South Africa’s engineering challenges are often framed as a shortage of skills, with the solution assumed to be producing more graduates. However, the more pressing issue may be how effectively we develop the ones already in the profession.
Engineering capability does not emerge at graduation. Degrees provide a foundation, but professional judgment develops through experience. It is shaped through exposure to real projects, increasing responsibility and the transfer of knowledge from experienced professionals.
That happens largely within the industry, which raises a practical question: who is developing the engineers South Africa will depend on? In many consulting environments and infrastructure projects, experienced engineers remain closely tied to delivery. Their involvement is often necessary to maintain continuity and manage risk. The trade-off is less time available for mentorship and less structured knowledge transfer.
Hybrid working
At the same time, project environments have become more compressed. Tight timelines, resource constraints and incomplete project definition push teams towards immediate outputs. Under those conditions long-term capability development becomes secondary, and the opportunity to build depth of understanding is often reduced.
The shift towards more remote and hybrid working environments has also changed how knowledge is transferred. Informal learning that once occurred through proximity and real-time interaction is less visible when teams are distributed. While remote working offers flexibility, it can reduce the incidental interactions through which early-career engineers develop practical understanding.
The effect isn’t dramatic, but it is noticeable. Engineers enter the profession with strong academic grounding, yet their exposure to responsibility can be uneven. Those ready to progress do not always find clear opportunities to do so. Decision-making tends to remain concentrated, and development pathways narrow gradually rather than suddenly.
That slows the renewal of capability. In practice, it often manifests as extended design timelines, increased reliance on a small number of senior professionals, and repeated revisiting of decisions. Engineers may find themselves reworking aspects of projects not because the original work was flawed, but because knowledge continuity has been disrupted.
In some cases the original reasoning behind key decisions is no longer accessible. Teams change, projects span multiple years and institutional memory fades. As a result, engineers must reconstruct earlier decisions, often under time pressure and without full context.
Slower delivery
This loss of continuity also affects confidence in existing work. When the rationale behind earlier decisions is unclear, engineers are more likely to question or revalidate what has already been done. While sometimes necessary, this often results in duplication of effort and more conservative outcomes.
The cumulative effect contributes to slower delivery, increased project costs and sustained pressure across technical teams. It also reinforces a cycle whereby experienced professionals become further embedded in delivery, leaving even less capacity for mentorship and development.
The consequences take time to surface. Engineering knowledge builds over decades, and when it is not actively transferred it does not vanish overnight. It fades. Lessons are relearnt. Experience is rebuilt, often at cost. The continuity that supports sound judgment becomes less reliable.
The progression from graduate to experienced professional is long. In many disciplines it can take a decade or more before engineers are able to lead complex work with confidence. This development cannot be compressed without consequence. When it is inconsistent or delayed, the system loses momentum and the overall capability of the profession becomes uneven.
Qualified but inexperienced
Over time, the industry risks producing engineers who are qualified but slower to reach the level of capability required to sustain complex infrastructure. This has implications beyond the profession itself. Infrastructure systems depend on consistent technical judgment, and any erosion of that capability affects long-term performance, maintenance and resilience.
This is not a question of individual performance. It reflects how the profession is structured. If development continues to be treated as something that happens alongside delivery rather than something that is planned and supported, the gap between qualification and capability will persist.
South Africa does not only need more engineers. It needs a profession that is able to develop them consistently over time.
• Hering is a professional engineering technologist in the infrastructure sector, focused on engineering capability and knowledge transfer.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.