HPWH Intelligence Platform: Market Research Strategy

Purpose

This document outlines the market research strategy for validating the 10-HP-Intelligence SaaS platform. The primary goal is to answer three questions before committing to a build roadmap:

Problem validation: Are the pain points real and significant enough to pay to solve?
Feature prioritisation: Which of the planned features do target users value most?
Willingness to pay: What pricing model and price point will the market bear?

Target Audiences

The survey and research program is designed for five distinct user types, each with different pain points and feature priorities:

User Type	Primary Pain Points	Highest-Value Features
Accredited Certificate Providers (ACPs)	Chasing documents, tracking expiry dates, recalculating certificate values when rules change	Client Portal, Product Compliance Tracker, Certificate Estimator
Certification Bodies	Managing in-flight applications, communicating requirements to manufacturers	Product Compliance Tracker, Eligibility Checker, Regulatory Updates
Test Labs	Clients submitting with wrong conditions, benchmarking outputs for clients	5125.1 Report Analyser, MEPS Design Tool, Raw Test Data Analysis
Manufacturers	Not knowing what testing/certification is required, MEPS uncertainty, cost estimation	Eligibility Checker, Compliance Tracker, MEPS Tool, Chatbot
Importers (incl. Chinese-language)	Navigating the full compliance pathway from scratch, language barriers, coordinating across countries	Eligibility Checker, Pathway Planner, Compliance Tracker, Chatbot

Compiled Pain Points

The following pain points were identified by mapping current EnergyAE consulting workflows against the platform’s planned feature set. These are presented in the survey as a 1-5 significance rating.

Compliance and Certification Pain Points

Tracking compliance status across multiple products — Managing which products have which certifications, at what stage, and what’s outstanding is entirely manual for most organisations (spreadsheets, email threads, folder structures).
Chasing missing documents from clients or suppliers — ACPs spend significant time following up test reports, certificates, and supporting documents. There is no structured handoff mechanism.
Understanding which schemes a new product is eligible for — The eligibility rules across SRES/STC, VEU Activity 44, ESS HEAB, EECA/WHNZ, GEMS, and Watermark are complex and change regularly. Most manufacturers rely on a consultant call to establish this.
Estimating total compliance costs and timelines before committing — No single resource aggregates lab costs, certification fees, and scheme registration costs with realistic timelines. Manufacturers often underestimate both.
Keeping up with scheme rule changes and regulatory updates — VEU Activity 44 methodology changes, CER round timelines, GEMS updates, and NZ regulatory changes are scattered across multiple government portals. Missing a change can invalidate in-progress work.
Knowing exactly which test conditions are required for each scheme registration — There are material differences between what a lab needs to test for SRES vs VEU vs ESS. Manufacturers frequently need to repeat testing because the first report was insufficient for a specific scheme.
Tracking registration expiry dates and renewal deadlines — Certificate registrations and scheme approvals have expiry dates. There is no centralised alert system; organisations rely on calendar reminders or miss renewals entirely.
Coordinating between test labs, certification bodies, and scheme administrators — Each party uses different systems and formats. There is no shared visibility. Communication defaults to email chains.

Performance and Technical Pain Points

Interpreting and benchmarking AS/NZS 5125.1 test data — The raw output of a 5125.1 test is a PDF table. Converting it to performance curves and understanding where the product sits relative to the market requires manual effort.
Understanding MEPS requirements and how product design affects MEPS outcomes — The Appendix H simulation required for MEPS compliance is opaque. Manufacturers often do not know whether their product will pass until the test is complete. There is no tool for running “what if” scenarios before committing to testing.
Finding reliable, up-to-date market data on HPWH pricing and performance — There is no public or industry database showing current ANZ market products ranked by price and efficiency. Manufacturers lack competitive intelligence; ACPs lack benchmarking data.

Business and Strategic Pain Points

Communicating compliance status clearly to clients, distributors, or management — Compliance managers need to produce reports showing what’s done and what isn’t. This is done manually (Word documents, spreadsheet exports) and takes significant time.
Estimating certificate value for a new product before registration — Certificate volume and value estimates require knowing the simulation outputs, scheme entitlement rules, and current certificate prices simultaneously. This is a common early-stage question with no self-serve answer.
Understanding the full cost and timeline for entering the ANZ market (especially relevant to Chinese manufacturers and importers) — The combined compliance requirements (GEMS, Watermark, 5125.1 testing, VEU, STC) are spread across multiple documents in regulatory English. No single guide synthesises them.

Survey Design Rationale

Structure

The survey follows a deliberate arc: quick and easy questions first, then diagnostic, then evaluative, then commercial, with open-ended last. This minimises drop-off while building towards the most valuable (and demanding) responses.

Section	Purpose	Format
1. About You	Segment responses by user type and experience	5 quick single/multi-select questions
2. Current Pain Points	Validate that the problems being solved are real	12 pain points rated 1-5 (significance)
3. Feature Ratings	Prioritise development roadmap	10 features rated 1-5 (usefulness)
4. Platform Validation	Measure overall demand signal	2 rating questions (interest, likelihood to pay)
5. Pricing	Identify viable price points and model preferences	Van Westendorp PSM (4 questions) + format preference
6. Open-Ended	Surface insights the structured questions can’t capture	4 paragraph-entry questions + optional contact

The 10 Features Selected for Rating

The platform has approximately 25 planned features. The 10 selected for the survey were chosen to represent the full feature surface (compliance, data analysis, simulation, AI, market intelligence) while being distinct enough that users can differentiate their ratings. Each feature description in the survey is written in plain-English benefit language, not technical platform language.

Eligibility Checker + Scheme Pathway Planner — Identifies applicable schemes and generates a tailored compliance plan
Product Compliance Tracker — Per-product dashboard with checklist, document storage, and expiry tracking
Certificate Volume and Value Estimator — Calculates expected certificates across VEEC, ESC, STC, and other schemes
AS/NZS 5125.1 Report Analyser — Upload a test report, receive COP curves benchmarked against the full ANZ market
MEPS Design and Estimation Tool — Simulate Appendix H outcomes and test design variations before committing to testing
Client Document Portal — Structured upload workflow that eliminates chasing missing documents
AI Compliance Chatbot — Instant answers to compliance questions, trained on scheme docs and standards
Regulatory News and Updates Feed — Automated alerts for scheme changes, CER timelines, and new standards
Market Price-Performance Map — Live scatterplot of all ANZ products by retail price vs COP
Performance Simulator — Visual simulation of COP, energy use, and running costs under user-defined conditions

Pricing Research Approach

Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter (PSM)

The survey uses the four-question PSM framework. For each question, respondents type a monthly subscription price.

Question	What it reveals
”At what price would this feel so cheap you’d question the quality?”	Floor (too cheap)
“At what price would this feel like a bargain — great value for what it offers?”	Acceptable low end
”At what price would it start to feel expensive, but you’d still consider it?”	Acceptable high end
”At what price would it be too expensive to consider, regardless of what it offers?”	Ceiling (too expensive)

The intersection of the “too cheap” and “too expensive” curves defines the Acceptable Price Range (APR). The intersection of the “bargain” and “expensive” curves defines the Optimal Price Point (OPP).

Supplementary Pricing Questions

Annual vs monthly preference (and discount threshold that would motivate annual prepay)
Pricing model preference: per user seat / flat company rate / per product registered / freemium with paid features
Company size (number of products managed or certificates processed annually) — used to segment willingness-to-pay by scale

Pricing Hypotheses to Test

Based on comparable B2B compliance SaaS products in adjacent markets:

Entry tier: AUD $79-149/month per company (1-3 users, core compliance tools)
Professional tier: AUD $249-399/month (unlimited users, all features, priority support)
Enterprise: custom pricing for large ACPs or manufacturers with 10+ products

The PSM data will confirm or challenge these hypotheses.

Additional Market Research Ideas

The survey is one instrument. A robust validation program uses multiple methods to triangulate findings.

1. Customer Discovery Interviews (Highest Priority)

Before or alongside the survey, conduct 6-10 structured 30-45 minute interviews with representatives from each user type. Use the Jobs-to-be-Done framework: “Walk me through the last time you had to [compliance task]. What did you do? What took the longest? What did you use?”

This qualitative data gives the “why” behind the survey numbers, surfaces edge cases the survey doesn’t capture, and often reveals unexpected use cases.

Target: 2 ACP interviews, 2 manufacturer/importer interviews, 1-2 test lab interviews, 1-2 certification body interviews.

Incentive: 30 minutes of free consulting time or early platform access.

2. Observational Research (Watch Someone Do the Work)

Ask one friendly ACP client or manufacturer to let you watch them complete a compliance task in real time (e.g., preparing a new product for VEU registration). Document every step, tool, file, email, and frustration. This is the single most powerful way to understand the real workflow.

Time required: 2-3 hours including debrief.

3. Competitor and Substitute Audit

Document what target users currently use to solve these problems. The real competitors are not other SaaS products (none appear to exist in this niche) but the current workarounds: Excel, shared SharePoint folders, email threads, Notion databases, and consultant calls. Understanding these in detail tells you what the platform needs to beat on ease-of-use, not just features.

Also audit: energy.gov.au tools, ESC Victoria’s scheme tools, EECA’s resources, and any existing ACP tracking systems.

4. Landing Page Smoke Test

Before building anything, create a simple landing page describing the platform at a high level with a “Register for Early Access” CTA. Drive traffic via:

Direct email to existing client list (highest-quality signal)
LinkedIn posts in relevant AU energy efficiency groups
Mention at industry events

Measure: email open rate, click-through to landing page, early-access signups. A 5-10% signup rate from your existing client list would be a strong positive signal.

5. LinkedIn Polls

Post 3-4 simple single-question polls in LinkedIn groups and on your company page targeting AU/NZ energy efficiency professionals. Examples:

“What takes the most time when managing HPWH compliance? (A) Chasing documents, (B) Tracking expiry dates, (C) Calculating certificate values, (D) Keeping up with rule changes”
“Would you pay for a tool that auto-generates a compliance roadmap for a new HPWH product? (Yes definitely / Maybe / No)”

These generate public engagement, validate pain points, and build awareness simultaneously.

6. Advisory Board (3-5 People)

Recruit 3-5 senior industry contacts (one from each user type) to be informal advisors. Offer them early access and a say in the roadmap in exchange for monthly 30-minute check-ins during the build phase. This gives you ongoing qualitative feedback and a group of committed early adopters.

7. Early Access / Beta Program

Offer 10-15 friendly clients free access to the first modules (eligibility checker, compliance tracker) in exchange for structured feedback via a short fortnightly survey and willingness to get on a call if needed. This replaces assumptions with real usage data before wider launch.

8. Feature Waitlist with Priority Ranking

On the landing page or in the survey, allow respondents to rank which feature they most want to see first. Build the feature with the most demand votes first. This also creates a committed early user base for each feature module.

9. A/B Test Positioning Statements

Send two versions of the survey invitation email with different subject lines and positioning statements:

Version A: “Save hours on HPWH compliance management”
Version B: “Know exactly what your product needs to sell in Australia”

Which gets a higher open and click rate tells you which positioning resonates more with your audience.

10. Price Anchoring Experiment

In a follow-up email to survey respondents who expressed high interest, present three hypothetical pricing tiers with feature bundles (not just prices) and ask which they would choose. This conjoint-style question reveals not just price tolerance but which feature combinations drive perceived value.

Survey Distribution Plan

Channel	Audience	Expected Response Rate
Direct email to existing client list	Warm, high-quality	25-40%
LinkedIn DM to known industry contacts	Warm, medium quality	10-20%
LinkedIn post with survey link	Cold, broad	2-5%
Industry association newsletters (if accessible)	Mixed	3-8%

Target sample size: 50 responses minimum for quantitative reliability; 100+ ideal. With a focused client list of likely 200-400 contacts and a 25-35% response rate, 50-100 responses is realistic.

Survey length target: 8-12 minutes. Keep Section 1 (About You) genuinely fast to build momentum into the harder questions.

Success Metrics

The research program has succeeded if it can answer the following with confidence:

Problem: At least 3 pain points have an average significance rating of 4.0+ across all respondents.
Feature: A clear top 3 features emerge with average usefulness ratings of 4.0+ (these become the v1 build priority).
Demand: At least 60% of respondents rate overall interest 7/10 or above.
Price: The Van Westendorp APR overlaps with at least one of the planned pricing tiers.
Qualitative: Open-ended responses reveal at least 2-3 use cases or pain points not captured in the structured questions.

Document prepared May 2026. Review and update after first 20 survey responses to refine open-ended questions if needed.