Maryanne Wolf is a literacy researcher, and she strongly promotes the valuable skill of reading. But not the skim-reading on our phones and screens, she means actual physical books. In a recent article, she addresses the complex activities going on in our brains when we read books. “The medium of print advantages slower, more attention-requiring processes. The digital medium advantages fast processes and multitasking, suited to skimming information’s daily bombardments.”

We bounce around and think we’re going fast, but miss out a lot.

It’s a magical outcome from slow effort to connection and integration, which just doesn’t happen when skimming.

Expert intuition is not magical. It’s not even the purview of someone ‘extraordinarily smart’. Being an expert means being able to associate a situation with appropriate past experience. So, when there’s a cue, the expert accesses stored information in their memory, from previous experience or observation.

But that ability to remember doesn’t quite make you an expert. I may remember how to play tennis, but, that’s about it. So it is contextual. But I remember all my experiences facilitating a workshop or meeting. I use those memories to enhance the experience for everyone, so they benefit. That’s using my expertise.

Today I spent a bit of time in spreadsheets. For one task, I was putting together some data into tables and graphs to show numerical information about participants in a training course. Another had me demonstrating a gap analysis audit for a procedure that was updated recently. The third task was a matrix to identify where a project intersected with competency requirements.

Spreadsheets (I use Excel) are really good at, of course, calculations. They were invented with accountants in mind, but they have morphed into amazing mathematical tools. And also for tables to display information, even if it isn’t mathematical.

Goals and values are related attributes. Your values will influence your goals. Goals will be influenced by values.

Take, for example, the goal of climbing a peak (“summitting”).

Some will want to do it as fast as possible. Others will want to enjoy the journey. This demonstrates some underlying values: quick achievements, versus a meandering path.

Another value might be demonstrated by whether you do it alone, or in a group. Some value the striving for individual achievements, others prefer the joy of teamwork.

Neither example value characteristic is ‘better’ than the other; it’s informative to recognise our different motivations.

On March 4th, I’ll have made another successful journey around the sun. Time is tracked by celestial increments: earth’s rotation for our days, the moon’s journey for months, and a big circle around the sun for our years. Fifty-three is a lot of journeys around the sun, and most of them have been fun.

Three years ago at this time I was skiing. Four years ago, I was recovering from my fifth Ironman. Thirty years ago, I was about to graduate with my civil engineering degree.

Thirty years from now, I’ll be eighty-three, and probably a darn good lawn bowler.

Complex problems are characterised by their ‘murkiness’, and them being difficult to predict the solution, or even what it looks like when they are ‘solved’. By contrast, complicated problems are ones that may be difficult to solve, but you generally know what the solution might look like.

A checklist approach to complicated problems sets a structure for the solution, because you know what you’re aiming for. But complex problems by their nature evolve and change every step of the way. One possible solution is to extract the complicated from the complex, but this is harder to do than to write.

I’m currently leading an ad hoc working group of international experts, with the scope of work to wrangle an agreed set of defined terms for the high pressure pipeline industry.

We have representation from many different nations around the world. The meetings are held in English, and I’m very grateful for that.

The group understands that it is impossible to determine the ‘right’ definition for many well understood words. It’s a fascinating discussion, always. We’ve landed on a philosophy of trying to explain the term rather than define it. Nuances, context, and culture all play a part in this exercise.

A Japanese martial art concept to describe the stages of learning is “Shu Ha Ri” (learn, detach, transcend). I’ve English-ised it into “Shoe Ha! Re-“.

The Shoe/Shu step is ‘by the book’, where we repeat the known steps. Shoes on the ground.

With Ha!, we start making changes and improvements, achieving the same outcome by different means. Ah Ha! I can do that repetitive calculation by putting it into an excel spreadsheet.

In the Re/Ri step we depart from the book, completely re-writing the way to do the task. Innovation and creativity, sticking to the requirements but ‘re-inventing’ the way.

Experience is so very important when it comes to knowledge work. There is truth to the idea that our learning comes in 70/20/10: 10% formal training, 20% from discussing with others, and 70% from real-world on the job experiences.

I’d also suggest that our opinions hold more weight if there is experience behind it. I can talk about the various challenges of doing an Ironman triathlon, and my opinion has more weight because I’ve done a few. Similarly, if you’re discussing unique welding procedures or tricky construction methods, your opinion (aka judgement), is more trustworthy if there’s experience behind it.

Accountable versus Accessible is the current dilemma for knowledge workers. Our work style (be visible, be on time, be available) was built on the need for production workers to be in the factory making things. It’s so different now; for many, our ‘productivity’ is our ability to add value not necessarily make things. (Though, I support a move back to making things, but only sustainably, so that’s a conundrum for another time).

Our struggle now is to base our value on accountability to things we’re doing, value we’re adding. We shouldn’t base our work on being accessible at any moment.

We should strive to be present to the task we’re doing at that moment. Lately it seems that I’m constantly thinking about what I’m *not* doing in a moment, or lamenting what I “should” be doing at that moment. Instead of being present to the moment’s task.

But that’s not fair to that task currently in play. Even if that task happens to be swimming laps, which may not seem as ‘important’ as checking emails or reviewing a document.

I’ve only just recently figured out that I’m doing this. Just being aware of it helps me to be more present.

I remember noticing, about 10 years ago, how quickly I went from hardly having anything with a battery, to having many multiples of many things needing charging. Our iphones, e-watches, e-tablets, earpods, and many other e-conveniences, need to be plugged in every so often. Every day, for some items.

I’ve also recently replaced my e-bike with a new-fangled one. It was this first one, Nellie (RIP), bought in 2012, that made me aware of the need to know where a plug-in is. It used to be just about ‘where’s the next toilet’. Now it’s, “can I plug this in there?”

There are sixteen capabilities/competencies/commitments, whatever you might label them as, nominated by Engineers Australia as key achievements for engineers pursuing chartered status.

Writing just 100 words about each of the sixteen has been a challenge. One hundred words isn’t enough for any of them, obviously. But by distilling each of them into 100 words, I now have a greater understanding of how to make them ‘real’.

Key skills for any capability or competency are: firstly the ability to notice when you’ve experienced one, and secondly, most importantly, is being able to remember the experience for when it comes up again.

“Deal with ethical issues” is number one in Engineer Australia’s elements list of competencies required for Chartered status.

It’s true that ‘proving’ you’re ethical is more fuzzy than ‘proving’ you’re good at math or that you can finish your work to a deadline. Proving personal ethicality does require some thought.

But don’t romanticise ethics into grand whistle-blower newsworthy cases with heroes and villains. Engineering ethics are shown in our daily tasks and activities: they are in budgets, in spreadsheets, and in daily decisions like resource planning. Everyday decisions that show what is important to you and your company: that’s ethics.

Way back in 2003, I wrote a paper asking what the definition of a pipeline engineer should be, because even back then I saw the wide range of competencies a pipeline engineer could have. With engineering disciplines blurring, these definitions are getting more important.

Over the years I’ve explored how to measure competency, advised on how to acquire it, and helped with frameworks and mapping to visualise it. Being able to assess, acquire and apply appropriate competencies is a fundamental requirement of professional engineers. Part of that exercise is being able to concisely describe what your expertise (main competency) is.

An element of competence for those of us in knowledge work, particularly engineers, is the ability, and willingness, to take responsibility for our work. We should be able to acknowledge our role in decisions and actions (even if they prove to be incorrect).

Taking responsibility includes performing work in transparent and repeatable ways, so that it can be checked. It shouldn’t rely on black magic.

Responsibility also involves seeking inputs from peers and colleagues, and taking that feedback to make improvements to our work. The reverse is applicable too: providing constructive feedback to our colleagues is a responsibility as well.

We in the engineering arena have several obligations to the community. The “community” will change depending on the nature of work being done. It could be the public, or our colleagues.

When undertaking work, we always need to make it as safe and sustainable as possible. Safe for the workers and the public, and sustainable for the future.

I’m finding these competency platitudes hard to rewrite into something meaningful. Of course we have to be safe and sustainable! The trick is to see that in our everyday tasks, and to apply it when we’re developing spreadsheets and replying to emails.

Identifying and responding to stakeholders is an important task for anyone in knowledge work, including and in particular, engineers who design, construct or operate assets in the public space.

There are the big-picture stakeholders: the general public, the asset owner, the shareholders and the landholders which the asset will be on. These are massive, almost faceless ‘stakeholders’ who deserve more than being faceless. And that takes effort.

The small-picture stakeholders around us are just as important: our colleagues, our manager, the technical expert, the project manager. These stakeholders need for us do to quality work. Don’t let them down either.

In my very first working role, as a “co-op” student (internship) at the Canadian National Energy Board, I was assigned the task of developing a risk management tool for pipeline ruptures. This was in 1992. My deliverable was a rudimentary spreadsheet that calculated risk based on factors such as pipeline characteristics and wind direction. I still have the report.

What screams out at me is that it doesn’t consider *why* the asset failed, nor how to prevent that failure. The deep and specific effort to calculate risk into number should at least be associated with the causes and preventions, too.

Those of us doing “knowledge work” owe a duty of care to the public who are affected by the work done. It is an obligation in the engineering profession, both internally as a person, and externally to the public, to work within the laws, regulations, codes and other instruments which we are legally bound to apply.

It’s sometimes not easy to digest those documents, but we are obligated to take the time to investigate and understand them. Interestingly, norms and values (and ethics) are indicative of legal and regulatory requirements. This is a complex competency which needs some thinking about.