II 34 GUÍA PARA EL REGISTRO INTERNACIONAL DE DIBUJOS Y MODELOS INDUSTRIALES

In this penultimate section of the developer survey, organisations were asked questions on the barriers they perceive to exist, which prevents the market acceptance of their technologies and/or adoption by customers. Respondents were asked to rank the importance of identified barriers from 1 to 5 (1 being the most important and 5 least important). Our findings are presented in Figure 4-11 and suggest that the most important barriers identified by developers were:

• The company is unable to demonstrate the performance of their technology in real world operational conditions;

• Customers are highly risk averse and prefer to but market proven technologies; • Validation procedures for new technology are very onerous;

• The company must comply with stringent health, safety, and environmental standards as a condition of sale; and,

In contrast, failure to achieve mutual recognition, the right quality standards/accreditation for the market, or a lack of legitimacy for environmental performance claims are not viewed as important barriers to developers by over 50% of respondents. In contrast,

Other significant barriers identified by developers relate to the costs of new technologies being higher than the incumbent technology, a limited or no track record of sales preventing market acceptance, and customer uncertainty over the fitness for use of the technology.

Box 4.1: Other barriers identified by respondents

“Lack of external economical support to interact with possible customers, this is performed in-house and is limited as a result”.

“No other comparable product exists on the market that can be compared against, standard design and specification is therefore not applicable to the product”.

“Current micro CHP test norm PAS67 is a barrier to our technology. The norm was written around Stirling engine based products”.

“Unstable regulatory environment and lack of support”. “Legislation to drive uptake is ambiguous in many countries”.

Figure 4-11 Barriers affecting market acceptance/adoption by customers

Developers were then asked about the methods they currently use for proving performance claims to potential customers. Respondents were allowed to give multiple

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Limited or no track record of sales

Company is of insufficient scale to provide credible guarantees to customers New product price is higher than incumbent technology Customers are uncertain about our product’s environmental performance Customers are uncertain as to how suitable our product is to their operations (i.e. fitness …

Lack legitimacy for our environmental performance claims Unable to demonstrate the performance of our technology in real world operational …

Customers are highly risk averse and prefer to buy market proven technologies Validation procedures for this new technology are very onerous Company must comply with stringent health, safety, and environmental standards as a … Yet to achieve the right quality standards / accreditations (e.g. ISO9001/14001) to satisfy … Lack of mutual recognition and harmonised standards prevents market access

Other barriers

Least important Some importance Most important

answers to this question. The responses in Figure 4-12 indicate that an historical track record, market reputation, demonstration of technology at a customer’s site and credible test data are the methods most frequently used to prove performance claims. Importantly, this suggests that credibility offered by ETV is equally as important as many other factors, but 17% of respondents believe that having credible information is helpful.

Figure 4-12 Respondents methods current used for proving performance claims to potential customers

Where technologies are verified, developers were then asked:

• whether verification of performance was always a requirement of market access (Figure 4-13) – highest in water, contaminated land and energy technologies; • what existing certification schemes help respondent’s access international

markets (Figure 4-14); and;

• whether a lack of verification/certification has restricted international market access (Figure 4-15).

In the water treatment and monitoring sector, the responses reinforce the view that some developers might benefit from ETV, producing discrete and commercially available solutions, where as those developers providing custom integrated solutions might not. A similar, but a less significant pattern is shown in the energy technologies sector, with the soil/groundwater remediation sector identified as clearly benefiting from verification. Earlier responses indicated that this sector currently places a larger number of innovative products on the market compared to other sectors, therefore verification is likely to be popular as a method of differentiating the product from rivals. The commercial case for an ETV type scheme might therefore be regarded as strong.

18% 17% 17% 3% 15% 18% 3% 5% 4%

Previous sales to customer Company reputation in the market Test data f rom credible testing organisation

Use of an existing ETV scheme Joint development with potential future customers

Demonstration at customer site ISO certif ication

Other certifcation scheme Other

Figure 4-13 Respondents indicating performance verification as a condition of market entry

Figure 4-14 Certification scheme used to access international markets

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Never required Rarely required Yes 0 2 4 6 8 10

Water treatment & monitoring Soil & groundwater monitoring &

remediation

Cleaner production & processes Materials, waste & resources Environmental technologies in agriculture Energy technologies Yes Don't Know No

Figure 4-15 Respondents view on whether a lack of verification and/or certification restricts international market access for their products