As the mine backfill is recognized as one promising technique for the sustainable development, it is crucial to explore the backfill operation mechanism for the mining industry. At present, the self-management and outsourcing model are generally selected to apply in backfill operation and management worldwide. The advantages are insufficient from the strategic and sustainable perspective. Therefore, the study proposes joint venture alliance and concerns the superiority on mine backfill management. In order to evaluate the models, this study puts forward the integrated method which involves combination of SBSC and IFAHP. A strategic and hierarchical framework of SBSC on the basis of sustainability is formulated, which includes 6 perspectives and 16 secondary indexes. Simultaneously, the IFAHP approach is used for determination of the weights of indexes and calculation of the final score, which enables to assess mine backfill operation activity more objectively. The results show that the self-management model provides little advantages whereas the outsourcing model is the better operation mechanism. By contrast, joint venture alliance is rated as the optimal backfill operation model of the mining industry. The research findings of this study would help the mining industry to evaluate objectively and make an appropriate decision on the backfill operation model in the mining industry.
Mine backfill has been widely used worldwide. The building process of the backfill station was associated with several steps including feasibility analysis, design, procurement, construction, installation, and debugging; the backfill operating process did not begin until the employees finished training of professional skills (as shown in Figure
Building and operating process of mine backfill.
Some countries proposed the outsourcing model, which has been practiced in business management in various fields ranging from IT/IS to logistics [
At present, the mining industries dominantly adopt self-management or outsourcing as the backfill operation model worldwide. In China, the mining industries generally select the self-management model. However, joint venture alliance was still under-appreciated in terms of backfill operation mechanism and was rarely used. Joint venture alliance provided access to special technology and skill from alliance partners [
The inefficient management model is unfavorable for the development of mine backfill; therefore, it is crucial to make decision on selecting the appropriate backfill operation model. Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) technology contributes to assess and determine the best alternative in the case of conflicting criteria and objectives. There have been some studies on exploring decision-making by MCDM including Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [
SBSC was developed on the basis of BSC, which was proposed by Professor Kaplan and Norton for the first time [
However, the BSC method focused only on the internal management of organization, but ignored the surroundings in which the organization was admitted to keep sustainable development. Figge (2002) expressed the process of social and environmental impact on business activities and incorporated social and environmental issues into the strategic framework of SBSC; correspondingly, nonmarket became the fifth perspective [
IFAHP is a comprehensive evaluation method formulated by combining intuitionistic fuzzy sets and AHP. The AHP method was employed to quantify experience and subjective judgment of experts, which was proposed by Saaty [
As shown in Figure
Schematic diagram of the proposed backfill operation models.
As shown in Figure
As shown in Figure
It is crucial for the mining industry to select an appropriate backfill operation model. The flow chart of performance evaluation of the mine backfill operation model is shown in Figure
Flow chart of evaluation of mine backfill operation models.
The SBSC method takes account of the sustainability issue. Some scholars insert sustainable indexes into the conceptual framework of BSC, while others incorporate eco-efficiency indexes into the BSC [
Description of evaluation indexes.
Evaluation indexes | Description | References |
---|---|---|
Financial perspective (B1) | ||
Total capital input (C1) | Investment related to mine backfill including equipment, technology, professional technicians, and managers | Agrawal et al. [ |
Operational cost optimization (C2) | Optimization of expense items associated with operational activities | Lee et al. [ |
Profit variance (C3) | Comparison of actual profit and planned profit | Epstein et al. [ |
Stakeholders’ perspective (B2) | ||
Mine owner satisfaction (C4) | Satisfaction degree of mine owner with financial and backfill operational management | Lin et al. [ |
Backfill vendor satisfaction (C5) | Satisfaction degree of backfill vendor with financial and empowerment | Moon et al. [ |
Regulatory satisfaction (C6) | Compliance with standards and rules from regulatory bodies | Modak et al. [ |
Internal process perspective (B3) | ||
Mining-separation-backfill balance (C7) | Mining, separation, and backfill process remain closed-loop connection | Qi et al. [ |
Flexibility (C8) | Ability to adapt to environmental and market changes | Baatartogtokh et al. [ |
Communication and collaboration efficiency (C9) | Effectiveness of communication and collaboration among stakeholders | Tsai et al. [ |
Learning and growth perspective (B4) | ||
Training and development (C10) | Improvement of employee’s capacity by training of expertise and skill | Modak et al. [ |
Technological innovation capability (C11) | Motivation and capacity to continuously improve technology | Khaleie et al. [ |
Knowledge sharing (C12) | Sharing knowledge and information associated with backfill activities among stakeholders | Tsai et al. [ |
Environmental perspective (B5) | ||
Tailings utilization (C13) | Minimization of risk of environmental pollution through implementing backfill technology | Liu et al. [ |
Reduction of environmental impact (C14) | Percentage of tailings backfilled to underground voids | Qi et al. [ |
Social perspective (B6) | ||
Employee accident (C15) | Occupational accident rate of employee | Zhao et al. [ |
Health of residents (C16) | Impact on community residents’ health condition | Liu et al. [ |
Let a set of alternatives
IFAHP pairwise comparison scale and meaning.
Meaning | Scale |
---|---|
Compared with two factors, | (0.90,0.10,0.00) |
Compared with two factors, | (0.80,0.15,0.05) |
Compared with two factors, | (0.70,0.20,0.10) |
Compared with two factors, | (0.60,0.25,0.15) |
Compared with two factors, | (0.50,0.30,0.20) |
Compared with two factors, | (0.40,0.45,0.15) |
Compared with two factors, | (0.30,0.60,0.10) |
Compared with two factors, | (0.20,0.75,0.05) |
Compared with two factors, | (0.10,0.90,0.00) |
The process of consistency test shows the improvement of IFAHP compared to the traditional AHP method, which reflects validity of the conclusion. Based on the complementary matrix of IFPR
When
When
When
The values of
If
If
According to abovementioned two formulas, the values of
The relative weight of each index is calculated by the following formula on the basis of the intuitionistic fuzzy consistency judgment matrix [
The weight of each secondary index and the corresponding first-level index is aggregated and weighted in accordance with the algorithm of the intuitionistic fuzzy value, and the total weight is obtained. The following are related formulas [
The score function and ranking function are calculated through the following formulas based on the intuitionistic fuzzy value [
There are ten experts in the panel with rich technology knowledge and management experience in the field of mine backfill in China. The experts are invited to provide their preference degree including IFPR of first-level indexes and IFPR of secondary indexes. Moreover, the membership degree and nonmembership degree given by ten experts need to be arithmetically averaged. So the complementary matrices of IFPR are determined:
The intuitionistic fuzzy consistency judgment matrix on first-level indexes
Putting
According to equation (
Similarly, the same method is used to bring the intuitionistic preference relation matrix of secondary indexes into equation (
Weight of each index and total weight.
First-level index | Secondary index | Total weight |
---|---|---|
B1 (0.1590,0.8234) | C1 (0.3201, 0.6499) | (0.0509, 0.9382) |
C2 (0.2555, 0.5680) | (0.0405, 0.9237) | |
C3 (0.2137, 0.5151) | (0.0340, 0.9144) | |
B2 (0.1313,0.7872) | C4 (0.3187, 0.6482) | (0.0418, 0.9251) |
C5 (0.2550, 0.5678) | (0.0335, 0.9080) | |
C6 (0.2191, 0.5226) | (0.0288, 0.8984) | |
B3 (0.1593,0.8237) | C7 (0.3060, 0.6315) | (0.0487, 0.9350) |
C8 (0.2537, 0.5642) | (0.0404, 0.9232) | |
C9 (0.2172, 0.5172) | (0.0346, 0.9149) | |
B4 (0.1303,0.7859) | C10 (0.2976, 0.6222) | (0.0388, 0.9191) |
C11 (0.2675, 0.5848) | (0.0349, 0.9111) | |
C12 (0.2164, 0.5212) | (0.0282, 0.8975) | |
B5 (0.1013,0.7482) | C13 (0.4885, 0.4863) | (0.0495, 0.8707) |
C14 (0.3548, 0.3279) | (0.0359, 0.8308) | |
B6 (0.0856,0.7277) | C15 (0.5058, 0.5068) | (0.0433, 0.8657) |
C16 (0.3503, 0.3252) | (0.0300, 0.8163) |
Ten experts are asked to rate the abovementioned backfill operation models on the IFAHP pairwise comparison scale. The arithmetic average of ten evaluation scores is taken as the expert evaluation result, by which the intuitionistic fuzzy evaluation matrix is constructed, as shown in Table
Intuitionistic fuzzy evaluation matrix of the models.
(0.41, 0.48) | (0.62, 0.28) | (0.74, 0.20) |
(0.56, 0.33) | (0.65, 0.25) | (0.71, 0.21) |
(0.57, 0.35) | (0.69, 0.22) | (0.73, 0.21) |
(0.72, 0.21) | (0.66, 0.23) | (0.74, 0.20) |
(0.57, 0.29) | (0.69, 0.21) | (0.74, 0.18) |
(0.67, 0.25) | (0.73, 0.19) | (0.71, 0.20) |
(0.66, 0.26) | (0.69, 0.23) | (0.62, 0.28) |
(0.57, 0.32) | (0.74, 0.19) | (0.61, 0.26) |
(0.59, 0.32) | (0.69, 0.22) | (0.64, 0.25) |
(0.32, 0.60) | (0.62, 0.29) | (0.58, 0.32) |
(0.35, 0.57) | (0.44, 0.50) | (0.53, 0.39) |
(0.39, 0.53) | (0.56, 0.36) | (0.58, 0.33) |
(0.51, 0.39) | (0.69, 0.23) | (0.65, 0.27) |
(0.62, 0.31) | (0.70, 0.22) | (0.66, 0.23) |
(0.64, 0.29) | (0.71, 0.22) | (0.71, 0.22) |
(0.61, 0.31) | (0.66, 0.27) | (0.69, 0.22) |
This study focuses on how to make decision on the optimal backfill operation model in the mining industries and proposes joint venture alliance. The score functions of the models are clearly shown in Figure
Comparison chart of the score function of the models.
The intuitive fuzzy evaluation matrix is transformed into the score function by using equation (
Score function of the secondary index on the three backfill operation models.
Secondary index | Total weight | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Total capital input (C1) | (0.0509, 0.9382) | 0.4685 | 0.6545 | 0.6822 |
Operational cost optimization (C2) | (0.0405, 0.9237) | 0.6036 | 0.6818 | 0.7547 |
Profit variance (C3) | (0.0340, 0.9144) | 0.6019 | 0.7156 | 0.7312 |
Mine owner satisfaction (C4) | (0.0418, 0.9251) | 0.7383 | 0.6937 | 0.7453 |
Backfill vendor satisfaction (C5) | (0.0335, 0.9080) | 0.6228 | 0.7182 | 0.7547 |
Regulatory satisfaction (C6) | (0.0288, 0.8984) | 0.6944 | 0.7500 | 0.7593 |
Mining-separation-backfill balance (C7) | (0.0487, 0.9350) | 0.6852 | 0.7130 | 0.7340 |
Flexibility (C8) | (0.0404, 0.9232) | 0.6126 | 0.7570 | 0.6546 |
Communication and collaboration efficiency (C9) | (0.0346, 0.9149) | 0.6239 | 0.7156 | 0.6549 |
Training and development (C10) | (0.0388, 0.9191) | 0.3704 | 0.6514 | 0.6757 |
Technological innovation capability (C11) | (0.0349, 0.9111) | 0.3981 | 0.4717 | 0.6182 |
Knowledge sharing (C12) | (0.0282, 0.8975) | 0.4352 | 0.5926 | 0.5648 |
Tailings utilization (C13) | (0.0495, 0.8707) | 0.5545 | 0.7130 | 0.6147 |
Reduction of environmental impact (C14) | (0.0359, 0.8308) | 0.6449 | 0.7222 | 0.6759 |
Employee accident (C15) | (0.0433, 0.8657) | 0.6636 | 0.7290 | 0.6937 |
Health of residents (C16) | (0.0300, 0.8163) | 0.6389 | 0.6822 | 0.7290 |
Final score | 0.4808 | 0.5186 | 0.5210 |
It is indispensable for the mining industry to find an appropriate backfill operational mechanism which will facilitate the development of the mine backfill business; therefore, this study proposes joint venture alliance; on this basis, the model is compared with the self-management and outsourcing model by the way of the integrated methods. In order to assess three operation models, the study puts forward the hierarchical framework and evaluation system of mine backfill business evaluation, and the IFAHP method is used to estimate the optimal model. It is found to draw the following conclusions through adopting the proposed approach. This study establishes a strategic and hierarchical framework for evaluating the backfill operation model in the mining industry, which fully takes into account sustainability and includes 6 perspectives and 16 secondary indexes. In addition to financial, stakeholders, internal process, and learning and growth perspectives, environmental and social perspectives are integrated into the framework. Considering the hesitant degree existing under the fuzzy environment and the fuzzy mathematical thought, this study proposes the IFAHP approach, which is applied to determine the relative weight of each index and total weight and calculate the final score. Due to superiority of the IFAHP approach, this method enables to reveal objectivity in the process of model evaluation. Therefore, the integrated method is addressed through applying SBSC along with the IFAHP approach, which better shows the combination of several factors concerned including strategy, sustainability, hierarchy, and objectivity. There are self-management and outsourcing generally used as backfill operation models worldwide, whose advantages are insufficient from the strategic and sustainability perspective. The novelty of this study lies in proposing joint venture alliance and exploring its superiority in the mine backfill management. Through comparison and evaluation of the models including joint venture alliance, self-management, and outsourcing, the results show that joint venture alliance receives the top score, next is followed by the outsourcing model, and the last one is the self-management model. Thus, joint venture alliance is considered as the optimal operation mechanism of the mine backfill, followed by the outsourcing model, and the self-management model has few advantages compared with the other models.
All data are valid and included within this paper.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 51874229, 51904224, 51904225, and 52004207).