DRAFT EARLY FINDINGS - SUBJECT TO CHANGE - DO NOT SHARE FURTHER
The first survey opened on 4th April 2025. It has been sent to members and users in the monthly newsletter, advertised on LinkedIn and reminders to fill out the survey were sent to super users (making over 60 design requests a year) and to members alongside an invite to the webinar. Total respondents: 91.
Note this is an initial analysis of that data, there is more opportunity to deep dive questions, looking at differences by company sector etc.
The highest number of respondents came from NSW. 7 respondents indicated they work across multiple states.
Respondents represent a diverse range of project types, sectors, and company sizes. 3 respondents did not answer the project type question, 2 did not answer the sector question and 1 did not answer the company size question.
Looking at the type of projects respondents are doing, 52% are doing mainly public sector work projects, 25% are doing mainly private sector work projects and 23% are doing about an equal split between public and private.
The sector and size of the companies are shown in the following plot, with the largest number of respondents working in Engineering and Design.
Most respondents currently use utility data in their work (93%), indicating broad awareness and integration of the existing platform. Among those who provided an estimate of how many enquiries they made in the past year, usage varied significantly, with most respondents making between 51-250 requests, while only 7.2% made more than 10,000 requests. Note that 8% did not answer this question.
Across the respondents, a diverse range of roles are involved in compiling utility data, with some roles emerging more prominently than others. The top three roles involved are Other, Project Manager, Designer. Note respondents can select more than one role. 0% of respondents did not select any roles at all.
We also asked about the number of hours spent compiling utility data. Out of 91 total respondents, 84 provided an estimate of how many hours they spend compiling design-ready utility data per project, while 7 did not answer the question.
Among those who responded:
Looking at how many respondents experienced project delays or rework due to inaccurate or incomplete asset data:
Across selected sectors, the most commonly used utility data formats are Pdfs, Dwg Autocad Drawing Files, Hard Copy Prints Paper Maps. A total of 80 respondents (out of 91) indicated using at least one utility data format.
Based on current responses, 56 respondents are interested, 21 are unsure, 5 are not interested, and 9 did not respond.
The proportion of respondents interested in a potential portal varied based on the sector they worked in:
Based on current responses, 73 respondents provided an estimate of how many hours they expect to save per project with access to the portal. Among them:
Click the buttons below to see the charts.
We’ve also looked at how reported time spent compiling maps to reported hours saved.
| Metric | Respondents | Zero Hours | Mean | Median | Min | Q1 (25%) | Q3 (75%) | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hours Compiling Data | 84 | 8 | 20.9 | 7 | 0 | 1.0 | 23.2 | 113 |
| Hours Saved | 73 | 15 | 8.9 | 3 | 0 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 100 |
| Percent Time Saved | 66 | 10 | 65.6 | 50 | 0 | 20.6 | 75.9 | 400 |
The following chart shows individual responses to time spent and time saved compared.
And a histogram
Respondents identified a wide range of potential benefits..
The most commonly selected category of benefits was Time and Cost Savings, with 200 total mentions. Within this category, the most frequently selected benefit was Fewer delays from missing data, selected by 42 respondents.
The second most selected category was Process Efficiency & Coordination (112 mentions), followed by Risk Reduction (108 mentions).
These results highlight strong perceived value in Time and Cost Savings, as well as opportunities in Process Efficiency & Coordination and Risk Reduction to reduce manual work, manage risk, and improve coordination across teams.
Respondents anticipate a range of use cases. Of those who responded, 43% expect to use it daily, 23% weekly, and 13% monthly. Others indicated less frequent usage, such as 4% quarterly and 5% annually. A total of 12 respondents did not answer this question.
The response also varied by respondent’s sector.
Respondents reported a wide range of expected values depending on the pricing model. Note that some of the highest values are likely outliers - they appear to be mistakes made by misuse of the survey slider. The following table summarises the values across project, month and year. A large proportion reported $0 - though this is to be expected, it reflect behavioral bias and pricing psychology. It could be down to a number of things, including genuinely having no willingness to pay but also including status quo bias (the system is currently free), loss aversion (introduction of a price feels like a loss), strategic response (avoiding legitimising a fee).
| Metric | Per project | Per month | Per year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Count $0 | 34 | 31 | 30 |
| Percent $0 | 50% | 46% | 44% |
| Mean (incl. $0, excl. outliers) | $17.35 | $56.91 | $1,500.67 |
| Mean (excl. $0, excl. outliers) | $46.85 | $137.09 | $3,108.54 |
| Median (incl. $0) | $0.50 | $35 | $200 |
| Median (excl. $0, excl. outliers) | $20 | $100 | $1,350 |
| Outlier max | $5,093 | $24,000 | $360,186 |
The following charts show the detail by sector on per project, per month and per year. Note the changing axis values.
There was a big range in how respondents wanted to pay. For example, a similar number of respondents rated per project payment as the most preferred as those that rated it least preferred. Annual subscription received the most votes as “most preferred”.
Combining the responses on payment allows us to see in more detail what the answers could mean.
Respondents whose organisations require approvals for software purchases were more likely to prefer enterprise-level payment models. Specifically, 35% of respondents with DFA selected Enterprise Level Subscription as their most preferred option, compared to only 0% of those without DFA.
In contrast, 50% of respondents without formal DFA preferred Per Project payment, and 19% preferred Monthly Subscription. This is in comparison to 10% respondents with formal DFA preferred Per Project payment and 10% of those with DFA preferring Monthly Subscription.
These results suggest that organisations with formal procurement processes are more likely to adopt centralised and scalable payment models, while others favour more transactional or project-level models aligned with their budgeting flexibility.
27 respondents indicated that they currently use other digital tools to support their planning or design workflows. Many provided examples, including CAD platforms, GIS systems, and specialised coordination software.
Click the buttons to see charts for all respondents and broken down by sector.
Select a sector to view how respondents from that sector rated the importance of features:
At the end of the survey we asked for any other comment - here is what they wrote.