios.

This model involved the following sequential steps:

(1) Creation of a criteria set to rate the bolt system;

(2) Selection of the types and sizes of bolts in the model;

(3) Initial development and refinement of the model;

(4) Consultation with industry ground control experts regarding the model;

(5) Input of the various bolt parameters and criteria values;

(6) Testing and further refinement of the model for reliability.

Figure 12 depicts a screen capture of the selected goal, rating criteria and bolt systems selected to be chosen to

be used in this model based on the input of a senior ground control specialist. The software allows for the addition

of diagrams or pictures into the information document section of the model. Figure 13 depicts a screen capture of the

input parameters used in rating the various bolt system alternatives. A scale of 1 to 10 was again used for each

criterion.

This model proved to lend itself well to a “what-if” analysis, for example, considering how a specific bolt system

would rate if the ground suddenly becomes High Stressed and Shearing. Figure 14 shows a sensitivity analysis for

determining how the bolt system ratings are affected by changing the anticipated ground conditions. Simply

dragging the required bars back and forth will visually depict if the variation in the bolt system’s performance.

4.3 Tunnelling Systems Design

This AHP application examined how technological and operational options could be modeled in an attempt to

radically increase tunneling advance rates, e.g. towards 15 m/day, through systems innovation in methods, materials,

equipment and personnel .

The creation of the model involved the following steps:

9
 • Initial brainstorming workshop;

• Tabulation of ideas and suggestions;

• Generate parameters to rate the design options identified;

• Generate Questionnaire formulation through;

• Review and feedback with mining company review committee;

• Distribution of a questionnaire using Infopoll DesignerTM;20

• Acquisition and analysis of questionnaire data;

• Sensitivity analysis.

The rapid tunnelling options were characterized according to the following development cycle components:

1. Drilling

2. Loading

3. Blasting

4. Mucking

5. Transportation

6. Scaling

7. Support

8. Services / Infrastructure

9. Organization

10. General Equipment Issues

Figure 15 depicts the various rating criteria, in this case for alternatives dealing with transportation suggestions.

The trade names of the technological/operating transportation alternatives considered are not shown in order to

respect confidentiality. From Figure 15 it can be seen that Alternative 5 is the best decision, followed closely by the

others.

Eleven models were created, each serving a different analytical purpose. From these models, several lists were

generated, each outlining the best alternatives available. Figure 16 depicts an example of a sensitivity analysis

10
showing how the weighting of each alternative changes by increasing the importance of the impact of the alternative

on advance rate. In this case, alternatives 2 and 3 now become the preferred decisions.

The component option breaks the priority bar down into individual groupings, to show how each criterion affects

the overall ranking of the alternatives. Several other sensitivity analyses were performed on this model, generating

in-depth results as to which alternatives were the preferable ones for achieving high advance rates underground.

4.4 Shaft Location Selection

This scenario examines the process to decide upon mine shaft location. Figure 17 depicts the layout of the model.

Each location had been thoroughly investigated, and a significant amount of data was available for each location.

It can be seen that five major decision criteria were used in selecting the final shaft location:

• present value, including capital and operating costs;

• vulnerability;

• location control;

• relationship to orebody;

• surface location.

In this case, the weighting of each of these criteria and their respective sub-criteria could be determined by input

from a team of professionals with experience in shaft location selection. From Figure 17, it can be seen that location

A is the best location based on this model.

Figure 18 demonstrates yet another type of sensitivity analysis available with the software, the performance

sensitivity analysis. This is used to show how the alternatives are prioritized relative to other alternatives with

respect to each criterion, as well as overall. This shows why location A is superior with reference to each criterion.

Each of the vertical bars of Figure 18 corresponds to a decision criterion. The software enables it to be dragged

either larger or smaller to examine how the overall result is affected. From Figure 18, it can be seen that location A

is the optimum with regards to Vulnerability, Location Control and Relationship to Orebody. It ranks poorly,

however, in terms of the Surface Location.

11
4.5 Mine Planning Risk Assessment

A more strategic level model was created to assess comparative risk in eight underground mining operations, based

on the nature and extent of likely ground-related problems. A methodology was adopted to capture the experience

and expertise of ground control specialists in structuring a decision-making model. When referring to the term

“ground-related problems”, the following consequences were implied:

• life-threatening injuries;

• major production system holdups;

• equipment and major infrastructure damage.

The model development involved several steps including:

• Identification of parameters to rate the risk to mine production;

• Formulation of a questionnaire to generate qualitative data;

• Questionnaire refinement by a review and feedback process with key specialists;

• Formation of a team with the expertise and experience to provide expert input through a questionnaire survey;

• Acquisition and analysis of the survey data; and

• Performance of a sensitivity analysis.

In this study, four criteria were considered to influence ground-related problems in the mining operations under

consideration:

• ground conditions;

• workforce;

• mining system (support, equipment, methods etc.);

• overall organizational structure.

Each of these criteria comprises a set of detailed sub-categories. These were used to rate the risk to mine

production performance. The results for the mining operations considered are shown in Figure 19.

12
 Figure 20 shows the “two-dimensional” sensitivity analysis. This was used to examine two criteria at a time, in

this case ground conditions and workforce. The most favorable ratings in terms of ground conditions and workforce

experience were generally found in the upper right quadrant.

Figure 21 summarizes a “head-to-head” sensitivity, in this case comparing the results of Mine B to Mine C. The

model provides a general risk analysis and indicates which aspects of mine planning warrant further examination in

each of the eight mines considered.

5. Discussion

AHP experience in various mining scenarios indicates that constructing and refining a legitimate model layout and

structuring an appropriate questionnaire are critical to obtaining sensible and reliable results. It is important to

review and refine the decision model, so as to be certain that all key criteria and alternatives are included.

Consultation with available experts can optimize the structure of a model, and assure its completeness. Experienced

experts can also provide insight into the ranking or weights assigned to each of the criteria selected. Figure 22

shows a page from the rapid tunnelling model questionnaire, where the tunnelling alternatives were rated, based on

seven criteria. The results from these questionnaires were converted to a scale of 1 through 5 (1 being poorest (very

negative), 5 best (very positive) for entry into the AHP.

Figure 23 provides an example from the questionnaire that was created for the strategic mine design risk

assessment model. These questionnaires were used to capture the knowledge and experience of people with

expertise in the particular field. Experience from these studies prompts the following recommendations with respect

to the questionnaire structure, ranking scale, and weighting process.

Questionnaire structure:

• should be easily understood by the participants;

• discuss and review the questionnaire with participants prior to each being filled out;

• maintain clear and short questions;

• maintain a similar structure for each of the questions;

• use short examples to make a point that might otherwise be misinterpreted;

13
 • long, repetitive questionnaires can cause fatigue and lack of focus for participants;

• a team approach where consensus is reached by the team in answering each question may be appropriate;

• confine the survey only to those who are considered experts in the relevant objective criteria being

considered;

• it is imperative that each participant is able to evaluate on a relative scale each alternative presented;

• for diverse questionnaires (e.g., technical, social, economic aspects) consider engaging different teams for

each of the group objective criteria;

• the relationship between the criteria and the alternatives should be fully understood.

Ranking scale:

• structure the ranking consistently (e.g., good to bad) for all of the questions;

• a complex scale with many steps can cause participant confusion;

• it should be clarified that the ranking for each alternative is on a relative scale;

• in complex questionnaires that use both subjective and objective criteria that require different ranking scales

it would be important to group each of them accordingly.

Weighting process:

• as a first step, maintain the same weight for all criteria;

• the weighting factors can be determined by the person(s) directly involved in the decision-making process

(e.g. management) who fully comprehend the significance of each of the criteria of a model;

• in certain cases, a consensus-building process among the input participants for the weighting factors should

be considered as an alternative;

• sensitivity analyses should be conducted in terms of the weighting factors prior to reaching a decision.

6. Conclusion

The AHP method proved to be an effective tool in modelling a wide range of mining scenarios, including selecting

alternatives, appraising the impact of a decision, performing project risk analysis, determining site selection and

14
examining “what if” scenarios through sensitivity analyses. It enabled the capture of the experience and opinions of

specialists to structure a decision-making model and to validate results.

Acknowledgements

The financial support provided through the Laurentian University Research Fund, INCO Ltd., Falconbridge Ltd. and

NSERC are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to express their sincere gratitude to Mr. Edward

C. Hreljac for his valuable suggestions.

References

1. Hammond, J.S., R.L Keeney, and H. Raiffa, (1999), Smart Choices – A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions,

Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 244 p.

2. Anderson, D.R., D.J. Sweeney and T.A. Williams, (1997), An Introduction to Management Science – Quantitative

Approaches to Decision-Making, West Publishing Co., Minneapolis, 763 p.

3. Gentry, D.W. and T.J. O’Neil, (1984), Mine Investment Analysis, Amer. Inst. Mining Eng., 502 p.

4. Winston, W. and S.C. Albright, (1997), Practical Management Science, Duxbury Press, pp. 700-708

5. Ebeling, C.E., (1997), An Introduction to Reliability and Maintainability Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 189-

225

6. Summers, J., (2000), Analysis and Management of Mining Risk, Proc. MassMin 2000, Brisbane, QLD, 29 Oct – 2 Nov, pp.

63-79

7. Forman, E.H., and Selly, M.A., (2001), Decision by Objective – How to Convince Others That You Are right, World

Scientific Publishing Co. Pte, Ltd., New Jersey, 402 p.

8. Gido, J. and J.P. Clements, (1999), Successful Project Management, South-Western College Publishing, pp. 50-54

9. Kazakidis, V.N. (2001), Operating Risk: Planning for Flexible Mining Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, University of British

Columbia, January, 222 p.

10. Bilodeau, M.L., (1998), Mineral Project Evaluation Techniques and Applications, Professional Development Course Notes,

McGill University, May, pp. 170-175

11. Expert Choice, (2000), Advanced Decision Support Software (www.expertchoice.com)

12. Dessureault, S. and M. Scoble, (2000), Capital Investment Appraisals for the Integration of New Technology into Mining

Systems, Transactions of the Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy, London, Vol 109, Jan-Apr. p A30-A40.

15
13. Saaty, T. L., (1994), Fundamentals of Decision-making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Vol. VI,

RWS Publications, 527 p.

14. Saaty, T. L. and Vargas, L. G., (1994), Decision-making in Economics, Political and Social Technological Environments

with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, 300 p.

15. Saaty, T. L., (1996), Decision-making for Leaders Volume II, AHP Series, RWS Publications, 315 p.

16. Ugo, J., (2002), Expert Choice 2000 Decision-making Process Software Overview, Expert Choice Inc., Pittsburg, PA.

(PowerPoint Presentation, www.expertchoice.com)

17. Hoek, E., (2000), Practical Rock Engineering, Chapter 14 – Rockbolts and Cables,

www.rockscience.com/roc/Hoek/Hoeknotes2000.htm

18. Stillborg, B., (1986), Professional Users Handbook for Rock Bolting, Series on Rock and Soil Mechanics, Vol. 15, Trans

Tech Publications, Atlas Copco, Sweden. 145 p.

19. Charette, F. and J. Hadjigeorgiou, (1999), Guide Pratique du Soutènement Minier, Association minière du Québec Inc.,

Quebec, 120 p.

20. Infopoll DesignerTM , (2002), Survey System Software (www.infopoll.com)

16
 List of Figures (in order they appear in text – 23 in total)

Fig. 1. Qualitative and quantitative analysis 2

Fig. 2. The mathematical process underlying AHP12,13

Fig. 3. Perceived Advantages of AHP15

Fig. 4. Principles of an AHP decision problem for the selection of scooptram model type

Fig. 5. Weighting of the decision criteria

Fig. 6. Weighting of the rating criteria and alternatives

Fig. 7. Scores of the various scooptram alternatives

Fig. 8. Example of dynamic sensitivity analysis

Fig. 9. Hierarchical representation of the decision problem with six criteria and three alternatives12

Fig. 10. Weightings of rating criteria and alternatives

Fig. 11. Head-To-Head sensitivity in Expert Choice

Fig. 12. Criteria and alternatives in the rockbolt system model

Fig. 13. Input parameters used for the rockbolt system model

Fig. 14. Dynamic sensitivity analysis on various bolt systems

Fig. 15. Rating criteria used to rate transportation alternatives

Fig. 16. Dynamic sensitivity analysis (with component option) on the transportation alternatives

Fig. 17. Criteria and alternatives in the shaft location model

Fig. 18. Performance sensitivity analysis

Fig. 19. Rating criteria and scores for each mining operation

Fig. 20. Two-Dimensional sensitivity analysis examining ground conditions and workforce

Fig. 21. Head-to-Head sensitivity comparing Mine B to Mine C

Fig. 22. Rapid tunnelling questionnaire example

Fig. 23. Mine planning risk assessment questionnaire example

17
 Problem Structuring Qualitative Problem Analysis
analysis
Define Identify Determine Make
the the the Evaluation the
problem alternatives criteria Decision
Quantitative
analysis
2
Fig. 1. Qualitative and quantitative analysis

Final weight matrix = [final] 1 x n = [options]m x n x [objectives]m x 1

n = number of objectives
m = number of options

12,13
Fig. 2. The mathematical process underlying AHP

18
 Unity: The AHP provides a single, easily understood, flexible
model for a wide range of unstructured problems

Process Repetition: The AHP enables people

to refine their definition of a problem and to Complexity: The AHP integrates deductive
improve their judgement and understanding and systems approach in solving complex
through repetition problems

Judgement and Consensus: The

AHP does not insist on consensus Independence: The AHP can deal with
but synthesizes a representative the interdependence of elements in a
system and does not insist in linear
outcome from diverse judgements
thinking

AHP
Tradeoffs: The AHP takes into Hierarchic Structuring: The AHP
consideration the relative priorities of reflects the natural tendency of the mind
factors in a system and enables people to sort elements of a system into
to select the best alternative based on different levels and to group like
their goals elements in each level

Synthesis: The AHP leads to an Measurement: The AHP provides a scale for
overall estimate to the desirability of measuring intangibles and a method for
each alternative establishing priorities

Consistency: The AHP tracks the logical

consistency of judgements used in
determining priorities

Fig. 3. Perceived Advantages of AHP15

DECISION

CRITERIA

ALTERNATIVES

Fig. 4. Principles of an AHP decision problem for the selection of scooptram model type

19
 Fig. 5. Weighting of the decision criteria

Fig. 6. Weighting of the rating criteria and total scores (not normalized) for each of the three alternatives

20
Fig. 7. Scores of the various scooptram alternatives

Fig. 8. Example of dynamic sensitivity analysis

21
 12
Fig. 9. Hierarchical representation of the decision problem with six criteria and three alternatives

Fig. 10. Weightings of rating criteria and alternatives

22
Purchase Drill Technology <> Retrain Drill Workers
Fragmentation
Design
Safety
Blending
Cost
Culture

Weighted head to head between Purchase Drill Technology and Retrain Drill Workers

Fig. 11.Head-To-Head sensitivity in Expert Choice

Fig. 12. Criteria and alternatives in the rockbolt system model

23
Fig. 13. Input parameters used for the rockbolt system model

Fig. 14. Dynamic sensitivity analysis on various bolt systems

24
 Fig. 15. Rating criteria used to rate transportation alternatives

Fig. 16. Dynamic sensitivity analysis (with component option) on the transportation alternatives

25
Fig. 17. Criteria and alternatives in the shaft location model

Location A

Location C
Location B

Fig. 18. Performance sensitivity analysis

26
 Fig. 19. Rating criteria and scores for each mining operation

1: Mine B
2: Mine H
3: Mine C
4: Mine F
5: Mine E
6: Mine A
7: Mine G
8: Mine D

Fig. 20. Two-Dimensional sensitivity analysis examining ground conditions and workforce

27
 Mine B Mine C

Fig. 21. Head-to-Head sensitivity comparing Mine B to Mine C

DRILLING Suggestion 1:

Fig. 22. Rapid tunnelling questionnaire example

28
Fig. 23. Mine planning risk assessment questionnaire example

29