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.
A standards change can be clear to the person writing it and still leave questions for the people carrying it out. Who needs training? What changes in the field? What happens to reporting and QA?
ROII would put those questions in front of us before the change takes effect.
Executive Summary
I'm proposing the Rater Overhead Impact Index to answer a practical question: compared with the standard we use now, what work would a proposed change add or remove?
The result would be a public scorecard. It would show changes in field time, administrative and QA time, equipment, software, and training. Added time would be positive, time saved would be negative, and no change would be zero. Initial training and transition work would be listed separately from the work that continues once the new process is established.
As a hypothetical example, suppose a change adds 15 minutes in the field but saves five minutes of reporting. Those are different effects on different parts of the job. The scorecard would show both, along with any training or equipment needed. These are examples, not measured findings.
That information could help rating firms and builders prepare their people and schedules. It could also help standards committees compare approaches and choose implementation dates. The findings would describe the conditions tested and where results differed. Each company would still make its own planning and pricing decisions.
The work has changed.
When one rater handles quoting, modeling, testing, reporting, and billing, that person sees how a change affects the whole job.
Split those responsibilities among teams and that view becomes harder to keep. The field team may understand a new test while the office is still working out what it means for scheduling, reporting, or QA. By the time everyone has worked through it, commitments may already be in place.
ROII would follow the proposed change through those handoffs before implementation. Where does it add work? Where does it save time or prevent a return trip? What does each person need to do differently?
Those are the questions the assessment would document and test.
The assessment should also seek input from people doing the work who may not have time to participate in standards discussions.
The ROII Scorecard
For the two-change pilot, use the following starting format. Report ranges and the conditions behind them, rather than one time allowance that every company is expected to meet. Identify whether the numbers were observed or estimated and where the evidence is limited.
ΔTf: Field Time Delta
The increase or reduction in onsite testing, verification, and photo-documentation time, measured in hours per home.
ΔTa: Admin/QA Delta
The increase or reduction in data entry, QA submissions, report preparation, and record keeping, measured in hours per home.
Equipment, Software, and Training
Describe what is new, what changes, and what is no longer needed. Include equipment, software, calibration, training, and consumables. Report resource descriptions, quantities, and training hours, without dollar amounts.
Record savings as well as added requirements, including fewer repeat visits or less rework. Measure early implementation and the ongoing work after people gain experience. Keep initial training and transition requirements separate so readers can see the difference.
Optional Internal Planning Example
This estimates the implementation impact per affected rating for one company:
- ΔTf is the increase or reduction in field time per home.
- ΔTa is the increase or reduction in administrative and QA time per home.
- Rate is the company's own loaded labor rate.
- L is the per-home share of incremental, change-specific equipment, software, calibration, training, and consumable expenses not already included in that rate.
A loaded labor rate reflects the company's cost of doing the work, including applicable vehicle, insurance, software, benefits, and professional-development costs. Don't count an expense again in L if it is already in the rate.
ROII's proposed public output is time and resource information. This dollar calculation is optional private planning. Company-specific calculations would not be collected, compared, recommended, or published.
Hypothetical Example: A Ventilation Addendum
Suppose one company uses these assumptions:
- An extra 0.25 hours (15 minutes) of field testing and photos.
- An extra 0.15 hours (9 minutes) of reporting and QA preparation.
- Its illustrative loaded labor rate of $80 per hour.
- $12 per home in amortized equipment and consumable expenses, not already included in the labor rate.
The field time comes to $20. The administrative time comes to $12. Add the $12 in equipment and consumables and the result is $44 per home.
If the change affected all 800 annual ratings, and those assumptions held, the estimated annual impact would be $35,200.
These are hypothetical inputs, not pilot findings or universal time allowances. The $80 rate is not a fee, pricing recommendation, or market benchmark. Each company would use its own confidential costs and make its own commercial decisions.
Why this could help RESNET
More consistent work in the field
Identifying the time, tools, training, and coordination a change requires could help teams carry it out consistently. That is the practical benefit to the HERS® brand we would be testing.
Preparation for more ratings
In 2024, RESNET's Board adopted a goal of one million homes rated annually by the end of 2028.[1] As volume grows, the work required to deliver each rating matters for workforce planning. The pilot would test whether ROII helps with that preparation.
A clearer discussion with builders and providers
A published assessment would give builders, rating firms, providers, and RESNET something specific to discuss: what changes in the work, under which conditions, and where there may be savings. It would not set prices or grade individual companies.
Better-informed rollout decisions
Findings could help shape requirements, training, schedules, and effective dates. Staffing, budgets, purchases, and pricing would remain each organization's responsibility.
How the ROII Would Work in Practice
RESNET could bring together field raters, RFIs, administrative staff, trainers, QADs, rating providers, builders, program representatives, and standards staff. The group should include different climates and market types so the assessment isn't built around just one way of working.
Test two changes. Volunteers would compare the existing and proposed workflows under documented, comparable conditions. Record added work, savings, and differences between participating settings. Separate learning and transition work from the ongoing process.
Publish the findings while they can still help. Include the assumptions and limitations, not just the results. As part of the pilot, we invite the committee to explain how the findings informed the proposed change or its implementation.
Check whether the effort was worthwhile. Did the assessment help anyone make a better decision or prepare for the change? Was that benefit worth the work of collecting the information? Use the answers to recommend keeping, revising, or ending the approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
Doesn't each company already assess its own implementation needs?
Yes, and that responsibility stays with the company. ROII would bring evidence from several operating conditions into the standards discussion, rather than leave each business to work through the same questions alone. It would add to existing stakeholder participation, not replace it.
How useful is a benchmark when every company and project is different?
It is useful only if readers can see what was tested and where the results apply. Build complexity, inspector experience, builder readiness, software, and workflow can all change the work required.
That's why the assessment should report ranges and conditions, not a single target. A company that takes more or less time may have a different situation, a useful practice, or a problem the assessment missed. The difference alone is not a performance grade.
Could ROII become more sophisticated over time?
Possibly. The HERS Index compares a home with a reference home of the same size and shape.[3] ROII would borrow the idea of a consistent comparison, not the HERS calculation method.
The first pilot would describe implementation effects under specified conditions. If the evidence supports it, later versions could account for differences more systematically. Working through the assessment may itself uncover missed steps or a better way to introduce a change.
The first pilot doesn't have to settle the final method. It has to show whether there is a useful method worth developing.
Who would develop the assessment and choose the changes?
The proposed working group would develop the method using field evidence and publish its assumptions for review.
It would select two proposed changes with identifiable effects on work, training, equipment, or coordination, and publish the selection criteria and reasons. What we learn would help determine which changes deserve assessment in the future.
What would the assessment compare and publish?
Compare the existing and proposed workflows under comparable, documented conditions. Record work added and saved, separate transition needs from ongoing work, and explain important differences between participating settings.
Publish time ranges, resource requirements, assumptions, and limitations. Keep participant pricing and company-specific financial information out. If the evidence is too thin for a useful estimate, say so.
What if RESNET goes ahead with a change that adds work?
Added work doesn't 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 point is to give the decision useful evidence, not just another report to file.
Wouldn't the assessment create more administrative work?
Yes. That effort needs to be counted too.
Keep participation voluntary and data collection limited to clearly defined questions. Then judge the assessment by whether it helped enough to justify the effort. If it is too burdensome or doesn't produce useful information, revise it or stop.
Join Us
I'm asking HERS® raters, RFIs, QADs, and providers to support a limited pilot: follow two proposed standards changes through the work and see whether the findings help.
Read the proposal. Tell us what it misses. If a rollout changed your field time, reporting, training, equipment, calibration, consumables, repeat visits, or rework, send an example. Changes that saved work matter just as much as changes that added it.
If you support testing this approach, add your name to the letter at https://roiiletter.org/#sign. You can also send feedback to [email protected].
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
Sources
1. RESNET, “Number of Homes HERS® Rated in the U.S. in 2024 Tops 400,000 Mark.” Read source.
2. RESNET Antitrust Policy. Read source.
3. RESNET, “What Is the HERS® Index.” Read source.