I heard those words come out of the mouth of one of my clients as he trained a team of Project Salespeople on our Project Financial Analysis software platform. While I appreciated his exuberance, I must admit I was taken aback by that statement. While I didn’t challenge him in front of the class (believe me I didn’t have to), I made a point of challenging him later that evening over dinner. His responses form the basis of this post.
Benchmarking has become universally accepted as a logical and efficient first step in assessing a building’s energy efficiency. For many of our clients it has become an effective way of engaging sales in the front end of the energy services delivery process. Benchmarking provides an indication of relative performance among common building types as well as total energy spend. Often used in the survey process of both service contract and equipment upgrade sales, it is a great way to quickly qualify buildings in the commercial environment.
While there are many different types of benchmarking tools available, Energy Star’s Portfolio Manager (ESPM) is the predominant tool used for this function. Its breadth of buildings, years of existence and the power of its data normalization combine to make it the “go to” tool for our industry.
However, like any tool, it has its limitations. Over time we saw patterns of sales adoption of the benchmarking process.
What is your Project Sales to Service Contract Revenue Ratio?
Do you track it? Should it be better? How could you improve it?
Having spent the past 11 years working closely with mechanical contracting and controls sales teams, I’ve always been perplexed by the lack of evident proactive harvesting of equipment upgrades from our clients’ hard won base. Well run commercial contractors track their ratio of “add on” business to service contract business so they are aware of the importance of this segment of revenue. While many clients that we work with seem to be relatively satisfied with their results, it’s interesting that the bulk of that revenue comes from a highly reactive, run-to-fail, repair and replace business model.