You make an electric delivery van. Should you take it into the UK courier market?
Three questions decide it. Each one below shows what its answer says, how well that answer is stood up, and the factors underneath that produce both — including the ones nobody has got to yet. Then the decision, and what it committed to.
Illustrative — invented figures; several tools are still being built.
- The need
1. Is the need real?
ReadsRealone factor judged
The obvious answer: “Couriers obviously want electric — everyone's going that way.”
- Unmet NeedsClear needLaunch Ready31 fleet managers interviewed across 9 operators. Range came fourth; the top unmet need is predictable charging downtime — a van stuck charging mid-shift kills the round, and the round is the unit of work. Two operators had already bought electric vans and parked them, and neither cited range.Needs Map
The obvious assumption was wrong, and it was wrong in a way that changes the product conversation rather than the sales one. You are not selling range. You are selling a shift that finishes.
- The market
2. Is the market worth it?
ReadsWorth itmean 7.4 of 4 judged
⚠ Looks done. Isn’t. This question reads Worth it, and the work behind one of the answers under it has not started. A single traffic light reports this row as green — which is why there are two.
The obvious answer: “It's a huge market. Every van on the road, eventually.”
- Market SizeLargeLaunch Ready48,000 courier vans in the UK on a six-year replacement cycle — about 8,000 a year. £186M top-down from registrations, £179M bottom-up from the twelve largest operators' own fleet plans: 4% apart. Realistically winnable at the entry share modelled, £22M.Market Model
- Market GrowthOutpacingLaunch ReadyBattery-electric registrations among UK courier and last-mile fleets rose 34% last year against roughly flat volume for the fleet as a whole — the replacement cycle isn't accelerating, which powertrain fleets replace into is. The ZEV mandate's compliance credits make 2027 the year most operators stop deferring the switch.Market Model
- FragmentationWorkableLaunch ReadyTwelve operators hold most of the volume — reachable, but the entry has to win big accounts rather than many small ones. Mapped account by account, with each operator's replacement cycle and depot count behind the figure.Value Chain
- Regulatory RiskLow riskNot Started YetRated Low risk and nothing stands behind it. Nobody has checked type approval, what the ZEV mandate obliges these fleets to do, or what a depot charging installation needs.Regulatory Review (in build)
Two independent methods landing within 4% is the difference between a number you present and a number you defend. £180M a year, and you can show your working for both halves. And one of the four answers under this question is a guess wearing the same colour as the other three.
- The edge
3. Can we win it?
ReadsChallengingmean 6.0 of 5 judged
The obvious answer: “We're cheaper to run than diesel. It sells itself.”
- Competitive IntensityMixedLaunch ReadyTwo direct rivals already sell into these accounts, both on the same total-cost argument.Competitive Landscape
- Substitution ThreatHigh threatLaunch ReadyThe diesel van is the substitute, and it wins the procurement form on sticker price. £9,000 more to buy is the whole fight.Competitive Landscape
- DifferentiationNarrow advantageLaunch Ready“A shift that finishes” was put to fourteen of the operators interviewed and survived all fourteen — including the two who had already parked an electric van.Value Proposition
- Pricing PowerStrongLaunch Ready£4,100 a year cheaper to run than the diesel van they would otherwise buy, on fuel and maintenance at the operators' own mileages. Payback at 2.2 years against a fleet holding period of six.Price Case
- Qualification & Switching BarriersNeutralLaunch ReadyA 90-day trial to get onto a fleet's approved list, checked with all twelve operators. Once on it, a six-year replacement cycle keeps you there: real effort to qualify in, moderate protection once there.Qualification Path (in build)
The economics work and the sale still does not, because the procurement form asks for the purchase price and not the six-year cost. You win on total cost and lose on the sticker — and the sticker is the field on the form. Pricing Power at 8 does not carry the question on its own: five judged factors average to Challenging, and Substitution Threat at 4 would have held it there whatever the mean said.
◆ The decision
The three read Conditional Go — Selective / Niche — ceiling Enter small.
Launch◇ £1.2M to fund the leasing bookAbove the ceiling.
A decision, not a rating — Launch · Enter small · Reshape the entry · Wait / fast-follow · Don’t enter.
The obvious answer: “Go direct to the big fleets and see how it lands.”
Leasing answers the one thing standing in the way. It removes ③'s sticker objection by changing what the buyer is asked to compare — three routes were costed, and this is the one that turns a £9,000 premium into a monthly line the operator sets against diesel's. With the build already clear, the route in is the last open question rather than one of several.
After the decision — the build
recorded against the lines you already run, not scored — and the assumption is written down
The obvious answer: “Production said they can cover it.”
- DevelopmentNew productGood as isThe van exists and is homologated. Nothing in the entry plan asks engineering for a new variant.
- Production readinessNew productGood as isBuilt on the existing line, in the existing process. No new tooling.
- CapacityGood as isYear two needs 1,400 units against 2,000 of headroom. Year four needs 2,100 — the trigger is recorded against the assumption that carried it.
Nothing in the plan is waiting on a factory decision. The ramp fits the line you already run, so the entry can be argued on its merits instead of on a capex case nobody has built yet — and the year-four trigger is recorded against the assumption that carried it, so it comes back up when the volume does.
What actually happened here
The market was fine, the economics worked and the factory was clear — and none of those was the decision. The decision turned on a procurement form. That is what asking the questions in order buys you: not three verdicts, but a shortlist of one.
It is also not a clean sweep, and the second reading is what says so. ② reads well on a regulatory rating nobody has started the work behind, and ③ reads Challenging because the diesel van still wins the form however good the running costs are. Neither is averaged away here. A single verdict per question would have hidden both.
Once the decision is recorded, the project stops being a set of questions and becomes a place: the build and what it costs, actuals against the plan, and the triggers you set before the data arrived. It recurs rather than completes, which is why none of it is a question. See the method for where it sits.
Now do this on the decision you actually have.
Same three questions, your product and your market — the need evidenced, the size defended, the value priced — and a decision you can show the working for. The tools are open on a trial while the product is still in development.