By Mvuyo Tyobeka, CEO of SPM
Most conversations about technical capability assume a clean starting point. New systems. Clear documentation. Skills developed in parallel with design.
That is not where our work begins.
At Southern Power Maintenance, we are usually called in long after the original decisions have been made. We work on assets that have been running for years, sometimes decades. Systems shaped by deferred maintenance, incomplete records, changing operating conditions, and pressures that no longer exist in the same form.
Technical capability, in this context, is not about ideal execution. It is about judgement in environments shaped by other people’s compromises. This is why we are cautious about how capability is discussed. Romantic language does not survive contact with ageing infrastructure.
In maintenance, competence shows up differently. It shows up in how quickly a team can understand a system they did not design. In how risk is assessed when documentation is incomplete. In how decisions are made when stopping work creates one kind of exposure and continuing creates another.
These are not skills acquired through certification alone. They are built through time on site, repeated exposure to imperfect conditions, and supervision that understands when to intervene and when to let judgement develop. The phrase “skills development” is often used without reference to this reality. Training has its place, but maintenance work tests what people do when conditions deviate from the plan. That is where capability is revealed.
One of the most difficult leadership decisions we make is when not to accelerate progression. There are moments when someone is almost ready. The work is urgent. The pressure to deploy is real. The easier choice is to say yes and trust that experience will catch up. We have learned that this is where capability is either protected or compromised.
Slowing a deployment is rarely visible. It is rarely celebrated. It can be commercially inconvenient. It is also one of the clearest signals of seriousness about development. Putting people into work they are not yet ready to carry does not build confidence. It transfers risk into the system. Maintenance environments are unforgiving of that kind of optimism.
Capability here is built through structured exposure. People are introduced to complexity gradually, supported by senior professionals who remain close to the work. Responsibility expands as judgement proves reliable, not as timelines demand it. This requires leaders who stay connected to operational detail. It requires resisting the temptation to manage development from a distance. It also requires acknowledging that some learning cannot be rushed without cost.
Retention is often discussed as a motivation problem. In our experience, it is more accurately a credibility problem. People stay where expectations are clear, responsibility is matched with authority, and competence is recognised through trust rather than titles. They leave when development feels symbolic or disconnected from the work they are asked to carry.
Maintenance work relies on teams that perform reliably under pressure. It depends on shared understanding, disciplined escalation, and systems that do not depend on individual heroics to cover structural weaknesses. When someone has to carry more than the system can support, something has already gone wrong.
African technical capability will not be built through affirmation alone. It will be built through environments that are honest about complexity, deliberate about exposure, and disciplined about readiness.
At Southern Power Maintenance, we work in the space between what should have been done and what still needs to work. That reality has shaped how we think about development. We choose realism over reassurance, structure over speed, and judgement over optimism.
Capability built this way lasts. In maintenance, it has to.
