Feasibility report and candidate matrix

Major components of a feasibility study report

A feasibility report documents the findings of the feasibility study and gives management the information needed to decide whether, and how, to proceed. Typical components, illustrated for a proposed college library management system:

1. Title page and executive summary: a one-page summary of the problem, alternatives and recommendation, for busy managers. Example: "We recommend buying and customising an open-source library package at a cost of NPR 6 lakh; payback in about 2 years."
2. Introduction and background: purpose of the study, who requested it, the organisation and current situation. Example: manual card-based issue system serving 3,000 students.
3. Problem statement and objectives: problems with the current system and what the new system must achieve. Example: long queues, lost books, no overdue tracking; objective is to reduce issue time to under 1 minute.
4. Scope and constraints: what is included and excluded; budget, time, policy limits. Example: covers issue/return, catalogue and fines; not purchase accounting; budget NPR 8 lakh; ready by next semester.
5. Study of the existing system: how work is done now, with its costs and weaknesses.
6. Alternative (candidate) solutions: brief description of each option. Example: C1 open-source package, C2 custom in-house development, C3 cloud (SaaS) subscription.
7. Feasibility analysis of each candidate:
   • Technical: can it run on existing PCs and LAN; staff skills.
   • Operational: will librarians accept it; training needed.
   • Economic: development and running costs, benefits, payback, ROI.
   • Schedule: can it be ready on time.
   • Legal: licences, data privacy.
8. Candidate (feasibility) matrix: side-by-side comparison of the candidates on all criteria.
9. Recommendation: the chosen solution and the reasons.
10. Implementation outline: high-level plan, schedule, resources and major risks.
11. Appendices: cost–benefit calculations, interview notes, survey results, vendor quotations.

Why the candidate matrix with recommendation is the standard

A candidate systems matrix lists the alternative solutions in columns and the evaluation criteria in rows; a feasibility analysis matrix adds weights and scores so that the candidates can be ranked. Example (scores out of 10):

(C1: 0.30×7 + 0.25×9 + 0.30×8 + 0.15×9 = 2.10 + 2.25 + 2.40 + 1.35 = 8.10.) Recommendation: C1, the highest-ranked candidate.

This form is considered standard because:

1. Objective comparison: all candidates are judged on the same criteria and weights, reducing personal bias.
2. Clarity for decision makers: managers see all options, their trade-offs and ranking at a glance, without reading long text.
3. Covers all feasibility dimensions (technical, operational, economic, schedule) in one place, so no aspect is ignored.
4. Documented rationale: the recommendation is traceable to the scores, so it can be reviewed, justified and audited later.
5. Supports what-if analysis: changing weights (for example, if cost becomes more important) quickly shows whether the recommendation still holds.
6. Actionable: the recommendation tells management exactly what to approve, while the matrix shows the fallback options if the first choice fails.