Feasibility Studies
Technical Feasibility Study
A technical feasibility study tests whether a proposed project can actually be delivered at the scale, location, cost and timetable assumed in the business case. It connects the commercial proposition to the practical requirements behind it: site, capacity, technology, equipment, utilities, materials, people, logistics, implementation sequencing and specialist approvals.
The purpose is not to turn commercial feasibility consultants into engineers. It is to make sure the investment case does not depend on technical assumptions that have never been tested, and to identify where qualified specialist design, engineering or certification must be obtained before approval.
What technical feasibility needs to prove
The project should be translated from a concept into a workable operating system. The study asks whether the proposed technical configuration can deliver the output assumed by the market and financial models.
Key questions include:
- Can the proposed site support the project?
- Is the planned capacity achievable?
- Is the selected technology appropriate to the product, service and operating environment?
- Are utilities and infrastructure sufficient?
- Can critical materials, equipment and skills be secured?
- What lead times govern implementation?
- Which technical dependencies could delay or materially increase the cost of the project?
- Which assumptions need validation by a specialist engineer, designer, supplier, authority or other qualified party?
The answers should feed directly into capex, opex, capacity, ramp-up and timing assumptions.
Site and location requirements
A project can have attractive demand and still be technically unsuitable for its proposed site. The review should identify the physical and infrastructure requirements that matter to the operating concept.
Depending on the project, this can include:
- footprint and layout requirements;
- access and circulation;
- loading, storage or logistics needs;
- utility availability and capacity;
- power, water, cooling or connectivity;
- environmental or operating constraints;
- proximity to suppliers or customers;
- expansion potential; and
- dependencies on external infrastructure.
Where detailed surveys, soil tests, engineering calculations, environmental studies or authority confirmations are required, these should be identified as specialist inputs rather than replaced by desktop assumptions.
Technology and equipment selection
Technology should be evaluated against the operating requirement, not selected on specification alone.
The assessment can consider:
- required output and quality;
- proven versus emerging technology;
- compatibility with local operating conditions;
- equipment capacity and redundancy;
- supplier availability and support;
- maintenance requirements;
- expected useful life;
- integration with existing systems;
- implementation lead time; and
- upgrade or replacement risk.
A cheaper option may carry higher downtime, maintenance or capacity risk. A more sophisticated option may add capital cost without creating enough economic value. The feasibility question is which configuration is proportionate to the project and consistent with the business case.
Capacity and utilisation
Technical capacity and commercial demand must reconcile.
If the market model assumes a certain sales volume, the technical plan needs to show that the facility, system or operating process can deliver it. At the same time, oversized capacity can create unnecessary capital expenditure and poor utilisation.
The study should distinguish:
- nameplate or theoretical capacity;
- practical operating capacity;
- expected utilisation during ramp-up;
- bottlenecks and throughput constraints;
- downtime and maintenance assumptions;
- staffing or shift requirements; and
- future expansion options.
These assumptions should then flow into revenue, cost and investment scenarios.
Utilities, materials and critical inputs
Some projects are constrained not by customer demand but by the availability or economics of inputs.
The review can test requirements for power, water, fuel, data connectivity, feedstock, inventory, specialist materials, transport, storage and other resources. It should consider quantity, quality, reliability, supplier concentration, lead time and cost.
Where a project depends on a single critical supplier or infrastructure connection, that dependency belongs in the risk register and the implementation plan.
People and operating capability
Technical feasibility also depends on whether the organisation can operate the project.
The analysis may identify required skills, staffing levels, shift structures, training, operator certifications, maintenance capability and specialist support. If a capability is scarce or must be imported, its lead time and cost should be reflected in the plan.
The study should separate the question “can the technology work?” from “can this organisation operate it reliably at the proposed scale?” Both matter to feasibility.
Implementation schedule and dependencies
A technically workable project can still fail its investment case if the implementation schedule is unrealistic.
The feasibility schedule should identify major stages and dependencies such as:
- design development;
- site preparation;
- procurement;
- manufacturing and delivery lead times;
- construction or fit-out;
- utilities and infrastructure connections;
- installation and integration;
- testing and commissioning;
- recruitment and training;
- approvals; and
- ramp-up to stable operations.
The schedule should identify the dependencies that control the opening date. A delay in a critical item must feed through to pre-opening cost, financing needs and lost revenue in the financial model.
Technical capex and opex implications
Technical choices become financial assumptions.
The study should connect the selected configuration to capital expenditure and operating expenditure. Capex may include equipment, site works, fit-out, systems, installation, professional inputs, commissioning and contingency. Opex may include energy, maintenance, labour, consumables, licences, service contracts, replacement parts and logistics.
Early estimates should state their basis and level of confidence. Where a cost requires a supplier quote, quantity survey, engineering design or detailed specification, the assumption should be identified accordingly rather than presented as a firm estimate.
Speak with an adviser
Defined mandates on fixed fees, ongoing counsel on retainer, and customised scopes for complex requirements.
Technical risk assessment
The risk review should focus on issues capable of changing project cost, capacity, quality or timing.
Examples include:
- unproven technology;
- equipment lead-time exposure;
- insufficient utility capacity;
- supplier concentration;
- interface or integration risk;
- site constraints;
- skills shortages;
- maintenance dependency;
- commissioning risk;
- approval dependencies; and
- scalability limitations.
The study should distinguish risks that can be mitigated through design, redundancy, alternative suppliers or phasing from those that require the project concept itself to change.
Relationship with commercial and financial feasibility
Technical feasibility is not a standalone pass/fail exercise. It changes the economics.
A higher-capacity design may increase revenue potential but also raise capex and break-even. A location with lower rent may require more logistics cost. A technology choice may reduce labour but increase maintenance or implementation risk. A delayed utility connection may increase pre-opening cash requirements.
The technical assumptions therefore need to be integrated with the market and financial models. Established feasibility methodology follows this logic: UNIDO treats technical/engineering analysis as one component of an integrated project appraisal alongside market and financial analysis.
What the client receives
Depending on project scope, a technical-feasibility package can include:
- executive technical-feasibility memo;
- technical requirements matrix;
- site and infrastructure requirements;
- technology/equipment options and selection criteria;
- capacity and utilisation assumptions;
- utility, input and resource requirements;
- staffing/skills assumptions;
- implementation schedule and critical dependencies;
- technical capex/opex assumptions;
- technical risk register;
- specialist-information requirements; and
- recommendation on whether the proposed technical configuration should proceed, be revised or require further specialist validation.
The final output should state clearly which conclusions are feasibility assumptions and which require confirmation through detailed design, engineering or authority review.
Go, revise or further technical validation
A go conclusion means the proposed technical configuration appears capable of supporting the commercial and financial case within the evidence and assumptions reviewed.
A revise conclusion means the project remains possible but site, technology, capacity, resources, schedule or another technical element should change.
A further-validation gate means a specialist issue is too material to resolve through feasibility-level analysis and must be confirmed by the appropriate qualified party before investment approval.
A no-go conclusion is appropriate where an essential technical requirement cannot realistically be met or makes the project economics unacceptable.
Why EXMC
Evidence EXMC already publishes about its own work, used here only within its documented scope.
Representative examples published by EXMC. Client identities are generalised to maintain confidentiality. Published work does not by itself establish permission to perform activities that require specific regulatory authorisation.
Frequently asked questions
What does a technical feasibility study include?
It typically examines site requirements, technology/equipment, capacity, utilities, critical inputs, staffing capability, implementation timing, technical capex/opex and technical risks. The depth depends on the project and should identify any specialist engineering, design or regulatory work required before approval.
Does a technical feasibility study replace engineering design?
No. Feasibility-level analysis tests whether the proposed technical concept appears workable and identifies the inputs required for the investment case. Detailed engineering, design calculations, surveys, certifications and formal approvals should be carried out by the appropriately qualified specialists where required.
How does technical feasibility affect the financial model?
Technical choices determine capex, operating cost, capacity, utilisation, maintenance, staffing and implementation timing. Those assumptions directly affect revenue, cash flow, break-even, funding requirements and project returns.
What information is needed before the study begins?
Useful inputs include the project concept, proposed site, target capacity, product/service requirements, preferred technology if any, available layouts or specifications, utility information, supplier data, operating assumptions, capex estimates and implementation timetable.
Discuss your project
If your investment depends on site, technology, capacity, utilities or implementation assumptions that have not yet been tested, EXMC can structure the technical feasibility work around the questions that materially affect the project decision.