An asset may still operate and still be the wrong asset to keep. Thomas Wendling described replacement decisions that had to consider maintenance cost, replacement cost, and “technological obsolescence.” A one-off spreadsheet could compare one asset, but it could not reveal the larger pattern across a portfolio.
That replacement problem opened a second question in the 2018 episode: what happens when the information or specialized skill needed for the decision exists somewhere else, but the organization cannot see or use it?
Thomas connected asset data and engineering talent through the same idea. Better decisions require a larger pool of evidence and a responsible way to draw qualified work from it.
One asset cannot show a portfolio pattern
Thomas Wendling described teams making “ad hoc analysis” for individual assets. They could compare operating and capital costs, but an isolated decision could miss how similar equipment performed across sites or industries.
He proposed pooling asset information into comparable classes so replacement timing could be informed by a wider history. That proposal depended on consistent data, transparent assumptions, and enough observations to support the analysis. Thomas imagined large savings from the approach. In 2018, however, the actuarial model was still a proposal that would need consistent portfolio data and real-world testing before a team could rely on it.
Comparing a portfolio begins with shared definitions. The owners still have to agree what they are measuring and why the information should be shared.
Shared information needs a reason to be contributed
Thomas Wendling acknowledged the incentive problem directly when he said “nobody wants to do something that only benefits the commons.” A company holding valuable operating data needs a reason to contribute it, especially when a competitor might benefit.
Blockchain was part of his proposed answer for sharing asset information in 2018. The underlying design issue is broader than that technology. The contributors need to know what they receive, what remains private, how their data may be used, and who is responsible for the resulting recommendation.
The same visibility problem appears in engineering talent
The conversation then moved from physical assets to people. Thomas Wendling described a “shortage of the right skill sets” while also arguing that capable engineers can remain underused because conventional hiring and organizational boundaries do not reveal their work clearly.
His Co-Engineers concept broke engineering work into contributions such as calculations, estimates, and peer reviews. Past work and community review could help match a person to a later task. Thomas hoped this would widen participation and reduce irrelevant bias. In 2018, the matching model and its use of historical scores were still ideas in development. A responsible system would need fairness criteria and review before using those scores for real work.
Skill visibility is only one part of responsible engineering capacity. The model also needs qualification rules, professional leadership, review, liability, confidentiality, client permission, and a way to correct poor work.
Start with one piece of engineering work
Thomas Wendling described qualified engineers guiding contributors with different levels of experience. He also acknowledged that proprietary work may not belong on a public ledger. Those limits suggest a careful starting point for any distributed model.
Choose a discrete task whose input, output, reviewer, and acceptance rule can be named. Record which credentials or experience the work requires, which information must remain private, and who carries professional responsibility for the result. Only then decide whether a wider community can add useful capacity.
In the episode's roadmap, Co-Engineers was meant to bring ideas, developers, engineering contributors, and potential capital into one community. Thomas called distributed contributors the “white space on your org chart.” Filling that space responsibly depends on making the need, the evidence, and the review visible together.
