While the second author was working with a mining company to improve its human capital planning, the company discovered that it faced a shortage of mining engineers, and rising turnover among its existing engineers. The company was making do with the engineers it had, which meant giving every mine the necessary engineering attention it required, but nothing more. To do this, the company had to rotate mining engineers across the mines at a faster rate than if it had been fully staffed. Consequently, these mining engineers were constantly on the move, under more pressure, seeing their families less, and traveling far more than if the company had a full complement of engineers.

Could talent planning address this? Should the talent strategy be framed in terms of HR costs, activities, processes, headcount projections, or something else? We turned to another vital asset – the trucks that haul ore and other materials around the mine. Suppose that a mine optimally needs four trucks, which allows each truck to be driven at the optimal speed, keeps wear and tear at optimal levels, and allows optimal maintenance. Truck “health” is measured relentlessly, including real-time speeds, lubricant deterioration, tire pressure, running hours, etc. Could a mine manager make do with only three trucks? Yes, if he or she allows the trucks to run a little faster, allows them to depreciate more, and delays maintenance. Indeed, this would probably even save money – in the short run. Yet, all these measures ensure that mine managers never do this. They are held accountable for optimal truck usage, not short-run expedience.