Problems › How Do We Get More Customers? › Energy & Utilities Services
More revenue from regulated utility asset projects is an outcome. The decision is which route to master service agreements you can afford to repeat. What makes this harder for utility contractors is structural: margin improvement requires shifting revenue to automation and controls but that reduces overhead line work and operating profit unless utilization exceeds 79 percent which outage scheduling prevents. Any credible answer therefore has to hold 18.0 and 71.4 in the same view, which is exactly where most internal analysis stops because the two live in different systems.
More revenue from regulated utility asset projects is an outcome. The decision is which route to master service agreements you can afford to repeat. What makes this harder for utility contractors is structural: margin improvement requires shifting revenue to automation and controls but that reduces overhead line work and operating profit unless utilization exceeds 79 percent which outage scheduling prevents. Any credible answer therefore has to hold 18.0 and 71.4 in the same view, which is exactly where most internal analysis stops because the two live in different systems.
Almost every utility contractor can name several routes to the utility procurement officer and few can say which one pays back. That is the actual constraint: not a shortage of tactics, but no evidence about which tactic to do more of when craft utilisation sits at 71.4.
The productive framing is route economics. For each plausible route to backlog — direct contact, existing agreements, partners for controls work — what does it cost to add one agreement, how long until payback at 18.0 or 6.6, and can it be repeated without utilisation falling when outage windows limit the schedule.
Most routes fail the third test. They work at small volume because they depend on relationships that secure the next 23 projects and quietly stop when the procurement cycle resets and project write-downs appear.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ Growth depends on one person's relationships with the utility procurement officer
✓ Backlog growth is tracked only in aggregate across master service agreements
✓ Every route to new outage windows is being tried a little and none is being tested properly at current craft utilisation
The move that usually makes it worse. Running several routes to new master service agreements at sub-scale simultaneously, which produces no conclusive result on any of them and costs more than testing one properly.
It is for you if you run or finance a utility contractor and growth depends on one person's relationships. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a utility contractor. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Verrick Energy Services, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — 248.6 million dollars revenue from regulated utility asset projects.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Pricing Strategy · sample company profile
The move. Monetise 9.2-day energised outage reliability inside existing MSAs to expand share-of-wallet and lift blended margin 135 bps.
| Investment required | $0.6–0.9 M (retention bonuses for 150 senior linemen and minor estimating-process tweaks) |
| Expected return | Base case: 4.8× return on $0.75 M investment via $3.6 M incremental gross profit in Year 2; conservative range 3.2–6.1× based on 200–300 bps premium capture. |
| Revenue, year 1 | $255–260 M (+3–5 % vs FY2025) |
| Revenue, year 2 | $265–275 M (+7–11 % vs FY2025) |
| Revenue, year 3 | $280–295 M (+13–19 % vs FY2025) |
| Exit criteria | Strategy should be reversed if, within 18 months, (a) craft utilisation has not reached 75 % OR (b) at least 2 of 3 targeted MSA renewals have not been signed with explicit energised-window guarantees, OR (c) substation-segment gross margin remains below 19.5 % after premium pricing implementation. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Go-to-Market & Commercial Strategy, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For utility contractors it works through 18.0, 71.4, 23 and 6.6, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
The one where your buyer already is and where you can pay back the acquisition cost within a period you can finance. That is business-specific, and the general answer is worth very little.
One that works, then a second. Running four at a quarter of the necessary budget reliably produces four inconclusive results and the belief that nothing works.
Your sales cycle plus one payback period, with enough volume to distinguish the result from noise. Setting that number in advance is what stops the decision being made by whoever is most persuasive.
Materially, yes. Margin improvement requires shifting revenue to automation and controls but that reduces overhead line work and operating profit unless utilization exceeds 79 percent which outage scheduling prevents — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are 18.0, 71.4, 23, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on 18.0 and 71.4. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.
English · Español · Deutsch · Português · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · 한국어 · 中文 · Polski · Svenska · Türkçe · العربية · Tiếng Việt · ไทย · हिन्दी · עברית