# Feasibility Analysis Framework

Comprehensive framework for assessing technical, business, and resource feasibility, along with risk mitigation strategies.

## Table of Contents

1. [Technical Feasibility](#technical-feasibility)
2. [Business Feasibility](#business-feasibility)
3. [Resource Feasibility](#resource-feasibility)
4. [Risk Assessment](#risk-assessment)
5. [MVP Scoping Techniques](#mvp-scoping-techniques)
6. [Decision Frameworks](#decision-frameworks)

---

## Technical Feasibility

### Assessment Checklist

#### Integration Complexity
- [ ] **Legacy System Integration:** Does this require integrating with legacy systems (SOAP, mainframe, proprietary protocols)?
  - **Low Risk:** REST API integration with modern systems
  - **Medium Risk:** Integration with well-documented legacy APIs
  - **High Risk:** Integration with undocumented legacy systems, mainframes, proprietary protocols

- [ ] **Real-Time Requirements:** Does this require real-time data synchronization or low-latency processing?
  - **Low Risk:** Polling every 5-30 seconds acceptable
  - **Medium Risk:** WebSocket connections, < 1 second latency
  - **High Risk:** < 100ms latency, real-time event streaming

- [ ] **Offline Functionality:** Does this require offline-first capability (mobile app sync)?
  - **Low Risk:** Always-online web application
  - **Medium Risk:** Graceful degradation when offline (cached data, queue actions)
  - **High Risk:** Full offline functionality with conflict resolution on sync

#### Performance Constraints
- [ ] **Low-Bandwidth Environments:** Does this need to work on 3G or slower networks?
  - **Mitigation:** Aggressive caching, lazy loading, progressive web app (PWA), image optimization

- [ ] **High-Throughput Requirements:** Does this need to handle > 1000 requests/second?
  - **Mitigation:** Horizontal scaling, CDN, database read replicas, caching layer (Redis)

- [ ] **Large Data Processing:** Does this require processing datasets > 1GB?
  - **Mitigation:** Batch processing, background jobs, data streaming (Kafka), distributed processing (Spark)

#### Algorithm/ML Complexity
- [ ] **Complex Algorithms:** Does this require custom algorithms (recommendation engine, fraud detection, route optimization)?
  - **Assessment:** Prototype feasibility with small dataset before full implementation
  - **Mitigation:** Use existing libraries (scikit-learn, TensorFlow, PyTorch) when possible

- [ ] **Machine Learning Models:** Does this require training ML models?
  - **Low Risk:** Use pre-trained models (GPT, BERT, image classification)
  - **Medium Risk:** Fine-tune pre-trained models on custom data
  - **High Risk:** Train custom models from scratch, requires ML expertise and infrastructure

#### Platform/Device Constraints
- [ ] **Cross-Platform Requirements:** Does this need to work on web, iOS, Android, desktop?
  - **Low Risk:** Web only (responsive design)
  - **Medium Risk:** Web + mobile web (PWA)
  - **High Risk:** Native mobile apps + web + desktop (Electron)

- [ ] **Browser Compatibility:** Does this need to support IE11 or older browsers?
  - **Mitigation:** Polyfills, progressive enhancement, graceful degradation

- [ ] **Specialized Hardware:** Does this require access to GPS, camera, biometrics, NFC?
  - **Low Risk:** Standard web APIs (geolocation, camera for uploads)
  - **High Risk:** Advanced hardware access (fingerprint scanner, NFC payment terminal)

### Technical Constraint Documentation Template

For each identified technical constraint, document:

```markdown
### Technical Constraint: [Name]

**Description:** [What is the constraint?]

**Impact on Architecture:**
- [How does this affect technology choices?]
- [How does this affect system design?]

**Mitigation Approach:**
1. [Mitigation strategy 1]
2. [Mitigation strategy 2]

**Risk Level:** [Low / Medium / High]

**Probability:** [Low / Medium / High]

**Estimated Effort to Mitigate:** [Low / Medium / High]
```

**Example:**
```markdown
### Technical Constraint: Legacy ERP Integration

**Description:** Must integrate with 20-year-old SAP ERP system via proprietary BAPI interface

**Impact on Architecture:**
- Requires dedicated integration service (middleware)
- Cannot rely on real-time data sync (batch sync every 15 minutes)
- Data transformation layer needed (legacy format → modern format)

**Mitigation Approach:**
1. Build adapter service using SAP Connector library
2. Implement retry logic and error handling
3. Set up monitoring for integration failures
4. Plan for batch sync windows (off-peak hours)

**Risk Level:** High

**Probability:** Certain (requirement is mandatory)

**Estimated Effort to Mitigate:** High (2-3 weeks for integration development + testing)
```

---

## Business Feasibility

### Market Viability

#### Competitive Analysis
- [ ] **Market Research:** Who are the competitors? What features do they offer?
  - Use WebFetch to research competitor websites
  - Document: Competitor name, features, pricing, differentiators

- [ ] **Unique Value Proposition:** What makes this solution different/better?
  - **Avoid:** "Me-too" products without clear differentiation
  - **Validate:** Is the differentiation meaningful to users?

- [ ] **Market Timing:** Is the market ready for this solution?
  - **Green Light:** Clear market demand, proven by competitor success
  - **Yellow Light:** Emerging market, early adopters only
  - **Red Flag:** Market saturation, no clear differentiation

#### Revenue Model Validation
- [ ] **Pricing Strategy:** How will this generate revenue?
  - Subscription (recurring revenue)
  - Transaction fees (per-use)
  - Freemium (free tier + paid upgrades)
  - Enterprise licensing (annual contracts)

- [ ] **Unit Economics:** Does the math work?
  - Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) < Lifetime Value (LTV)
  - Gross margin > 70% (for SaaS)
  - Break-even timeline < 18 months

- [ ] **Target Market Size:** Is the market large enough?
  - TAM (Total Addressable Market) > $100M
  - SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market) > $10M
  - SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market) > $1M in Year 1

### Business Constraint Documentation Template

```markdown
### Business Constraint: [Name]

**Description:** [What is the constraint?]

**Impact on Solution:**
- [How does this affect feature scope?]
- [How does this affect timeline?]

**Mitigation Approach:**
1. [Strategy 1]
2. [Strategy 2]

**Risk Level:** [Low / Medium / High]
```

**Example:**
```markdown
### Business Constraint: Limited Marketing Budget

**Description:** Only $10k budget for customer acquisition in Year 1

**Impact on Solution:**
- Must prioritize organic growth channels (SEO, content marketing)
- Cannot rely on paid advertising (Google Ads, Facebook Ads)
- Requires strong referral/viral features

**Mitigation Approach:**
1. Build referral program (invite friends, earn credits)
2. Invest heavily in SEO (blog content, keyword optimization)
3. Leverage social proof (testimonials, case studies)
4. Partner with complementary services (co-marketing)

**Risk Level:** Medium (can overcome with scrappy marketing, but slower growth)
```

---

## Resource Feasibility

### Team Capability Assessment

#### Skill Gaps
- [ ] **Required Skills:** What technical skills are needed?
  - Backend: [Languages, frameworks]
  - Frontend: [Languages, frameworks]
  - Database: [SQL, NoSQL]
  - DevOps: [Docker, Kubernetes, CI/CD]
  - Design: [UI/UX design tools]

- [ ] **Current Team Skills:** What does the team know?
  - Document: Skill matrix (team member → skill → proficiency level)

- [ ] **Skill Gaps:** What needs to be learned or hired?
  - **Learn:** Skills that can be learned in 1-2 weeks (new library, framework update)
  - **Hire:** Skills that require deep expertise (security, ML, specialized domain knowledge)
  - **Outsource:** Skills needed short-term (design, content writing)

#### Capacity Planning
- [ ] **Team Size:** How many developers available?
  - Solo: 1 developer
  - Small: 2-3 developers
  - Medium: 4-8 developers
  - Large: 9+ developers

- [ ] **Availability:** Full-time or part-time?
  - Full-time: 40 hours/week
  - Part-time: < 20 hours/week
  - Nights/weekends only: < 10 hours/week

- [ ] **Velocity Estimation:** How much can be built per sprint (2 weeks)?
  - Solo developer: 20-40 story points per sprint
  - Small team (3 devs): 60-100 story points per sprint
  - Medium team (6 devs): 120-180 story points per sprint

### Budget Constraints

#### Development Costs
- [ ] **Team Salaries:** Budget for team (salaries, contractors)
- [ ] **Software Licenses:** IDEs, design tools, CI/CD, project management tools
- [ ] **Cloud Infrastructure:** Hosting, databases, CDN, storage

#### Infrastructure Costs (Monthly Estimates)

**Tier 1 (Simple App):**
- Hosting: $10-50/month (Vercel, Railway, Heroku Hobby)
- Database: $0-25/month (free tier PostgreSQL, SQLite)
- **Total: $10-75/month**

**Tier 2 (Moderate App):**
- Hosting: $100-500/month (Azure App Service, AWS Elastic Beanstalk)
- Database: $50-200/month (managed PostgreSQL, Redis)
- CDN: $20-100/month (Cloudflare, AWS CloudFront)
- Email/SMS: $20-100/month (SendGrid, Twilio)
- **Total: $190-900/month**

**Tier 3 (Complex Platform):**
- Kubernetes: $500-2000/month (AKS, EKS)
- Databases: $500-2000/month (PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis, Elasticsearch)
- CDN: $100-500/month
- Message Queue: $100-500/month (Kafka, RabbitMQ)
- Monitoring: $100-300/month (Datadog, New Relic)
- **Total: $1,300-5,300/month**

**Tier 4 (Enterprise Platform):**
- Kubernetes (multi-region): $2000-10,000/month
- Databases: $2000-10,000/month
- CDN: $500-2000/month
- Observability: $500-2000/month
- Security: $500-1000/month (WAF, DDoS protection)
- **Total: $5,500-25,000/month**

### Timeline Constraints

#### Timeline Estimation

**Tier 1 (Simple App):**
- MVP: 4-6 weeks (solo or small team)
- Full feature set: 2-3 months

**Tier 2 (Moderate App):**
- MVP: 2-3 months (small team)
- Full feature set: 4-6 months

**Tier 3 (Complex Platform):**
- MVP (Phase 1): 4-6 months (medium team)
- Full feature set: 12-18 months

**Tier 4 (Enterprise Platform):**
- MVP (Phase 1): 6-12 months (large team)
- Full feature set: 18-36 months

---

## Risk Assessment

### Risk Matrix

| Risk Category | Examples | Probability | Impact | Priority |
|---------------|----------|-------------|--------|----------|
| **Technical** | Integration complexity, performance, scalability | Low-High | Low-High | Calculate |
| **Business** | Market competition, revenue model, user adoption | Low-High | Low-High | Calculate |
| **Team** | Skill gaps, key person dependency, turnover | Low-High | Low-High | Calculate |
| **Regulatory** | Compliance violations, data breaches | Low-Medium | High-Critical | Calculate |
| **Financial** | Budget overruns, funding gaps | Low-Medium | Medium-High | Calculate |

**Priority Calculation:**
- **Critical:** Probability: High, Impact: High → Immediate attention
- **High:** Probability: High, Impact: Medium OR Probability: Medium, Impact: High
- **Medium:** Probability: Medium, Impact: Medium OR Probability: Low, Impact: High
- **Low:** Probability: Low, Impact: Low-Medium

### Risk Documentation Template

```markdown
### Risk: [Name]

**Category:** [Technical / Business / Team / Regulatory / Financial]

**Description:** [What could go wrong?]

**Probability:** [Low (10%) / Medium (50%) / High (80%)]

**Impact:** [Low / Medium / High / Critical]

**Priority:** [Low / Medium / High / Critical]

**Mitigation Strategy:**
1. [Preventive action to reduce probability]
2. [Contingency action if risk occurs]

**Owner:** [Who is responsible for monitoring and mitigating?]

**Status:** [Active / Mitigated / Occurred]
```

**Example:**
```markdown
### Risk: Third-Party Payment Gateway Downtime

**Category:** Technical

**Description:** Stripe payment gateway experiences outage, preventing customers from completing purchases

**Probability:** Low (10%) - Stripe has 99.99% uptime SLA

**Impact:** High - Revenue loss during outage, poor customer experience

**Priority:** Medium

**Mitigation Strategy:**
1. **Preventive:** Monitor Stripe status page for scheduled maintenance
2. **Contingency:** Implement fallback payment gateway (PayPal)
3. **Contingency:** Queue failed payments for retry when service restored
4. **Contingency:** Display user-friendly error message with alternative payment option

**Owner:** Backend Lead

**Status:** Active (monitoring)
```

---

## MVP Scoping Techniques

### MoSCoW Method

**Must Have:** Core features without which the product is not viable
**Should Have:** Important features that add significant value
**Could Have:** Nice-to-have features that improve experience
**Won't Have (this time):** Explicitly deferred features

**Example - E-commerce MVP:**
- **Must Have:** Product catalog, shopping cart, checkout, payment processing, order confirmation
- **Should Have:** Product search, user accounts, order history
- **Could Have:** Product recommendations, wishlists, reviews
- **Won't Have:** Multi-currency support, advanced analytics, seller marketplace

### Kano Model

Categorize features by customer satisfaction impact:

**Basic (Expected):** Must have, customers expect them, dissatisfied if missing
  - E-commerce: Checkout, payment processing

**Performance (Desired):** More is better, linear satisfaction increase
  - E-commerce: Fast page load, accurate search results

**Excitement (Unexpected):** Delighters, customers don't expect, high satisfaction if present
  - E-commerce: AR try-on, personalized recommendations

**Indifferent:** Doesn't affect satisfaction
  - E-commerce: Advanced analytics (for customers, not admins)

**Reverse:** Dissatisfaction increases with presence
  - E-commerce: Too many upsells, intrusive notifications

**MVP Focus:** Include all Basic features, some Performance features, defer Excitement features to later releases.

### Minimum Viable Product (MVP) Definition Template

```markdown
## MVP Scope

### Goal
[What is the primary goal of the MVP? What are you trying to validate?]

### Target Users
[Who is the MVP for? Specific user persona?]

### Core User Flow
[What is the single most important user flow? Walk through step-by-step.]

### Must-Have Features (Basic)
1. [Feature 1 - essential]
2. [Feature 2 - essential]
3. [Feature 3 - essential]

### Should-Have Features (Performance)
1. [Feature 4 - important but not critical]
2. [Feature 5 - important but not critical]

### Deferred Features (Could/Won't Have)
1. [Feature 6 - defer to v1.1]
2. [Feature 7 - defer to v2.0]

### Success Metrics
[How will you measure MVP success?]
- [Metric 1: e.g., 100 users sign up in first month]
- [Metric 2: e.g., 10% conversion rate from signup to first purchase]
- [Metric 3: e.g., 80% task completion rate for core user flow]

### Timeline
- MVP Release: [Date]
- Feedback Collection: [Date range]
- Iteration Plan: [Next steps based on feedback]
```

---

## Decision Frameworks

### Build vs. Buy Decision Matrix

For each major component, decide: Build custom, buy SaaS, or use open-source?

| Factor | Build Custom | Buy SaaS | Open Source |
|--------|--------------|----------|-------------|
| **Cost** | High upfront, low ongoing | Low upfront, high ongoing | Low upfront, medium ongoing (hosting) |
| **Time to Market** | Slow (weeks/months) | Fast (days) | Medium (setup + customization) |
| **Customization** | Full control | Limited | High (modify source) |
| **Maintenance** | Team maintains | Vendor maintains | Team maintains |
| **Vendor Lock-In** | None | High | Low |
| **Compliance** | Full control | Vendor-dependent | Full control |

**Example Decision:**

**Feature: Payment Processing**
- **Build:** Custom payment processor → ❌ High risk (PCI-DSS compliance), slow
- **Buy:** Stripe, PayPal → ✅ Fast, compliant, proven
- **Open Source:** ❌ No suitable options for payment processing

**Decision: Buy (Stripe)**

**Feature: Email Sending**
- **Build:** Custom SMTP server → ❌ High maintenance (deliverability, spam filtering)
- **Buy:** SendGrid, AWS SES → ✅ Proven deliverability, monitoring, templates
- **Open Source:** Self-hosted SMTP → ⚠️ Possible but maintenance-heavy

**Decision: Buy (SendGrid)**

### Technology Selection Criteria

When evaluating technologies (frameworks, libraries, databases), consider:

**Maturity:**
- Is this production-ready? (v1.0+)
- How long has it been around? (2+ years preferred)
- Is it actively maintained? (commits in last 3 months)

**Community:**
- Size of community (GitHub stars, npm downloads)
- Available resources (tutorials, Stack Overflow questions)
- Commercial support available?

**Team Fit:**
- Does the team have experience?
- Learning curve (can team learn in 1-2 weeks?)
- Hiring pool (can we find developers with this skill?)

**Performance:**
- Meets performance requirements?
- Benchmarks available?
- Proven at scale?

**Licensing:**
- Open source license compatible with project (MIT, Apache 2.0)?
- Commercial licensing acceptable?

**Ecosystem:**
- Integrations available (auth, payment, analytics)?
- Tooling (IDE support, debuggers)?
- Deployment options (hosting providers)?

### Technical Debt Assessment

When making trade-offs, assess potential technical debt:

**Low Technical Debt:**
- Using well-established libraries
- Following framework conventions
- Writing tests
- Documenting decisions (ADRs)

**Medium Technical Debt:**
- Using new/experimental libraries (monitor for stability)
- Deferring refactoring (with plan to address later)
- Skipping tests for low-risk code (with plan to add later)

**High Technical Debt (Avoid):**
- Using deprecated libraries
- Violating architecture constraints (layering, dependencies)
- Copy-pasting code (DRY violations)
- Skipping security best practices

**Rule of Thumb:** Accept technical debt only when:
1. Time-to-market is critical (MVP launch, competitor threat)
2. Debt is explicitly documented (create tracking issue)
3. Payback plan exists (scheduled for future sprint)

---

## Feasibility Summary Template

After completing Phase 5 (Feasibility & Constraints Analysis), summarize:

```markdown
## Feasibility Summary

### Technical Feasibility: [FEASIBLE / CHALLENGING / HIGH RISK]

**Key Constraints:**
1. [Constraint 1]
2. [Constraint 2]

**Mitigation Plan:**
[Summary of technical mitigations]

### Business Feasibility: [VIABLE / UNCERTAIN / HIGH RISK]

**Market Validation:**
[Summary of market research, competition, differentiation]

**Revenue Model:**
[Summary of revenue strategy, unit economics]

### Resource Feasibility: [ADEQUATE / STRETCHED / INSUFFICIENT]

**Team Capability:**
[Summary of team skills, gaps, hiring needs]

**Budget:**
[Estimated costs: development, infrastructure]

**Timeline:**
[Estimated timeline for MVP and full product]

### Top Risks

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-------------|--------|------------|
| [Risk 1] | [Low/Med/High] | [Low/Med/High] | [Strategy] |
| [Risk 2] | [Low/Med/High] | [Low/Med/High] | [Strategy] |
| [Risk 3] | [Low/Med/High] | [Low/Med/High] | [Strategy] |

### Recommendation

**Go / No-Go / Pivot:**
[Final recommendation with rationale]

**Conditions for Success:**
1. [Condition 1]
2. [Condition 2]

**Next Steps:**
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
```

---

**Use this framework in Phase 5 (Feasibility & Constraints Analysis) to systematically assess project viability and identify risks before committing resources.**
