【How to Share PVSyst Results Within Your Company｜6 Practical Tips for Practitioners】

Table of Contents

• What to decide first when sharing PVSyst results

• Tip 1: Change the metrics to review depending on the recipient

• Tip 2: Share not only energy generation but also the assumptions

• Tip 3: Explain loss factors in terms that lead to practical decision-making

• Tip 4: Organize comparisons of multiple proposals in a way that highlights the differences

• Tip 5: Retain check history and version control before submission

• Tip 6: Link site conditions with simulation results

• Common mistakes in internal sharing and how to prevent them

• Items to include in PVSyst sharing materials

• Summary: When sharing PVSyst results, organizing them for decision-making is important

What to Decide First When Sharing PVSyst Results

After running a simulation of a solar power system using PVSyst, the step that inevitably occurs in practice is internal sharing. If the project can be completed solely by the design engineer, you might be able to move forward just by checking the on‑screen numbers and reports. However, in actual operations multiple parties — sales, design, construction, cost estimation, quality control, and those responsible for management decisions — make judgments while reviewing the simulation results. Therefore, how you share PVSyst results can greatly affect internal understanding, the speed of revisions, the quality of explanations to clients, and the overall pace of the project.

What matters when sharing PVSyst results is not simply sending the report. There are many items to check: generation, PR, loss diagram, monthly generation, meteorological conditions, equipment capacity, azimuth, tilt, shading effects, panel and PCS settings, and so on. If you share all of these as-is, the amount of information will be too large for a person who is not familiar with PVSyst, and they will end up not knowing where to look. On the other hand, if you extract only the numbers and oversimplify, you will not convey why the results occurred, under what assumptions they were calculated, or where the risks lie.

The first thing to decide is the purpose of sharing. The information required will vary depending on whether the purpose of internal sharing is to verify the validity of a design proposal, to perform a pre-sales check, to confirm consistency with construction conditions, or to obtain internal approval. For example, when sharing with sales representatives, annual generation, monthly generation, key points that are easy to explain during the proposal, and assumptions that should be communicated as risks are important. When sharing among designers, input conditions, equipment configuration, loss settings, shading calculation conditions, and differences between multiple proposals are important. When sharing with construction personnel, in addition to the simulation results themselves, the site's topography, layout, obstacles, orientation, slope, and their relationship to construction constraints are important.

In other words, sharing PVSyst results is not a matter of showing the results, but the task of converting them into the information necessary for decision-making. In practice, you must not just attach the report and leave it at that; it is essential to clarify who will view it and what decisions they need to make, and then organize the shared content accordingly.

Tip 1: Change the metrics to view depending on the person you share with

When sharing PVSyst results internally, the first tip is to tailor the metrics to look at for each recipient. PVSyst reports display many figures, but not every person needs to understand them to the same depth. In fact, if you don't organize the points to focus on according to the recipient, important decisions can get buried.

What matters for sales representatives is whether they can explain it to customers. They need information such as how much annual power generation can be expected, what monthly variations occur, why generation differs between summer and winter, and to what extent shading and orientation affect output. At the sales stage, it is more important that technical details about loss rates be translated into terms that the prospective client can easily understand than to present the specialist minutiae. For example, rather than simply saying “losses are X%,” it is preferable to be able to explain it as “this layout receives some morning shading, so annual generation is reduced by a certain amount.”

When sharing with the design team, the validity of the input conditions becomes important. Ensure that site settings, meteorological data, module settings, PCS settings, string configuration, azimuth, tilt angle, shading settings, loss settings, and so on are correctly reflected so they can be verified. When sharing among designers, greater emphasis is placed on the assumptions that produced the results than on the final results themselves. It is necessary to check not only whether the power generation is high or low, but also whether that figure is based on realistic design conditions.

When sharing with construction personnel and site managers, the relationship between the simulation results and the actual site conditions is important. Check whether the layout configured in PVSyst aligns with the actual site, the grading/terrain, the racking plan, obstacles, delivery/access routes, and the scope of construction. Even if a layout is valid in the simulation, it may be difficult to build on site or may actually be affected by obstacles. Therefore, when sharing with the construction side, you need to convey not only the power generation figures but also the layout conditions and the items to be verified on site as a set.

When sharing with administrators or approvers, a decision-focused summary is more important than detailed configuration values. Make clear which option is most promising, what the risks are, what points require additional verification, and whether it is appropriate to present to the customer. Because approvers may not be familiar with the detailed operation of PVSyst, it is important to organize the information as decision-making material rather than piling up technical terms.

In this way, when sharing PVSyst results, it is important not to send the same report to everyone in the same format, but to adjust the points of emphasis to suit the recipient. By organizing information according to the recipient’s role, you can reduce rework from internal reviews and accelerate decision-making.

Tip 2: Share the assumptions together with the power output

A common mistake when sharing PVSyst results is extracting and sharing only the annual energy production. Indeed, annual energy production is a very important metric. Whether in proposal documents, profitability assessments, design comparisons, or internal approvals, it tends to be the first figure people focus on. However, annual energy production does not carry meaning on its own. The results can vary greatly depending on which location, which meteorological conditions, which system capacity, which layout, and which loss settings were used for the calculation.

Therefore, when sharing PVSyst results internally, it is important to always present the generation output together with the assumptions. At a minimum, include in the shared materials the simulation site, the meteorological data used, installed capacity, panel azimuth, tilt angle, PCS capacity, whether shading was considered, major loss settings, simulation run date, author, project name, and proposal name, as this makes later verification easier.

What you need to be especially careful about is treating results as the same power generation when the underlying assumptions have changed. For example, if the initial proposal handled shading in a simplified way but a later proposal reflects detailed shading settings, simply comparing power generation numbers can be misleading. The same applies when installed capacity has changed. Even if generation appears to have increased, it may simply be because the capacity is larger, not because efficiency has improved.

In internal communications, it is necessary not only to show the power generation figures but also to state the assumptions for interpreting those figures. For example, rather than simply writing "The annual power generation is this value," adding a clarification such as "These results were calculated assuming a layout close to due south, a fixed tilt angle, and conditions reflecting shading from surrounding obstacles" makes it easier for recipients to interpret the figures.

Also, personnel who are not familiar with PVSyst tend to judge proposals solely by the size of the energy output. However, in practice the proposal with the highest energy output is not necessarily the optimal one. Decisions need to take into account constructability, land use, equipment configuration, maintainability, shading risk, and the potential for future changes. If the assumptions are shared, the background behind the energy output becomes clear, preventing discussions from being skewed toward simple numerical comparisons.

Tip 3: Explain loss factors in terms that support practical decision-making

When sharing PVSyst results internally, explaining the losses is very important. In PVSyst, various loss factors—solar irradiation, temperature, shading, equipment characteristics, wiring, conversion, mismatch, soiling, and others—are reflected in the results. By looking at the loss diagram, you can see at which stages and by how much the energy production is reduced, but for staff who are not familiar with PVSyst it can be difficult to make a judgment from the loss diagram alone.

What is important then is to translate loss factors into terms that lead to practical decisions. For example, temperature-related losses are the impact of reduced output caused by an increase in panel temperature. This is related to design and site conditions. In layouts with poor ventilation or installations close to the roof surface, the effects of temperature need to be taken into account. Shading losses are the impact of reduced power generation caused by surrounding buildings, trees, terrain, structures, or shadows between mounting racks. This is directly linked to layout planning and on-site verification.

Wiring losses and conversion losses are related to electrical design and equipment configuration. The way losses occur varies depending on PCS capacity, string configuration, cable length, voltage conditions, and so on. When sharing these losses, rather than simply listing item names, write whether “this loss could potentially be improved through design,” “it should be accepted as a site condition,” or “additional verification is required,” as that makes it easier for internal decision-making.

Also, rather than emphasizing only the items with large losses, it is important to verify whether those losses are reasonable. In solar power generation simulations, it is natural to have a certain amount of loss. It is not necessarily better for losses to be close to zero. A superficially good result may be due to not reflecting realistic conditions. When sharing internally, instead of simply saying “there is a problem because the losses are large,” it is important to use expressions that indicate the next actions, such as “these losses reflect the on-site shading conditions,” “these losses may warrant a review of the input settings,” and “this item could potentially be improved by changing the equipment configuration.”

When explanations of losses are well-organized, internal discussions become constructive. Even if power generation is lower than expected, it is clear what caused it and what should be reviewed. Conversely, if the breakdown of losses is not shared, people will focus only on the results and increase checks such as "Why is it low?", "Isn't there an input error?", and "How does this compare with alternative proposals?", which leads to rework.

Tip 4: Organize comparisons of multiple options so the differences are clear

PVSyst is effective for comparing multiple design proposals. It can run simulations under various conditions—changing the azimuth or tilt angles, altering the number of panels, varying the PCS capacity, reflecting the effects of shading, or modifying the layout. However, when sharing multiple proposals internally, simply lining up several result reports is not sufficient. It is necessary to organize them so that viewers can understand the differences.

When comparing multiple proposals, it's important to make clear what was changed in each one. If proposal names are only "Proposal 1", "Proposal 2", etc., the differences become hard to discern when you look back later. For internal sharing, giving proposal names meaningful labels is effective. For example, using names that convey the proposal's intent—such as Standard Layout, Capacity-Maximizing, Shadow-Consideration, Construction-Focused, or Slope-Angle-Modified—makes it easier for stakeholders to understand.

When comparing options, it is useful for practical decision-making to look not only at annual generation but also at generation per unit capacity, PR, monthly generation trends, major losses, shading effects, construction constraints, and additional items to verify. Even a plan with the largest annual generation may be difficult to adopt if it has a large installed capacity, poor constructability, and shading impacts concentrated in certain areas. Conversely, a plan with slightly lower annual generation but easier construction, lower shading risk, and easier maintenance can be optimal in practice.

When sharing internally, it is also important to make the conclusion of the comparison clear. Simply listing all the figures forces recipients to make their own judgments and can lead to divergent understandings. If you spell out in writing the direction that can be inferred from the comparison results—such as "This option is advantageous if you prioritize power generation," "This option is more realistic when constructability is also taken into account," or "A final decision requires further confirmation of the impact of shading"—it will be easier to move meetings and approvals forward.

When sharing multiple proposals, be careful not to simply compare proposals whose conditions are not aligned. If meteorological data, location, loss settings, the level at which shading is accounted for, equipment capacity, or other factors differ, you cannot determine whether differences in power generation are due to design improvements or differences in assumptions. In comparison documents, clearly indicate the common conditions and the changed conditions to prevent incorrect comparisons.

Tip 5: Preserve check history and version control before submission

In sharing PVSyst results, version control is extremely important. In practice, the initial simulation results rarely become the final version. Changes to design conditions, revisions to equipment configurations, additions of shading conditions, changes to meteorological data, incorporation of customer requests, and corrections from internal reviews all occur, resulting in multiple updates. If version control is not maintained, it becomes unclear which result is the latest, under which conditions a calculation was performed, and which documents should be submitted to the client.

When sharing internally, it is reassuring to include the version number, creation date, update date, author, and main changes in the file name and within the document. For example, manage versions in a way that makes the changes clear, such as Initial Draft, Version Reflecting Shadow Conditions, Version with Equipment Configuration Changes, and Final Review Version. Managing by date alone can cause confusion if multiple updates occur on the same day. Therefore, in addition to the date, it is effective to concisely record what was changed.

Check history is also important. PVSyst results depend on many input conditions, so a single configuration mistake can affect the final result. If you decide in advance which items to verify before submission—such as location settings, meteorological data, capacity, equipment selection, string configuration, azimuth, tilt, shading settings, loss settings, and report output conditions—the quality will be more consistent.

Especially when sharing internally before submitting to external parties, it is important to separate "confirmed" and "unconfirmed." If a simulation is at a stage where on-site conditions have not yet been confirmed, state that fact. If shadow information is a provisional setting, indicate that it is provisional. If meteorological data are standard data and not actual on-site measurements, share that as an assumption as well. If such information is left ambiguous when shared, there is a risk that provisional results will be treated as definitive values.

Version control and check history also affect internal credibility. Because PVSyst results are specialized documentation, recipients of shared materials are concerned about whether they can trust the figures. If a verification history is retained, it becomes clear which items were checked by whom, making it easier to proceed with internal approvals and explanations to customers.

Tip 6: Correlate on-site conditions with simulation results

To use PVSyst results in practical work, connecting them to on-site conditions is essential. Because simulations are calculated based on input conditions, if the actual on-site conditions differ from the input conditions, the reliability of the results will decrease. When sharing internally, it is important to organize not only the numbers on PVSyst but also the information confirmed on site and the items that should be checked going forward.

In solar power generation facilities, various site conditions—topography, slope, orientation, surrounding obstructions, buildings, trees, utility poles, fences, adjacent structures, ground conditions, construction area, and maintenance access routes—affect power generation and design. Even if PVSyst results look good, in reality there may be issues such as shadows over certain areas, difficulty arranging mounting racks, insufficient construction space, or difficulty securing maintenance access routes.

Therefore, for internal shared documents it is practical to list separately the site conditions that have been reflected in PVSyst and those that have not yet been reflected. For example, you can organize it as: azimuth and tilt have been reflected, but future shading from the growth of surrounding trees is unconfirmed; the final ground elevation after site development is undecided; and the heights of adjacent structures require on-site verification. This makes it clear to what degree of accuracy the simulation results should be treated.

Also, linking on-site photos, survey results, layout study drawings, and notes on construction conditions with the PVSyst results deepens internal understanding. Even staff who are not familiar with PVSyst can more easily understand why a particular energy yield is obtained and why certain losses occur when they can see the relationship between the on-site conditions and the results.

Connecting results to site conditions also supports customer explanations. By organizing, from the stage of sharing results internally, questions such as "Which site conditions are reflected in these results?" and "Where is additional verification needed?", you can improve the quality of explanations in subsequent processes. As a way of using PVSyst, it is important not only to learn screen operations and report output, but also to consider how to reflect field information in the input conditions and how to explain the results.

Common Mistakes in Internal Information Sharing and How to Prevent Them

One common mistake when sharing PVSyst results is to simply send the report and consider the task finished. PVSyst reports contain important information, but not everyone who receives them is necessarily familiar with PVSyst. Without the prerequisite knowledge to read the report, recipients may base judgments solely on annual energy production, misunderstand the meaning of PR, or fail to correctly interpret the items in the loss diagram. To prevent this, it is effective to include an explanatory summary of the key points along with the report.

The next most common mistake is failing to share the assumptions. If only the power generation figures are shared, you end up having to confirm later "what equipment configuration was used," "whether shading was taken into account," and "which meteorological data were used." To prevent this, always present results together with the assumptions, and place an overview of the conditions at the beginning of internal shared documents.

Also, when comparing multiple proposals, they are sometimes shared without clearly showing the differences. If proposal names are ambiguous or the changes are not documented, discussions cannot move forward. When comparing, put into writing what was changed in each proposal, how the results differ, and how those differences affect the decision to adopt them.

Furthermore, the continued use of older versions of documents is also a significant operational risk. When multiple people within the company are reviewing materials, discussions can sometimes proceed based on outdated reports. It is necessary to make clear which version is the latest and to enforce version-management rules, such as adding markings to old documents to indicate they are previous versions.

Another failure is that results based on provisional assumptions are treated as definitive values. In the initial study phase, site conditions and equipment configurations may remain provisional when running simulations. In such cases, the results are for study purposes only. However, if those premises are not stated in the documentation, they may be treated within the company as definitive values. Provisional assumptions, unconfirmed items, and future items to be confirmed should be clearly documented so as not to compromise the accuracy of decision-making.

Items to include in PVSyst shared materials

There are certain items that should be included at a minimum in materials used to share PVSyst results internally. First required are the project name, the site location, the date the simulation was created, the author, and the version number. These are basic pieces of information, but they are extremely important in practice when handling multiple projects simultaneously. If it is not clear which project and which point in time the results correspond to, confusion will arise when they are checked later.

Next, specify the purpose of the simulation. Whether it is an initial study, a pre-proposal check, a design-change comparison, or a pre-final-submission review will change how the results are handled. If the purpose is clear, the recipient can judge to what level of accuracy they should assess the results.

As a summary of results, organize annual energy production, energy production per unit of capacity, PR, monthly energy production trends, and the major loss factors. However, it is important not only to list numbers but also to include interpretive comments. For example, explain whether generation is stable throughout the year, whether a specific month shows a noticeable drop, or whether shading or temperature effects are significant.

As prerequisites, include the location, meteorological conditions, system capacity, panel orientation (azimuth), tilt angle, equipment configuration, PCS capacity, shading modeling conditions, and loss settings. These are indispensable pieces of information for interpreting PVSyst results. In particular, shading and loss settings have a large impact on the results, so specify how detailed their representation was.

If there are multiple options, include the changes for each option and the comparison results. Rather than simply listing the results, indicate which option is advantageous from which perspectives. Clarifying the evaluation axes—such as emphasizing power generation, ease of construction, reduction of shading risk, and maintainability—will make it easier to advance internal discussions.

Finally, include unresolved items and the next actions. Organizing items that require on-site verification, items for the design team to reconfirm, items for the sales team to confirm with the customer, and items for the construction team to consider will make post-sharing actions clear. The purpose of sharing PVSyst results is not to distribute materials, but to lead to subsequent decisions and work.

Summary: When sharing PVSyst results, organizing them for decision-making is important

The most important thing when sharing PVSyst results internally is not to hand over the numbers as-is, but to organize them into a form that can be used for decision-making. PVSyst contains a lot of information—annual energy production, PR, monthly generation, loss diagrams, shading effects, system conditions, and so on. However, for recipients to correctly understand them and use them for subsequent decisions, you need to clarify the purpose of sharing, the audience, the assumptions, the differences, and any unconfirmed items.

In practice, communicating the results is as important as becoming familiar with operating PVSyst. No matter how accurately you run simulations, if the assumptions are not conveyed during internal sharing, misunderstandings and rework will occur. Conversely, if the results and assumptions, the meaning of losses, the differences between multiple options, and their relationship to site conditions are clearly organized, sales, design, construction, and management personnel can proceed with the project with a shared understanding.

Especially for photovoltaic installations, aligning desktop simulations with on-site conditions is important. Even if PVSyst shows good results, if the azimuth, tilt, shading, topography, obstacles, or construction scope at the actual site differ, the plan may need to be revised. Therefore, when sharing PVSyst results, it is essential to verify how accurately the information obtained on site has been reflected.

As a means of improving the accuracy of on-site information, leveraging an iPhone-mounted GNSS high-precision positioning device like LRTK makes it easier to reflect location information and positioning data acquired in the field into design considerations. By combining PVSyst power generation simulations with high-precision on-site position verification, explanations when sharing internally gain credibility, and discrepancies between design conditions and site conditions can be detected at an earlier stage. Rather than treating PVSyst results as mere calculation outputs, sharing them as material for practical, site-rooted decision making is an important point for smoothly advancing solar power projects.