Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
the sommelier models
Codelco will revolutionize underground mining as we know it today. The large infrastructure
developed should be automated and monitored according to the most recent advances in the
field. This means minimizing the number of field operators and the use of autonomous
equipment. It implies a systemic conception of the operation to allow the remote control of
operations and control center, but for this to happen, the entire organization needs to be
adjusted. We propose a systemic model based on the control of the Organizational Entropy
(Variety No Required VNR), which would reduce the loss of value (waste) generated by
flows by poorly designed organizational structures and by the high risk in redundancy values
as a result of the disconnection between people, the required competencies, existing resources
and assigned procedures. The model called Sommelier was the product of the early
Keywords: Organizational Transformation; Relational Viability; Variety; Viable Relational Model (VRM).
INTRODUCTION
Today in Chile, the Chuquicamata Underground Mine is a strategic structural project that involves
the transformation of the world's largest open pit into a giant underground operation that will allow
the exploitation of part of the resources that will remain under the current reservoir, Chile for
almost 100 years - will cease to be profitable within the next decade.
About 1.7 billion tons of copper (0.7%) and molybdenum (502 ppm) reserves have been quantified
under the pipeline, representing more than 60% of what has been exploited in the last 90 years. The
technical and economic option advises exploiting these reserves through the construction of an
underground mine, which will be one of the largest, most modern, and efficient in the world.
Today, Chuquicamata operates at increasingly higher costs, due to the lowering of the ore law
(from 1.03% to 0.8% average in the last 10 years) and the enormous distances that must go through
the giant trucks - More than 300 tons of cargo - to move the material from the bottom of the rake,
which is already 1,200 meters deep. Each of the 70 trucks operating at the site runs an average of
22 kilometers on each round trip from the bottom of the mine to the surface and consumes 3,100
liters of oil per day. Therefore, the aggregate cost of this item reaches 217 cubic meters of fuel each
day. By 2018 this cost will be unsustainable because other increases, such as energy, inputs,
equipment, and labor, will be added in the meantime. Therefore, the change from a configuration of
mineral production to open production to an underground production not only involves the design
of a strategy in the management of material energy resources but a profound change in the
conception of organizational viability, everything Which involves not only dealing with learning
with a view to the future, changing practices and operational excellence but also, establishing a new
conception of mining. We are accustomed to seeing and conceiving companies as if they were the
organization chart of a hierarchical organization. In the management and management committees
these hierarchical schemes are reproduced, and from them are selected solutions and strategies that
must do directly with this hierarchical image that we have of them, and replicates, from the highest
levels, the same logic from strata and hierarchies to the lowest levels of the chain of command.
However, it should not be forgotten that this reductionism in the representation of organizations
with this mental image we have of them is a legacy both of the emergence of the Industrial
Revolution and the history of religious and military institutions of years ago, and in The practice,
has very little to do with the real complexity that is typical of the companies and organizations of
For the achievement of change, mentioned above, we have aptly applied as tools to support
cybernetic knowledge.
Our strategy was designed based on redefining Stafford Beer's conception of organizational
viability given that the VMS model generates a series of pathologies in the organization that
respond to a dissociated view of the relational process. This involved moving from a concept of
how sustainability and relational systems are coupled as a conservation strategy for the
implies conceiving it as a network of cooperative relations that are structured based on processes
with the overall purpose of producing fine copper. The basic relational unit is conceived as the
network within a given area and the processes associated with it. It is a fact that each group or
network of agents expresses a way of making the decisions that must be carried out daily for the
continuity of the processes. Thus, each network legitimates a way of acting or doing with them.
In today's world, intangible assets and values hold the attention of large corporations and
governments, most notably knowledge as an essential value, which has been making its way in
societies and largely determines production, Governance practices, the processes that are developed
and the resources that are used. In this process of knowledge integration, organizations have been
forced to introduce new concepts that have to do with the way they conceive of their patterns of
action and their dynamics of operation, in order to be able to propagate their value as an
organization, Taking into account, in particular, the complexity and agility that we must face under
The possibilities of the propagation of value are related to the organizational culture that oversees
enabling the channels by which this propagation will be possible, which is based mainly on two
aspects: relationships and processes. For this same reason, if current conditions involve taking into
account fundamental factors such as the complexity of relationships, the speed of change and the
coherence of actions, management models based on rigid hierarchical structures will limiting and
hindering the spread of value throughout the organization and will end up generating within the
organization a large amount of what we can call waste, which translates into a chain of errors and
bad practices. An example of such waste may be a lack of coordination between areas, repetition of
work, lack of commitments by different parties, collapses in planning, preference for non-priority
functional objectives and other failures whose cause is usually called "indefinite".
As we are seeing, the process of evolution of the organizations in the present should be oriented to
the development of flexible structures that allow accommodating the qualities that will make
possible the propagation of the value in a company, which is created on the basis of scientific and
technicians to which they have access, that is, to knowledge. This new way of thinking in the
organizations of the 21st century is to begin to see and understand the configuration of networks of
relationships, that is, of the foundations that will help us to carry out a good strategy of creation and
propagation of value.
So far, we have not had at hand conceptual models that have been able to describe other forms of
process structures that explain coherently the organizational dynamics, nor has there been the
possibility of making a diagnosis of its configuration, allowing it to would ensure the strategic
viability of the company. It is necessary to should us to end with the rigidity of hierarchies and to
focus on those so-called 'blank spaces' that go unnoticed in the organizational charts of companies.
In these "they live" the informal structures that sustain the organization and are the true value
producers.
In 2105, we applied the methodology of Strategic Process Intelligence ( Lavanderos & Massey,
2014) in the Chuquicamata division, a series of singularities were detected that preach about the
conditions of reliability, availability, traceability and decisional speed in the relational system
(culture) of the productive process. These singularities inherited historically, can be summarized as
follows:
connection where there is no traceability in the flow of production and where decision-making
processes do not involve all the actors, the latter is expressed in ignorance of the binding activities,
starting from the synergy by complementary knowledge between management. The variety in the
processes at the same time is increased as an effect of the administrative bureaucracy to the extent
that it delays the requests for resources for the operation and acts independently.
In other words, what has been expressed above results in a disaggregated conception of the
business, privileging short value chains over long ones. Added to this, the excessive number and
quantity of procedures for the decisional process which generates high variability and little control
Overcoming the singularities necessarily implies the organizational redesign and the
reconfiguration of the processes in all their spectrum, which implies not only dealing with learning,
future perspectives, change of practices, operational excellence but to establish a new conception of
mining. This will allow us to ensure successful organizational viability from the transformation of
The organizational redesign and the reconfiguration of processes are fundamentally oriented
to reduce the variety and control its variability, from generating new structural and relational
diversity, to ensure both sustainability and sustainability of the mining network and its
environment.
Chuquicamata from redesigning the relational structure of the control network based on the control
allows us to understand and study organizations from their structure or network of relationships, to
assess their viability and how they show up in management. Part of the underlying methods
includes strategic process intelligence (SPI), ( Lavanderos & Massey, 2014),which makes it
possible to identify, neutralize, degrade and/or rebuild the relational information network. This is so
because the information network could generate singularities that result in the loss of coordination
and cohesion, affecting communication and generating waste in the management, that is, “non-
requisite variety".
The correction, anticipation and/or elimination of disruptive events, allows the value that is
advocated to propagate in the organizational network since it can be visualized as a "fluid" that
carries the semiotic sense of the political vision constituted in management, to achieve the strategic
objective. If we visualize this complex of fluids (semiotics), we can locate those "downed" bridges
slow down a stop or stop their dynamics of shared meanings. In other words, those relationships
that prioritize other types of flows to the detriment of the relational configuration that shares the
political vision. It is to these threats that we design the strategic process intelligence process (SPI)
(Lavanderos & Massey, 2014), as a method of correcting the relational structures that retard the
management functions, and the data subnet; that which is dedicated to the flow of information
obtained by the operations centers to the analysis or command-control centers. Strictly speaking,
the organization is a constant process of construction of relational viability that demands a strategy
for the minimization of the non-requisite variety. For this reason, it is the domain of viability that
will determine what is possible or how willing is the organization to reduce waste to increase
profitability. This is what confronts "command", and its solution passes down by obligation,
Malpartida, 1991;Lavanderos et al. 2017), a viable system is one that: "resolves its organizational
conservation through a strategy of structural change". Understanding as organization that entire set
of relationships that shape their identity as such, which implies maintaining their condition or
conservation. We understand that, in this line of thought, what can vary is only the structure
(relationships), if this supports or allows the organization to be carried out. In accordance with the
previous points, we will define the Viable Relational System (VRS) as a configuration of
relationship networks that has achieved a coherent coupling between its relational configuration
(Viability) and its material energy system (Sustainability), in such a way that it does not at risk the
The viability or relational quality is evaluated based on the coherence of command and the
congruence or exchange capacity intra and inter-network. Sustainability is evaluated based on the
set of breakdowns or gaps determined in the energy-material processes that define production. In
other words, the management of a VRS translates into coupling processes, be they by design or
redesign, with the possibilities of reconfiguring the network of relationships to approach the Pareto
80:20. Fig.1 below shows the conceptual basis for Viable Relational Systems (VRS).
fundamental when it comes to establishing the form that constitutes the relationality of an
organization. Under this vision any process is productive, it is not possible to separate them into
primary and support. The identity of the organization is not the result of what it produces, be it this
product or service, but the strategy to produce it. From this perspective, an organization can be
explained as a semiotic fluid, in which analogically with the irrigation channels, it must be
organized in such a way that the greatest effective extension and the best quality of meaning are
obtained. For this reason, the organization of the 21st century must say goodbye to the Taylor
model if it wishes to incorporate the cognitive domain as the value of the company
------------------------------
------------------------------
An organization is relationally viable if its relationships make it viable. This affirmation is
fundamental when it comes to establishing the form that constitutes the relationality of an
organization. Under this vision any process is productive, it is not possible to separate them into
primary and support. The identity of the organization is not the result of what it produces, be it this
product or service, but the strategy to produce it. From this perspective, an organization can be
explained as a semiotic fluid, in which analogically with the irrigation channels, it must be
organized in such a way that the greatest effective extension and the best quality of meaning are
obtained. For this reason, the organization of the 21st century must say goodbye to the Taylor
model if it wishes to incorporate the cognitive domain as the value of the company.
EVALUATION OF VIABILITY
As we pointed out in previous paragraphs, the robustness of viability is the result of the
form and degree in which the relational and the sustainable fit together. For this reason, the process
model is the appropriate field to evaluate this correspondence since this will unveil the coupling
strategy. On this basis, it is essential to evaluate the state of the relationship network (relational-
concerning management. Organizational coherence unifies the declarations of the leader (manager)
about the strategies, goals, objectives, and priorities to pursue, and how these declarations are
coherence, when it is weak or non-existent, is one of the main factors in the failure to implement
the strategic plan and the effective execution of the business model.
The lack of organizational coherence is the greatest source of invisible expenses, waste that
directly impacts organizational effectiveness, reducing both the effectiveness and efficiency of the
organization.
as congruence, this includes management. This means that the general manager is incorporated as
another person within the network, so the evaluation is of all against all. The congruence evaluation
allows us to classify the network within certain typologies, for example, a simple addition of
people; as an operational team; or simply as a set or bunch of people. All of which directly impacts
For both consistency and congruence, the following variables are measured:
• UNDERSTANDING: Evaluated as the proximity between what is declared and the
problems.
Once the diagnosis is complete, this entire process allows for an assessment of the degree of
congruence and strategic coherence existing within the executive team. This will allow us to
determine where are the main gaps in understanding, knowledge, and trust that limit the
possible states of a system. Ashby's Requisite Variety Law (Ashby, 1956,1958) states that only
variety can absorb variety. However, the above statement is only valid when it is formulated in the
context of interactions, but it is not possible to sustain it when dealing with relationships as is the
case of human organizations. Thus, it is important to establish the difference between interaction
and relationship. The following example allows us to imagine the distinction of our proposal, for
example: In a game of chess, what you observe are schemes of action through the movement of
pieces and surely also, expressions of different types between the two players. However, you do not
have access to the relationship that both establish. This means that what we can observe and denote
are schemes of action and not the relationships that support those actions. Logically, these actions
arise from the distinctions that in the relationship feed the decision making of each of the players.
The actions put on the board can vary from attraction to repulsion, however; the content and
meaning that sustains these actions are not accessible to the observer, therefore, what we can
follow the above arguments, the variety of a relational system cannot be reduced to a number of
states (actions), given that; if we did, we would ignore all the complexity of the relationship of the
actors involved and in turn our relationship as observers of these, in other words, we would be
cheating.
The difference that arises from what is manifest, which is the scheme of action and the
support of the same, is the cognitive relationship, this is fundamental and allows establishing the
difference between the concept of autopoiesis and ecopoiesis, (Lavanderos y Malpartida 2005;
Malpartida y Lavanderos, 2000;Maturana & Varela, 1992;Varela et al., 1991;Varela, 1998). The
first notion constitutes an important vision but one that is ultimately reductive, since to be coherent
it operates in the molecular sphere, that is, in the field of interactions, of causality, of the manifest.
The second notion, unlike the first, operates in the field of relationships, the links, of what is
underlying. The autopoiesis closes to bring closure, it divides what is internal from what is external;
in ecopoiesis, this is not necessary because the network of relations operates conserving those
relations that reproduce their organization spontaneously. In other words, what we have defined as
operates from the strategy of coupling between the relational plane and that of energy-material
resources, ( Lavanderos & Massey, 2014). Along the same line, the loss of resources in an
organization depends on the introduction of "non-requisite variety", that is; of those relationships
that generate dissociation and loss of complexity, which interrupts decision-making, generating a
loss of organization. In this way, we could define non-requisite variety as follows: "For a relational
system, all forms of generation of non-requisite variety are produced by destroying requisite
variety." This is a fundamental difference with Ashby, (Ashby, 1956,1958)). This is so because a
great problem has been generated by confusing and associating the meanings of communication,
the domain of application and knowledge of these formulations have nothing to do with the
isomorphism can be established, it does not homologate the conceptual, (Callaos & Callaos, 1985).
In the domain of human organizations, non-requisite variety assumes the form of a law,
which can be exemplified as follows: Located within an organization, connective diversity, which
is what allows the exchange of variety, is weakened or destroyed in efficiency through the
introduction of delays, preventing or generating resistance to the flow of data necessary to the
decision and production process. We could add, from systems theory, that it would be introducing
summative properties of the elements of the system, which spoil the emergence of the constitutive
properties of the organization and, therefore; decision making related to the business. This happens,
every time a unit exchanges non-requisite variety, thus determining loss of control and output
variability.
So then, as we do not have access to the relational configuration, we are obliged to calculate
non-requisite variety based on the action schemes that occur in the network, isolating those
configurations that are organized as subnets of repulsion and that are responsible for generating the
increase of non-requisite variety and, consequently, costs in all ways, shapes and forms including
If we look at this from a controlled system, in cybernetics we must generate variety in such
a way that its design allows regulation and feedback that achieves the minimum required variety.
This implies understanding that the correspondence between the variety generated and the
minimum required does not have to be exact, necessary or feasible, but rather, it requires a variety
with a minimum complexity for the regulation of a system. The areas of diversity that interact and
must be regulated correspond to a consistent diversity in the system; the attenuation of such variety
On the other hand, even considering actions alone and to finish proposing our proposal with
an image regarding cybernetic thinking, we say: "we are interested not only in the fish we catch but
also in the ones we failed to catch". How do we map all those restrictions that elude us? - How
From the construction of the design to the model of the Viable Relational System (VRS)
Any organization or company, from our relational systemic viewpoint, rests in its
conception upon a network of relationships, which are structured on processes relating to the
production of products or services. The basic relational unit is built on the relationship between a
network and the associated production process. All of which are expressed in the form of decision
making. In this way, a network legitimizes the form of its task in relation to a process, which allows
access to 1) the variety or number of steps or signaled states; 2) to its variability or gap between
observed and expected results; 3) to the connective diversity or relational structures established to
which is co-formed from the coupling between the units of the fields of viability and sustainability,
in which, the correction of variety is not generated in the autonomic dynamics, but a spontaneous
process of selection of alternatives (epigenesis). The VRS has the condition of replicating itself,
within a recursive process of recalibration (stochastic), depending on the strategic objective of the
organization, to build network subsystems, which contribute to organization from its operations
and/or processes
Faced with this, we can do without what we call "the external or environment", to achieve
consistency between the operation and the administration we need to establish the relationships
between the knowledge network (administration) and processes (operation), which is achieved
With these concepts, the relational network is designed from 3 elements that are generally
not thought of as a whole, these are the processes, the network that carries them out and the culture
or the "how they do it". In a second instance, it is necessary to consider how these 3 elements are
related, which leads us to the definition of VRS, for this, we have used the following concepts:
3. Connective Diversity: Quality in communication with other areas or functions that are
According to this, the VRS model is determined in the following way (Fig. 2)
------------------------------
------------------------------
As indicated above, the model is generated from calibrations that, within the research
process, ranging from design to formalization. Formally we would obtain a model like the
------------------------------
------------------------------
The construction of the VRS model, states that for the reduction of the variability of the
processes involved in its management, the decision-making model of the knowledge network must
be made explicit, to expose the behavior of the variables that account for of the output of their
process. This allows not only the control of the same but also shows the transparency of results for
The VRS makes possible the integration of the entire scientific-technical area beginning
with co-control of variety and variability. Likewise, connective quality or diversity makes it
possible to establish the degree of collaboration with other areas, to control the variety of the
process that generates value. As an example; if a productive unit needs support from the
administrative areas, and this support is of low reciprocity, this diminishes the value of the
productive process. This is a form of variety that assumes values equal to or less than zero and
which we call a non-requisite variety. The generation of non-requisite variety or waste has a direct
distribution" of differences between calculated or theoretical flows (for example, the KPIs), seen
from the systemic point of view, for an organization to function, versus the flows of fact or actual
operation. This takes into account the people involved; the communications structure that sustains
the tasks; the tasks developed; the inputs required for such purposes; the way planning takes place
for all the assignments needed to be developed and all the processes that must be executed. In such
a way that this cumulative distribution allows us to evaluate the strength and direction of the
totality of the systemic deviations that are actively distorting and structurally weakening the
organization.
Non-requisite variety, therefore, has its origins in planning deficiencies, unbudgeted issues,
supervening situations and improvisations that significantly affect the availability of resources,
especially the use of time and the pace of operations and of course, rigidity that does not allow the
adoption of other recursive, analytical and integrated forms, needed to lead an organization.
The systemic support where this phenomenon is detected is called a Holored. This construct
is based on three integrated formal networks (organization, processes, and flows), where each
"spontaneous topology" that allows us to calculate all the relationships among its elements,
privileging in every one of the elements involved the use of the VRS relational structure. This
allows us to determine the level of non-requisite variety and obtain the systemic concepts necessary
to interpret the levels of viability and complexity that arise from the coupling of the three networks.
The VRS integrates the knowledge network that preserves the rules of art for organizational
functioning, preserving its existence, and provides the elements of judgment necessary for the
decision-making model, from which the processes are one way or another. The same knowledge
network provides information to maintain control over the unit of connective diversity and, at the
same time, lets us observe the variety needed so that both the decision-making model and the
processes can generate the variability that creates sustainability and viability to this relational
structure.
This relational structure will be connected, on the one hand, with all the other relational
units (VRS) and on the other, at the level of connective diversity, based on the related topology.
The formal representation of all this corresponds to the idea of a rhizome,(Deleuze & Guattari,
1980).
Let's see now how the VRS model is applied to the mining unit. The model below (Figure
Nº26) was developed from the experience of professionals with more than 30 years in the mining
business. This initial unit was designed to account for the mine concentrator transformation
processes. The mine business model model, states that; for the reduction of the variability of the
processes involved in its management, the decision-making model of the knowledge network (mine
management) must be made explicit, in order to make transparent the variety of states that are
involved and that account for the quality of the result. This allows not only the control of processes
but also the transparency of results for all the actors involved.
For this case, the reduction of waste (VNR), is achieved by eliminating all those
processes. Thus, environment, safety, quality, and maintenance become criteria for the
transformation of the scientific-technical unit. It is important to highlight that this idea is a result
network of relationships that exchanges variety and waste. The basic relational unit, within a
systemic conception of the business, is conceived as the network within a certain area and the
processes associated with it. It is a fact that each group or network of agents expresses a way of
making the decisions that must be carried out daily for the continuity of the processes. So then,
Within each unit, you can establish different amounts of steps or what we call variety, in
turn, this (necessary otherwise to meet the objectives of a process), produces a certain variability
and waste. Both variability and waste are conditions that must be controlled so as not to impede the
overall process.
If we have incorporated the concepts of variety and variety not required in the business
process, we could wonder naively. What is the business of copper mining under this perspective?
Generally, the production of fine copper will be answered and could continue to be answered.
against rubbing or attrition in all that this means about the fixed assets and the operational
state of the transformation. Consequently, the spine is based on the quality of the fragmentation and
its composition when it reaches the concentrator. In other words, the business consists of the
control of the VNR that will reach the concentrator expressed as variability of the fragmentation of
the rock.
cultural system expressed in cooperative relationships, which are structured based on business
processes around the production of fine copper. The basic relational unit is constituted on the
relationship between a network and the associated productive process, which is expressed in the
form of decision making. In this way, a network legitimizes a way of doing, about a process, which
allows access to its variety, that is; the number of steps or distinguished states that make up the
process and its expression as variability or gap between the observed and expected results.
Contrary to the above, the design of the mining process is conceived linearly, this is a
sequence of processes whose linear relationship is established as inputs and outputs between one
and the other. When operated in this way, the emerging structure is a series of silos or black boxes
connected as "clients" of each other, leaving in the shadows what happens inside the black boxes.
When understood in this way, the control is only possible to be applied in the outputs of each silo
as variability, ignoring that the waste is generated in the variety inside the black box. For this
reason, the design of mine as a process is not systemic, but on the contrary; it is a sum of black
boxes that preach from the process they contain. The preceding results in the generation of
singularities that result in the loss of coordination and cohesion, affecting communication and
generating a high degree of waste in the management or variety not required (VNR). The latter is
The production in VNR determines an increase in the variability of results, which, at the
same time, makes it necessary to increase control over it, generating unnecessary bureaucracy
without guaranteeing better results. A classic example of the above, are the relationships generated
by safety and environmental management which are not part of the operation as a process, but
Some of the signs that are generally found in companies whose structure is highly
• Poor communication between the areas that are part of the same process,
collaborators.
• Lack of feedback or double-track channels where employees can resolve their doubts.
Therefore, in the face of these signs, every kind of transformation must contemplate the
relational state of the organization, without it, the culture will phagocytose any process that wants
Starting from the systemic conception, as a relational unit, a mining operation can be
other networks (management); these unions can be very robust or very weak depending on the
relationship between the agents that are connected. To eliminate the silos scheme, a common
exchange unit is necessary to account for the overall state of the business process. This unit is what
so that the variability of our results when exchanged generates the minimum amount of waste,
On the other hand, an organizational design with relationships that allow the feedback of all
the processes involved is essential. About the above, we have generated an architecture that
involves 4 areas; the first one is related to the political-technical orientation of the business, the
second is the intelligence area, which carries within it the old areas, misnamed, of support. Unlike
classical vision, this area applies in front of the operation; therefore, it must ensure that the
production process has the necessary resources before they are requested, which is a way to reduce
the waste generated by the bureaucracy. The third area is scientific-technical which operates on the
transformation processes under the guidance of the political-technical area. To consolidate the flow
of permanent information, a fourth area was designed to ensure the flow of data, coordination, and
connectivity. To represent the base unit, we will use the VRS (Fig. 2), This unit has the condition to
replicate, depending on the strategic objective of the organization, to build network subsystems that
contribute to the organization from its relationship-process. The VRS system states that for the
reduction of the VNR of the constituent processes of management, the decision-making model of
the knowledge network must be made explicit to demonstrate the behavior of the variables that
account for the state of the connection. This allows not only the control of processes but also the
transparency of results for all the actors involved in the value chain. The VRS allows the
integration of the entire scientific-technical area from the co-control of variety, variety not required
and variability. Likewise, connective richness or connective diversity allows establishing the degree
of collaboration with other areas to control the variety of the process that generates value. As an
example, in the classic model, if a productive unit needed support from the administrative areas and
if this support was of low reciprocity, the effect diminished the value of the productive process. In
summary, relational systemic integration allows a dynamic and effective organization (Fig. 4).
Let's see now how the VRS model is applied to the mining unit. The model below (Fig. 5)
was developed from the experience of professionals with more than 30 years in the mining
business. This initial unit was designed to account for the mine concentrator transformation
processes. The mine business model, states that; for the reduction of the variability of the processes
involved in its management, the decision-making model of the knowledge network (mine
management) must be made explicit, to make transparent the variety of states that are involved and
that account for the quality of the result. This allows not only the control of processes but also the
For this case, the reduction of waste (VNR), is achieved by eliminating all those
processes. Thus, environment, safety, quality, and maintenance become criteria for the
transformation of the scientific-technical unit. It is important to highlight that this idea is a result
network of relationships that exchanges variety and waste. The basic relational unit, within a
systemic conception of the business, is conceived as the network within a certain area and the
processes associated with it. It is a fact that each group or network of agents expresses a way of
making the decisions that must be carried out daily for the continuity of the processes. So then,
------------------------------
------------------------------
Within each unit, you can establish different amounts of steps or what we call variety, in
turn, this (necessary otherwise to meet the objectives of a process), produces a certain variability
and waste. Both variability and waste are conditions that must be controlled so as not to impede the
overall process.
If we have incorporated the concepts of variety and variety not required in the business
process, we could wonder naively. What is the business of copper mining under this perspective?
Generally, the production of fine copper will be answered and could continue to be answered.
However, under the incorporation of the variety and the VNR, the business, properly so and its
opportunities, is in the fight against rubbing or attrition in all that this means with the fixed assets
and the operational state of the transformation. Consequently, the spine is based on the quality of
the fragmentation and its composition when it reaches the concentrator. In other words, the
business consists of the control of the VNR that will reach the concentrator expressed as variability
------------------------------
------------------------------
appropriate wine for the occasion, in other words, it checks if the quality guidelines are met at the
beginning of the process. In the case of the mine, the idea is that our sommelier comes from the
concentrator and check if the mining plan has all the elements that ensure the quality downstream.
Is that; the status indicators (KPI), from the entrance to the mine, are associated with these
requirements. Concerning the above, it means that the processes are shared and their evaluation
As seen in the figure, the KPI lines work in feedback through the quality agreement
between plant-GRMD-primary crushing, on the other hand, the variability and VNR of the system
The state indicators were conceptualized by the need to have input and output concepts
concerning VNR and variability. This means that to finally have a reliable indicator, it is necessary
to reach a consensus on them with the upstream areas and with the areas downstream of the mine.
Upwards and concerning the entrance of the mine, it is essential to reach a consensus on the
weight of the processes that make the state indicators and that depend on the management of
mining resources and development (GRMD). For our first results, provisionally, the mine personnel
pondered the weight with which each process contributes to the concretion of the indicator
Down and for the exit of the mine, the same scheme is proposed; it is necessary to reach a
consensus with the plant regarding which quality of entry is necessary to maintain (exit from the
mine). The weighting of internal activities and other processes has not been carried out yet. This
So then, the KPI can be explained taking into account the following:
3. output indicators shared with the process needs that follow the mine (plant =
downstream).
In this way we have that the systemic strategy must implement the following actions:
1. Consolidate quality indicators for the management and action of the mining plan. Kpi and
relation with units upstream.
2. Consensus and consolidate quality indicators from the mine to the plant. Kpi and relation
with units and downstream.
3. Develop the integration of online data from a common desktop for all the software used in
the management of the mine.
4. Analyse the historical data and those produced by the data logger of the equipment to
generate a value tree of equipment and operators.
5. Establish systemic KPI in the supply area that allows us to weigh participation with
upstream and downstream customers
6. Review the procedures of the supply and services area, clean redundancy in procedures to
shorten deadlines and make efficient purchasing and service processes.
7. Generate quality agreements between all the units that are part of the business starting from
the GRMD.
------------------------------
------------------------------
CONCLUSION
With the advent of information technologies and, with the process of infinite connectivity
that we are experiencing, we have accelerated the decision-making processes in a dizzying way, so
today we pay bills online, we communicate with other people through chat or mail, we read
messages from the pc to the cell phone, we can find an address using satellites, in short, we gain
time and a lot, however and paradoxically this gain in daily life is not reflected in the decision-
making processes associated with productivity in organizations, be they public or private. One
possible explanation lies in the fact that we have, on the one hand, inherited hierarchical structures,
which for what is needed today in speed are not capable of subsuming such demand. On the other
hand, when we produce we do not see that we do not see the production of waste and the lack of
cooperation within the lines of transformation. The somellier model was designed to solve these
two conditions, therefore, it is necessary to understand the shift to a structural change that allows
transition from a hierarchical to a heterarchical form to eliminate the work in silos. The heterarchy
is a system in which the members do not think about deciding on the other, but on interacting to
generate solutions. This way of participating, having greater freedom of action, can generate
multiple ideas, advice and help for a whole group to work coherently. "The heterarchies are
superimposed networks with individual components that simultaneously belong and act in multiple
networks and with the dynamics of the entire system that governs and emerges precisely from this
whole set of interactions." The hierarchy that is questioned is not the responsibility but the process,
heterarchical one constitutes the strategic horizon of any organization in general and the mining.
En consecuencia, hablar de un producto que incorpore huellas o sellos: de carbono, de agua,
oportunidades y ética, como es el cobre verde es no solo ilusorio, sino que impracticable bajo una
concepción no sistémica.
the relationship, that is, that they do not exist within the different types of concepts, limits or
borders. The knowledge is, finally, a recreating of practices and guidelines that achieve that the
transformation or an industrial revolution 4.0 is intended, is to allow the return to the initial world
of the game of creating mother and father, a relational game for new structures in the coordination
and communication of the networks that make up the operation, in another way, a ludic act without
borders. In short, it is an economy of the variety, control over the waste that remains in the shadows
The mining of the 21st century must face and overcome the linearization of thought, which
is the genesis of the production of waste both tangible resources and in the loss of knowledge. The
control of the VNR is the promising way for a successful mining operation since it allows not only
a systemic communication, which destroys the disaggregated vision of the business but also
produces shared value by integrating all the actors that are part of the business.
REFERENCES
Ashby, W. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London, 1956.
Ashby, W.: 1958. "Requisite Variety and Implications for Control of Complex
Beer, S. 1985. Diagnosing the System for Organizations. Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons.
Callaos, N., & Callaos, B. 2002. Toward a Systemic Notion of Information: Practical
5(1), 1-11.
Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Félix. 1980. Rizoma (mil mesetas). Paris: Minuit.1980.
Lahitte, H.B., J.A. Hurrell y A. R. Malpartida. 1987 Relaciones: de la ecología de las ideas a la idea
Lahitte, H.B., J.A. Hurrell y A. R. Malpartida. 1988. Relaciones: de la ecología de las ideas a la
http://www.revistacomplexus.org.
Lavanderos, L., & Massey, K. 2014. From Manufacture to Mindfacture: A Relational Viable
http://revistacomplexus.org
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. 1992. The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human
Varela, F., E. Thompson, & Rosch, E. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human