Threats (or hazards) that affect safety exist in some sense, at some level, in many facets of everyday life. And they are accepted, or controlled, or feared. Achieving a sense of ‘risk management’ is not absolute: it depends on the appetite of those involved, and therefore, it is more behavioural than scientific. Applying frequencies and statistics and predictions and layers of protection are all good methodologies, but these apply within the context of the people involved, and their perceptions and behaviour at the time of the assessment.

Risk management is less scientific and more behavioural than it sometimes might seem.

The leadership reward system favours the confident, talkative, gregarious, think-out-loud type personality. There’s another type of leader, though: one who leads through knowledge and respect, and who passes knowledge on quietly and with reverence. The world (and businesses) has all types, and the world (and businesses) needs all types. The CEO role fits a certain personality, but don’t make that wrong. The quiet leaders are also worth reverence for the difference they make with their different style. They don’t need to be CEO – probably don’t want to be CEO. It’s a different view of executive leadership, without being an executive.

Quality control (QC) can be simplified into the act of checking output. A sample of the outputs, nominally known as ‘widgets’ in a manufacturing sense, is taken to check that the output has met the requirements. There’s a whole industry around quality control (and management), but fundamentally it’s checking the output.

Knowledge workers are in an interesting position of not being consistently, officially subjected to checking procedures – not like manufacturing plants are anyway, where a statistical sample of outputs are selected for a quality control check. The knowledge worker output is generally trusted upon receipt, without a statistical sampling check.

A definition of respect is:

having a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something, elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

Or put another way, respect is the combination of credibility and competence.

And so, it is a feeling bestowed by one onto another; it's not achieved by declaring it about ourselves.

Respect is something that many want, but perhaps most would never say that out loud. Or, we wouldn't admit that's what we really want. Perhaps there's a deep human desire to be respected, but it's hidden by other, simpler wants: like being needed, or liked, or loved.

There are too many documents out there without purpose, without an owner, nor a defined lifecycle.

Strategic documentation saves money. Figure out the purpose, role and priorities of that document. The lightbulb will go on when you know why you’re writing or reviewing a document.

Be the one who retaliates a little, by culling your document responsibilities. Being asked to ‘review this document’ should always be accompanied with a thorough understanding of why, and what happens next to that document. If the requester can’t answer that, then politely say you’ll wait for the answers before you make time for it.

Competency is contextual. It is identified based on a role, a position description, or a title. For example: “we are looking for a competent civil engineer”.

Competency might be better measured against tasks rather than title. For example, “this civil engineer is competent at designing structural members.”

But it’s difficult to measure competency at thinking, and yet that is what knowledge workers – and creatives – need to spend time doing. Otherwise, the work is procedural, or done by rote, or can easily be automated. Innovative knowledge work relies heavily on the experience, skills and knowledge of the person doing the work.

Quality is sometimes defined as, simply, meeting expectations. A product that meets (or exceeds) our expectations is declared a quality product. The moment, though, when a product does not meet expectations (such as a new laptop failing within the first few weeks), then the quality of the product is immediately questioned.

In the knowledge work environment, expectations are often not clearly stated or known. Or, they are amorphous, ‘weasel-word’ type goals, like “be more productive”. These expectations are difficult to measure against, and so it’s easy to be disappointed. Move away from vague: set expectations that are tangible or measurable.

Recognising competence depends on the purpose, the outcome, and the depth.

The purpose recognises whether the assessment is for yourself, for another individual, for your team, or a company. The outcome depends on if the assessment is for a job applicant, a career path, or for a credential award. The depth recognises whether the competence is for a wide range of topics, or just one or two.

Competence has context. Without knowing the context, it’s like diving into an unknown waterhole without knowing how deep the water is, how to get out, nor why you’ve dived in the first place.

Documents are approved all the time, almost every day, in the offices of almost every professional services provider. That approval implies that the approver is aware of (and preferably has read) the content, and, if there are obligations included in the document, it is expected that the approver can meet those obligations.

In the risk, quality, and competencies arena, approval of documents means more than just being able to get to the next stage in a project.

Approval for activities related to the management of risk, quality, or competencies includes managing obligations towards the resources (people) needed to meet those requirements.

Exploring a technical topic to deepen knowledge about it takes time and effort. There doesn’t seem to be a unified globally accepted way to commence an investigation into a new or fledgling topic in our wheelhouse. It does seem, though, that every topic might have four things that can help with the exploration:

• Facts and data (the scientific and technical knowledge)

• Myths and mistakes (what has been, or is, wrong about the topic)

• Resources and references (the people and the books)

• Experts and Analysts (those with deep knowledge, and also, usefully, are those who question it).

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.