Why Value Improvement Practices (VIPs) Fail
January 09, 2026
Value Improvement Practices (VIPs) are widely recognised as critical tools to improve capital efficiency, reduce execution risk, and strengthen investment cases in mining projects. Yet, in practice, VIPs often fail to materially influence outcomes.
From the perspective of mining executives and investment committees, four recurring issues explain why 👇
VIPs are frequently introduced too early, when engineering and cost data are immature — or too late, when the flowsheet and layout are already locked. In both cases, the ability to influence capital intensity, risk profile, and project economics is severely reduced.
➡️ Investment impact: Value is either unquantifiable or already committed.
The greatest opportunity to improve value exists early in the study cycle, before major capital decisions are endorsed. However, VIPs are often triggered reactively — after cost escalation or as a final check before FID.
➡️ Investment impact: VIPs become assurance exercises, not value-creation tools.
When VIPs are facilitated internally or without sufficient seniority, they tend to reinforce existing solutions rather than challenge them. As a result, decision-makers are presented with constrained options, not optimised alternatives.
➡️ Investment impact: Committees receive filtered outcomes instead of genuine value-based choices.
VIPs are still sometimes perceived as an added cost or schedule burden, rather than as a mechanism to protect capital and reduce downside risk. In reality, a relatively small upfront investment in structured VIPs can materially reduce:
➡️ Investment impact: The cost of not applying VIPs properly is often embedded permanently in the asset.
VIPs don’t fail because the methodology is flawed. They fail due to timing, maturity, independence, and governance alignment. When applied at the right stage — and facilitated independently — VIPs remain one of the most powerful tools to improve decision quality, capital discipline, and risk-adjusted returns.
