Feasibility
Feasibility
Objectives
Feasibility Analysis
Feasibility the measure of how beneficial or
practical an information system will be to an
organization.
Feasibility analysis the process by which
feasibility is measured.
Creeping Commitment an approach to
feasibility that proposes that feasibility should be
measured throughout the life cycle.
11-2
Feasibility
Checkpoints
During
Systems
Analysis
11-3
11-4
Operational Feasibility
How well proposed system solves the
problems and takes advantage of
opportunities identified during the scope
definition and problem analysis phases
How well proposed system satisfies
system requirements identified in the
requirements analysis phase
Is the problem still worth solving?
11-5
Technical feasibility
Is the proposed technology or solution
practical?
Do we currently possess the necessary
technology?
Do we possess the necessary technical
expertise?
11-7
Schedule feasibility
Are specified deadlines mandatory or
desirable?
Are mandatory deadlines realistic for
proposed solution?
11-8
Economic feasibility
During Scope Definition
Do the problems or opportunities warrant the
cost of a detailed study and analysis of the
current system?
Legal feasibility
11-10
Copyrights
Union contracts
Legal requirements for financial reporting
Antitrust laws
National data and work laws
Personnel
Computer usage
Training
Supply, duplication, and equipment
Computer equipment and software
11-11
Costs for
a
Proposed
Solution
11-13
11-14
Payback Analysis
Payback analysis a technique for
determining if and when an investment will
pay for itself.
Payback period the period of time that
will lapse before accrued benefits overtake
accrued and continuing costs.
11-16
11-17
11-18
Lifetime ROI =
(estimated lifetime benefits estimated lifetime costs) /
estimated lifetime costs
Annual ROI = lifetime ROI / lifetime of the system
11-19
11-20
Candidate 2 Name
Candidate 3 Name
Stakeholders
Knowledge
Processes
Communications
11-21
Benefits
Brief description of the business
benefits that would be realized
for this candidate.
Candidate 1
Candidate 3
Same as candidate 2.
Same as candidate 2.
Technically architecture
dictates Pentium III, MS
Windows 2000 class servers
and workstations (clients).
Same as candidate 1.
Same as candidate 1.
Candidate 2
Application Software
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Candidate 3
Package solution
Custom Solution
Same as candidate 2.
Client/Server
Same as candidate 1.
Same as candidate 1.
Same as candidate 2.
Method of Data
Processing
Generally some combination of:
on-line, batch, deferred batch,
remote batch, and real-time.
Candidate 1
Candidate 3
Same as candidate 2.
Same as candidate 1.
Same as candidate 1.
Candidate 2
Description
Operational Feasibility
Cultural Feasibility
Technical Feasibility
Schedule Feasibility
Economic Feasibility
Legal Feasibility
Ranking
11-25
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Candidate 3
Operational
feasibility
15%
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Candidate 3
Score: 100
Score: 100
Score: 60
Cultural
Feasibility
11-26
15%
No foreseeable problems.
Score: 100
No foreseeable problems.
Score: 100
Wt
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Candidate 3
20%
Score: 95
Required to hire or train
Java J2EE expertise to
perform modifications for
integration requirements.
Score: 60
Score: 50
11-27
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Candidate 3
30%
Cost to develop:
Payback
(discounted):
Net present
value:
Approx. $350.000
Approx. $418.000
Approx. $400.000
Approx. $210,000
Approx. $307,000
Approx. $325,000
See Attachment A
See Attachment A
See Attachment A
Detailed
calculations:
Score: 60
11-28
Score: 85
Score: 90
10%
Candidate 1
Less than 3 months
Score: 95
Legal feasibility
Weighted score
11-29
10%
100%
No foreseeable problems
Candidate 2
9-12 months
Score: 80
No foreseeable problems
Candidate 3
9 months
Score: 85
No foreseeable problems
Score: 100
Score: 100
Score: 100
67
92.5
87.5
11-30
Administrative Format
I. Introduction
II. Methods and procedures
I. Introduction
II. Conclusions and recommendations
11-32
V. Final conclusion
VI. Appendixes with facts and details
11-33
11-36
B. Call to action (request for whatever authority you require to continue systems
development)
Guidelines
for Visual
Aids
11-38
Source: Copyright
Keith London
11-39