Feasibility Analysis
By: Professor Wilmer Arellano
My experience is that there exists a
general psychological tendency to
overlook "predictable surprises" as
things that happen in the normal
course.
 "Prevention is better than cure" is
hardly practiced and it is only when a
surprise boils into a crisis that
managers react.
Hariharan
Controller
Perstorp Aegis Chemicals Pvt Ltd.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4540.html
Overview
Feasibility Definitions
 Goals
 Types of Feasibility
 Feasibility Assessment

• 1 to 5 Score
• Weighted Score
• Pugh’s Method

Risk
What are we covering
today?
IV. NEEDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
A. Needs Analysis
B. Feasibility Analysis
C. Marketability
XIV. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND SOCIAL
IMPACT
A. Ethical Considerations
B. Social Impact
Definitions for Feasibility

The quality of being doable


WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
A feasibility study is:
a detailed analysis of a company and
its operations that is conducted in order to
predict the results of a specific future course of
action.
http://www.answers.com/topic/feasibility-study-2
Goals
Will the project be a success?
 The objective of a feasibility study is:


To find out if a project can be done:
Types of Feasibility
Technical
 Resource
 Economic
 Schedule
 Operational
 Cultural
 Legal
 Marketing

Technical Feasibility
Is the project possible with current
technology?
 Does the technology exist at all?
 Is it available locally?
 Can it be obtained?
 Are fundamentally new inventions
required?
 How much Technical Risk is there?

Resource Feasibility
Do we have sufficient skills?
 Do we have sufficient equipment?
 Do we have sufficient number of
people?
 How much Resource Risk is there?

Economic Feasibility




Is the project possible, given resource
constraints?
Do we have the funds?
Do we have a sponsor?
How much Economic Risk is there?
Next two optional
No need to include in your proposal
Economic Feasibility


Is the project possible, given resource
constraints?
What benefits will result from the system?





Both tangible and intangible benefits
Quantify them!
What are the development and operational
costs?
Are the benefits worth the costs?
How much Economic Risk is there?
Economic Feasibility


Tangible Benefits
Readily quantified as $ values, examples:

decreased costs

increased sales
error reductions
increased throughput/efficiency
increased margin on sales
more effective use of staff time






Intangible benefits
Difficult to quantify, but maybe more important, examples:




improved staff morale
increased flexibility of operation
higher quality products/services
better customer relations
Schedule Feasibility
What are the chances of meeting the
intermediate mileposts?
 What are the chances of meeting the
PDR (Preliminary Design Review)
requirements?
 What are the chances of meeting the
CDR (Critical Design Review)
requirements?

Feasibility Analysis



The PDR is a multi-disciplined technical review to
ensure that the system under review can proceed into
detailed design, and can meet the stated performance
requirements within cost (program budget), schedule
(program schedule), risk, and other system
constraints.
The CDR is a multi-disciplined technical review to
ensure that the system under review can proceed into
system fabrication, demonstration, and test; and can
meet the stated performance requirements within cost
(program budget), schedule (program schedule), risk,
and other system constraints.
http://akss.dau.mil/dag/TOC_GuideBook.asp?sNode=
R4-3-3-4-4&Exp=Y
Cultural Feasibility

Social acceptability?

Will there be a positive impact on the
local culture.
Cultural Feasibility

For the purpose of your proposal:

Include questions on Cultural
Feasibility on your survey
Cultural Feasibility

Part of your findings will go in the
feasibility section

Use your new knowledge and include a
Cultural Feasibility item in your
Feasibility Analysis.
Cultural Feasibility
Part of your findings will go in a
different section.
 Use your new knowledge to write a
strong and persuasive social impact
section.

XIV. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND SOCIAL
IMPACT
A. Ethical Considerations
B. Social Impact
Legal Feasibility
Organizational conflicts and policies?
 Laws or regulations impeding the
Project?
 Laws of regulation limiting the project

Legal Feasibility

For the purpose of your proposal:
Do a search to find out laws or rules
that may oppose or limit your project
 Include a Legal Feasibility item in your
analysis in your Feasibility section

Marketing Feasibility

Will the general public accept the
product?
Marketing Feasibility
IV. NEEDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
A. Needs Analysis
B. Feasibility Analysis
C. Marketability
Marketing Feasibility



Include questions on Marketing
Feasibility on your survey
Use the information provided by the
users on the survey and add a Marketing
Feasibility item in your feasibility
assessment table.
Write a separate section of your
proposal about Marketability. Provide
strong arguments of your project
Marketability
Next slide is optional
No need to include in your proposal
Operational Feasibility
Urgency of the problem and the
acceptability of any solution:
 If the system is developed, will it be
used?
 Potential labor objections?
 Manager resistance?

Feasibility Assessment
Do we have
sufficient
skills?
Do we have
sufficient
equipment?
Do we have
sufficient a
number of
people?
5 High
4
Attribute
Resource Feasibility
3 Med

2

1 Low

Feasibility is Measured Against Attributes
Pugh’s Method. All attributes has the same weight. Count + vs. –
1 to 5 Scale. By using a scale we can obtain information of the
possible causes for failure
Weighted Scale. Same as 1 to 5 scale the different attributes
contribute to the total in different proportion. (The one we use)
Weight

X
X
X
Why?
Solution
We don't know how to program
microcontrollers
Take a Crash Course
The Lab Does not have a Program
Station
Buy One
Three people in the team
Enough
Pugh’s Method Example
For reference only, do not use.
Attribute
-
+
Why?
Solution
Resource Feasibility
Do we have sufficient
skills?
Do we have sufficient
equipment?
Do we have sufficient a
number of people?
1
1
We don't know how to program
microcontrollers
The Lab Does not have a
Program Station
Take a Crash Course
Buy One
1
Three people in the team
Enough
1
We have carefully analyzed the
schedule and we are convinced
that it is OK
Not Required
We have only 25% of the
required funds
Find a sponsor
Schedule feasibility
What are the chances of
meeting the intermediate
mileposts?
Economic feasibility
Is the project possible,
given resource constraints?
TOTAL
DIFFERENCE
1
2
3
1
1 to 5 Scale Example
Attribute
Resource Feasibility
Do we have sufficient
skills?
Do we have sufficient
equipment?
Do we have sufficient a
number of people?
Score
For reference only, do not use.
2
3
Why?
We don't know how to program
microcontrollers
The Lab Does not have a
Program Station
Solution
Take a Crash Course
Buy One
5
Three people in the team
Enough
Not Required
5
We have carefully analyzed the
schedule and we are convinced
that it is OK
We have only 25% of the
required funds
Find a sponsor
Schedule feasibility
What are the chances of
meeting the intermediate
mileposts?
Economic feasibility
Is the project possible,
given resource constraints?
TOTAL
AVERAGE
2
17
3.4
Score
W.
Score
Attribute
Weight
Weighted Scale Example
0.43
2.0
0.86
0.18
3.0
0.54
0.24
5.0
1.2
0.07
5.0
0.35
Why?
Solution
Resource Feasibility
Do we have sufficient
skills?
Do we have sufficient
equipment?
Do we have sufficient a
number of people?
We don't know how to program
microcontrollers
The Lab Does not have a
Program Station
Take a Crash Course
Buy One
Three people in the team
Enough
We have carefully analyzed the
schedule and we are convinced
that it is OK
Not Required
Schedule feasibility
What are the chances of
meeting the intermediate
mileposts?
Economic feasibility
Is the project possible,
given resource constraints?
TOTAL
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
0.07
3.0
0.21
0.99
17.0
3.16
We have only 25% of the
required funds
Find a sponsor
Weighted Average 
3.19
This is not a template, use your own attributes.
Use this method.
W .Score
Weight
Fit your table in one
page
It looks better
Obtaining Weights Example 1
Skills
Equipment
People
Mileposts
Economic Resources
Skills Equipment People Mileposts
1
5
3
3
1/5
1
1
3
1/3
1
1
5
1/3
1/3
1/5
1
1/3
1/3
1/5
1
1 = equal 3 = moderate
Skills
Equipment
People
Mileposts
Economic Resources
5 = strong
Skills Equipment People Mileposts
1.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
0.20
1.00
1.00
3.00
0.33
1.00
1.00
5.00
0.33
0.33
0.20
1.00
0.33
0.33
0.20
1.00
Economic Resources
3
3
5
1
1
7 = very strong
Economic Resources
3.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
Total
G.Mean  ( A1  A2         AN )
w  G.Mean / total
1
N
9 = extreme
G. Mean
2.667269
1.124746
1.528142
0.467044
0.467044
6.254244
w
0.43
0.18
0.24
0.07
0.07
Weighted Scale Example 1
Score
W.
Score
Attribute
Weight
This is not a template, use your own attributes
0.43
2.0
0.86
0.18
3.0
0.54
0.24
5.0
1.2
0.07
5.0
0.35
Why?
Solution
Resource Feasibility
Do we have sufficient
skills?
Do we have sufficient
equipment?
Do we have sufficient a
number of people?
We don't know how to program
microcontrollers
The Lab Does not have a
Program Station
Take a Crash Course
Buy One
Three people in the team
Enough
We have carefully analyzed the
schedule and we are convinced
that it is OK
Not Required
Schedule feasibility
What are the chances of
meeting the intermediate
mileposts?
Economic feasibility
Is the project possible,
given resource constraints?
TOTAL
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
0.07
1.0
0.07
0.99
17.0
3.02
3.05
We have only 25% of the
required funds
Find a sponsor
Weighted Average 
W .Score
Weight
Obtaining Weights Example 2
Skills
Equipment
People
Mileposts
Economic Resources
Skills Equipment People Mileposts
1
5
3
3
1/5
1
1
3
1/3
1
1
5
1/3
1/3
1/5
1
9
9
9
9
1 = equal 3 = moderate
Skills
Equipment
People
Mileposts
Economic Resources
5 = strong
Skills Equipment People Mileposts
1.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
0.20
1.00
1.00
3.00
0.33
1.00
1.00
5.00
0.33
0.33
0.20
1.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
Economic Resources
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
1
7 = very strong
Economic Resources
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
1.00
Total
G.Mean  ( A1  A2         AN )
w  G.Mean / total
1
N
9 = extreme
G. Mean
1.37973
0.581811
0.713709
0.30096
5.799546
8.775756
w
0.16
0.07
0.08
0.03
0.66
Weighted Scale Example 2
Score
W.
Score
Attribute
Weight
This is not a template, use your own attributes
0.16
2.0
0.32
0.07
3.0
0.21
0.08
5.0
0.4
0.03
5.0
0.15
Why?
Solution
Resource Feasibility
Do we have sufficient
skills?
Do we have sufficient
equipment?
Do we have sufficient a
number of people?
We don't know how to program
microcontrollers
The Lab Does not have a
Program Station
Take a Crash Course
Buy One
Three people in the team
Enough
We have carefully analyzed the
schedule and we are convinced
that it is OK
Not Required
Schedule feasibility
What are the chances of
meeting the intermediate
mileposts?
Economic feasibility
Is the project possible,
given resource constraints?
TOTAL
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
0.66
1.0
0.66
1.00
17.0
1.74
1.74
We have only 25% of the
required funds
Find a sponsor
Weighted Average 
W .Score
Weight
Follow your Analysis
Trust yourself!
Remember
You must include all the feasibility
items, not just the ones in my
examples
Remember
Use your own attributes, do not copy
and paste from the slides
Risk
The possibility of suffering loss
 Risk involves uncertainty and loss:

Uncertainty: The degree of certainty
about whether the risk will happen.
 Loss: If the risk becomes a reality,
unwanted consequences or losses will
occur.

Risk Categories
Technical
 Resource
 Economic
 Schedule
 Cultural
 Legal
 Marketing
 Operational

Proactive Risk Management

“The purpose of risk management is
to identify potential problems before
they occur so that action can be taken
to reduce or eliminate the likelihood
and/or impact of these problems
should they occur.”
Risk Assessment



Risk Exposure Matrix
Clear and well defined risk acceptance thresholds are required
in order to define the level of risk that can be tolerated.
The Exposure Matrix can be used to prevent entering into a
project
You may use a fishbone diagram to discover risks
Likelihood of Occurrence
Undesirable
Outcomes

Very Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Class IV
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Severe
Class III
Catastrophic
Severe
Moderate
Class II
Severe
Moderate
Low
Class I
Moderate
Low
Low
Risk Management





In ongoing projects, the Exposure Matrix can be used
to as a managing tool
Class I: Risks that are below the risk acceptance
threshold and do not require active management
Class II: Risks that lie on the risk acceptance threshold
and require active monitoring
Class III: Risks that exceed the risk acceptance
threshold and require proactive management
Class IV: Risks that significantly exceed the risk
acceptance threshold and urgent and immediate
attention if they happen
Avoid Class IV
Risks!
They Can make you:
•
•
Unsuccessful
Unhappy
Fault Tree Analysis
Resource
T1
New
Invention
Required
R1
Skills to be
Acquired
M1
Survey
Indicated
Price
Constraint
R2,M1, T2
S2
E1
T2
Technology
Does Not
Exist
R2
Team Size
Outcomes
Technical
Undesirable
Marketing
Class
Class
Class
Class
IV
III
II
I
Likelihood of Occurrence
Legend
Very Likely Possible Unlikely
T1, E2 Catastrophic
S2, E1
Severe
R1,L1, S1
R2
Moderate
T2
M1
Low
Actions
None
Assign Duties For Break Period
Designate a Dedicated Person to Solve This Issue
Continue Process
Senior II
Project Not
Completed
on Time
E2
T1 Would
Require Extra
Funding
L1
Any Laws of
Regulation
against
Project?
E1
Funding
Required
Legal
S2
Impact of
Semester's
Break
S1
Team Members
Procrastination
Economic
Schedule
All Considerations Fictitious
Use Facts That apply to You Project
Don't forget a concluding paragraph
analyzing your risks an actions
What you need to do
Use a fault tree analysis to determine
your risks.
 Use a Risk Exposure Matrix to asses
your risks
 Create contingency plans
 Write the corresponding section on
the proposal

Continuous Risk Management
References






http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/CSC340F/slides/05feasibility.pdf
http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/~csc340h/winter/
Dorofee, A. J., Walker, J. A., Alberts, C. J., Higuera, R.
P., Murray, T. J., and Williams, R. J. Continuous Risk
Management Guidebook.
Pressman, R. S. 1997. Software Engineering: A
Practitioner’s Approach. New York, USA: McGraw
Hill.
Risk analysis and management guidance
June 2005, www.riotinto.com
Review
Definitions
 Goals
 Types of feasibility
 Feasibility Assessment

• 1 to 5 Score
• Weighted Score
• Pugh’s Method

Risk
&
Questions
Answers