The Hidden Cost of Assumed Knowledge in Energy Teams

Twenty years ago, I was managing a software development team tasked with building an in-house ETRM system.

I vividly remember interviewing developers, testers, and project managers. Of the devs, I was surprised how few could clearly walk me through the Microsoft stack for a simple web-based system — SQL Server to UI.

That process radically filtered down the applicants. Eventually, we had a small pool of excellent developers. But had I added the extra requirement of “must understand the energy industry,” that pool would have dried up completely.

We were lucky — a few of those hires did know the industry. They were brilliant, but rare and expensive. Like many managers, I compromised: I seeded the team with a few experienced energy people and hired great technicians who didn’t know energy… yet.

Learning on the Job — or Not

The hope was that the newbies would absorb knowledge from the experienced team — developers, traders, risk managers, back office — while delivering working software.

And to some extent, that worked. But in a high-pressure, time-constrained environment, there’s only so much bandwidth available to teach.

We toyed with the idea of creating an internal academy, but were we really going to build all that content and infrastructure from scratch? More often than not, I found myself at the whiteboard explaining how the energy industry fit together — helpful, but fragmented.

What I needed back then was a lightweight, repeatable training programme — something that every new hire could go through to build a shared knowledge base.

---

Energy Is Complex — and It’s Worth Understanding

Energy is not an easy industry to pick up casually. But understanding how it works — commercially, operationally, culturally — massively improves both productivity and job satisfaction.

Those of us who’ve stayed in the industry for decades know: once it clicks, people tend to stick. But I also saw plenty of talented hires who bounced off the industry. They joined, got overwhelmed, and quietly exited to another sector.

Often, they simply couldn’t gain traction. And that’s the critical moment — people want to contribute, they want to feel useful. When they don’t, they leave.

---

The Business Case for Better Training

Recruitment is expensive. Replacing someone after 12 months? Even worse.

In the UK, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) estimates the average cost per hire is £6,125, rising to £19,000 for managerial roles.

The better approach? Prevent the churn in the first place.

Solid, industry-specific training creates an environment where people can thrive — and stay. The research backs this up:

• More than 90% of workers report that learning opportunities make them feel more engaged and connected
• 8 in 10 say learning gives them a sense of purpose at work
• 7 in 10 say it improves their connection to the company mission

Structured training improves retention, engagement, and confidence. It also reduces the risk of “knowledge leakage”: when experienced people leave, taking hard-won expertise with them.

---

The Tech Has Changed — But the Fundamentals Haven’t

A lot has changed in 20 years. Agile is mainstream. AI is real. But many of the fundamentals — HTML, web architecture, relational databases — are still there.

And so are the human fundamentals.

People want to contribute. They want to feel valued. They want to go home on a Friday knowing they’ve done something useful.

---

If you manage teams in the energy sector, I’d love to hear how you handle training and onboarding. Have you built internal programmes? Do you rely on informal mentoring? Or have you seen people bounce off the industry too?

Let’s talk. Drop me a message or comment below.