Engineering Services Market by Service Type (Asset Management Related Services, Automation Related Services, Process Engineering), Business Model (In-House Engineering Services, Outsourced Engineering Services), Delivery Model, Service Duration, Industry
Description
The Engineering Services Market was valued at USD 1.66 trillion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 1.77 trillion in 2025, with a CAGR of 6.93%, reaching USD 2.84 trillion by 2032.
A concise strategic primer that frames evolving engineering services dynamics, talent models, and procurement imperatives for executive decision-makers
The engineering services landscape is undergoing rapid evolution driven by technology adoption, shifting sourcing preferences, and intensifying regulatory and trade dynamics. This introduction frames the critical vectors shaping service delivery and value realization across sectors and clarifies why executive leaders must recalibrate investment and procurement decisions now rather than later.
In practical terms, leaders are balancing the imperative to modernize legacy systems with the need to maintain continuity of complex programs. Enterprises that integrate digital engineering tools, rework contractual models to capture outcomes, and align talent strategies with hybrid delivery models are realizing measurable operational gains. Conversely, those that treat engineering as a commoditized input face heightened execution risk.
As a transitional note, the sections that follow examine transformative shifts in capability models, the cumulative effects of recent tariff measures in the United States, segment-specific insights that inform go-to-market and resourcing strategies, regional dynamics, competitive positioning among major providers, recommended actions for leadership, and the research methodology underpinning these conclusions. This primer positions readers to navigate the report with clarity and to identify the strategic levers most relevant to their organization.
How digital engineering, hybrid delivery models, outcome-oriented commercial structures, and domain specialization are redefining service delivery and competitiveness
Several transformative shifts are reshaping how engineering services are procured, delivered, and monetized, with long-term implications for competitiveness and program resilience. First, the accelerated adoption of digital engineering, model-based systems, and automation tools is changing skill requirements and enabling higher-value, outcomes-oriented engagements. Consequently, service providers and in-house teams are investing in platform capabilities and interoperability to support systems integration and continuous verification.
Second, delivery models are becoming hybrid by design: firms are combining remote engineering hubs with targeted on-site presence to optimize cost, knowledge transfer, and regulatory compliance. This transition has been accompanied by an increasing emphasis on IP protection and secure collaboration environments. Third, commercial models are evolving from time-and-materials contracts to outcome-based and risk-sharing arrangements, creating pressure on pricing structures and program governance.
Finally, industry verticals are demanding domain-specific engineering expertise as complexity increases in sectors such as aerospace, energy transition, and semiconductors. As a result, successful organizations are aligning talent development, strategic partnerships, and automation investments to capture differentiated, high-margin work while simultaneously mitigating delivery and compliance risk.
Assessing how recent United States tariff measures influence sourcing choices, supply chain resilience, and engineering program continuity across global delivery footprints
Recent tariff policies in the United States have introduced an additional layer of complexity for global engineering programs, supply chains, and procurement strategies. While tariffs primarily target goods, their downstream effects cascade into engineering services by altering component sourcing economics, extending lead times for critical hardware, and prompting contractual re-evaluations for cross-border programs. As a result, procurement teams and engineering leaders are increasingly integrating trade considerations into early-stage design and vendor selection cycles.
Moreover, tariffs are incentivizing some organizations to reshore or nearshore specific manufacturing and prototyping activities to reduce exposure to customs duties and mitigate logistics volatility. In turn, this shift affects where engineering work is performed, the composition of multidisciplinary teams, and the allocation of capital expenditure for test and production assets. Transition costs and supplier requalification requirements are additional operational realities that program leads must factor into planning horizons.
Consequently, leaders are prioritizing scenario planning and supply chain diversification as practical mitigants. They are also renegotiating commercial terms to share tariff-related risk with suppliers and aligning design-for-manufacturing choices with more geographically resilient sourcing strategies, which together strengthen program continuity and protect schedule certainty.
Segment-driven insight that connects service type, business and delivery models, duration, vertical specialization, and client type to strategic resourcing and commercial decisions
Segmentation analysis offers a structured way to translate strategic priorities into targeted service offerings, talent models, and commercial terms. Based on service type, organizations are evaluating capacity across Asset Management Related Services, Automation Related Services, Process Engineering, and Product Engineering to determine where to concentrate in-house expertise versus outsourced capability. This cognitive partitioning enables clearer investment choices and more predictable delivery performance.
Based on business model, the distinction between In-House Engineering Services and Outsourced Engineering Services informs decisions about core competency retention and the extent of strategic vendor partnerships. Firms that retain critical system knowledge internally can better protect IP while using external partners to scale capacity for episodic needs. Based on delivery model, the balance between Off-site & Remote Services and On-site Services shapes workforce composition, security protocols, and client engagement norms, with hybrid approaches increasingly common to optimize cost and responsiveness.
Based on service duration, differences between Long-term Contracts and Short-term Projects influence talent pipeline planning, knowledge management practices, and financial cadence. Long-term engagements demand institutionalized governance and continuous improvement mechanisms, whereas short-term projects require rapid onboarding and modular delivery frameworks. Based on industry vertical, tailoring capabilities to Aerospace & Defense, Automotive, Banking, Financial Services & Insurance, Construction & Infrastructure, Electronics & Semiconductors, Energy & Utilities, Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals, IT & Telecommunications, Marine & Shipbuilding, Mining & Metals, and Transportation is essential; moreover, specialty subsegments such as Aircraft Manufacturing and Spacecraft Design within aerospace, Component Design and System Integration within automotive, and Oil & Gas Infrastructure and Renewable Energy Projects within energy necessitate bespoke methodologies and regulatory expertise.
Finally, based on client type, understanding the service expectations of Private clients versus Public/Government entities, and further differentiating Private into Large Organizations and Small & Medium Enterprises, allows providers to calibrate compliance rigor, procurement cycle management, and pricing strategies to client maturity and risk tolerance.
Regional dynamics shaping where to locate engineering capabilities, how to align talent and compliance, and how to build geopolitically resilient delivery footprints
Regional dynamics materially influence where engineering capabilities are concentrated, how talent is cultivated, and which commercial models are most viable. In the Americas, mature industrial ecosystems and strong engineering education pipelines support high-complexity programs, but providers must manage labor cost inflation and regulatory variability across jurisdictions. As a result, firms often combine local expert teams with remote centers of excellence to preserve domain knowledge and control program schedules.
In Europe, Middle East & Africa, diverse regulatory frameworks and a mix of established and emerging technology hubs create both opportunity and complexity. Organizations operating across this region invest heavily in compliance, cross-border data governance, and multilingual collaboration practices to harmonize delivery. Concurrently, public procurement norms and defense-related requirements can make public sector work both strategically important and operationally demanding.
In the Asia-Pacific region, a broad spectrum of capability maturity-from advanced semiconductor clusters to rapidly industrializing markets-drives differentiated engagement models. Many firms leverage regional centers for scalable engineering execution, component prototyping, and manufacturing alignment, while maintaining strategic program leadership closer to final customers. Across all regions, geopolitical shifts and trade policies inform decisions about where to locate critical functions and how to structure resilient global delivery footprints.
How provider differentiation through digital platforms, vertical expertise, talent strategy, and partnership ecosystems determines commercial advantage and client trust
Competitive positioning among leading engineering services providers reflects differences in domain specialization, platform investments, talent management, and partnership ecosystems. Some companies differentiate by embedding digital engineering platforms and proprietary tools into engagements, enabling faster design iterations and improved traceability. Others emphasize deep vertical domain experience, particularly in highly regulated sectors, to command premium margins for complex system integration work.
Strategic partnerships and alliances are another axis of differentiation; firms that cultivate supplier networks and technology partners can offer broader end-to-end solutions and accelerate time-to-value for clients. Talent strategies vary as well, with top performers combining robust early-career development programs, continuous upskilling initiatives, and lateral recruitment of domain experts to maintain capability depth. Additionally, leading firms are expanding advisory capabilities to help clients translate engineering outcomes into business metrics, strengthening client retention and cross-selling opportunities.
Finally, corporate governance around IP protection, quality assurance, and cybersecurity is central to competitive trust, particularly for clients in defense, aerospace, and critical infrastructure. Providers that demonstrate rigorous controls and transparent auditability gain preference in procurement decisions and long-term program awards.
Actionable senior-executive recommendations to modernize platforms, adopt hybrid delivery, realign commercial models, and fortify talent and supply chain resilience
Industry leaders should take deliberate, high-impact steps to secure advantage and protect program continuity. First, prioritize investment in digital engineering platforms and automation to reduce design cycle time and improve traceability across the product lifecycle. Second, adopt hybrid delivery models that combine on-site presence for critical integration tasks with off-site centers for scalable execution; this hybrid posture balances cost efficiency with program reliability.
Third, renegotiate commercial models to increase alignment on outcomes, sharing risk where appropriate while ensuring adequate governance to protect intellectual property and quality. Fourth, integrate trade and tariff scenario planning into procurement and design cycles to reduce exposure to supply-chain shocks and avoid late-stage cost escalation. Fifth, invest in targeted talent pipelines and reskilling programs focused on systems engineering, model-based design, and cybersecurity to sustain capability differentiation.
Finally, strengthen partnership frameworks with suppliers and technology vendors to create more resilient value chains and faster access to specialized skills. By implementing these actions in a coordinated manner, leaders can improve execution certainty, protect margins, and accelerate innovation without compromising compliance or quality.
A rigorous mixed-methods research approach integrating executive interviews, regulatory review, capability mapping, and scenario analysis to produce actionable insights
The research methodology combines a structured review of primary and secondary sources, expert interviews, and cross-functional validation to ensure robust and actionable findings. Primary inputs included in-depth interviews with senior engineering leaders, procurement executives, and program managers to capture firsthand perspectives on delivery challenges, talent trends, and commercial structures. These qualitative inputs were complemented by a systematic review of regulatory guidance, trade policy announcements, and industry white papers to contextualize program-level implications.
Analytical approaches included thematic synthesis to identify recurring constraints and opportunities, capability mapping to align service offerings with vertical needs, and scenario analysis to test the operational effects of tariffs and supply chain disruptions. Cross-validation workshops with domain experts ensured that interpretations were realistic and that recommended mitigations were operationally feasible. Throughout the process, attention was paid to data provenance, and assumptions were documented to support transparent decision-making.
This methodology balances depth of insight with practical applicability, enabling executives to trust the report’s conclusions and to translate them into prioritized initiatives within their organizations.
Final synthesis on how platform modernization, delivery reconfiguration, and disciplined commercial alignment form the foundation for resilient engineering capability
In conclusion, engineering services are at an inflection point where technology, commercial innovation, and geopolitics intersect to redefine how value is created and delivered. Organizations that proactively modernize engineering platforms, recalibrate delivery footprints, and align commercial terms with outcome expectations will be better positioned to manage complexity and capitalize on cross-industry opportunities.
Conversely, failure to integrate trade risk management, domain-specific talent development, and hybrid delivery governance into strategic planning will increase exposure to cost overruns, schedule slippage, and competitive erosion. Therefore, executives should treat engineering services strategy as a core pillar of enterprise resilience and growth, embedding it into enterprise risk management and capital allocation discussions.
Taken together, the insights in this report provide a clear agenda for action: strengthen platforms, diversify supply chains, sharpen commercial alignment, and invest in the people and partnerships that will sustain differentiated engineering capability over time.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
A concise strategic primer that frames evolving engineering services dynamics, talent models, and procurement imperatives for executive decision-makers
The engineering services landscape is undergoing rapid evolution driven by technology adoption, shifting sourcing preferences, and intensifying regulatory and trade dynamics. This introduction frames the critical vectors shaping service delivery and value realization across sectors and clarifies why executive leaders must recalibrate investment and procurement decisions now rather than later.
In practical terms, leaders are balancing the imperative to modernize legacy systems with the need to maintain continuity of complex programs. Enterprises that integrate digital engineering tools, rework contractual models to capture outcomes, and align talent strategies with hybrid delivery models are realizing measurable operational gains. Conversely, those that treat engineering as a commoditized input face heightened execution risk.
As a transitional note, the sections that follow examine transformative shifts in capability models, the cumulative effects of recent tariff measures in the United States, segment-specific insights that inform go-to-market and resourcing strategies, regional dynamics, competitive positioning among major providers, recommended actions for leadership, and the research methodology underpinning these conclusions. This primer positions readers to navigate the report with clarity and to identify the strategic levers most relevant to their organization.
How digital engineering, hybrid delivery models, outcome-oriented commercial structures, and domain specialization are redefining service delivery and competitiveness
Several transformative shifts are reshaping how engineering services are procured, delivered, and monetized, with long-term implications for competitiveness and program resilience. First, the accelerated adoption of digital engineering, model-based systems, and automation tools is changing skill requirements and enabling higher-value, outcomes-oriented engagements. Consequently, service providers and in-house teams are investing in platform capabilities and interoperability to support systems integration and continuous verification.
Second, delivery models are becoming hybrid by design: firms are combining remote engineering hubs with targeted on-site presence to optimize cost, knowledge transfer, and regulatory compliance. This transition has been accompanied by an increasing emphasis on IP protection and secure collaboration environments. Third, commercial models are evolving from time-and-materials contracts to outcome-based and risk-sharing arrangements, creating pressure on pricing structures and program governance.
Finally, industry verticals are demanding domain-specific engineering expertise as complexity increases in sectors such as aerospace, energy transition, and semiconductors. As a result, successful organizations are aligning talent development, strategic partnerships, and automation investments to capture differentiated, high-margin work while simultaneously mitigating delivery and compliance risk.
Assessing how recent United States tariff measures influence sourcing choices, supply chain resilience, and engineering program continuity across global delivery footprints
Recent tariff policies in the United States have introduced an additional layer of complexity for global engineering programs, supply chains, and procurement strategies. While tariffs primarily target goods, their downstream effects cascade into engineering services by altering component sourcing economics, extending lead times for critical hardware, and prompting contractual re-evaluations for cross-border programs. As a result, procurement teams and engineering leaders are increasingly integrating trade considerations into early-stage design and vendor selection cycles.
Moreover, tariffs are incentivizing some organizations to reshore or nearshore specific manufacturing and prototyping activities to reduce exposure to customs duties and mitigate logistics volatility. In turn, this shift affects where engineering work is performed, the composition of multidisciplinary teams, and the allocation of capital expenditure for test and production assets. Transition costs and supplier requalification requirements are additional operational realities that program leads must factor into planning horizons.
Consequently, leaders are prioritizing scenario planning and supply chain diversification as practical mitigants. They are also renegotiating commercial terms to share tariff-related risk with suppliers and aligning design-for-manufacturing choices with more geographically resilient sourcing strategies, which together strengthen program continuity and protect schedule certainty.
Segment-driven insight that connects service type, business and delivery models, duration, vertical specialization, and client type to strategic resourcing and commercial decisions
Segmentation analysis offers a structured way to translate strategic priorities into targeted service offerings, talent models, and commercial terms. Based on service type, organizations are evaluating capacity across Asset Management Related Services, Automation Related Services, Process Engineering, and Product Engineering to determine where to concentrate in-house expertise versus outsourced capability. This cognitive partitioning enables clearer investment choices and more predictable delivery performance.
Based on business model, the distinction between In-House Engineering Services and Outsourced Engineering Services informs decisions about core competency retention and the extent of strategic vendor partnerships. Firms that retain critical system knowledge internally can better protect IP while using external partners to scale capacity for episodic needs. Based on delivery model, the balance between Off-site & Remote Services and On-site Services shapes workforce composition, security protocols, and client engagement norms, with hybrid approaches increasingly common to optimize cost and responsiveness.
Based on service duration, differences between Long-term Contracts and Short-term Projects influence talent pipeline planning, knowledge management practices, and financial cadence. Long-term engagements demand institutionalized governance and continuous improvement mechanisms, whereas short-term projects require rapid onboarding and modular delivery frameworks. Based on industry vertical, tailoring capabilities to Aerospace & Defense, Automotive, Banking, Financial Services & Insurance, Construction & Infrastructure, Electronics & Semiconductors, Energy & Utilities, Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals, IT & Telecommunications, Marine & Shipbuilding, Mining & Metals, and Transportation is essential; moreover, specialty subsegments such as Aircraft Manufacturing and Spacecraft Design within aerospace, Component Design and System Integration within automotive, and Oil & Gas Infrastructure and Renewable Energy Projects within energy necessitate bespoke methodologies and regulatory expertise.
Finally, based on client type, understanding the service expectations of Private clients versus Public/Government entities, and further differentiating Private into Large Organizations and Small & Medium Enterprises, allows providers to calibrate compliance rigor, procurement cycle management, and pricing strategies to client maturity and risk tolerance.
Regional dynamics shaping where to locate engineering capabilities, how to align talent and compliance, and how to build geopolitically resilient delivery footprints
Regional dynamics materially influence where engineering capabilities are concentrated, how talent is cultivated, and which commercial models are most viable. In the Americas, mature industrial ecosystems and strong engineering education pipelines support high-complexity programs, but providers must manage labor cost inflation and regulatory variability across jurisdictions. As a result, firms often combine local expert teams with remote centers of excellence to preserve domain knowledge and control program schedules.
In Europe, Middle East & Africa, diverse regulatory frameworks and a mix of established and emerging technology hubs create both opportunity and complexity. Organizations operating across this region invest heavily in compliance, cross-border data governance, and multilingual collaboration practices to harmonize delivery. Concurrently, public procurement norms and defense-related requirements can make public sector work both strategically important and operationally demanding.
In the Asia-Pacific region, a broad spectrum of capability maturity-from advanced semiconductor clusters to rapidly industrializing markets-drives differentiated engagement models. Many firms leverage regional centers for scalable engineering execution, component prototyping, and manufacturing alignment, while maintaining strategic program leadership closer to final customers. Across all regions, geopolitical shifts and trade policies inform decisions about where to locate critical functions and how to structure resilient global delivery footprints.
How provider differentiation through digital platforms, vertical expertise, talent strategy, and partnership ecosystems determines commercial advantage and client trust
Competitive positioning among leading engineering services providers reflects differences in domain specialization, platform investments, talent management, and partnership ecosystems. Some companies differentiate by embedding digital engineering platforms and proprietary tools into engagements, enabling faster design iterations and improved traceability. Others emphasize deep vertical domain experience, particularly in highly regulated sectors, to command premium margins for complex system integration work.
Strategic partnerships and alliances are another axis of differentiation; firms that cultivate supplier networks and technology partners can offer broader end-to-end solutions and accelerate time-to-value for clients. Talent strategies vary as well, with top performers combining robust early-career development programs, continuous upskilling initiatives, and lateral recruitment of domain experts to maintain capability depth. Additionally, leading firms are expanding advisory capabilities to help clients translate engineering outcomes into business metrics, strengthening client retention and cross-selling opportunities.
Finally, corporate governance around IP protection, quality assurance, and cybersecurity is central to competitive trust, particularly for clients in defense, aerospace, and critical infrastructure. Providers that demonstrate rigorous controls and transparent auditability gain preference in procurement decisions and long-term program awards.
Actionable senior-executive recommendations to modernize platforms, adopt hybrid delivery, realign commercial models, and fortify talent and supply chain resilience
Industry leaders should take deliberate, high-impact steps to secure advantage and protect program continuity. First, prioritize investment in digital engineering platforms and automation to reduce design cycle time and improve traceability across the product lifecycle. Second, adopt hybrid delivery models that combine on-site presence for critical integration tasks with off-site centers for scalable execution; this hybrid posture balances cost efficiency with program reliability.
Third, renegotiate commercial models to increase alignment on outcomes, sharing risk where appropriate while ensuring adequate governance to protect intellectual property and quality. Fourth, integrate trade and tariff scenario planning into procurement and design cycles to reduce exposure to supply-chain shocks and avoid late-stage cost escalation. Fifth, invest in targeted talent pipelines and reskilling programs focused on systems engineering, model-based design, and cybersecurity to sustain capability differentiation.
Finally, strengthen partnership frameworks with suppliers and technology vendors to create more resilient value chains and faster access to specialized skills. By implementing these actions in a coordinated manner, leaders can improve execution certainty, protect margins, and accelerate innovation without compromising compliance or quality.
A rigorous mixed-methods research approach integrating executive interviews, regulatory review, capability mapping, and scenario analysis to produce actionable insights
The research methodology combines a structured review of primary and secondary sources, expert interviews, and cross-functional validation to ensure robust and actionable findings. Primary inputs included in-depth interviews with senior engineering leaders, procurement executives, and program managers to capture firsthand perspectives on delivery challenges, talent trends, and commercial structures. These qualitative inputs were complemented by a systematic review of regulatory guidance, trade policy announcements, and industry white papers to contextualize program-level implications.
Analytical approaches included thematic synthesis to identify recurring constraints and opportunities, capability mapping to align service offerings with vertical needs, and scenario analysis to test the operational effects of tariffs and supply chain disruptions. Cross-validation workshops with domain experts ensured that interpretations were realistic and that recommended mitigations were operationally feasible. Throughout the process, attention was paid to data provenance, and assumptions were documented to support transparent decision-making.
This methodology balances depth of insight with practical applicability, enabling executives to trust the report’s conclusions and to translate them into prioritized initiatives within their organizations.
Final synthesis on how platform modernization, delivery reconfiguration, and disciplined commercial alignment form the foundation for resilient engineering capability
In conclusion, engineering services are at an inflection point where technology, commercial innovation, and geopolitics intersect to redefine how value is created and delivered. Organizations that proactively modernize engineering platforms, recalibrate delivery footprints, and align commercial terms with outcome expectations will be better positioned to manage complexity and capitalize on cross-industry opportunities.
Conversely, failure to integrate trade risk management, domain-specific talent development, and hybrid delivery governance into strategic planning will increase exposure to cost overruns, schedule slippage, and competitive erosion. Therefore, executives should treat engineering services strategy as a core pillar of enterprise resilience and growth, embedding it into enterprise risk management and capital allocation discussions.
Taken together, the insights in this report provide a clear agenda for action: strengthen platforms, diversify supply chains, sharpen commercial alignment, and invest in the people and partnerships that will sustain differentiated engineering capability over time.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
199 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Adoption of digital twin technology for real-time infrastructure performance monitoring and predictive maintenance
- 5.2. Integration of generative AI platforms into HVAC system design and energy optimization workflows
- 5.3. Expansion of offshore wind farm engineering services driven by global renewable energy targets
- 5.4. Implementation of modular construction techniques to accelerate project timelines and reduce costs
- 5.5. Deployment of blockchain-based supply chain management solutions for component traceability in manufacturing engineering
- 5.6. Utilization of advanced robotics and automation for precision assembly in automotive engineering facilities
- 5.7. Rising demand for cybersecurity consulting in industrial control systems and critical infrastructure projects
- 5.8. Growing emphasis on sustainable material selection and carbon footprint reduction in civil engineering designs
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Engineering Services Market, by Service Type
- 8.1. Asset Management Related Services
- 8.2. Automation Related Services
- 8.3. Process Engineering
- 8.4. Product Engineering
- 9. Engineering Services Market, by Business Model
- 9.1. In-House Engineering Services
- 9.2. Outsourced Engineering Services
- 10. Engineering Services Market, by Delivery Model
- 10.1. Off-site & Remote Services
- 10.2. On-site Services
- 11. Engineering Services Market, by Service Duration
- 11.1. Long-term Contracts
- 11.2. Short-term Projects
- 12. Engineering Services Market, by Industry Vertical
- 12.1. Aerospace & Defense
- 12.1.1. Aircraft Manufacturing
- 12.1.2. Spacecraft Design
- 12.2. Automotive
- 12.2.1. Component Design
- 12.2.2. System Integration
- 12.3. Banking, Financial Services & Insurance
- 12.4. Construction & Infrastructure
- 12.5. Electronics & Semiconductors
- 12.6. Energy & Utilities
- 12.6.1. Oil & Gas Infrastructure
- 12.6.2. Renewable Energy Projects
- 12.7. Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals
- 12.8. IT & Telecommunications
- 12.9. Marine & Shipbuilding
- 12.10. Mining & Metals
- 12.11. Transportation
- 13. Engineering Services Market, by Client Type
- 13.1. Private
- 13.1.1. Large Organizations
- 13.1.2. Small & Medium Enterprises
- 13.2. Public/Government
- 14. Engineering Services Market, by Region
- 14.1. Americas
- 14.1.1. North America
- 14.1.2. Latin America
- 14.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 14.2.1. Europe
- 14.2.2. Middle East
- 14.2.3. Africa
- 14.3. Asia-Pacific
- 15. Engineering Services Market, by Group
- 15.1. ASEAN
- 15.2. GCC
- 15.3. European Union
- 15.4. BRICS
- 15.5. G7
- 15.6. NATO
- 16. Engineering Services Market, by Country
- 16.1. United States
- 16.2. Canada
- 16.3. Mexico
- 16.4. Brazil
- 16.5. United Kingdom
- 16.6. Germany
- 16.7. France
- 16.8. Russia
- 16.9. Italy
- 16.10. Spain
- 16.11. China
- 16.12. India
- 16.13. Japan
- 16.14. Australia
- 16.15. South Korea
- 17. Competitive Landscape
- 17.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 17.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 17.3. Competitive Analysis
- 17.3.1. Accenture PLC
- 17.3.2. AECOM
- 17.3.3. Alfanar Group
- 17.3.4. Algoscale Technologies, Inc.
- 17.3.5. Alten Group
- 17.3.6. Arcadis NV
- 17.3.7. Balfour Beatty Inc.
- 17.3.8. Bechtel Corporation
- 17.3.9. Bentley Systems, Incorporated
- 17.3.10. Bureau Veritas SA
- 17.3.11. Capgemini SE
- 17.3.12. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
- 17.3.13. Corbus, LLC.
- 17.3.14. Damco Group
- 17.3.15. DXC Technology Company
- 17.3.16. Eurofins Scientific SE
- 17.3.17. Fluor Corporation
- 17.3.18. Gannett Fleming, Inc
- 17.3.19. Geocomp by Sercel
- 17.3.20. HCL Technologies Limited
- 17.3.21. HDR, Inc.
- 17.3.22. Honeywell International Inc.
- 17.3.23. International Business Machines Corporation
- 17.3.24. Intertek Group PLC
- 17.3.25. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc
- 17.3.26. John Wood Group PLC
- 17.3.27. Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated
- 17.3.28. KBR, Inc.
- 17.3.29. Larsen & Toubro Limited
- 17.3.30. Michael Baker International
- 17.3.31. Mott MacDonald Group Limited
- 17.3.32. NTT DATA Group Corporation
- 17.3.33. Oracle Corporation
- 17.3.34. Ramboll Group A/S
- 17.3.35. Robert Bosch GmbH
- 17.3.36. Safran S.A.
- 17.3.37. Siemens AG
- 17.3.38. Simpson Gumpertz & Heger (SGH) Inc.
- 17.3.39. SLR Consulting Limited
- 17.3.40. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. (AtkinsRéalis)
- 17.3.41. Stantec Inc.
- 17.3.42. STRABAG SE
- 17.3.43. Tata Consultancy Services Limited
- 17.3.44. Tech Mahindra Limited
- 17.3.45. Tetra Tech, Inc.
- 17.3.46. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
- 17.3.47. Wipro Limited
- 17.3.48. Worley Limited
- 17.3.49. WSP Global Inc.
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
