|
By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director at MeyerFire If you follow me on LinkedIn, you may have noticed that I’ve started taking my technical QA/QC job a little too seriously, pointing out errors in the AI slop that has now become the norm on the platform. You know the ones I’m talking about.  A very FAKE example of the type of Ai-generated infographics that circulate online I can’t scroll by without trying to spot the errors. Why bother? Why do I care so much? At first, it was just about accuracy. Someone on the internet was wrong! About something I know about!  One of my favorite xkcd comics (https://xkcd.com/386/) Now it’s become kind of a sick sport. I’m not on a crusade against AI. I certainly use it as a tool in my work life; AI is the best proofreader around! What bothers me is when AI slop is presented as helpful material, yet it’s riddled with errors. What is that teaching anyone? UNOBVIOUS ERROR It should not come as news to anyone that AI struggles with accuracy. I’m not proud to say I’ve gotten frustrated with a computer that gets commodity classification or nuanced (copyrighted) code interpretations wrong. Remember the “Will Smith eating spaghetti” videos that used to circulate as proof that AI wasn’t quite there yet? They were easy to laugh at because the mistakes were so obvious. Now the errors aren’t so noticeable. The hands have five fingers, the spaghetti looks real, and I find myself wondering if Will Smith recorded a video to troll us. The mistakes are getting much harder to spot.  Full Disclosure, I used Gemini to alter this already AI image to make my point AI is not the villain; it’s just a tool that people use to present their ideas. People said the same things about Photoshop, the internet, and computers. I wasn’t around, but maybe they said the same thing about the typewriter! Tools are there to help the person wielding them. But here is the point: we are our work. Our output reflects us. When the materials are targeted to be basic or fundamental, the audience may only have a vague background of the content; they can’t simultaneously learn and error check. So how do they know what’s accurate within an AI diagram, and what’s incorrect? And when errors are pointed out, it really grates on me when the response is, “Ignore those details! Just take the main point.” When people are learning something new, how are they supposed to know what’s correct and what’s AI hallucinations? The wrong conclusions may stick, and they’re just trying to learn! CALLING IT OUT This is not new, even though AI is. I’m sure we have all sat through a presentation where it was clear the speaker wasn’t prepared, or a webinar where someone slipped up and said the wrong thing. If you’re sitting in that room, either in real life or virtually, how do you handle that? Theoretically, the speaker would be receptive to constructive criticism in the right environment. Scrutiny makes content better. To me, it’s the same thing as commenting on AI slop, but is that really the best strategy? Is that helping anyone? WE ARE WHAT WE 𝚂̶𝙿̶𝙴̶𝚆̶ POST Just like in engineering, when we affix an engineering seal to a drawing, set of calculations, or a report, it doesn’t mean we personally drew every line, or wrote every word, but it does mean we’re responsible for the output. And we are required to stand behind it once it’s out in the world. There are formal processes for formal documents, like responding to permit comments and RFI’s. But informally, or when there are no processes, we still have to stand behind our work. Whether it’s stamped or posted, we own what we put into the world. It reflects us. I won’t equate an infographic with an engineering report, but if you post it, share it, or stamp it, it’s yours. You can’t blame ChatGPT any more than you’d blame a drafter or an intern. And it’s also respectful of your audience’s time. If it’s truly not worth your time to put together, why should we expect someone else’s time to read it? If you’re willing to put your name on it, you’re responsible for it. Whether you typed it or prompted it. DEALING WITH IMPERFECTION Now, I’m not perfect. We’re not perfect. None of us is. Mistakes are an assumed part of the process, that’s why there are built-in checks and layers to construction. Because this stuff is that important. We’re dealing with life safety, and often of an unaware public. And I assure you, we at MeyerFire certainly make mistakes too. Turns out it’s really hard to produce mistake-free content, no matter how many eyes are put on it. And we truly (truly truly) appreciate the superfans who challenge us when something isn’t correct, so we can fix it for the next learner. At the time of this writing, we have six outstanding PE practice questions and two videos that need correction on our site. As engineers, we won’t hit perfection, but responding to mistakes says a lot about how we operate. Just ask my 11-year-old daughter, who gave me the death stare when she was rehearsing her upcoming presentation, and I pointed out that Italy actually uses Euros instead of dollars. Or my husband, who is probably sick of me reviewing his materials. Or me! Who has definitely flubbed a few lines in recordings for my courses. TAKING THE HIT So often in the consulting culture, we’ll say we don’t have time for QA/QC or time to train the new hires, we’re barely keeping up with our workload. Quality work takes time, and we all know there’s a noticeable difference in our work when we’re prepared versus when we’re unprepared. But scrutiny makes content better. Ultimately, I’d rather take a friendly edit from my peers, my family, or my boss than a comment from a stranger. But I have to be ready for both if I’m truly owning my output. I would often tell my team that when you’re reviewing a submittal, you can tell a lot by how the information is presented. The same goes for a set of drawings. If you see mistakes on the small stuff or very obvious errors, you start peeling back the layers and find mistakes everywhere. On the other hand, if you can tell someone took pride and care with how the information is presented, that likely follows through with the care and attention taken with the technical aspects, not just the visuals. HOW TO ADDRESS IT?  How do you call out errors? So, what is the correct way to call out errors?
We know how to do it with permit submittals or submittal reviews, but how would you address an error in an in-person training? What about a webinar? And bad AI on LinkedIn? Is it a public correction or a private message? Or, silence. Does it even matter? When we work in life safety, I think it does. I’ll stand on that hill. We are our work output. And it’s important to stand behind our work, whatever it is. Especially in construction and life safety, the details matter, and affixing our engineering stamp to work means a high level of professional accountability. If you’re willing to put your name on it, it’s your responsibility. AI doesn’t change any of that, it’s just made it easier to forget.
0 Comments
By Joe Meyer, PE | Fire Protection Engineer / Founder of MeyerFire Time. Last week, I begged you to consider investing your time to free up more of it. Find low-hanging fruit, and get started. Start small. Make checklists, update templates, create a quick spreadsheet or organize your prompts. Find ways to help the future you by building tools that help free up your future time. The truth is – if we want to get out of the hamster wheel of running and running and running and only being busier, then we need to intentionally fight being ‘busy’ with being ‘effective.’ Being effective goes beyond just working more. We don’t have more time. We can’t, and shouldn’t, compromise our health, sanity, or family life to work more. Time is our resource that we need to fight for. “That’s great, but I’m already busy. I don’t have time.” “I’m not in a position to delegate anything.” “Once we get through this rush, things will calm down.” “My days/projects/tasks are never the same, I can’t build tools for them.” “It’s faster if I just do it myself.” “I’ll do it when things slow down.” “I already work fast.” “I have to fight too many fires each day to do this.” You’ve heard it. We’ve all said it. At the core, it feels like we’re too busy surviving to invest in improving. The uncomfortable part about owning our situation is that it requires us to step out of reactive mode. We have to think about what it is we want – sanity, less stress, less chaos, better work, more timely work, better clients – and work towards that with discipline, knowing that the payoff doesn’t result immediately. TRAP #1: URGENCY TRAP Underlying belief: Production is always more important than systematic improvement. Reality: Production work fills our capacity. Nothing changes without intentional investment. Parkinson’s Law says that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” We can’t expect change – that is, our own future six months from now to be better – if we continue doing the same things on the same path as we’ve done before. Intentional, focused effort has to come before some production work, even if it’s in a very small time increment. TRAP #2: IT’S FASTER IF I DO IT Underlying belief: Immediate progress is more valuable than future leverage. Reality: Doing it ourselves probably is faster. Yet, I am not the only person on the planet who is capable, nor can I do all the tasks every time. Articulating the task, the logic, the why, and systematically describing and improving the process is a better and more effective solution, especially at scale. TRAP #3: CONTROL BARRIERS Underlying belief: I bring less value if it doesn’t come from me. I have to bring the value. Reality: High-value contributors support others’ growth. They create systems, not bottlenecks or dependencies. If someone must be in control, or must be the ‘hero,’ then it’s difficult to be effective and improve as a team overall. Giving up control can be a very hard thing to do. If we look past our natural objections and are willing to make the change, then the question becomes – how do we actually do it? Ok, I’m here Joe. I don’t want to live in chaos. I don’t want to be so stressed. I’m over the glamour of being ‘busy.’ I want to take control of my own path. I don’t have all the answers, but I’ve read many books on this and have trialed many things. We have three fundamental levers to increase output. These aren’t all necessarily being more effective, but they are ways of increasing output. FIX #1: HIRE MORE STAFF + Increases long-term capacity - Slow (recruiting, hiring, onboarding, training) - Expensive - High effort/high risk - Inefficient systems with more people create more inefficiency FIX #2: HIRE OUTSIDE HELP This could look like subcontractors, third-party reviewers, freelancers or outside firms. This is the most underutilized path, especially by small and midsize organizations. + Relatively fast to implement + Pay only for what you need + Generally flexible + Can bring in specialty or varied expertise - Less control - Often expensive - Availability and schedule vary FIX #3: MAKE YOUR TEAM SUPERHUMAN This is the most-controllable option. It’s not motivating, threatening, or pushing harder, it’s making each person more capable and more effective. + Inexpensive to implement + Can start today + Highly effective & efficient teams tend to be stronger, faster, and leaner long-term - Requires quality self-reflection - Requires discipline - Requires more foresight and a long-term mindset - Longer ROI If we skip Options 1 and 2 (commonly not in our individual control), then how do we actually increase effectiveness? Not efficiency, which is getting more tasks done in our allotted time, but being more effective overall, which considers whether a task is worth doing in the first place. Here are the six ways, in order of priority, to improve effectiveness at the team and individual levels. Before this sounds too bloggy – these are real things I’ve implemented for the past ~8 or 9 years, and as a team, we revisit each quarter. SUPERHUMAN STEP #1: ELIMINATION Does a task really need to be done in the first place? Truly? If it’s never done again, what’s the impact? Is there any? If there are outdated parts of a role that don’t actually need to exist, the best and first thing we should consider is eliminating them entirely. We regularly think that “all tasks are important,” but that isn’t always true. SUPERHUMAN STEP #2: AUTOMATION What tasks, or processes, can be automated? One very specific way to think about this is what regular action do you do that follows a basic logic? Copying information from one source to another? Putting data into a spreadsheet? Delivering a certain regular report? Email? With any repeatable process, there’s a good chance that some or all of it can be automated. Online programs like Zapier, Make, and Microsoft Power Automate are automation tools that can take information from one source (an email, a report, a spreadsheet update) and trigger actions based on that source (run a report, create a chart, send an email). Many businesses skip this as too code-driven or requiring outside software engineers. It’s far simpler than that. SUPERHUMAN STEP #3: EQUIP If we arm our team with better tools, better resources, better templates as a starting point, better libraries – what could that do for us? What if every project we estimated, designed, or reviewed was 80% done before we even started? What would that look like? Commonly, that’s having an incredibly solid starting template. Features that are pre-loaded, just ready to pounce on the new project. Templates and libraries are really easy to improve, and have a very quick ROI. But beyond that, how can we surround our production team with resources that make them far more effective in what they do? Do they need better software that’ll allow them to run faster? This step is all about improving and equipping our team to be far more effective.  What if your team was full of a bunch of Jose Cansecos in his prime, minus the 'roids? Or better yet, if your team was supported with tools that were amped up, ready-to-go, where your work was 80% done before you even started? SUPERHUMAN STEP #4: TRAINING
What knowledge could someone have that would make them more capable? What knowledge could we have that would make us far more capable? Sometimes expanding our skillsets is a way to broaden our understanding and creativity that helps foster better long-term outcomes. Quality training will do that. This could be paid training, books, or YouTube. Skill growth helps us all improve in the long run. SUPERHUMAN STEP #5: REFINE THE PROCESS This is often the most powerful one to unlock, but it requires a lot of self-awareness and thinking in terms of systems. From start to finish, how can we improve our process so that we don’t have to repeat work? What steps must be done before moving on? Essentially, what are our “go” and “no go” situations before we proceed? If we can reduce or eliminate rework, we’d be dramatically more effective. What workflow, or what process, gets us there? Here, we first need to identify what our process is (most organizations don’t do this). Second, we look at what’s included – are there things that should be added or removed? Third is the order – what ideally comes before other things to reduce rework. And last, how do we systematically attack the things that take the most time? We want to improve the flow of work so that it’s smooth, consistent, on-time, and high quality. We don’t want to work harder; we want to work smoothly and seamlessly every time. SUPERHUMAN STEP #6: GET SUPPORT Where do you go for help? What support systems do you have in place? Where do you research for help? When you’re in a jam, is there someone in the office or outside who can help out? Is there a forum that can weigh in? Are there informal or formal interpretations you can gather? Knowing where to go and having resources handy can keep our work moving in a forward direction. If these concepts are your jam, you need to check out our courses BS103 Secrets of Effectiveness in Fire Protection and BS101, an Example Workflow. In these two courses, I elaborate real examples of what I did in a design setting and what the results were - with data of what happened as a net result over 2 years and 58 projects. THE HARD TRUTH Here’s the hard truth – no one is coming to help free up your time. Not your boss. Not your clients. Not the market. If anything, we tend to gather more responsibility over time and the work just keeps piling on. There’s no glory in being busy, or stressed. If we don’t change anything about our future course, we’ll keep getting more of the same results. If that’s not sustainable, then we need to start small and create the change we want to see for ourselves. Start small. Do it first. Momentum doesn’t come from one massive change, it comes from small, repeated investments in yourself and improving your processes. Six months from now, you’ll either be slightly more overwhelmed than you feel today, or operate with more clarity, a little more control, and a little more margin. It’s shaped by what you choose to change today. Hope you have a great rest of your week. - Joe  A man is walking through the woods and sees a lumberjack working hard to cut a tree. The lumberjack is exhausted, sweating, and has been sawing for hours with little progress. The man asks, “How long have you been cutting that tree?” Lumberjack replies, “Five hours – and I’m exhausted!” The man looks at the saw and says, “Why don’t you take a break and sharpen your saw?” The Lumberjack responds, “I can’t, I’m too busy cutting!” There are different versions of the parable; you may have heard it before. Yet today, more than ever, our work lives are too busy to spend time helping ourselves out. OUR CRITICAL ASSET Our most critical asset is time. It’s a massive limitation, and yet we are all given the same amount each week. What I’d like to beg you to consider is investing your time in your future. Not in a “work hard today so you don’t have to tomorrow,” or even “go make as much money as you possibly can,” that seemed to be an undertone in our parents’ and their parents’ generations. I’m talking about investing time in order to get more time back. THINKING LINEARLY Our brains evolved to survive in environments where change was mostly linear and local. Survival was based on gradual change, local change, and physical outcomes. We’re wired to be extremely good at pattern recognition, cause-and-effect thinking, and short-term projections. Not long-term exponential returns or compounding benefits. To be fully candid, it’s a topic I can’t wrap my head around. Not in a self-deprecating way, but in a "I see it but struggle to accept it" kind of way. I can see it on paper. I can map it out. I can see investment in concept, but every projection I write or spreadsheet I drag out, my inner gut simply cannot accept that future path to be true. It’s as if once the trajectory starts to curve, I reject it as being far too sunny and optimistic. So if you look at compounding returns as a magical theory of futurists – I can appreciate that because my inner gut agrees with you. That said, it’s time to think of your most precious resource as a very important investment. If you’re busy – overloaded – more stressed than you want to be – or working with smaller margins than you want to be – then you need to invest in getting back your own time. Metaphorically, it’s time to stop sawing the tree and time to spend even just a fraction of your time sharpening your own blade. The funny thing is that I actually just came from the future with the future you, and the one thing you kept saying was “PLEASE TELL ME TO FREE UP MY TIME! IT’S CRAZYLAND OUT HERE.” So I’m doing the only responsible thing I can think to do and tell you now – it’s time to sharpen your blade. How can we invest time in our own methods when we don’t have any time? How can we invest time when we don’t have any of it? I’m already working 50 hours a week! A few tips that have worked for me. TIP #1: JUST START First, start. Start with just 15 minutes a week. You have to start a snowball by rolling just a little bit of snow. You can’t eat an elephant without taking the first bite. Any progress is better than no progress. TIP #2: START SMALL Second, start small. Don’t shoot for that report template that will take a week and has been on your to-do list for three years. Don’t. Start small, exceptionally small. That one detail that you have to change, and it irks you on every project. That one paragraph you have to hunt down and paste into emails every few weeks. That one prompt you can’t easily find and have to go look up. Start small with easy wins. TIP #3: DO IT FIRST Third, do it first. Your week will have fires you’ll have to put out. You’ll have meetings. You’ll have your workload. If you save this “sharpen the tool” effort until Friday afternoon, it will never happen. You know that to be true. If you want it done, do it first. Before anything else. Remember, we’re only starting with 15 minutes a week. Do it before you even open up your email in the morning. TIP #4: GRAB THE LOW-HANGING FRUIT Attack the lowest-hanging fruit. The analogy is obvious – the lowest-hanging fruit is the easiest fruit to grab. Start there. Start with small, quick and easy wins to regain even small chunks of time.  TIP #5: REINVEST YOUR TIME SAVINGS Then finally, reinvest your time. At first, your time savings are extremely small. That’s how compounding works. Your 15-minute time investment that first week should only save you a minute of work in your next. Maybe, maybe you earn a minute back… fine. Add that minute to your 15 from week 1, and now you’ve got 16 minutes to reinvest into sharpening your saw. Update your templates. Update your library. Save down your process. Make a checklist. Save down a good prompt. Organize. I’ll talk more about methods next week, but these investments are all about you building your own tools that help you work more smoothly and smartly going forward.  Investing to earn back small amounts of time at the start rarely shows up in breakthrough wins, and that's OK. After Week 2? Same thing, maybe you earn a minute more of your time back. In fact, weeks into recharging your life, we’re still talking about very, very small time returns. If you gain back just 10% of your invested time as future time savings… it actually accrues exceptionally slowly. Here’s what investing 15 minutes at the start of your week looks like, represented at scale:Nothing amazing happens, even weeks in. That’s very commonly the frustration I think we’ve all experienced at one time or another. What little time we spend improving our own workflows, we get so little time back, and then we get busy and give up. If we’re going to break through to what the other side can look like, it’s a longer-play. Prioritize earning your time back first, work with small wins, and roll that time savings forward.  Even after some period of continued effort, early returns on time are small. It’s easy to project – run the numbers and make the assumptions you’d find realistic. My feedback here is that early on, we’ll hardly see the results. It’s only down the road, as each of these little changes compounds, that we’ll start to see the results. When I first went into business for myself, I found that working hard on improving any one thing never showed up with quick results. It was always about six months later when I’d think, “Oh, that’s a lot easier now,” or “That’s not a problem anymore.” The returns were never immediate. And I think that’s generally a healthier mindset looking forward. If we want to change any one thing six months from now, we have to push hard at that thing now.  In the later stages, the compounding effect is real. Lots of small improvements start returning outsized return on time. Our individual workloads begin to look a lot different when we have high-quality, streamlined processes and improved workflow. It's necessary for high-impact teams and team leaders, but it's also what we need more of in our industry. We work our way into getting 1-hour a week back. Then, it’s 2. Then it’s more, and more, and more. All the while having just as good (if not better) output than we’d had before, yet having more time. Better, more consistent processes. Better quality work. Less stress.
I’m talking in concept. It very well sounds more philosophical and theoretical than real-world boots on the ground realism. But anyone who knows me well or has worked with me in the past ten years knows this is very much a real thing – a real way to operate. Have a worklife and workflow that’s more predictable, lower stress, with more consistent and higher quality work than before. I’m not asking for your time for something I need. I’m asking for your time for something you need, and we all need. Get your time back, where you’re more in control, doing the best work you’ve ever done, and living a healthier, less-stressful life through that process. Next we’ll talk on the objections that we get when trying to live in fantasy-land, but more realistically address how we can best invest our time to earn more of it and our sanity back. Check it out here. - Joe We're excited to share updates on the second-most popular tool in the MeyerFire arsenal - the Water Supply Analysis. They've been a long time coming. WHAT'S NEW CLEAN PDF REPORTING Tired of snippets and half-hazard reports? We are, too. One-click print can export into a clean PDF report. Adjust your margins to 'minimal' if you have extra pages. EXPORT THE GRAPH TO CAD & IMAGES How many times has someone asked to just get a simple log chart result for a report? Now you can do so instantly. Print the entire report to PDF, or simply export just the log N^1.85 graph and use as you'd need with one click.  Cleaner PDF Reports MULTI-FLOWING HYDRANTS Flowing multiple hydrants? Convert pitot-to-flow or just use a straight flow override to sum multiple flowing hydrants. The 'override' will take a simple flow input, or the Pitot information will do the conversion for you.  Now record results from multiple flowing hydrants MULTIPLE DEMANDS Have multiple calculations - like different systems or design areas? Now you can input multiple system demands and compare them to the same water supply.  One curve compared against multiple system demands EXPORT TO CAD Exporting water supply information to CAD can make summarizing system demands and water supplies much quicker and easier - but more importantly - it could allow the calculated information to live with the documents. Results that live on the documents forever are far less likely to be lost with time, and could save owners thousands of dollars in expensive re-calcs to complete future placard information. Personally, not having access to prior hydraulic calcs or historical water supply results is easily one of the most frustrating aspects of design when there are renovations or tenant changes years later.  Export the results to CAD, instantly. BETTER DOCUMENTATION Now capture not just a description of the test location, but hydrant locations (such as coordinates from Google Maps) and elevations. METRIC We have a native metric support embedded into the main tool. Use one toggle to flip to SI units at anytime. INSTANT FIRE FLOW & DEMAND COMPARISON Each test will show estimated Fire Flow and safety margin compared to a system demand. For our Toolkit and MeyerFire University users, we've added one more big one: MULTI-FLOW-TEST COMPARISON (PAID FEATURE) Take historical data and chart them on the same water supply curves. Compare multiple tests to multiple system demands, and see them all in one snapshot and one report. This is a really powerful feature for historical comparisons on water supplies, comparing new versus old flow tests, comparing hydraulic placard demands versus new water supply data, comparing multiple placard demands versus multiple flow tests, to summarize a whole package of calculations, and more. Many applications here. These can all be exported to image, PDF, or CAD in the same way.  Now compare multiple system demands to multiple flow tests in one snapshot. THE WHY A prototypical two-hydrant flow test, at one point in time, and compared to one system demand, might cover a majority of cases. But to go deeper or understand the time component of water supply change, or compare behavior of one supply across multiple calculations, we need a tool that can handle that. We want our recommendations and calculations to be more transparent, more defensible, and easier to explain. I'm excited to finally bring this to life. They're live right now: These tools have long been one of the ways we hope to positively contribute to the industry by providing meaningful resources that are relevant to you. I hope you find them helpful. - Joe One of the recurring frustrations I hear from employers in our industry is the need for more talent. Not just adding warm bodies, but people who care, who want to be in fire protection, and want to grow. If you’re in the business of hiring talent, today's read is for you. FIXES FOR RECRUITING Historically, we keep approaching the problem in the same way. "We need to recruit." "We need to talk in high school classes." "We should do college lectures." "We should be at career fairs." "We should be doing more fire protection programs." "We should put on middle school events." All those things can help. All those things are not bad ways to advocate for the industry. But historically, they haven't moved the needle - because today we still have the same problem we've always had... we have too few people in the industry. Those are legitimate ways to make connections. The problem is just that it isn’t working. RELIABLE RECRUITING PIPELINES Companies and organizations (for-profit and government), especially mid- to large-sized ones, have long recruited more systematically. We show up at college career fairs, maybe do a guest lecture or two at local schools, and try to make connections and build interest in our field. I am a product of a guest lecturer who came and spoke of the fire protection industry (shoutout to Cindy Gier in Kansas City!). It was my sophomore year in college, while studying Architectural Engineering, where she guest lectured about fire protection engineering and what a career in fire protection could be. It's why I'm here today. Those approaches are real, and they're positive. The problem is that it demands a lot of time, consistency, and effort just to find the few of us who make our way into the industry. There’s a whole lot of time and effort just to get a little trickle of students into our field. We’re casting many small nets, here and there, in a gigantic ocean. It’s not entirely an effort problem. It’s a scale problem.  FIRE PROTECTION DEGREES In mechanical engineering, you can show up to one of hundreds of college career fairs and (boom!) you have 100+ candidates that have a relevant, directly-applicable degree. In fire protection, we have engineering and tech programs, but of course, many of us know that they’re not enough. Too few programs, too scattered, with too few graduates. There are geographical issues (think "no fire protection programs within a 6-hour drive of my business"). Then there's natural constraints of competition for those students. We know the numbers – we studied it just a few years ago - in the architectural and engineering space, 88% of people entering the fire protection industry don’t start with a fire protection degree. There are more people like me (with an Architectural Engineering Bachelor’s degree) than there are with a Fire Protection Engineering Bachelor’s degree when entering the field in the A/E space.  For contractors, it’s even more rare – 98% of people entering contracting work in fire protection didn't start with a fire protection-degree.  We don’t educate fire protection at scale. That’s not necessarily the problem for recruiting, though – you and I and many others often end up in fire protection without an education in fire protection. We tend to do just fine.
Though it could certainly help, the problem with sourcing talent isn’t that we don’t have enough formal fire protection education – it’s a scale problem. ACTING IN SELF-INTEREST ALONE HASN'T WORKED Imagine you're an employer. You need spin more students into fire protection so that you can hire and grow your business. If you talk to 200 mechanical engineering students - how many do you think you could convince to pursue fire protection? Even if the time invested was minimal - say you give a lecture on fire protection in a hall of 200 students. How many do you think you could convince? Maybe, what, 1%? Get just two students to recognize the potential and be open to fire protection? Could you do that reliably? I'm not a betting man, but even just a 1% success rate seems like a very steep hill to achieve once, let alone consistently. And - here's the kicker - even when you do that lecture, it very likely won't ever even benefit you. Even if you do somehow manage to get a few interested students, the likelihood they'll be open to fire protection, and go into the industry, and work on your team is incredibly low. The people who are doing those kinds of volunteer lectures really aren't acting in their self interest - they're doing it for the good of the industry. In the case of Cindy speaking to my class, she actually wasn't hiring and didn't even have the intent to hire in the future! Very selfless. It's not that advocating for the industry in this way is bad. It's a great thing. But for recruitment, it's simply a scale problem. We probably don't need to be talking to 200 mechanical engineering students to get 2 to go to fire, we probably need to be talking to 1,000 students - or even 10,000 students - to reliably get a half-dozen to join our cause. It's a scale problem. I don't know about you, just taking a wild guess here, but I doubt any of us have time to volunteer to talk with 10,000 students in the hopes of bringing a few over to our side. We can't forever rely on word-of-mouth, career fairs, and lectures to address the overall needs of the workforce. NEW(ER) APPROACHES Some look at it and say "great, let's create a social media channel" or "lets pay the way for a few students to attend a national conference." And that's a start, sure – I shouldn’t bemoan anyone who cares about this and is trying to carry the torch. Carry the flag forward, absolutely. But social media today too often is an open ‘well I hope someone finds this’ while competing for eyeballs against multi-millionaire TikTok and YouTube professionals. The reality is that getting people attention about what we do, organically, is really, really difficult to pull off. If we truly want to solve the problem, we need to cast a much wider net. To me, the obvious answer is digital. And not necessarily a social media answer. Cast a net at scale, so we consistently get in front of lower-visibility students with a real chance to build awareness and provide a path for talent to join us. A FOCUSED STUDY I’m excited to say that we’ve started working with an independent team of college engineering students (non-fire protection, intentionally), to take on exactly this issue of scale. How can we, as the fire protection industry, be relevant to engineering and technical students who don’t know that the fire protection industry exists? What messaging is most effective? In what ways can we help them get what they want most? And how can we cast a net, at scale, so that we find the interested Mechanical Engineering student at New Mexico Tech, or the Architectural Engineering student at The Illinois Institute of Technology, or the student pursuing an Associate’s in Drafting at a local program – all of which have talent and express an interest in fire protection? Our hypothesis, today, is that there has to be a way to sustainably cast that net in front of the right groups of students. There has to be a way to effectively sample if someone has an open-enough perspective to consider fire as a career. And, if someone does have an interest, find effective ways to support them with meaningful industry connections who may want to hire them. My gut says there has to be a sustainable way to pull that off – because there’s so much benefit to the industry in doing so. Messaging? Incentives? Validation? We’re just in the early starting stages of this effort now, and by June this year (2026), the intent is that we have a path to identify talent and help connect them with industry. Brainstorm, test, validate. I'm optimistic that in the right spaces with the right messaging, we'll find the diamonds in the rough. We (MeyerFire) aren’t hiring – but we do play a role in the digital space in this industry. If we can cast that giant digital net and find the interested talent, and create that student-to-industry connection - then I think we have something here. Your input here on this goes a long way. So my question for you, as an interested member of our industry: when we’ve identified students with an interest, and given some initial fire protection crash courses… What are the things you would want to know about a prospective student hire? What do you want us to validate about potential interested candidates? What do you want them to know? Are you only concerned that they’ve expressed interest in fire protection, or that they’ve completed a few initial ‘crash courses’ in fire protection? If we’re able to find interested student talent, do a small bit of initial training, and introduce them to our field, what is it that you want to know about them and want us to validate? As a student, I would have killed (figuratively) for a list of 20-something fire protection employers and their hiring contacts when I was seeking that first internship or first job. That would be an incredibly rewarding thing for a student looking for a job or internship. Conversely, for employers, I would imagine getting a regular email report of students at different local schools seeking internships or jobs and who are interested in fire protection would also be beneficial… ‘here are leads for interested students in the area’ kind of thing. Right? What do you say? What a year. At MeyerFire, it's been a year of adaptation and laying foundations. We've added exceptional staff and have laid the groundwork for a far higher (and better) ceiling than we've ever had before. While that sounds like good theory, I couldn't be more excited about what we're building and the increased impact we'll be able to make just in the coming few years. As we near the end of the year, it's a good time to reflect on which new content resonated with our community and revisit a few things you may have missed. We regularly update and send content as well as write all-new pieces. Here are the Top 10 New MeyerFire Articles of 2025: We built this site to drive positive change in parts of the industry that need it. Thank you for being part of our community here in whatever capacity you choose to be - a reader, learner, commenter, whatever. I'm thrilled you're part of making our industry better.
Thanks for reading, and I hope you have a great rest of your week. - Joe One of the things I feared most when I had my first real job was that I was going to be exposed as a complete fraud. Yes, I had a degree. That degree had a grand total of 9 credit hours specifically to fire protection, which statistically is more than roughly 90% of our industry starts out with. But, see, the problem was… that I knew nothing. I knew this. But my fear was that when I made my first phone call to someone on the other line, they’d quickly know this too. And that all came in the form of my first ‘code call.’ THE CODE CALL We used the term code call, I don’t know what you might call it, but it’s just a touchpoint check in with the AHJ to be sure that (1) we’re on the right track with applicable codes and standards, and (2) that we coordinate jurisdictional needs. What good is a set of engineering bid plans, if we halfhazardly threw an FDC in the wrong spot? Or the fire alarm control panel? If we referenced the wrong codes? If we stipulated too low of a hydraulic safety factor? If we located the hose connections on the wrong landings? The answer is no good at all. If we’re not helping clarify and coordinate the needs of the project with the jurisdiction, then we, as consultants, are simply getting in the way and making things more difficult than they need to be. IMPOSTER SYNDROME Back to that phone call. How long would it take for the person on the other line to realize that I knew very nearly absolutely nothing about fire protection? That if they asked one clarifying question, it would call my bluff and I’d have no escape? Ten seconds? Twenty seconds? It wasn’t an irrational fear, nor was it overwhelming. I made that call. And more after it. And I did make a fool of myself. I once asked “do you require duct detectors to be located on the supply side, return side, or per code?” The response: “Why would it be anything other than per code?” Ope. Game’s up. I have no idea. Time to pack the bags and find a new career. All drama aside, I survived. Sometimes failed. I learned. I slowly grew to understand the purpose behind our list of questions. Who were these people I was calling? That’s half the game. Sometimes it’s a Fire Marshal. Sometimes it’s a plan review as part of the building department. Or fire department. Sometimes it’s the volunteer combination of Fire Chief/Marshal/Inspector/Reviewer. Sometimes they were the nicest people I’ve ever met. Sometimes hostile. Just goes with the territory. I’ve had jurisdictions that wouldn’t pick up the phone unless I called from a local area code. And I’ve had others apologize because they wouldn’t be able to run a flow test for me until Monday morning. (I had called on a Friday. At 4:45pm). Diatribe aside, I’d like to share the list of questions that I ask – (1) – so you can critique and help us all improve upon the list of questions – and (2) – so that future generations of inexperienced callers might not have to suffer the imposter syndrome that I did with those first few calls. WHO IS THIS FOR? Here is my developed list of questions that I would ask today for a code call. This is very specifically used for consultants to coordinate requirements with AHJs before a bid set is issued. Why isn't this used for contractors? Would I ask this when doing shop drawings? No; I might coordinate FDC types and locations. Coordinate standpipes. Coordinate some fire alarm or waterflow questions. However, a designer at the shop drawing stage is not the person to determine the scope. They can and should coordinate, but not determine scope. A consultant's role is to determine the scope, so principally these questions are supposed to happen before bids ever take place. These do have cost impacts. MY LIST OF QUESTIONS (AND NOTES) Below it is a very short context for why I ask the question. Code basis can wait for now. This is long enough as is. What I ask from you is what you would tweak? If you’re an AHJ, how can I better ask the question? How can I better clarify the intent of the question? OPEN-RESOURCE FOR CODE CALLS We’re actively working on an open and free tool just for code calls. Some time ago we tried a spinoff code call database, but the enthusiasm for jurisdictions to volunteer information wasn’t something that we could get to scale. So I’d like to try this from a different angle. My hope is that, if we construct this open tool right, and educate around the process in the open, it could be a tremendous resource for both designers and AHJs to meet in the middle and have coordinated projects that meet the needs of each jurisdiction. Easier and better results, every time.  A new code call resource for designers and AHJs to better coordinate local requirements is in the works. So, here’s the list of questions that I would ask today, almost like a script.
My own personal notes are italicized below each question. BRIEF INTRO Thanks for taking my call. I’m Joe Meyer, designing the [project] at [address]. It’s going to have [fire alarm/sprinkler/standpipe system(s)], and I’d like to ask you a few questions to make sure we’re coordinated with your department. Should take about five minutes. Is that OK? → Note: If the time isn’t good, or they’d prefer an email, I’d go that route instead. APPLICABLE CODES & STANDARDS 1. Great. Your website says you’ve adopted the [2012/2015/2018/2021/2024 IBC or NFPA 101], is that correct? → Note: Doing the research ahead of time is key. Without it, it makes the listener feel like they’re doing the work. 2. Do you adopt any specific editions of NFPA standards like NFPA 13, 14, or 72, or just whichever edition is referenced by your building code? → Note: Many people don’t know this, but IBC Chapter 35 and NFPA 101 Appendix D or E will actually list which editions of NFPA standards are referenced. Some jurisdictions will adopt very specific editions, which is why I like to ask the question here. Following questions noted with an asterisk (*) are only asked if necessary. FIRE ALARM* 3. For fire alarm, we intend to locate the main control panel in [front entry/main electrical room/a back of house area]. If we do so, do you require an annunciator panel at the building’s front entry? → Note: For small buildings with one main entry where the FACU is located near the entry, no annunciator is usually needed. For larger or more complex buildings, when we might not want the FACU at the front entry, having an annunciator at the front is a very reasonable need. 4. Does the fire alarm monitoring require a listed Central Station Service, or is standard code-required monitoring, like a supervising station, acceptable? → Note: Jurisdictions that require a listed Central Station service usually know what it is, and will recognize that it’s required. It’s more expensive and carries more stringent requirements than a normal supervising station, which is a code-minimum requirement. DUCT DETECTION* 5. When duct detectors are needed, do you simply require locations to be per [the IMC/NFPA 90A], or do you require duct detectors to be located in specific locations, like the supply or return side of units in the ductwork? → Note: This is a question I could use help with. A simple ‘per code’ answer is wanted here, but some jurisdictions have insisted on locating duct detectors on the supply-side of units, or return-side, or both. If the jurisdiction has a specific requirement, I’d like to know that now rather than be surprised later, but most usually don’t, and as a result, it’s a lame question to ask in those cases. 6. Do you require duct detectors to initiate an alarm signal, or is it OK to have those report a supervisory signal to the fire alarm control panel? → Note: NFPA 72 allows duct detectors to initiate a supervisory signal, because they’re more prone to nuisance alarms than other devices. An alarm signal usually results in a truck rolling up to the building each time. Jurisdictions that are familiar with this topic are usually more than happy to have duct detectors on supervisory rather than alarm. 7. When a duct detector activates, can it shut down just that unit or do you require all units to be shutdown? → Note: To my understanding, this is just a preference. Not a huge deal either way unless we’re talking about a massive building or building complex where all units shutting down would be very uncomfortable and problematic. SECURITY / KNOX BOX 8. Do you require a Knox Box? → Note: There’s likely a code path for this, but it’s not something I’ve hunted down to date. Most jurisdictions can readily answer this. 9. Is the Knox Box required to tie to the fire alarm system? → Note: These can be monitored by the fire alarm system. Most jurisdictions don’t require them to be monitored, but some will in areas that have higher crime rates. FIRE SUPPRESSION - FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION* 10. Do you mandate a maximum distance from a fire department connection to a nearest hydrant? → Note: Some jurisdictions care, others less so. There’s (to my knowledge) not a mandated distance, but some jurisdictions will require as close as 50 ft and others as far away as 400 ft. 11. Can the FDC be mounted on the building’s street-facing exterior wall, or does it have to be located remotely from the building? → Note: As a designer, my strong preference is to have the FDC on the building to save cost, protect the pipe from freezing, protect the pipe from mechanical damage, keep it clear from snow, and keep it easier to inspect, maintain, or repair. Operationally, depending on the building and the site, some departments are not going to want to send firefighters to the building face and would rather have a remote connection for some applications. 12. What type of FDC do you use [Dual-Inlet 2-1/2” / 4” Storz / 5” Storz]? 13. Do you require locking caps on the FDC? → Note: Some jurisdictions will have locking caps to prevent people from shoving debris, trash, or other ‘items’ into FDCs, and to prevent theft of the caps. Many areas have no need for locking caps. BACKFLOW* 14. What type of backflow preventer do you require [double check, double check detector, RPZ, or RPZ detector]? We [will/will not] have antifreeze or chemical additives in the system. → Note: Some jurisdictions, like fire departments, may not want to answer this because it’s under the building or water department. But most are familiar with the requirements anyways. Some places require RPZs for everything fire protection (like an Illinois state mandate). By code, RPZs are required if an antifreeze system is used, or if chemical additives are added to the system (such as corrosion inhibitors like Vapor Pipe Shield). 15. We intend to locate the backflow inside the building. Is this acceptable? → Note: This is a designer preference for longevity of the backflow, protection from damage and tampering, protection from freezing, service, maintenance, and cost. Some owners may want the floor space or jurisdictions might require it to be outside (though I don’t know why). 16. [If a double check is allowed, allowed to be inside, and there is only a single zone] We intend to use a backflow preventer that’s listed for a vertical orientation. Is it acceptable to install it vertically? → Note: RPZs have to be horizontal. If we have single-zone systems, designers generally prefer to use a ‘shotgun’ approach and save floor space. This is usually fine. HYDRAULICS* 17. Do you mandate a safety factor for fire sprinkler systems? → Note: This is a topic that is book-worthy. NFPA 13 has no mandate other than to account for seasonal and daily fluctuation. It could be argued that a safety factor is implicit within NFPA 13. But to save everyone’s time and scrutiny, a simple 5 PSI or 10% safety factor tends to be common practice. Too high a safety factor isn’t necessarily a good thing because it could lead to needing a fire pump that introduces many new points of failure or could add unnecessary cost to a system. 18. Does your department conduct flow tests, can we conduct a flow test, or are those done by the water department? → Note: This is just practice-based by jurisdiction. Some don’t allow flow tests at all and use water modeling (California). INSPECTOR'S TEST* 19. [If there are only wet systems] We usually locate the inspector’s test at the riser, which NFPA 13 allows for wet systems. Do you require it to be located remotely? → Note: If this is a dry or pre-action system, then the inspector’s test must be remote. If it’s wet, it’s allowed to be at the riser. That said, some jurisdictions have a preference which we’d want to accommodate here. WATERFLOW* 20. Do you want a horn/strobe, or electric bell on the outside of the building for waterflow? → Note: Just a jurisdictional preference. Either of these are easier to accommodate than a water motor gong which had been the tradition for some time. 21. Is exterior access required for the sprinkler riser room? → Note: These are usually on the outside of the building since the water service entry cannot go more than 10 ft underneath the building without open trenches, per NFPA 13, but sprinkler riser rooms don’t always have an exterior door. SITE 22. Just a few more questions. Do you require a post-indicating valve? There are no code mandates for one. → Note: Some jurisdictions want them, many don’t care. Just an opportunity to coordinate it early here. 23. Is Fire Flow ok to be determined using the International Fire Code Appendix B, or do you have some other method to calculate it? → Note: Fire Flow is wildly misunderstood and falls through the cracks of design scope. As a result, many jurisdictions don’t pay attention to it or aren’t familiar with it. If they don’t know or don’t care, Appendix B is a fine approach to use. FIRE PUMP* 24. We have a fire pump on this project. Do you consider the electric power supply to be Reliable or not? → Note: NFPA 70 has specifics on how power is considered to be reliable or not. There are formal definitions, but it’s up to the AHJ on whether they consider the power utility at the site to be reliable or not. If it’s a point of contention or needing clarification, it’s worth spending time here because the cost to go from an electric fire pump to a diesel or add a generator can be substantial. STANDPIPES* 25. We intend to have a [wet/dry manual/semi-automatic/automatic] standpipe system for this building, using [Class I 2½” / Class II / Class III] hose connections. → Note: In sticky projects using dry standpipes or high-rises, the type needs to be coordinated. In basic non-high-rise situations, a wet manual system is fairly straightforward, so it’s not a question as much as a coordination point. 26. We intend to locate hose connections on the floor level landings of stairs. Is that acceptable? → Note: The IBC and NFPA 14 have jogged back and forth on this, but they now correlate on the main-floor-level landings of stairways for hose connections. AHJs are permitted to require intermediate-level landings in both the IBC and NFPA 14, though, so it’s an important coordination point. Thank you SO much for your time. Any questions for me, or anything else you feel I should have asked? YOUR TURN Alright - it's all out there - what would you tweak? If you’re an AHJ, how can I better ask the question? How can I better clarify the intent of the question? What am I missing? Would absolutely love your commentary below. Your input can make this new collaborate tool much more helpful and hopefully impactful for the industry as we launch it and hopefully move things forward. See you in the comments ↓↓ - Joe This week, we're featuring a segment that comes from our MeyerFire University platform. This one is just one of 900+ that make up MeyerFire University. It answers a fundamental question that many life safety consultants and electrical and fire protection engineers encounter at some point: where do we need exit signs? Unlike sprinkler or strobe locations, placing exit signs leans more towards the 'performance' end of the spectrum rather than purely 'prescriptive,' where there's a little more art to the process than straight numbers.  For this one, Fire Protection Engineer Steven Barrett takes the reins and explains a walkthrough example. Want more like this? If these types of segments would be helpful for you or your team, join us at www.meyerfireuniversity.com (it's more affordable than you think), and be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel as well. Thanks and have a great rest of your week! - Joe By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Fire Protection Engineer / Technical Director at MeyerFire Although the 2024 editions of the International Building and Fire Codes have been out for some time, new codes don’t get used until a jurisdiction adopts them. Now that I’m starting to see them referenced more often in project work, it feels like the right time to dig into what’s new. The humor is not lost on me that, as we begin to wrap up 2025, I’m finally getting deep into the changes to the 2024 codes.  No better time than now to review the changes in the 2024 IBC Before we get started, if you haven’t taken the MeyerFire University LS111 course [here], it’s a great series on Effective Use of Codes & Standards. One of the many helpful items that Fire Protection Engineer Sean Donohue reviews is how to tell code language has changed. Not to be all “back in my day”, but when we only had the print and PDF editions of codes, we were used to seeing the vertical bar near new sections of code. Now, since most of us use the online versions, we should realize that new text is indicated in blue text, deletion arrows (→) are used for deleted text, and stars (*) for relocated text. The intent here is not to cover every single change here, but to highlight some of the provisions that may impact the day-to-day workings of someone in the fire protection engineering profession. As always, and I really cannot emphasize this enough, check your local amendments. Very few jurisdictions will adopt the codes outright; they’ll often make some changes. OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS (CHAPTER 3) While the official classification of occupancies is typically up to the architect, it’s important to know what to expect with these changes. It will come as no surprise that changes have been made to certain occupancy classifications due to their use of lithium-ion batteries in energy storage systems (ESS). Examples include:
 Manufacture and storage of electric vehicles now classified as Group F-1/S-1 What’s the impact here? To start, the F-1/S-1 designation is for moderate-hazard, and the F-2/S-2 classifications are for low-hazard occupancies. These classifications are helpful, as the occupancy classification of areas using ESS could fall into a bit of a no man’s land. ESS regulated by IFC Section 1207 would be exempt from regular Group H requirements, so prior to this change in IBC 2024, there wasn’t much direction on what to classify these occupancies as. Since “electrical rooms” aren’t listed in Chapter 3, generally I would see large UPS or Electrical Rooms be classified as either Group B, F-2, or S-2, maybe matching the predominant occupancy of the building. However, classifying these spaces as the more hazardous designation of Group F & S has a trickle-down effect for the rest of the fire protection features. There are differences in allowable areas, separations for mixed-use occupancies, and means of egress requirements between Group F-1/S-1 and Group F-2/S-2. For example, in a sprinklered F-1/S-1 occupancy, travel distance is limited to 250 ft, as opposed to 400 ft for F-2/S-2 occupancies. Another important implication would be for smoke and heat removal. Section 910.2.1 requires smoke and heat vents, or a mechanical smoke removal system for Group F-1/S-1 occupancies with more than 50,000 square feet of undivided area. That may seem like quite a large area, but data centers can easily exceed this limit. And I’m sure you could guess that if I have a giant room full of servers and specialized equipment, the last thing I want is multiple roof penetrations overhead.  Smoke and heat vents required for certain Group F-1/S-1 occupancies As we’ve covered in our two ESS courses, these additional safety features are well warranted due to the risks presented by lithium-ion batteries. And to be fair, the ventilation system I am probably providing for my ventilation and explosion control probably counts as a “mechanical smoke removal system”. But the point here is that it’s important to think of the ripple effects of seemingly small and straightforward changes. The change is contained in Chapter 3 for Occupancy Classifications, but it trickles down to items in Chapters 5, 6, 9, and 10. CHAPTER 9, SECTION 903 CHANGES The next place where we’ll see some big changes is in Section 903. We do have an IBC Cheatsheet that lists when sprinklers are required per Chapter 9, which you can find below.  The cheatsheet includes footnotes for new provisions in 2024, but it should come as no surprise that many of the provisions are for occupancies that use lithium-ion and lithium metal batteries. These include:
An additional change is the design parameters for the sprinkler system, when it is required, to protect these areas containing lithium-ion or lithium metal batteries: “… design of the system shall be based on a series of fire tests. Such tests shall be conducted or witnessed and reported by an approved testing laboratory involving test scenarios that address that range of variable associated with the intended arrangement of the hazards to be protected.” -IBC 903.3.1.1.3  Sprinkler System Design for lithium-ion batteries should be based on fire testing That’s pretty explicit language here, which is extracted from the fire code. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the system design should be based on fire testing. But because we’re fire protection folks we know that we probably aren’t going to have all of that information at the time we need it. It would be great if we had fire testing data for all of the items that would be stored in a given facility, but we know that’s not realistic. In this case I would defer to the Fire Code, which in Section 1207 lists a sprinkler system density consistent with Extra Hazard Group 1 for certain situations. If I don’t yet have testing information, that’s a safe density to use so I can start planning my water supply and sizing my pump. OTHER CHANGES OF NOTE Even though pixels are basically free, this post would become unreadably long if we went in depth for each change! To summarize the rest of the IBC 2024 changes of interest:
And similar to the sprinkler changes for areas with lithium-ion and lithium-metal batteries, a fire alarm system required, activated by air-sampling or radiant-energy sensing detection systems, for the following areas:
Once we get into Chapter 10 for Means of Egress, one notable change includes:
 Lower exit signs are exempt from sprinklered Group R-1 occupancies Like every new iteration, this code cycle brings a mix of fine-tuning and forward-thinking. Many of the 2024 reflect something that’s not new: the emerging risks of energy storage systems using lithium-ion batteries. But there are plenty of smaller tweaks, including the visible sprinkler system alarms and standpipe hose connections in exterior stairs, which will find their way onto our next set of plans too. Even seemingly small changes, or those that we think are “out of our scope” may have big downstream effects that impact all of our design and construction partners.
What other changes to the 2024 IBC and IFC have impacted your projects? Comment to share your stories below. Thanks for reading, and remember to keep learning, because the code never stops changing! - Jocelyn By Joe Meyer, PE | Fire Protection Engineer / Founder of MeyerFire I am thrilled to announce that we have added our most-requested feature to date on MeyerFire University! PATHWAYS Up until now, we've had focused, digestible courses where we've worked to save your time and give you the most meaningful, engaging online learning experience possible. We've organized information into courses, and those courses build upon each other to share what the industry wants you to know about fire protection. We've now layered on pathways that help guide new learners according to skill-based themes. Want to learn fire alarm layout? Great - our intro-level Fire Alarm Layout Pathway is a great fit. Want to learn how to read Construction Documents? Great, we have that. Fire Sprinkler Layout - starting from no experience up through the layout stage of a project? We have that. Same with core life safety and code courses, learning for the P.E. Exam, and practice for the P.E. Exam.  BUILDING WHAT YOU WANT
I want to take this a step further. We built this into a live dashboard, right at www.meyerfireuniversity.com/path; anyone can visit this (even those who aren't on MeyerFire University). But the next step is where you want to take it. If you manage a team or are responsible for training - how do you want us to construct this? Today we have the dashboard, but we're actively building assign and reporting features around it. My initial thought is to give you the ability to assign a Pathway when a user is added, and anytime thereafter. You'd be able to set a deadline date, and then also set how much you want us to follow-up (reminders) the learner along the way. You'll be able to check progress at anytime, as well as with your weekly or monthly reports. What else would you want the ability to do? How can we make this easier for your learners to start? Absolutely excited, and open to ideas here. I'd much rather construct the features that you see as helpful and impactful for your learners. We're already making a massive impact - averaging right around 500 hours of learning every two weeks right now - an all-time high. But we know we can build it to suit your team's needs - so if you have feedback or ideas, I would more than welcome them below! Thanks, and have a great rest of your week! - Joe |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBEGet Free Articles via Email:
+ Get calculators, tools, resources and articles
+ Get our PDF Flowchart for Canopy & Overhang Requirements instantly 
+ No spam
+ Unsubscribe anytime AUTHORJoe Meyer, PE, is a Fire Protection Engineer out of St. Louis, Missouri who writes & develops resources for Fire Protection Professionals. See bio here: About FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
March 2026
|
RSS Feed
