Engineering Market Research Strategies

🚀 Innovation Case Study: How Chinese Manufacturers Cracked the "Uncrackable" European HVAC Market For decades, the European home appliance market has been notoriously difficult for foreign HVAC companies to penetrate. Strict historical preservation laws, rigid building codes, and a highly protective, scarce network of certified installers created a massive barrier to entry. Yet, a massive shift is happening right now. Midea Group and other manufacturers have turned a simple design iteration into a commercial sensation. Their U-shaped, integrated window air conditioners have seen European retail prices soar from €800 to over €2,000—and they still can't keep them on the shelves. This isn't just a win for sales; it’s a masterclass in localized product engineering. Here are the 3 core business and design lessons from this success: 1. Designing Around Local Infrastructure Obstacles Traditional split-system air conditioners require drilling through exterior walls and mounting heavy compressor units outside. In many European cities, this is strictly illegal due to historical preservation laws. By engineering a high-efficiency U-shaped integrated unit, the system sits securely inside the window frame. The window closes into the U-gap, keeping the noisy compressor elements technically outside while keeping the building facade structurally unaltered. 2. Disrupted Distribution: Bypassing the Installer Bottleneck In Europe, the wait time for a certified HVAC installer can stretch for months and cost hundreds of Euros due to a localized labor deficit. By designing a true plug-and-play, consumer-installable unit, these manufacturers completely bypassed the traditional installer bottleneck. They transformed a complex B2B2C service model into a frictionless, direct-to-consumer retail product. 3. Empathy-Driven Engineering There is a profound difference between having advanced technology and understanding consumer psychology. This success evokes the golden era of Japanese home appliance giants from thirty years ago—where success wasn't just about raw horsepower, but the acute sensitivity to localized aesthetic and functional pain points. The Strategic Takeaway: True market disruption rarely comes from introducing a fundamentally new science. More often, it comes from re-engineering an existing technology to fit seamlessly into the regulatory, cultural, and architectural realities of a specific geography. When you deeply understand a market's friction points, your product doesn't just compete on price—it commands a premium. Video: TikTok

Industrial electrification faces significant hurdles: technology, knowledge, and economic barriers. Addressing them is critical to make progress. More in our paper (link in comments). 🔌 Technology Barriers Limited Market and Standardisation: The industrial electrification market is relatively small, which means there are a limited number of manufacturers. This results in custom-made designs rather than standardised solutions, making it difficult to replicate installations. Lack of Demonstrated Examples: There are few public examples of new electrification technologies being successfully used in an industrial setting which creates a perceived risk due to a lack of a long track record. Specific Component Gaps: There is a lack of available compressors for high temperatures and a need for refrigerants with low global warming potential and zero ozone depletion potential. Operational Disruption: Companies often anticipate significant operational disruptions and downtime for site conversions. 🧠 Knowledge Barriers Limited Awareness: A general lack of knowledge exists regarding the available electrification technologies and their capabilities. Need for Combined Expertise: Successful integration of electric heating technologies requires a combined understanding of both the industrial process and the new technologies, a skill set that is often not readily available. Data Gaps and Skills Shortage: Companies often lack a detailed understanding of their own heating and cooling consumption. Furthermore, there is a shortage of skilled electrical engineers and installers in the supply chain to support the transition. 💰 Economic Barriers High Costs and Payback Periods: Industrial electrification often involves significant upfront capital costs, particularly for early equipment replacement. Companies typically expect a short payback period of just 2 to 3 years, which may not be feasible for many projects. High Electricity Prices: If electricity prices are high relative to fossil fuel prices—often due to taxes or levies on electricity—the operational costs of electric equipment can be higher. Long-Term Financial Challenges: The long lifespan of existing equipment (30 to 60 years) can lead to stranded assets if they are retired early. This, combined with uncertain future prices for gas, electricity, and carbon, makes it difficult to build a strong business case. Some industries also have byproducts that are used as a low-cost fuel, removing the economic incentive to electrify. ⚡ Infrastructure Barriers Grid Upgrades: Electrification may require expensive and time-consuming upgrades to the electrical grid connection, with long lead times for planning and permitting. Vulnerability to Outages: Increased reliance on electricity makes industrial facilities more vulnerable to power outages unless they have energy storage solutions. Supply Limits: There may be real or perceived limits on the availability of electricity in the region.

Global standards define market entry long before products compete, setting technical conditions that shape certification and interoperability. Companies that track forums and align engineering with compliance reduce redesign cycles and enter markets with fewer barriers. Key implications for execution: Early adoption of standards reduces redesign risk and accelerates certification timelines Monitoring standard bodies helps anticipate technical directions and align product roadmaps Closer coordination between engineering and compliance avoids late-stage blockers Interoperability design lowers integration effort and supports partner ecosystems Active participation in standards groups strengthens long-term positioning Market entry depends on treating standards as a strategic asset embedded in everyday decisions. #TechStandards

For the longest time, we all thought building the product was the hardest part, but that has changed significantly. With AI, products can be built, tested, and launched faster than ever before. Which means the real challenge now is no longer about can you build this? but about how do we get people to care about this? I've conducted many workshops with product builders - be it PMs, sales, engineers, and designers. When you ask who the product is truly for, what it meaningfully replaces, and why a customer would choose it over their current way of doing things, the answers are different. Sales will often describe competition based on recent deals. Product will frame it in terms of where the roadmap is headed. Marketing will respond to what the market appears to reward. And let's be honest, a user doesn't look at the product like that! So then, I ask this one question: If this product did not exist, what would the customer do instead? Would they rely on an existing tool? Would they create a workaround? Or would they continue with the status quo? Positioning, then, is not about describing the product in isolation. It is about defining it in direct relation to that default choice. It requires identifying the specific context in which the product creates a form of value that is immediately comprehensible to the customer it is intended for. And that specific context is especially helpful when the teams are building internally! Ofcourse, this narrows the scope more than teams are initially comfortable with, but it is precisely this specificity that creates clarity. Remember, it is not what you build that's the differentiator. It's how much clarity you have on it that separates you from the rest.

Is the civil and geotechnical engineering #startup scene... Underwhelming? 🥴 Compared to industries like AI, Automotive and biotech, I see far less startup-driven innovation in civil and geotechnical engineering. 🤔 And I wonder why? Here’s my take: Barrier to entry 💰 – Civil and geotechnical engineering requires large upfront investments, certifications, and strict regulatory compliance. For many would-be founders, the costs and complexity can be simply too high. Risk-averse culture 📉 – Many companies in the field prioritize reliability over experimentation. And who could blame them? Experimenting with unproven technology isn’t always an option for multi-million dollar projects. Long project timelines ⏳ – With infrastructure projects often taking years to complete, any return on investment in new technology is painfully slow, limiting the appetite for rapid innovation. Yet despite these challenges, I hope that there are startups that are breaking through. So... Now I want to hear from you! 💬 Let’s give the startups we know a boost. Share the startups in the civil or geotechnical industry that you think are worthy of attention – let’s give them the recognition they deserve. 👇 #civilengineering #geotechnicalengineering

Working with over 350 B2B startup founders on their positioning has made one thing clear: Founders have no idea what market they’re actually competing in. This lack of clarity is driven by an ignorance of just how fragmented and complex B2B markets can be (and usually are). Most founders have drastically oversimplified their definition of their target market, adjacent markets, and competitive alternatives. We’ll hear things like: “We’re in the revenue operations market and compete against Clari and Salesforce” or “We’re in the analytics market and really only compete with Tableau” These descriptions are lazy — but more importantly, they are NOT helpful when it comes to making critical positioning decisions. ——— So we’ve decided to start visualizing markets for the founders we work with… By creating use case-based market maps. 🗺️ (see image for a snippet of a map we created for a client) It visualizes markets not as rigid categories but as functional activities — It also shows how tools like Siteimprove, Google Analytics, Hotjar | by Contentsquare, and Matomo position with overlapping and distinct needs. It's important to note that each square represents a market segment that could be positioned for. This client is trying to figure out what part of the market their website feedback and analytics tools fit into. As you might guess based on the map, there are several different markets they could position themselves in — Some broad. Some specific. We'll use this map to flesh out each strategy, and help us decide how to position their product. ——— When you can visualize the complexities and layers of market segments by activities, the easier it is to: → Identify strategies to penetrate parts of the market. → Translate your positioning into differentiated messaging. #positioning #startups #GoToMarket

#artofprocurement : Porter’s Five Forces: How They Shape the EPC Procurement Environment Porter's Five Forces is a business analysis tool that examines five critical aspects of an industry to understand its competitive dynamics and potential for profitability. 1 Threat of New Entrants The likelihood of new companies entering the market and increasing competition. 2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers The ability of suppliers to influence prices and terms of supply. 3Bargaining Power of Buyers The impact customers can have on pricing and quality. 4 Threat of Substitutes Presence of alternative products or services that can replace the industry's offerings. 5 Industry Rivalry Intensity of competition among existing companies in the market.   Actionable insights: 1 Threat of New Entrants The EPC construction sector has high entry barriers in India. Capital-intensive investments, stringent regulatory compliance, complex licensing, and the need for technical expertise make it challenging for new players to enter. Existing firms have established relationships with suppliers, a strong brand reputation, and experience managing large-scale projects, which new entrants may find hard to replicate. Insight: Low threat of new entrants allows existing EPC firms to maintain their market share and profitability. 2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers Construction sector relies heavily on raw materials like cement, steel, and specialized machinery. Concentration of key suppliers for these materials increases their bargaining power, which can affect the costs and timelines of EPC projects. Additionally, fluctuations in raw material prices, driven by factors like global market trends and government policies, further strengthen suppliers' negotiating power. Insight: To mitigate supplier power, EPC firms need to adopt strategic sourcing, maintain strong supplier relationships and release . Long-term contracts, bulk purchasing agreements 3 Bargaining Power of Buyers Buyers (Real estate developers, Gov. bodies, or Private corporations) often wield significant bargaining power. Projects involve large financial investments, and clients expect high-quality work, timely delivery, and cost efficiency. Insight: To counter buyer power, EPC firms must differentiate themselves by offering superior project management, innovative design solutions, and reliability in procurement and delivery. 4 Threat of Substitutes Threat of substitutes primarily comes from alternative building materials or methods, such as prefabricated structures, green building techniques, and advanced construction technologies. While the adoption of these substitutes is still in a nascent stage in India, growing awareness of sustainable practices and technological innovation could increase their prevalence. Insight: EPC firms need to keep pace with technological developments and integrate sustainable practices into their procurement and construction processes. Continues below...

Every new material or alloy must undergo a rigorous qualification process before it sees real-world use. This process often spans several years, and in some cases, can extend to two decades. A qualified material in a real-world use-case demands a substantial body of evidence that demonstrates a material’s reliability under real conditions and over meaningful periods. Ultimately, the process is lengthy because every engineer, regulator, and program manager must trust that the material will not fail under their responsibility. This extended timeline is both the primary barrier to market entry for new materials and the key reason qualified materials are so resilient to displacement. Any competitor faces the same demanding process. The very challenge that nearly prevents a material from reaching the market becomes its strongest protection (moat) once qualified. Most companies approach this by developing their material, conducting tests, assembling a data package, and then presenting it to the customer with a request for trust. Often, customers respond with skepticism, choosing to rerun the tests themselves. Even when the data is sound, customers may decline simply to avoid risk. In effect, they are being asked to stake their reputation on evidence they did not help generate. This is why the process extends well beyond the time required for testing alone. Building trust takes even longer than generating data. The companies that have actually compressed this timeline figured out that they must build trust into the process from the beginning. All the stakeholders should be made parties to the process of building that evidence. So that, by the time the material is ready, nobody needs to be convinced. This approach shifts the competitive advantage from simply possessing a novel material to building the relationships and shared evidence infrastructure that accelerate lab-to-market timelines. Even a competitor with a superior alloy must overcome the same formidable qualification barrier. Therefore, the true challenge in accelerating materials innovation lies not only in faster discovery, but in faster qualification for real-world applications. The solution is to engage customers early, even when the material exists only as a concept. With the right team, tools, and timing, this is achievable.

Your AI product could be the go-to in your category. But you're positioning it like everyone else. Here's the difference: Positioning that converts prospects: - Speaks to their exact daily frustrations - Uses the language they actually use internally - References specific tools they're already using - Mentions the precise time wasted on manual tasks - Addresses the moment when their pain hits hardest - Connects features to real workflow improvements - Shows understanding of their current process gaps - Demonstrates knowledge of their industry constraints Positioning that gets ignored: - Uses generic pain points like "save time" - Relies on buzzwords and marketing speak - Focuses on features without context - Makes broad claims about efficiency gains - Ignores the prospect's current reality - Talks about benefits in abstract terms - Sounds like every other competitor - Fails to show specific understanding The difference? Research depth. I spend hours listening to sales calls, reading support tickets, and analyzing how prospects describe their problems. Most founders skip this step and wonder why their messaging feels flat. They write copy based on assumptions instead of real conversations. But when you nail the specifics - like mentioning the exact frustration of switching between Slack, Asana, and three spreadsheets just to update one client - prospects stop scrolling. They think: "This person gets exactly what I deal with" That's when your product becomes the obvious choice. P.S.: Still using generic pain points like "save time"? DM me to position your solution so prospects immediately see the value. ______________________________ 👋 I’m Marina Kogan 🌊 I help founders position tech products as must-have solutions.