In the knowledge worker space, there is a lot of work done that has no tangible outputs, except maybe pictures or words (or lines of code). In the built environment workspace, even as a knowledge worker, there is usually something to see. Having an approach to problem-solving which includes the idea of “let’s go see!” will enrich the experience. The 1992 book “Engineering and the Mind’s Eye” by Eugene Ferguson, points out that “remaining at one’s desk to speculate about causes and solutions, or to retreat to drawings, specifications and reports, won’t provide the insight needed to solve a problem”.

Those in the knowledge industries will understand the collective cringe that occurs when the request comes in: ‘please review and comment’.

Attached will be some long and probably tedious document which, in our knowledge environment, we know needs to be read and commented on, but… we don’t ever seem to be taught how to review and comment.

Document review processes tend to be cumbersome, inefficient, or simply never explained. The reviewer is usually under pressure for a deadline – since that’s what the last minute is for, of course. A strategic, systemised approach to document reviews will save time and frustration.

Advancements are not done to make life harder, slower, more expensive, nor inconvenient.

No one strives to be worse off. For humans to respond positively to change, successful achievement of the target must result in ‘better’.

With any target, the achievement of the target must result in a better outcome, for all. Those imposing the targets on others must truly believe the result for all is better with the target achieved.

With targets achieved and the consequences in play - including the unintended ones – the conclusion must be that business / the economy/humans in general, really are better off.

In this busy and distracted world, more times than not, we think we are working, but if we’re honest, we are not.

The only way to read a 20-page document is to put aside an hour, and actually read it. No kidding, there is no hack, there is no quick-fix, no easy-out. If you need to read, then you need a closed door, the phone off, and a cup of coffee or whatever gets you through it.

Knowledge work is about knowledge. And you can’t make that up.

If you’re going to show up for work, how about you do.

An accepted difference between training and education is that “education” provides knowledge and skills for unknown tasks that may be faced in the future, while “training” provides specific knowledge and skills required for current known tasks. Both types of learning are needed at different times, but it’s important to recognise the difference, and to identify which type of output is being sought. Furthermore, there is ongoing effort required to help make training stick, too, because training occurs at a moment in time, but a revised behaviour or approach to problems happens over many moments of time spent on the problem.

An overlooked aspect of developing competence is the importance of being exposed to challenge by peers and mentors during career development. Being surrounded by entirely supportive and nurturing co-workers will not provide exposure to contrasting views. Deep thinking, judgement and the ability to develop a clarifying argument must be part of a thorough learning experience. By not being challenged or questioned, a false sense of confidence in the depth and accuracy of knowledge will inevitably develop. Exposure to an alternative view and being faced with an opposing approach to solving a problem is essential to developing well-rounded and thorough thinkers.

Taking leadership courses, being involved in leadership development programs, and reading the Harvard Business Review are all solid, useful and beneficial. The real benefit comes through enacting the learnings. That is accomplished by being visible and being predictable. Being visible means writing, conversing, and showing up as yourself. It doesn’t mean being annoyed by a slight, or going for coffee at every opportunity, and it certainly doesn’t mean talking about people behind their back. Be consistent by writing thought-provoking ideas that are defendable, and by volunteering and contributing to committees, and, especially, be consistent and predictable in behaviour and outputs.

Those involved in projects will know the title refers to the ‘three-legged-stool’ of project management. And the answer always is, pick two, you can’t have all three.

There’s an argument that for every project, at some point along the way, the budget becomes central. It’s a rare project that is not under budget pressure, whether that is during the approval or financial investment decision point, or, later on when the project controls manager is producing reports that show the project is nowhere near meeting budget. So perhaps the three-legged-stool is misplaced. Meeting budget is always one of the two choices.

The concept of “knowledge management” gained momentum about 20 years ago, when companies shed people to reduce costs. In shedding those workers, the long-standing model of apprenticeship-type accumulation of knowledge, with heavy supervision and little independence for new employees, changed. The new model is a variation of just-in-time hiring and expecting that new hire to “hit the ground running”. The knowledge that this new hire brings to the company is expected to be enough. But businesses realised that while a new hire brought knowledge, it wasn’t necessarily a direct fit into their business puzzle. Better technical onboarding should fix that.

The claim is that early morning is the best time of the day to get things done. “Make better use of the most valuable time – the first 2 hours of the day”. That’s a grand assumption, that the first 2 hours is the most valuable time. Yet there’s a societal expectation that days start early, and if yours doesn’t, then you’re missing out and should give yourself a shake. Going to bed early is seen as good strategy but getting up late is seen as being lazy. Fortunately, the work world is getting more flexible, but there’s still a stigma.

Improving effective completion of a task comes from practise, and from multiple exposures, even if slightly different each time. The more opportunities for exposure to a task, the more quickly the improvement. Skills like playing a musical instrument, or participation in a sport or game, are obvious analogies for the benefits of repetition. Like those skills, knowledge work in the professional space benefits from repetition and frequent exposure. The challenge is in finding ways to design more than once, to apply an equation more than once, or even finding a reason to read the Standard or technical specification many times.

There is an enormous range of software available to help with your to-do list, to block distracting websites, to streamline email, to organise your files, documents, life. The hard thing to admit, though, is that technology systems are only one part to the puzzle. The puzzle includes people, process and tools. The tools – the technology system – is the shiny new option. But the process – the structure and principles behind the system – needs to be in place for the system to work. And the people, oh the people. That factor is probably the one with the most impact. That’s you, too.

Every decision has consequences. Hiring decisions, promotion decisions, decisions to award credentials: all have consequences. It’s easy to disassociate the decision with what happens after the decision’s made. Someone (else) will work with that new hire, and that new hire might be … different. Because, diversity. So, others face the consequences while the original decision maker does not. Same with awarding credentials, especially if judgement was required to award the credential, based on interviews or purported evidence. Not that this is inevitably problematic, it’s just that there are consequences. Celebrate the good ones and be prepared for the awkward ones.

The future belongs to those who invest in unique, deep and cognitive skills. Due to technical “advancements”, engineers and other credentialed workers now end up with administrative tasks filling the day.

Technical workers are expected to develop communication and business skills as a priority. There is a fundamental problem with the direction towards those non-technical skills: engineers should become engineers because their skills and personalities tend towards mathematical innovation and problem solving. Using an engineering undergraduate degree as a starting point for leadership is not wrong, but those who want to do technical work should be revered just as much.

In a professional services business, documentation is a key asset, and these are typically considered to be “deliverables”. Contracts, schedules, scopes of work, designs, drawings, technical specifications, even emails: these are all very important documents – or rather, deliverables - to be created, reviewed, approved, sent, stored, and archived.

Processes and procedures that do not, in the end, create deliverables, therefore, have lower value. Some processes and procedures are inputs to deliverables, and so they are important too. Check the purpose of the document being worked on: will someone else see it? Then it is a deliverable, and it is important.

The successful design of real things in the real world will always be based on a combination of art and science. The process of design includes unquantifiable judgements almost every step of the way. Experiences are a primary component of judgement, because that is the way to be exposed to mistakes, recognise where innovation can occur, and see the unforeseen. Experience by its nature requires a person to be immersed, to be in the thing being experienced, and for it to be personal to them. Judgement can’t be taught directly, since its application requires that that unforeseen be subsequently seen.

The statistical bell curve is taught in school. Statistically, a study of a population will yield a bell curve, or the ‘normal distribution’, where the most common answer or result clusters around the middle.

Given that phenomenon, it is puzzling that there is a relentless drive for perfection, for getting to the top, for being the best. The tragedy of the bell curve, though, is that most end up in the middle, no matter what effort is made. Most are not superior, nor better, nor more excellent. Statistically, we are probably just average, yet quite extraordinary while we’re at it.

What engineers do is hard to define. There are different types of engineers, such as under the traditional disciplines of civil or mechanical, and there are also new categories such as “technical specialists” and “managerial engineers”.

Along with the ambiguous functions of engineers, there is a gap in expectations between organisations and career progression. Some engineers expect to progress quickly to management; others with technical aptitudes may have no interest (or lack the skills) in managerial roles. The past decades have focussed on managerial skills for engineers. It should come as no surprise that technical training and experience have suffered.

A key task of managers is coaching and developing staff. A fundamental challenge in organisations is to release managers from an expectation of doing the work, going to meetings, and replying to emails, to allow them time to plan, organise and supervise the work instead.

Many managers are not comfortable dealing with others' career development, possibly because they don't have time: they are expected to be as productive as their workers.

Developing employees for future positions is an intangible and almost immeasurable task. Managers seem to be expected to address today's problems, rather than prepare employees for possible future positions.

There have been 60 “100 words a day” articles here so far. “100 words a day” appeals because it represents enough words to get a thought presented, but it’s not too many words to be daunting every day. Except for Saturday. There are no 100WADs on Saturdays around here.

The hard part can be finding new topics. The fun and challenging part happen after the writing of a couple of paragraphs. The next step is to go back to edit down, or up, to be exactly 100 words. It tests editing skills, to be only and specifically 100 words, each time.