This afternoon, over 100 people in the pipeline/piping industry listened in for 3 hours to the APGA webinar “Pipeline Assemblies: where to put the spec/code/standard break between pipeline and piping”.

Providing technical learning opportunity discussions like this important. Clearly it is a niche environment: there are probably less than 500 people in Australia for whom this topic is of any interest, and only a subset of those who actually need the detail we talked about today.

Niche technical topics are like that: only a few people need to know about it, and, it will be disastrous if(when) no one does.

The urban dictionary or other entertainment-based resources will explain the background to the quip, ‘show the receipts.’

The phrase is an analogy for being able to demonstrate a confirmation, show proof, or provide documentary evidence that something was done or said.

In our professional lives, collecting receipts – proof of effort - is a smart idea. Then, when we need to demonstrate our abilities, we can show those receipts, to demonstrate previous effort undertaken.

In the world of career tests – like a job interview, or a performance review, or a credential exam, there is every reason to have our receipts ready.

Project resources are assigned to solve problems.
Sometimes throwing more resources at problems might help solve them faster. More hands, more eyes, more brains on a task can unlock a bottleneck.

Then again, throwing more at a problem doesn’t always speed things up.

I heard recently an acquaintance is pregnant; it reminded me of a project management quip about adding resources to solve a problem:

It takes nine months to make a baby, typically involving one woman and one man. If you’re in a rush, involving nine men, or nine women, doesn’t mean it will be done in a month.

There’s a collective cringe that occurs when the emailed request comes in: ‘please review and comment’.
Attached will be some long and probably tedious document, awaiting that review, with little further guidance provided. And there’s usually more than one person copied on the email as well.
Technology may be improving on this, especially within companies (hello document sharing), but not so when multiple organisations are involved (i.e., committee work).
With multiple reviewers, and no clear guidance on ‘what’ is supposed to be reviewed, it’s a recipe for confusion.
There has to be a better way, and I’m looking for it.

Today I listened in online to the research update seminar by the new(ish) research arm of APGA, Gas Infrastructure Research Australia.

The research program is exciting: consequence modelling, renewable gas connections, systems modelling from gas/molecules perspective, distribution networks integrity management, corrosion, cathodic protection and management of aging infrastructure, construction efficiency, emissions management, third-party interference, geo-fencing, data centres demand…

We’re an industry that is not standing still, not resting on the ongoing success of safely transporting fluids from source to user.
We’re very good at it, and we’re always innovating too.
Well done GIRA; I look forward to the research outputs.

Credibility is the new productivity.

For years we’ve been assaulted with productivity hacks. Lists, apps, reminders, time-blocking, another app, prioritisation routines: I’ve done them all (and still do many).

The ‘productivity’ equation (do more, and do it faster) has never been more tantalising, nor more solvable.
There’s AI for that: it’ll do it faster than you can imagine.  But should it be faster?

For ‘knowledge work’, professionals, and those with identity degrees, productivity is the wrong focus. Faster isn’t always better for thinking jobs.

Bring on the focus on credibility. Mark my words: credibility beyond credentials will become a thing.

On May 19th, 2016, ten years ago, my little venture, Sage Consulting Solutions Pty Ltd, was registered with ASIC.

I am very thankful for the original contract work I started out with, at Sydney Water via Critical Input, kick-starting my status as “self-employed”. Next, as risk advisor on Cross River Rail in 2017, thanks to Programme Consulting.

Since then, I’ve focussed on the high-pressure pipeline industry, which is where some of my favourite people are: and bonus, I get to work with them (or just socialise).

Here’s to ten, and probably another ten, because I’m just having so much fun.

I think those of us with “Identity Degrees” have been facing an upheaval. An Identity Degree is one that defines what you “do”: think accountants, lawyers, engineers.
I’m very proud of my engineering degree, and therefore, proud of my identity as, what, an engineer? Hmm. This is where the identity falters: if I’m not ‘doing’ engineering, am I still my degree? Similarly, someone with a law degree who is running a start-up company: what is their identity?
These types of degrees today are so different now. I think we need to explore what Identity Degree-holders will “do” in the future.

With my upcoming office move soon, I’m sorting through the paper and documents I’ve accumulated over the years.
By my nature I do enjoy sorting and organising, be it papers, or, well, laundry.

So, I’m reveling in the “what topic or category does this document belong to?”

Of course, it’s more like a multi-layer database, as I’d like to be able to “tag” the documents with multiple categories (score a point for online filing systems).

But in my current world of paper in boxes, I can only choose one.

Bonus: the whole exercise is developing new synapses in my brain.

In a 2022 Work/Life podcast, Adam Grant interviewed a free climber about how he faces the fear of such a risky hobby.
But I think he missed the mark.
The answer to, “how do you face the fear?”, was too simple:
“Do your best, take a deep breath and go for it”.

What he didn’t say is things like: learn your craft, practise, study the experts, research what you don’t know, admit when you’re outside your comfort zone, put in the time to get good.

Deep breathing doesn’t help if you don’t know enough about it in the first place.

Being a GenX 1970er, I’m starting to feel the mid-50s age reality: my moves are hard-earned, and sometimes I groan.
The word ‘moves’ had me thinking, though, of other kinds of moves in a lifetime.
Location moves: across town, or across the planet. Or occupational moves: to new career opportunities, or, to more of the same but with a different logo.

Moves are important to our development as a person and as a worker.
Aging bodies still need to move, despite the groaning. Similarly, a career is developed by moves of opportunity or circumstance, and sometimes we groan then, too.

Each day we do tasks, make decisions, respond to emails, etc.
How we do those activities reflects whether we’re an expert or a novice.

For me, when I don’t know what to do ‘next’ in a task, well, I’m probably still learning or at the novice stage. For tasks that reflect my expertise, I always know exactly what to do next.

We’re going to have to get much better at knowing (and admitting) when we’re an expert and when we’re not.

That's because “AI is good at doing grunt work for experts, not expert work for novices.” (h/t Jonathan Stark).

“[We] cannot manage process safety risk by managing personal safety alone.” This is a correct and insightful statement by Sean Brady*.

After a high-consequence failure in the oil&gas industry, the investigation often identifies management structure, reporting lines, and rewards models as contributing factors to the failure.

Businesses in the hazardous facilities arena rightly focus on personal (worker) safety. However, with pipelines, which transport energy through public spaces, it’s possible to have no workers anywhere near the asset; yet pipeline failure could have a massive impact on people (not workers).

Process/pipeline safety keeps the stuff inside where it’s supposed to be.

Anyone following me here on LinkedIn, knows that I have a deep interest in ways of learning, effective training, and developing competencies.

A few years ago, an industry research program investigated “case-based learning” as a way to impart knowledge and develop thinking skills. The research concluded that it is a very effective way to teach adults.

From that research, a curriculum was developed for facilitated sessions, particular to the pipeline safety topics I’m so familiar with.

I’m excited to be involved in the delivery of the Case-Based Learning via APGA, to share knowledge about capabilities such as future-thinking and decision-making.

Recently, our in-sink grinder stopped working.
Obviously, first we tried to fix it, unsuccessfully. Then we looked at replacement units: thousands of dollars.
Sadly, we knew that no service person would help us, not for a unit that could so easily be replaced. We have a similar story with our fridge.

Anyway, a friend-of-a-friend is a bit of a handyman, and offered to have a look. He spent a few hours with us chatting, $6 on a part, and now it’s fixed, and I’m so happy.

We are in a throwaway&replace society. I’m always trying to go against that trend.

When I was in high school, back in the late 1980s in Calgary, Canada, there was a debate team. Or, I’m pretty sure there was. I wasn’t on it, and (regrettably) had no interest in being on it. (However, I did take a typing class, and I am forever grateful for that, because touch typing without looking is just excellent).

I regret not being exposed to formalised debating, because that is a skill so worth having. The ability to develop a coherent position based on a structure like “what, why, when, who” is central to communication.
That’s the next excellence.

Dan Heath’s book “Drive” identifies three key factors in a person’s motivation to do work. He identifies Mastery (Getting better at things that matter), Impact (Being noticed while making changes or improvement), and Autonomy (Being self-directed enough to figure things out).

Later in Cal Newport’s exploration of deep work and slow productivity, he adds to the list Connection (working with others).

I think often of those four factors in my work, and in looking at the work of others: are those elements (mastery, impact, connection and autonomy) showing up, and in what way?
Because with them, there’s motivation, and satisfaction.

I’ve been doing “throwback Thursdays” on-and-off here on LinkedIn for a few months (not today, I couldn’t find anything I wanted to write about).
And over on Instagram, I do “on this date” posts, where on the date of something I’ve ‘done’ in my endurance event hobby, I post a humblebrag about it. (Today was the 2017 Ironman Australia).
This self-indulgence in public helps remind me of things I’ve done in my life.

It’s the things we do that define us. Actions make you who you are.
So: do things in your life, and don’t let yourself forget about them.

AS2885 is written for long-distance, buried pipelines, travelling long distances, to convey fluids through public property. The requirements in AS2885 reflect that scenario.

For pipelines to be complete, though, they also need bits of pipe (assemblies), usually above-ground, to change or control flow (branches, valves), or, to launch and receive cleaning tools.

Some say Assemblies ain’t Pipelines.
Some say they are.

That decision (Piping or Pipeline?) determines if the assembly is designed, constructed and operated to the AS2885 pipeline code, or, a piping code (B31.3, AS4041).

That crucial decision has important consequences for material selection, weld procedures and testing requirements.

We humans have this ongoing desire to make our lives easier, more convenient.
So, if you’re using AI, it might be making your job ‘easier’, and/or getting some tasks done ‘faster’.
The ironic thing is that it’s in the struggle to do hard things that humans learn, grow and thrive.
The Theory of Constraints, a manufacturing productivity theory from the 1980s, aims problem-solving efforts at bottlenecks (constraints), not on areas that are easy to speed up.
Everything is getting faster around us. Humans are still the (unfixable) constraint.
Don’t fix it.
That “bottleneck” thrives when challenged.
It withers when bored.