My service offerings (training, facilitating, auditing) to industry are very ‘deliverables driven’: there’s a defined scope with usually quite short deadlines. This means few long-term relationships with teams of people: I’m kind of wheeled in, do the job, and wheel me out.

For the last six weeks I’ve been in a role that had me more embedded in a team than usual. We were working to combine and improve a few documents. It sounds simple, but it meant many meetings, constant feedback, and strict deadlines.

It was a good experience that reminded me of the joys and satisfaction of teamwork.

I was startled by, and am still thinking about, a phrase I heard recently that applies to me as well: “I was born in the late 1900s”. Yikes.

The other startling reality that’s hard for me to comprehend is that youngsters today will likely see the year 2100.

The passage of time never stops, of course. We are but a blink in time; and while some things are topsy-turvy and hard for me to understand, I keep focussed on what’s actually important in my little life.

Always be kind, and, while you’re at it,  do the things that are important.

Today at the Qupex lunch, the full room was treated to a panel moderated by David Close, with panel members Darren Stevenson, Peter Dutton and Jarrod Ball. A terrific hour of in-depth discussion, with the theme being “energy security”.

Three observations:
·  A topic was “how do we get consumers to see our importance?” My notes say: “consumers shouldn’t have to think about energy security.”

· “Energy” is lumped together like it’s from the same source, same use case. It’s not: electricity is not jet fuel.

·  Simple is best. Complex and complicated systems are costly in all facets: time, attention and money.

Watching (fast) sports has been a staple my whole life. Originally ice hockey since I was 12, then the various rugby/footy styles for the last 30 years. (Next one Queenslander!/Allez Canadiens!)

Watching (slow) sports like cricket, golf, or baseball is a different skill. Patient, strategic, deep into statistics: a contrast to the speed and intensity of hockey or NRL.

I’ve recently been spectating a weird new (slow) sport out there: backyard ultras (when not participating). Currently only livestreamed or discussed on bespoke chat groups, ultras could become a niche spectator sport like F1 or MotoGP (without the money though, shame).

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.