Why good potential studies are more than just analyses – a view from the field
When I look back on the last 15 years at CONENGA, one thing is particularly striking: Hardly any task is the same as another. And yet there is a pattern. Whenever customers come to us with a specific question, a problem or even just a vague feeling (“There’s more to it”), the real work begins.
Many people initially associate a potential study with a traditional analysis. Data is evaluated, systems are examined, key figures are calculated. That is of course part of it – but it falls short. For us, a potential study is good if it goes beyond understanding and shows the way to change.
What it’s really about at the beginning
In some cases, we find ourselves confronted with very clearly formulated questions and topics into which a great deal of analytical work and energy has already been poured – often studies are also available – and yet the satisfactory result is still missing. In most cases, the right question is missing at the beginning. The focus is often on symptoms: too little power, rising emissions, economic pressure or the desire for decarbonization. Our first task is therefore to clarify together with the customer what the issue is – and just as importantly: what it is not.
This clarity will later determine whether a study brings real added value.
Analysis also means being on site and listening
Of course, we work intensively with data – operating data, performance values, process data and measurement series. But what you don’t find in tables is at least as important: Discussions with employees, a comprehensive tour of the plants, an understanding of the structures and interrelationships that have evolved, not just the technical ones. This means that many of the crucial information can be found in the machine room or in the control room and not in an Excel sheet.
From data point to insight
The real challenge begins after the analysis. Data, figures and trends alone do not help anyone. Only when a clear picture emerges – where do we stand, where are the bottlenecks, what interrelationships are at work in the system – does real added value arise. We invest a lot of time in precisely this step: making connections visible, getting to the heart of the matter, clearly stating even uncomfortable truths. Potential is only relevant if it can be realized.
In my opinion, a common mistake in studies is that potential is viewed in isolation. Technically possible does not necessarily mean useful. And changes in complex systems have an impact, even where you might not expect them. That’s why we consistently evaluate along three dimensions: systemic-technical, economic and increasingly also ecological.
In the end, the customer is not interested in what works in theory – but what makes sense in practice. And this is where the part that is often underestimated begins: the development of measures. In other words, the question of how an identified potential can actually be leveraged. Sometimes these are small adjustments to the control system(low hanging fruits), sometimes major interventions in the system or even strategic changes to the overall system.
Why many good studies remain ineffective
One point that is important to me personally: a potential study does not change anything. It only creates the basis for it. Whether it results in real improvement is decided afterwards. Are the results understood? Are they supported internally? Is there the will to implement them? This is why we do not see communication as the “last step”, but as a central component of the work. A good study must be prepared in such a way that it enables decisions to be made – not just informs them.
What we have learned over the years
Successful projects have a few things in common:
- There is clarity about goal and expectation
- The relevant people are involved at an early stage
- Results are discussed openly – including critically
- And: This is actually being implemented
When these points come together, a potential study really comes into its own.
My conclusion
A good potential study is not an end in itself. It is a tool for making well-founded decisions and initiating change. Or to put it more simply: it’s not about analyzing everything. It’s about changing the right things.

Dipl.-Ing. Ralf Ohnmacht ist Senior Process Engineer bei der CONENGA Group und verantwortet die Durchführung von Potenzialstudien sowie die technische Analyse und Optimierung thermischer Energieanlagen. Sein Schwerpunkt liegt auf Verbrennungstechnologien, Bilanzierungen, Datenanalysen sowie der Simulation und wirtschaftlichen Bewertung komplexer Energiesysteme. Er verfügt über langjährige Erfahrung in Engineering, Forschung und internationalen technischen Einsätzen und bringt umfassende Expertise in der Analyse und Optimierung von Energie- und Industrieanlagen mit. Seit 2018 führt er zudem ein eigenes Ingenieurbüro.
Ralf Ohnmacht studierte Maschinenbau mit Schwerpunkt Energietechnik an der Technischen Universität Wien und ist Certified Measurement & Verification Professional (CMVP).
Expertise
- Potenzialstudien und technische Bewertung von Energieanlagen
- Verbrennungstechnologien und thermische Prozesse
- Bilanzierung, Datenanalyse und Simulation
- Kraftwerksaudits und Wirtschaftlichkeitsanalysen
Fokusbereiche bei CONENGA
- Analyse und Optimierung von Energieanlagen
- Durchführung von Kraftwerksaudits und Potenzialstudien
- Simulation und datenbasierte Prozessbewertung
- Szenario- und Wirtschaftlichkeitsanalysen

