An open letter to RESNET and the HERS® community
The Rater Overhead Impact Index (ROII)
Before a standard reaches the field, follow it through the whole job.
Rating delivery now spans specialized teams. A change understood by one team may create requirements elsewhere that become clear only during implementation. ROII proposes a practical way to identify those effects early, so everyone can prepare.
Executive Summary
The Rater Overhead Impact Index (ROII) is a proposed index measuring the increase or decrease in work and resources required by a standards change, compared with continuing under the existing standard. It would make the implementation difference visible before the change takes effect.
ROII would appear as a published scorecard showing changes in field time, administrative and QA time, equipment, software, and training. For measured time, positive values would indicate additional work, negative values would indicate reduced work, and zero would indicate no change. Initial training and transition requirements would be reported separately from ongoing work.
For example, a proposed change might add 15 minutes of fieldwork per affected home while eliminating five minutes of reporting. It might also require initial training or different equipment. ROII would show those effects together, giving readers a practical picture of what would change across the delivery process.
Rating firms, builders, and standards committees could use that information to evaluate alternatives and prepare staffing, training, schedules, and implementation dates. Findings would identify the conditions assessed and relevant variation; each company would remain responsible for its own planning and pricing.
We propose starting with two standards changes to test the measurement approach and its usefulness. As part of the pilot, we invite the committee to explain how the findings informed the proposed change or its implementation.
The work has changed.
Many raters once handled nearly every step themselves, from quoting and modeling to testing, reporting, and billing. The consequences of a change were connected in one person’s experience.
Today, those responsibilities often span several teams. Specialization supports growth, but understanding the full effect of a standards change now requires a deliberate look across the workflow.
ROII would provide that look: tracing a proposed change through each affected role, testing its practical requirements, and documenting added work, potential savings, training, and handoffs before implementation.
A requirement may be understood technically before its effects on quoting, scheduling, modeling, fieldwork, quality assurance, and administration are understood together. When those effects emerge only during implementation, teams must resolve them after commitments have already been made.
The ROII Scorecard
For the two-change pilot, we propose testing the following assessment format. Findings would include the conditions assessed, observed variation, and limitations—not a universal time allowance.
The assessment would document both added requirements and reductions in work, including potential savings from clearer procedures, fewer repeat visits, and reduced rework.
For rating firms, the assessment would distinguish initial training and transition time from ongoing work after gaining experience, measuring both early implementation and steady-state results.
| Component | Description | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| ΔTf Field Time Delta | Observed or estimated range of increases or reductions in onsite testing, verification, and photo-documentation time under the conditions assessed | Hours per home |
| ΔTa Admin/QA Delta | Observed or estimated range of increases or reductions in data-entry, QA-submission, report-preparation, and record-keeping time under the conditions assessed | Hours per home |
| Equipment, Software, and Training | New, changed, or no-longer-needed equipment, software, calibration, training, and consumable requirements, distinguishing initial training from ongoing requirements | Resource descriptions, quantities, and training hours; no dollar amounts |
Swipe to view the complete table.
Optional Internal Planning Example
Result: Estimated implementation impact per affected rating. L includes only incremental, change-specific expenses that are not already captured in the company’s loaded labor rate.
The time and resource inputs are the proposed public output. The dollar calculation below is only an illustrative planning example. Each company would apply its own confidential costs independently; company-specific calculations would not be collected, compared, recommended, or published.
- ΔTf
- Increase or reduction in field time per home
- ΔTa
- Increase or reduction in administrative and QA time per home
- Rate
- The rating company’s own loaded labor rate
- L
- Per-home share of added equipment, software, calibration, training, and consumable costs
The loaded labor rate reflects the rater’s true cost of doing business: vehicle, insurance, software subscriptions, benefits, and professional development. For the worked example below, an illustrative $80-per-hour assumption is used. It is not a fee, pricing recommendation, or market benchmark.
Hypothetical Example: A Ventilation Addendum
This hypothetical example shows how one company could use time and resource assumptions for private planning. The figures are illustrative inputs, not pilot findings, universal time allowances, or recommended prices.
| Component | Value | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| ΔTf — Extra field time (testing + photos) | +0.25 hrs (15 min) | $20.00 |
| ΔTa — Extra admin time (reporting + QA prep) | +0.15 hrs (9 min) | $12.00 |
| Company-specific loaded labor rate (illustrative input) | $80/hr | — |
| L — Equipment/consumables (amortized) | $12.00 | $12.00 |
| Illustrative company impact | $44.00 per home |
Swipe to view the complete table.
At scale: If the change applied to all 800 annual ratings and the assumptions above held, the estimated annual impact would be $35,200. This private calculation illustrates how a company could use the assessment while keeping its commercial and pricing decisions independent.
Why the ROII Strengthens RESNET
1. It Protects the HERS® Brand
Identifying implementation needs before rollout could help teams prepare the time, tools, training, and coordination needed to deliver standards consistently.
2. It Supports the Path to One Million Ratings
As rating volume grows, understanding how standards changes affect delivery could support better workforce and implementation planning. The pilot would test that usefulness rather than assume it.
3. It Creates Market Clarity
Builders, rating firms, providers, and RESNET would have a shared reference for discussing implementation requirements and potential efficiencies. The assessment would not prescribe prices or judge individual company performance.
4. It Supports Better Implementation Planning
Findings could inform requirements, training, schedules, and effective dates. Each organization would remain responsible for its own staffing, budgeting, purchasing, and pricing decisions.
How the ROII Would Work in Practice
RESNET could establish a balanced ROII working group that includes field raters, QADs, rating providers, builders, program representatives, and RESNET standards staff across multiple climates and market types.
Pilot Testing: Volunteer participants would compare existing and proposed workflows under documented conditions, recording added work, savings, and relevant differences. Initial learning and transition requirements would be distinguished from ongoing work.
Publication and Response: Findings, assumptions, and limitations would be published in time to inform the assessed changes. As part of the pilot, we invite the committee to explain how the findings informed the proposed change or its implementation.
Pilot Evaluation: Evaluate whether the findings improved decisions or preparation, and whether their usefulness justified the effort required. Use the results to recommend continuing, revising, or discontinuing the approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
Doesn’t each company already assess its own implementation needs?
Yes. Each company remains responsible for understanding its people, projects, resources, and costs. ROII would bring evidence from multiple operating conditions into standards decisions and provide a shared planning reference. It would complement existing stakeholder participation, not replace it.
How useful can a benchmark be when every company and project is different?
ROII would provide a reference point, not an exact prediction or a performance grade. Build complexity, inspector experience, builder readiness, software, and workflow can all affect the work required.
Findings should describe ranges and conditions. Differences from the assessment could reveal a useful practice, a more demanding situation, or something the assessment missed—not necessarily greater or lesser efficiency.
Could ROII become more sophisticated over time?
The HERS Index illustrates the value of a defined reference: it compares a home with a reference home of the same size and shape, using standardized specifications. ROII would borrow the principle of a consistent comparison, not the HERS calculation method.
A first pilot would document implementation effects under specified conditions. Later versions could account more systematically for differences if the evidence supports doing so. Even developing the assessment may reveal overlooked work or better implementation approaches.
The pilot does not need to produce the final methodology. It needs to establish whether a useful one can be built.
Who would develop the assessment and select the changes?
We propose a balanced working group including field practitioners, rating providers, QADs, builders, program representatives, and RESNET standards staff. It would develop the approach using field evidence and publish its assumptions for review.
The pilot would assess two proposed changes with identifiable effects on work, training, equipment, or coordination. Selection criteria and reasons would be published. The experience would help refine which changes should qualify for future assessment.
What would the assessment compare and publish?
The proposed starting point is to compare existing and proposed workflows under comparable, documented conditions. Record added work and savings, separate initial transition requirements from ongoing work, and identify important differences among participating settings.
Publish time ranges, resource requirements, assumptions, and limitations—not participant pricing or company-specific financial information. Where the evidence cannot support a useful estimate, say so.
What if RESNET proceeds despite added work?
Added work does not automatically outweigh a standard’s benefits. As part of the pilot, we invite the committee to explain how the findings informed the proposed change or its implementation.
The purpose is to make implementation evidence part of the decision, not simply publish another report.
Would the assessment itself create administrative work?
It would require some effort, which should be measured rather than overlooked. The pilot should use voluntary participation and limited, clearly defined data collection.
Its evaluation should ask whether the findings were useful enough to justify that effort. An approach that is too burdensome or uninformative should be revised or discontinued.
Join Us
We are building a coalition of HERS® raters, RFIs, QADs, and providers who believe that the most transparent and professionalized inspection workforce in the country starts with measuring the work we actually do. Our goal is to present the ROII to RESNET leadership with strong industry support behind it.
Here is how you can help:
- Read the proposal and consider whether this limited pilot would provide useful implementation evidence.
- Reply with your feedback. Does the ROII capture the operational delta you are experiencing? What would you change?
- Send us your examples. Which standard rollout, addendum, or program change increased or reduced field time, administration, training, calibration, equipment, consumables, repeat visits, or rework?
- Add your name as a supporter. The more professionals standing behind this, the stronger the case.
October 30, 2026 is the supporter deadline. Verified support received by then will accompany the letter when it is delivered to RESNET Executive Director Shelby Gatlin and RESNET Board leadership. Names, states, and credentials will be included only with the supporter’s permission.
Trent Fuller
Home energy and field-inspection professional since 2007
info@roiiletter.org
Sources
1. RESNET, “Number of Homes HERS® Rated in the U.S. in 2024 Tops 400,000 Mark.” The article reports 436,798 ratings in 2024 and RESNET’s goal of one million annual ratings by the end of 2028. Read the RESNET article.
2. RESNET Antitrust Policy. Read the policy.