Most professional vocations require professionals to undertake “CPD”: Continuing Professional Development. This applies to at least the professions of lawyers, accountants, and engineers.

It seems there is even a sector of the economy that looks after professionals’ CPD, providing training courses and educational seminars to help with that professional development.

Unfortunately, I’ve also seen advertisements for companies that will “do” your CPD application for you. That service should never be needed.

“Doing CPD” should be a natural part of a professionals’ workload. A true professional has a natural curiosity to learn more and stay current. CPD shouldn’t be a burden.

In March 2020, I was caught up in the angst of being away from Australia. I was in Whistler enjoying a holiday at the time, and, well we all know what happened in the following weeks and months.

Nevermind, two and a half years later I’m fortunate now to be going back to Canada to visit the folks.

During the time when travel was difficult, I thought often of the early pioneers, who made distant treks, knowing they probably wouldn’t go back home again. It makes me appreciate, even more, that humans are meant to roam, and we always will.

There’s a preponderance of “just enough info”. We skim emails, race through reports, jump to the point in a conversation. Just enough so we know the topic. But is just enough good enough?

It’s like how we jump to a recipe in a cookbook, without reading all the preamble introductory information written by the author, putting the cookbook contents in context. No, we jump to the relevant recipe. Same with the preface in Standards publications: there can be plenty of insights in the preface or introduction, but no, we “CTRL-F” the word we want and go with just enough info.

Running a business includes the requirement to look at the numbers. Numbers such as revenue, expenses, profit margins; or the number of chairs, laptops, meeting rooms and coffee makers. These numbers factor into the healthy running of a business: you need the income (revenue) to pay for the outgoes (expenses). Simples.

But paying attention to numbers only risks leaving out attention to the other essential ingredient in business: the people. Most businesses don’t exist without people, and businesses don’t thrive without good people. That’s an even more simple equation, yet it might be getting lost in these times of upheaval.

The book “The Pursuit of Excellence” by Ryan Hawk seems to capture my thoughts. I’ve only read the summary, not the whole book, but the premise is promising: it’s better to pursue “excellence” rather than “success”.

The summary (via Blinkist) differentiates those concepts with “success is mostly based on comparison with others, whereas excellence is measured personally.”

Succeeding at something means you’ve achieved a goal. Sure, being goal-oriented is an important part of striving through a career. But this is finite: achieve the goal.

Striving for excellence is infinite and ongoing. It’s about striving to get better at your craft.

Brain productivity is not the same as product productivity. Time spent making a ‘thing’ (or many things) isn’t the same as time spent thinking.

Referencing ‘productivity’ feels wrong when it comes to clever work like engineering, sciences, technical problem-solving, and production of workable designs, reports, and deep thinking.

I don’t know what the answer is to prove ‘better productivity’ for thinking jobs, but measuring the outputs of your knowledge workers is not the same as measuring the number of widgets produced in a day.

We’re past the assembly-line thinking of the 20th century. Measuring ‘productivity’ for thinking-work needs a re-think.

Those of us who need time to do deep thinking, setting aside time to do undistracted work, probably have a love-hate relationship with that situation.

By that I mean, we know we need to isolate ourselves to concentrate on that work (such as really reading a document, doing a complex calculation, or drafting a reasonable email response to an unreasonable request).

When doing that work, we should simply be unreachable. We should have the phone off; email offline. I know it’s hard to extract ourselves like that from being contactable. But remember, teachers and pilots do it all the time.

I’m totally paraphrasing and adding to Seth’s 56-word blog from 27-June-2022: “What makes it a profession?” His insightful answer to the question is along the lines of: “Within an *industry*, it’s buyer beware, anything goes. But in a *profession*, there’s a service on offer, and standards and trust matter. Malpractice by one professional is malpractice by all professionals.”

Professionalism in the engineering industry(!) is so important to me. I’m deeply focussed on supporting new and not-so-new engineers to have the tools, confidence, knowledge, and encouragement to behave professionally. Standards and trust matter to engineers. And to those we work for.

Months ago, we ordered several household items for upgrade and replacement (fridge, sofa, vehicle). We’re still waiting, and the delivery projection keeps being extended. I ordered a sweater online; it arrived 2 weeks after the target date.

But this isn’t about current global supply chain difficulties. It’s about managing expectations on deliveries. In knowledge work, that’s your “deliverables”.

Late deliveries mean our lives have moved on, and maybe we’re not available to receive it anymore. Similarly with late deliverables, the project or client is let down, and has to adjust their schedule for your lateness. Your work impacts someone else.

I’m a believer in ‘time-block planning’, a key feature of Cal Newport’s writing and philosophies. It’s setting aside blocks of time for deep work, where you work on one thing, for an hour or two. Or twenty minutes if that’s all you can concentrate for. The point is, you’re not multitasking with other priorities like emails and drop-ins.

Another good concept is workflow being ‘pulled in’, not ‘pushed’ at you by others (hello social media). With time-blocking, you “pull in” the work you want to focus on and keep out the pushers. It’s hard to do, but it’s ultimately rewarding.

The ‘consistency before intensity’ quote is attributed to Bruce Lee of martial arts fame. I’ve recently heard it several times related to other aspects of life, such as forming habits, achieving goals, or following procedures.

The philosophy is that it’s important to do something consistently first. Then you can focus on doing it ‘best’ or ‘fastest’. For example, a walk every day is better than running 10km once a month. Creating a checklist of tasks is more efficient than trying to remember every step every time. Or, reading a bit every day rather than a whole book in one weekend.

Some out there have unwarranted confidence. They talk confidently but aren’t up to scrutiny on their statements.

Some have deep knowledge, but due to lack of confidence, they don’t broadcast it. Since they know they don’t know everything, they don’t say anything.

I like the parable about the bird on a branch. They don’t necessarily trust the branch to hold them, but rather their ability to fly if needed. Similarly, have the knowledge and skills to react. Be the one who does the work, produces tangible solutions. Don’t be thinking the branch will hold you up. Be able to fly.

It’s a good analogy, about the type of people we should want around us most of the time. It’s better to be surrounded by fountains rather than drains.

Think of those “fountain-ous” people around you: those fountains of energy, or inspiration, even fountains of humour, grace, professionalism, or independent thinking.

And of course, it’s far too easy to think of the drains: drains on our energy, confidence, time, or well-being.

Be aware that we all have tendencies towards both types. Few are only ever one type at all times. And some fountains to one, might be a drain to another.

Perhaps there is a lost appreciation for the ability to debate with informed, sensible, and considered discussion, in order to reach a consensus.

We should make the effort to develop debating skills. An exercise to try is to have a debate about unimportant things. Like what’s the best food, best movies, or best sport, or the merits or otherwise of hot versus cold weather or watching a movie in a theatre versus at home. Thinking through how to frame an argument for or against would be good practise.

Skills need practise. Practising skills in an adjacent context can be helpful.

There’s a whole cohort of people for whom defining goals and then striving for them is just a natural part of living. The last big goal that I achieved was finishing five ironman triathlons in five years.

I think that when we strive for goals, it’s even better when we have a witness (or many witnesses), whether a work goal or other pastime. Last weekend I enjoyed witnessing a colleague strive up and down the local cliff face here, 63 times, in aid of a deserving charity, and, maybe for him, so he could say he’d done it. With witnesses.

I recently listened to a podcast about Rubik, and his path to invention of the Rubik’s cube. One of the factors in his story was that he didn’t like school, he was bored by it, and got in trouble a lot. A lot of inventors have that background.

Meanwhile, I liked school, had no issue staying focussed, did the work, and rarely got into trouble, and I ended up with an engineering degree.

Engineers can be inventors, but I wonder if a lot of us are just conscientious problem-solvers, who diligently do the work.

There’s nothing wrong with that approach.

Making a (cash) investment usually comes with an expectation of revenue to follow. This is how start-ups, who all want to be unicorns, convince investors. They proffer the unassailable possibility of revenue to come, based on can’t-fail new technology. Think Theranos, WeWork, Jawbone.

Where there’s investment, revenue is expected to follow. Think about that, in the context of any investment you’re making, or others are making on your behalf. Research and understand the revenue stream that must follow. Or you’ll become another Theranos or Jawbone (both claimed technological solutions that didn’t work). Solutions that don’t work ultimately cost the investors.

Desire lines are that worn out track through the grass, where pedestrians would rather walk, when the walking infrastructure has been in the wrong place or the infrastructure is non-existent.

Workflow and procedures have desire lines as well. They show up when procedural steps are skipped, or done differently. It’s not that a person doesn’t want to get from A to B, it’s that it’s easier to do it outside the structure.

The best thing to do is accept it and change the flow. It’s not useful in the long term to punish those who have found a better way.

I was asked yesterday, ‘what is a risk engineer’? Twenty years ago, I was asking of my colleagues, ‘what’s a pipeline engineer?’ (And then I wrote an article about that, and ten years later we had a 240-strong competency framework for pipeline engineers. But I digress).

What is a “insert any modifier” engineer? Civil, mechanical, process, software, the list of modifiers goes on.

The modifier indicates a specialty field, to differentiate the conduit versus codes versus rotating machinery expertise. The modifier changes, but the noun doesn’t: {modifier} engineer.

The commonality being engineer, who inevitably is a multi-dimensional, technically-thinking, collaborative problem-solver.

Here’s an interesting re-frame of the political spectrum: Is the government’s purpose to solve the problems? Or is the government’s role more to set the conditions so that you can go about solving some of them yourself?

But let’s not get political here. Of course, it also depends on a lot of things.

The framing also applies really well to project managers, to organisational structures, and leadership teams too. Is the structure, role, or person, there to solve the problems directly? Or is it there to provide the support and structure and feedback for you to solve the problem yourself?