Most engineering firms don’t think they have a business development problem.

Work comes in. Clients return. Frameworks are renewed. Tender invitations land often enough to keep the pipeline moving. From the outside, it looks like growth is under control.

And for a while, it is.

The problem doesn’t show up when things are steady. It shows up when the firm wants to move.

When leadership decides they don’t just want more of the same work - they want different work. Better aligned work. Higher value sectors. Infrastructure. Environmental advisory. Whatever the next chapter is meant to be.

That’s when the existing approach to business development starts to creak.

Because in many engineering consultancies, business development hasn’t really been designed. It has evolved.

Relationships built over years generate opportunity. Reputation within a familiar sector does most of the heavy lifting. Senior technical leaders pick up commercial conversations alongside delivery. None of this is wrong. In fact, it’s often a sign of a well run business.

But it is reactive.

It reflects where the firm has been successful, not necessarily where it intends to go.

And when the ambition shifts, the business development model often doesn’t shift with it.

‍

Why Reactive Growth Limits Strategic Expansion

A mid-sized engineering firm invests in a new capability. They hire well. They update the website. They talk about the new direction publicly. Twelve months later, most inbound is still for the historic core service.

The new sector isn’t closed. The team isn’t incapable. The issue is alignment.

The market still categorises the firm by its previous identity and business development activity is still largely driven by existing networks and reputation in that historic space.

That isn’t a marketing failure. It’s a strategic one.

An effective business development strategy for an engineering firm is not about increasing activity. It’s about making sure commercial effort is pulling in the same direction as strategic intent.

If the firm wants to grow into a specific sector, the question becomes simple: does the market associate us with authority in that sector yet?

If not, referrals alone won’t solve it. Tendering alone won’t solve it. Hiring alone won’t solve it.

There has to be deliberate positioning. Clear articulation of the problems the firm solves in that new space. Consistent visibility that reinforces that association before procurement begins. A rhythm of proactive engagement that isn’t dependent on spare time.

That is where many established firms hesitate because it requires moving from opportunistic growth to intentional growth.

It also requires acknowledging that what got the firm here may not be enough to take it there.

The Link Between Business Development Strategy and Margin

The link to margin is usually overlooked. In sectors where authority is established, fees are defended more easily. Conversations start from a place of familiarity and value is assumed.

In sectors where authority hasn’t embedded, everything is slightly heavier. The firm explains more. Justifies more. Competes more generically. Nothing dramatic, just incremental friction.

Over time, that friction compounds.

A strong business development strategy reduces that friction. It aligns where the firm wants to go with how it is understood in the market. It educates the market on its value. It makes the firm visible in the right places. It reduces dependency on individual directors carrying relationships. It supports diversification without it feeling like an uphill push.

‍

Embedding Business Development Into the Future of the Firm

For engineering firms thinking about their next stage of growth, the question is not whether business development activity exists. It is whether that activity reflects the future of the business or its past.

When strategy and business development move together, growth feels deliberate.

When they don’t, growth feels busy.

There’s a difference.