Feasibility Study Template (TELOS)

Feasibility study across technical, economic, legal, operational and scheduling dimensions with scoring, costs, risk and sensitivity

БізнесПовнийTELOS feasibility frameworkfeasibility study mathОновлено 20 жовт. 2026 р.

Відкрити в редакторіЗавантажити .md

Як використовувати: Use before committing to a project to test whether it can and should go ahead. Agree criteria and weights with the sponsor before scoring any alternative. The main pitfall is changing weights after scoring to fit a favoured answer.

Перегляд

Feasibility Study: [Project or initiative name]

Full feasibility study that tests whether a proposed project can and should go ahead, assessed across the five TELOS dimensions: technical, economic, legal, operational and scheduling. It compares alternatives, scores each dimension against stated criteria, estimates costs, analyses risk and sensitivity, and ends with a clear go, conditional go or no-go recommendation. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example. Figures are illustrative; this is a format, not financial or legal advice.

Document control

Field	Value
Document ID	[FS-YYYY-001]
Project	[Project name]
Version	[0.1]
Status	[Draft / In review / Final]
Sponsor	[@sponsor]
Study lead	[@author]
Contributors	[@finance], [@legal], [@it-architect], [@operations]
Study period	YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD
Last updated	YYYY-MM-DD

Approvals

Role	Name	Decision	Date
Sponsor	[@name]	[Accepted / Further work required]	YYYY-MM-DD
Finance	[@name]	[Cost estimates validated]	YYYY-MM-DD
Legal and compliance	[@name]	[Legal assessment reviewed]	YYYY-MM-DD
Portfolio board	[@name]	[Go / Conditional go / No-go]	YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

Version	Date	Author	Change summary
0.1	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Background, objectives and alternatives drafted
0.2	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Example: TELOS scoring and cost estimates added
1.0	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Example: Final, recommendation accepted by sponsor

Executive summary
Background
Objectives and scope
Alternatives and assessment method
Technical feasibility
Economic feasibility
Legal feasibility
Operational feasibility
Schedule feasibility
Cost estimates
Risk analysis
Sensitivity analysis
Conclusion and recommendation
Appendices

1. Executive summary

This study assessed whether [organisation] should [proposed action]. [N] alternatives were evaluated across the TELOS dimensions. The highest-scoring alternative is [alternative], with a weighted score of [N.N] out of 5. The study recommends [Go / Conditional go / No-go].

Alternative	Weighted score	Estimated cost	Feasible?
Example: A1 Do nothing	2.15	0 capital, rising run cost	No
Example: A2 Upgrade existing warehouse system	3.15	420,000	Yes, with conditions
Example: A3 Cloud warehouse management system	4.1	610,000	Yes

2. Background

[Describe the current situation, the business problem, the trigger for the study (growth, regulation, failure, opportunity), and any previous studies or decisions.]

Example: "Order volume at the Northern distribution centre grew 46% in two years. The current warehouse system is a 2012 on-premises product that cannot support wave picking or carrier integration, and peak-season backlogs reached 3.5 days in December."

3. Objectives and scope

3.1 Study objectives

Determine whether [solution type] is technically achievable with [constraints].
Estimate whole-life costs and benefits for each alternative.
Identify legal, regulatory and contractual obstacles.
Assess operational readiness and the impact on staff and processes.
Establish whether delivery by [target date] is realistic.

3.2 Scope

In scope: [sites, processes, systems, user groups]
Out of scope: [areas not assessed, with reasons]
Constraints: [budget ceiling, deadlines, mandated technologies]
Assumptions: [for example, current headcount stays flat]

3.3 Decision criteria for the study outcome

The study outcome is decided by explicit thresholds agreed with the sponsor before any scoring starts. Writing them down early prevents the thresholds from drifting to fit a favoured answer.

Outcome	Threshold
Go	Weighted score of 3.5 or more, no dimension scored below 3, positive NPV in the base case
Conditional go	Weighted score of 3.0 or more, any dimension at 2 has a credible mitigation with an owner and a date
No-go	Weighted score below 3.0, any dimension scored 1, or negative NPV in the base case

3.4 Stakeholders consulted

Stakeholder	Interest	Method	Date
Example: Distribution centre manager	Throughput and staffing	Interview and site walk	YYYY-MM-DD
Example: Finance business partner	Capital budget and payback	Workshop	YYYY-MM-DD
Example: Picking team leads (6)	Day-to-day usability	Focus group with handheld demo	YYYY-MM-DD
[Stakeholder]	[Interest]	[Method]	[Date]

4. Alternatives and assessment method

4.1 Alternatives considered

ID	Alternative	Description
A1	Do nothing	Continue with current system and manual workarounds
A2	[Alternative]	[Description]
A3	[Alternative]	[Description]

4.2 Criteria, weights and scale

Each criterion is scored from 1 (not feasible) to 5 (fully feasible with low risk). The weighted score for alternative $a$ is:

S_a = \sum_{d} w_d \cdot s_{a,d}, \qquad \sum_d w_d = 1

Dimension	Weight $w_d$	Key criteria
Technical	0.25	Fit with architecture, maturity, integration effort, skills
Economic	0.30	NPV, payback, affordability
Legal	0.15	Regulatory compliance, contracts, data protection, licensing
Operational	0.20	Process fit, user acceptance, support model
Scheduling	0.10	Ability to meet the deadline, critical path risk

4.3 Scoring summary

Dimension	Weight	A1	A2	A3
Technical	0.25	2	3	4
Economic	0.30	2	3	4
Legal	0.15	3	4	4
Operational	0.20	2	3	4
Scheduling	0.10	2	3	5
Weighted score	1.00	2.15	3.15	4.10

4.4 Evidence and data sources

Scores must rest on evidence rather than opinion. For each dimension, record what was examined and how reliable it is, so that a reviewer can see which scores are firm and which are judgement calls.

Evidence	Used for	Reliability
Example: Six weeks of warehouse transaction logs	Throughput baseline, benefit estimates	High
Example: Two vendor demonstrations and three reference calls	Technical and operational scores	Medium
Example: Internal legal memo on data transfers	Legal score	Medium, pending external review
[Evidence]	[Dimension or estimate]	[High / Medium / Low]

5. Technical feasibility

Criterion	A2 finding	A3 finding	Score A2	Score A3
Example: Integration with ERP	Custom interface required, 3 months	Standard connector available	3	4
Example: Scalability to 2x peak	Requires new hardware	Elastic capacity	2	5
Example: Internal skills	Existing team familiar	Training needed, 6 weeks	4	3
[Criterion]	[Finding]	[Finding]	[1-5]	[1-5]

[Summarise technical risks and any proof-of-concept results.]

6. Economic feasibility

Net present value over $T$ years at discount rate $r$ :

NPV = \sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{B_t - C_t}{(1+r)^t} - C_0

Measure	A1	A2	A3
Initial cost $C_0$	[amount]	[amount]	[amount]
Annual benefits $B_t$	[amount]	[amount]	[amount]
Annual running costs $C_t$	[amount]	[amount]	[amount]
NPV at [r%] over [T] years	[amount]	[amount]	[amount]
Payback period	[n/a]	[N years]	[N years]

[Explain the main benefit drivers, such as labour hours saved, throughput gains or avoided penalties, and their sources.]

7. Legal feasibility

Area	Requirement or issue	Impact on alternatives	Action
Example: Data protection	Customer addresses processed by a cloud vendor	A3 needs a data processing agreement and transfer assessment	Legal review by YYYY-MM-DD
Example: Existing contract	Current vendor contract has 12-month notice	A3 cannot go live before notice period ends	Serve notice by YYYY-MM-DD
Example: Health and safety	New picking layout changes walkways	All alternatives need a site risk assessment	H&S officer sign-off
[Area]	[Issue]	[Impact]	[Action]

8. Operational feasibility

Criterion	Finding	Score A2	Score A3
Example: Process fit	A3 supports wave picking natively; A2 needs workarounds	3	4
Example: User acceptance	Pilot users rated A3 handheld flow 4.3 of 5	3	4
Example: Support model	A3 vendor provides 24x7 support; A2 relies on two staff	2	4
[Criterion]	[Finding]	[1-5]	[1-5]

[Describe stakeholder views, training needs, and how operations continue during transition.]

9. Schedule feasibility

Milestone	A2 date	A3 date	Constraint
Example: Contract signed	YYYY-MM-DD	YYYY-MM-DD	Procurement takes 8 weeks
Example: Go-live before peak freeze	YYYY-MM-DD	YYYY-MM-DD	Freeze starts 1 October
[Milestone]	[Date]	[Date]	[Constraint]

The indicative schedule for the leading alternative is shown below.

10. Cost estimates

Cost item	Type	A2	A3	Basis of estimate
Example: Software licences	Recurring	45,000	120,000	Vendor quotes, YYYY-MM
Example: Implementation services	One-off	180,000	260,000	Fixed-price proposals
Example: Hardware and devices	One-off	140,000	90,000	Catalogue prices
Example: Internal staff time	One-off	95,000	110,000	1.2 FTE for 9 months
Example: Contingency (15%)	One-off	62,000	70,000	Policy rate
Total one-off		[total]	[total]
Total recurring per year		[total]	[total]

Estimate accuracy: [range, for example -15% to +30%], based on [estimating class or method].

11. Risk analysis

ID	Risk	Alternative	Likelihood (1-5)	Impact (1-5)	Score	Mitigation	Owner
FR-01	Example: Vendor cannot meet go-live before peak freeze	A3	3	5	15	Contractual milestone with penalty; pilot by August	@pm
FR-02	Example: Legacy hardware fails during upgrade	A2	3	4	12	Spare server, rollback plan	@it-ops
FR-03	[Risk]	[Alt]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[L x I]	[Mitigation]	[@owner]

12. Sensitivity analysis

Variable	Base case	Low case	High case	NPV A3 low	NPV A3 high	Changes ranking?
Example: Labour savings	8 FTE	5 FTE	10 FTE	140,000	720,000	No
Example: Licence price increase	0%	0%	25%	410,000	290,000	No
Example: Go-live delay	0 months	0	6 months	410,000	180,000	Yes, A2 leads if delay over 9 months
[Variable]	[Base]	[Low]	[High]	[NPV]	[NPV]	[Yes / No]

Re-weighting check: [state whether the ranking holds when each TELOS weight is moved by plus or minus 0.10].

13. Conclusion and recommendation

Dimension	Verdict for preferred alternative
Technical	[Feasible / Feasible with conditions / Not feasible]
Economic	[Verdict]
Legal	[Verdict]
Operational	[Verdict]
Scheduling	[Verdict]

Recommendation: [Go / Conditional go / No-go] for [alternative].

[Explain in two or three paragraphs why the evidence supports this verdict, which dimension carries the most uncertainty, and what would have to change for the recommendation to reverse. Refer back to the switching points found in section 12 and the highest-scoring risks in section 11. If the verdict is no-go, state whether a smaller scope, a later date or a different alternative deserves a fresh study.]

Conditions: [for example, data processing agreement signed before contract award]
Next step: [for example, prepare full business case by YYYY-MM-DD]
Decision needed from: [forum and date]

14. Appendices

Appendix A: Detailed scoring worksheets [link]
Appendix B: Vendor quotations and references [link]
Appendix C: Proof-of-concept report [link]
Appendix D: Interview and workshop notes [link]

Standard and licence note

Based on the widely taught TELOS feasibility framework (technical, economic, legal, operational and scheduling) and common project appraisal practice. This template is original text written for this collection and reproduces no text from any textbook or standard. This is a document format, not financial or legal advice. Template licence: MIT.

Схожі шаблони

Бізнес