Feasibility Study

Purpose

Pre-commitment viability assessment across technical, business, operational, resource, schedule, compliance, risk, and alternative dimensions.

Example

Show a worked example of this artifact

---
ddx:
  id: example.feasibility-study.depositmatch
  depends_on:
    - example.opportunity-canvas.depositmatch
    - example.business-case.depositmatch
    - example.compliance-requirements.depositmatch
---

# Feasibility Study: DepositMatch CSV-first Pilot

**Feasibility Lead**: Product and engineering leads
**Evaluation Timeframe**: 2 weeks
**Decision Deadline**: 2026-05-31
**Status**: Example

## Executive Summary

### Project Overview

DepositMatch is a focused reconciliation workspace for small bookkeeping firms.
The pilot scope imports CSV bank and invoice exports, suggests matches with
visible evidence, tracks reviewer decisions, and keeps unresolved deposits in a
client-scoped exception queue.

### Recommendation

**Overall Assessment**: CONDITIONALLY FEASIBLE
**Decision**: CONDITIONAL GO
**Rationale**: The CSV-first pilot is technically and operationally feasible if
the first release stays narrow. The highest risks are CSV variability, live
financial-data handling, and willingness to pay, so the project should proceed
only with pilot recruiting, compliance review, and explicit success metrics.
**Confidence**: Medium

## Feasibility Assessment

### Technical

- **Assessment**: FEASIBLE
- **Key requirements**: CSV import and mapping, suggested matching, evidence
  display, firm/client access boundaries, review log export, and exception
  queue.
- **Main risks**: CSV format variability, false-positive matches, and audit log
  integrity.
- **Evidence**: Product Vision defines a narrow workflow; Opportunity Canvas
  keeps v1 out of bank feeds and ledger writeback.

### Business

- **Assessment**: HIGH RISK
- **Market opportunity**: Small bookkeeping firms have a specific weekly
  reconciliation bottleneck, but segment size and pricing are still planning
  assumptions.
- **Value proposition**: Reviewer capacity, visible evidence, and exception
  ownership are differentiated against spreadsheets and generic matching tools.
- **Evidence**: Business Case marks TAM/SAM/SOM and pricing as assumptions;
  Opportunity Canvas requires pilot conversion evidence.

### Operational

- **Assessment**: HIGH RISK
- **Support and deployment needs**: Pilot onboarding, CSV sampling, per-firm
  mapping support, deletion requests, incident response, and support access
  controls.
- **Regulatory requirements**: FTC Safeguards and state privacy applicability
  need counsel review before live client financial data is uploaded.
- **Evidence**: Compliance Requirements identifies financial-data handling,
  retention, vendor, and counsel-review gaps.

### Resource

- **Assessment**: FEASIBLE
- **Budget**: Year-one pilot budget in Business Case: $262,000 across
  development, infrastructure, go-to-market, and operations.
- **Team and timeline**: Three-month pilot build is feasible with a focused
  product/engineering pair and limited support coverage.
- **Evidence**: Business Case bounds the first investment; Opportunity Canvas
  keeps bank feeds, ledger writeback, and automatic approval out of scope.

## Risks

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-------------|--------|------------|
| CSV exports vary enough to slow onboarding | High | Medium | Recruit pilots across at least three accounting systems and build explicit column mapping. |
| Reviewers distrust suggestions | Medium | High | Show evidence before approval and measure accepted suggestion accuracy. |
| Compliance review expands required controls | Medium | High | Complete legal applicability review before live-data pilot. |
| Pilot firms do not pay at target pricing | Medium | High | Validate willingness to pay before expanding beyond CSV-first scope. |

## Alternatives

### CSV-first Pilot

- **Pros**: Fastest path to validate reviewer trust, time savings, and
  willingness to pay without integration dependencies.
- **Cons**: Requires manual CSV mapping support and does not prove bank-feed
  integration value.
- **Feasibility**: CONDITIONALLY FEASIBLE
- **Decision**: Carry forward

### Bank-feed and Ledger Integration First

- **Pros**: Stronger automation story and richer transaction context.
- **Cons**: Higher integration complexity, slower learning, larger compliance
  and support surface.
- **Feasibility**: HIGH RISK
- **Decision**: Reject for v1

### Do Nothing / Delay

- **Pros**: Avoids compliance and support burden while market assumptions are
  weak.
- **Cons**: Delays learning on the core reviewer-trust problem and leaves pilot
  firms in manual spreadsheet workflows.
- **Feasibility**: FEASIBLE but strategically weak
- **Decision**: Reject

## Decision Framework

| Criterion | Status | Rationale |
|-----------|--------|-----------|
| Technical buildability | Pass | CSV-first scope is bounded and avoids complex integrations. |
| Business value | Risk | Pain is clear, but pricing and obtainable market remain assumptions. |
| Operational supportability | Risk | CSV onboarding and financial-data handling need explicit procedures. |
| Compliance readiness | Risk | Counsel review is required before live-data pilot. |
| Resource availability | Pass | Three-month pilot fits the bounded investment case. |

## Next Steps

1. Confirm five pilot firms and collect sample CSVs before finalizing PRD scope.
2. Complete legal/compliance applicability review for live financial data.
3. Turn the CSV import, evidence-backed matching, exception queue, and review
   log into PRD requirements.
4. Add pilot success gates: reconciliation time below 3 minutes per client,
   accepted suggestion accuracy above 95%, and 3 of 5 pilot firms willing to
   pay target pricing.

Reference

Activity Frame — Define what the system should do, for whom, and how success will be measured.

Default location docs/helix/01-frame/feasibility-study.md

Requires None

Enables None

Informs PRD
Principles
Risk Register
Stakeholder Map
Feature Registry

Generation prompt

Show the full generation prompt

# Feasibility Study Generation Prompt
Assess whether the project is feasible and what it would take to proceed.
Reference Anchors
    
Use these local resource summaries as grounding:

docs/resources/doj-feasibility-study.md grounds pre-commitment
feasibility, alternatives, decision criteria, and recommendation.
docs/resources/eib-project-feasibility.md grounds option analysis,
cost-benefit, organizational, compliance, and risk dimensions.

Focus
    

Separate technical, business, operational, and resource feasibility.
Compare realistic alternatives, including delaying or doing nothing where useful.
State the recommendation clearly.
Capture the main risks, constraints, and open questions.
Tie conclusions to evidence and confidence, not optimism.

Role Boundary
    
Feasibility Study is not the Business Case, PRD, or Solution Design. It decides
whether the opportunity is viable enough to justify deeper framing or delivery
commitment. Business Case owns investment return; PRD owns required behavior;
Solution Design owns the chosen implementation approach.
Completion Criteria
    
The recommendation is unambiguous.
Each feasibility dimension is summarized briefly.
Assumptions and mitigations are explicit.
The preferred alternative is justified against at least one rejected alternative.

Template

Show the template structure

---
ddx:
  id: feasibility-study
---
Feasibility Study: {{project_name}}
Decision Deadline: {{decision_deadline}}
Status: Draft
Executive Summary
    
Project Overview
    
[Brief description of the proposed project or solution]
Recommendation
    
Overall Assessment: FEASIBLE | CONDITIONALLY FEASIBLE | NOT FEASIBLE
Decision: GO | CONDITIONAL GO | NO GO
Rationale: [2-3 sentences on the main factors]
Confidence: High | Medium | Low
Feasibility Assessment
    
Technical
    

Assessment: FEASIBLE | HIGH RISK | NOT FEASIBLE
Key requirements: [Brief list]
Main risks: [Brief list]
Evidence: [What supports the assessment]

Business
    

Assessment: FEASIBLE | HIGH RISK | NOT FEASIBLE
Market opportunity: [Brief summary]
Value proposition: [Brief summary]
Evidence: [What supports the assessment]

Operational
    

Assessment: FEASIBLE | HIGH RISK | NOT FEASIBLE
Support and deployment needs: [Brief summary]
Regulatory requirements: [Brief summary]
Evidence: [What supports the assessment]

Resource
    

Assessment: FEASIBLE | HIGH RISK | NOT FEASIBLE
Budget: [Estimate]
Team and timeline: [Estimate]
Evidence: [What supports the assessment]

Risks
    

  
      
          Risk
          Probability
          Impact
          Mitigation
      
  
  
      
          [Risk]
          High/Med/Low
          High/Med/Low
          [Strategy]
      
  

Alternatives
    
[Alternative Approach]
    

Pros: [Brief]
Cons: [Brief]
Feasibility: [Brief]
Decision: Carry forward | Reject

Do Nothing / Delay
    

Pros: [Brief]
Cons: [Brief]
Feasibility: [Brief]
Decision: Carry forward | Reject

Next Steps
    
[Action]
[Action]