Login

I’m trying to size up the total addressable market for a niche B2B software product, but I’m struggling to find reliable data on the number of small architectural firms in my target regions. My initial market sizing feels like it’s built on shaky assumptions, and I’m worried my whole business case could be off. How have others approached validating the TAM when the available industry reports are either too broad or behind a paywall I can’t justify yet?

I started with public data and it was a drag but helpful. Pulled regional business licenses and architectural firm lists, filtered for firms with under 20 employees. Region A came to about 1,150 firms, Region B about 800. A lot are solo shops or tiny studios that survive on repeat work. Not neat, but it beat trusting a paywalled report. The rough TAM looked smaller than big market reports suggested, and I kept treating those numbers as rough sanity checks.

Maybe the bigger problem isn’t counting firms. In my projects the data gaps derail forecasts, and the real bottleneck is buying power and procurement cycles, not headcount. I keep hoping someone publishes a credible buying-activity proxy for architectural services. Do you think the real problem is finding a reliable proxy for buying power rather than the headcount?

We did a 6 week pilot with three small firms. One signed up for a pilot account and used it for two projects; the other two dropped after a week. Time to first value averaged about 28 days for those who engaged. Not enough to justify a full rollout, but it gave a reality check on product fit and workflows.

I wandered into regional firm dynamics and ended up thinking about whether small architects actually buy software the way you expect. In some places there are clusters of solo practitioners who collaborate informally, and in others a few midsize studios dominate. The whole sizing conversation kept wandering away from what actually moves money in a project.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me