Strategy Notebook

Edit on GitHub

Marc's Wish List / Understanding of Product Priorities

Created: October 7, 2024 · Last modified: May 31, 2026

BAU: no outside investment and we keep plugging along as fast as we can with available resources. Lister below in very rough order of priority to me.

💬 2 comments

Jason Block, Oct 7, 2024: @marc@c15.io Does this BAU bucket include winning GGRF? Seems like it, but wanted to confirm.

Marc Zuluaga, Oct 7, 2024: Good question. I guess I see the majority of our focus for Q4 being gearing up for GGRF so that we can win. Assuming we do win at least one major RFP, that would mean more revenue and more national product needs in 2025. So I guess, my BAU assumes more/deeper national product development in 2025 that would be resourced by GGRF revenue. If we somehow come up completely empty on GGRF, it is not obvious to me what we will be doing nationally in 2025.

  • National product
    • Geographic expansion
    • Building science - continued refinement of measure calcs and scope logic.
    • Generic program (funder interface)
  • Owner report
    • A building level interface or report that gives owners what they need to make a capital decision. Less emphasis on being able to pull lots of levers. More emphasis on comparing impacts of different scopes over time (vs. BAU scope)
💬 2 comments

François Huet, Oct 7, 2024: We haven't discussed this at all for our Q4 plan.  For owners, we have a slightly related proposal of a dashboard view which contents depend on your role. Over time impact and "what if" scenarios evaluation would be below the line.

Marc Zuluaga, Oct 7, 2024: I thought we left it last week, that we (me with Jason) will undertake some customer discovery this fall so that we could get a crisp spec for implementation starting in January Does that work?

  • Longer term… some sort of presentation of scopes across a portfolio of buildings.
  • Software bolting together of scope builder + generic project so user can smoothly go from scoping to bidding.
💬 2 comments

Jason Block, Oct 7, 2024: Which users would this be? I think this is important to know since it doesn't sound like KC3 is interested in doing this. And I'm guessing not owners directly. Consultants?

Also, we have a way for projects to go from scoping to generic project (users need a scope to create a project).

Marc Zuluaga, Oct 7, 2024: I don't think it is that KC3 isn't interested in doing this as much as I have not had an explicit discussion with them on their scope in part because some of their contract stuff is up in air right now. I see power users being KC3 and Aurora types. I want to also understand how Rebecca at Willdan could use.

  • Continued development of generic project based on user feedback
💬 2 comments

Jason Block, Oct 7, 2024: I think we need to discuss which users are going to be using this. Right now we've been assuming just Kate/Martine, and potentially KC3.

Marc Zuluaga, Oct 7, 2024: Agreed and see above.

  • I think being able to suck up contractor bids in semi structured formats fits here as well – I believe that this is more central to CPC upstate and GGRF bidding – we have proven ability to wrangle NYC contractors to give us information in structured template formats.
  • Consultant interface
    • I know Jason has some thoughts on a more detailed tab with some further details for consultants.
    • Being able to customize calc inputs as well as costs would fall into this bucket
💬 2 comments

François Huet, Oct 7, 2024: proposal: allow to customize calc inputs (via building details) and calc outputs (via line items quantity / prices).  No access to intermediate calculation data for now.

Marc Zuluaga, Oct 7, 2024: 👍

BAU+ (NYSERDA)

  • Equipment App: I would really like to do this – it is relevant in both NY and nationally. NYSERDA wants a proposal from us that could offset development costs and also define a realistic timeframe such that the first 6 months are customer discovery with no actual development (if something like that is better for us)
💬 3 comments

Jason Block, Oct 7, 2024: This seems more in our control, at least to provide a response/budget to NYSERDA, which is distinct from GGRF and Accelerator. Given the risk, seems like we need to discuss internally more to put that together.

Marc Zuluaga, Oct 7, 2024: Yes -- I think we should discuss internally, is a call to outline a potential scope, the next step?  And if so, want me to send an invite? Jason Block, Oct 8, 2024: Yes--that sounds like the right next step so we can respond to Mike.

  • More than an opportunity… if we don’t do this and they find someone else to do it, that would invite an entity in to choke off a substantial fraction of our potential NYC revenue – a SEVERE BUSINESS RISK. This one is MUCH more core to our revenue model than the other NYSERDA data RFP we bid on.

BAU+ (Accelerator RFP or investors)

  • Public facing site (in NYC) to build demand for pipeline – allowing owners or consultants to enter information about a building to move down the funnel after we first serve up some prelim scope information. If we win accelerator (notification by Q1 2025) we, would have significant resources to implement this later in the year in a timeframe that we would define.
  • Aggregated bidding: allow different ownership entities to opt into a particular kind of scope that will be bid out in a defined timeframe.
  • Payments on platform.
  • Deeper ML