By Yolandi Mitchell

When engineering firms lose project bids despite a strong solution, the conclusion is typically that pricing was uncompetitive or that the client selected a different technical fit. In many cases, however, the issue lies elsewhere.

The underlying challenge is not capability, but a misalignment between how engineering firms present their value and how buying decisions are actually made within organisations. Understanding this requires a shift in how buying decisions are understood.

There are three aspects of B2B buying behaviour that are particularly relevant in engineering 
contexts.

The first is that buyers do not start from a blank page.

When a project requirement emerges, decision-makers do not conduct an exhaustive review of all possible providers. They begin with what, and who, they already know. Prior exposure, familiarity, and recall play a significant role in determining which firms are even considered.

This is especially important in engineering markets, where project cycles are long and opportunities arise infrequently. Firms that are not visible or memorable before a formal process begins are unlikely to be included, regardless of their technical capability.

For engineering organisations, this has a clear implication. Market presence cannot be built only at the point of tender. It must be developed over time through consistent and distinctive communication of the specific problems the firm solves and the outcomes it enables.

The second is that there are effectively two sales processes taking place.

The first occurs during direct engagement with the client. The second, and often more decisive, takes place after the interaction has ended. At this point, the individual or team responsible for the recommendation must present the solution internally to other stakeholders.

These stakeholders typically include executive leadership, finance, procurement, and operational teams, each of whom evaluates the decision from a different perspective. Technical merit is only one part of the assessment. The recommendation must also be clear, structured, and capable of withstanding scrutiny.

Engineering firms frequently underestimate this stage. Proposals are technically sound but difficult to compare, interpret, or communicate across different audiences. As a result, even strong solutions can lose momentum during internal discussions.

The implication is that value must be expressed in a way that travels. It should be easy to explain, easy to compare, and easy to defend. This requires translating technical capability into operational, financial, and implementation outcomes that are relevant to each stakeholder group.

The third is that decisions of this nature are not purely rational.

Engineering projects carry significant financial and operational consequences, but the impact of those decisions is not borne by organisations alone. It is also borne by the individuals making the recommendation.

Beyond formal evaluation criteria, there is an implicit and often unspoken layer of assessment. Decision-makers are not only asking whether a solution will work, but whether it will hold up under scrutiny, how it will be perceived by others, and whether it can be defended if outcomes do not meet expectations.

In practical terms, this introduces a set of personal considerations. Will this decision reflect well on my judgement? Will it protect me if something goes wrong? If this fails, will I be able to explain why this option was selected?

These questions are rarely stated explicitly, but they are always present in high-stakes 
decisions.

This creates a natural bias towards options that are easier to justify and perceived as lower risk, even when alternatives may be technically superior. In this context, the technically “best” solution does not always feel like the safest choice.

Importantly, unless the consequences of not addressing these risks are clearly articulated, the perceived difference between options can remain narrow. When that happens, decision-makers tend to favour the option that is easiest to defend rather than the one that is technically optimal.

In this context, the firms that consistently win the work are not only technically strong. They are able to ensure that their value is understood before the buying process begins, carried effectively through internal decision-making, and positioned in a way that makes the choice both commercially sound and personally defensible.

Technical capability remains essential. But in practice, it is rarely evaluated in isolation. It is 
interpreted through familiarity, internal alignment, and the level of risk a decision-maker is 
willing to carry.

Mitchell is the founder of Mondegreen Consulting and works with B2B organisations to close the gap between the value they deliver and the value the market recognises, remembers, and is willing to pay for. She has held executive leadership roles across Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa, Econofoods, and Blue Label Telecoms.