QUICK ANSWER
What should a feasibility study template include?
A feasibility study template should define one concept and decision boundary, list technical, operational, resource, schedule, economic, data, security, accessibility, and dependency criteria, distinguish measurements from estimates and assumptions, link every finding to dated evidence, preserve confidence and limitations, record gaps and required experiments or specialist reviews, and end with a named human finding and expiry. Unknown or blocked evidence must not become a positive conclusion.
A feasibility study tests whether one bounded concept appears achievable enough to move to the next qualified review. It separates measured evidence from estimates and assumptions, checks technical, operational, resource, schedule, economic, data, security, accessibility, and dependency questions, preserves gaps, and records a time-limited human finding.
The downloadable pack includes an editable Markdown template, validator-clean starter JSON, a safely non-green fictional example, closed JSON Schema, criteria, evidence, and gaps CSVs, a dependency-free semantic validator, mutation tests, and a deterministic builder. It cannot select between investment options, recommend spend, authorize a project, certify compliance, or guarantee viability.
Test one concept without turning the study into approval
Freeze one concept and one evidence cutoff, use explicit criteria, and let missing or weak evidence remain visible. The study can support a later decision, but it does not own that decision.
Freeze the concept, boundary, finding owner, and expiry
Name one concept, the problem or requirement it is intended to address, the environment in which it would operate, the questions this study may answer, the questions it must hand off, the evidence cutoff, the human finding owner, and the date after which the finding must be reviewed again. HM Treasury places initial feasibility before detailed business-case work in its specific major-project process.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [hm-treasury-approvals]
Define criteria and evidence thresholds before collecting conclusions
For every technical, operational, resource, schedule, economic, data, security, accessibility, and dependency criterion, state the question, required evidence, measure or estimate basis, minimum acceptable signal, specialist role when needed, and current status. Do not invent one universal weighted score that hides a blocked condition.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [world-bank-feasibility], [ovfm-mega-projects]
Reconcile measurements, estimates, assumptions, and exact references
Give each evidence item a stable ID, source owner, as-of date, access classification, method, limitation, and confidence. Keep a measured value separate from an estimate and record their units, basis, range, and reconciliation note when they address the same criterion. The validator checks references and states, not whether a source is true.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [uk-cost-estimating]
Check data, privacy, security, and accessibility early
Describe intended data categories and processing at a high level, then route privacy and security questions to qualified reviewers. Record accessibility goals, required reviews, testing resources, and unresolved user needs before early design choices become expensive. A feasibility note is not a control assessment or accessibility conformance statement.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [govuk-secure-service], [govuk-accessible-service], [wcag-22]
Turn evidence gaps into bounded experiments or specialist reviews
For every missing or weak signal, name the criterion, question, smallest safe experiment or review, evidence expected, owner role, due date, stop condition, privacy boundary, and result state. GOV.UK digital-health guidance describes feasibility work as a smaller-scale way to test practicalities and refine a later evaluation; that health-specific guidance is not a universal project standard.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [govuk-digital-health-feasibility]
Record supported, unsupported, unknown, and blocked findings honestly
A supported criterion needs sufficient referenced evidence under its declared threshold. Unsupported means the current evidence does not meet the criterion. Unknown means evidence is missing or inconclusive. Blocked means the required test or qualified review cannot currently proceed. Unknown or blocked criteria may never be counted as positive.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [uk-cost-estimating]
Require a time-limited human finding and explicit handoff
A named human may record feasible, feasible with conditions, not demonstrated, infeasible, or deferred for the exact revision. Feasible and feasible with conditions are forbidden while a mandatory criterion is unsupported, unknown, or blocked. List conditions, unresolved criteria, required handoffs, and expiry. The result may inform a business case or proposal, but it does not compare investment options, recommend spend, authorize delivery, certify compliance, or guarantee success.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [hm-treasury-approvals], [hm-treasury-business-cases]
The feasibility-study ownership boundary
This owner tests one bounded concept before authorization. It makes evidence quality, limitations, gaps, and current blockers reviewable while leaving investment, authorization, detailed planning, and assurance decisions with their accountable records.
Included
- Concept identity, context, intended outcome, explicit study questions, non-goals, evidence cutoff, finding owner, review roles, and expiry
- Technical, operational, resource, schedule, economic, data, security, accessibility, and dependency criteria with thresholds and states
- Evidence status, confidence, limitations, measured values, estimates, assumptions, exact references, and reconciliation notes
- Evidence gaps, bounded experiments, specialist reviews, owners, due dates, stop conditions, and result references
- Time-limited human finding, unresolved criteria, conditions, next-review handoffs, and false-authority safeguards
- Editable Markdown, starter and fictional example JSON, closed schema, three safe CSV views, validator, mutation tests, README, and deterministic builder
Not included
- Business-case option appraisal, do-nothing comparison, preferred investment option, spend recommendation, value-for-money decision, benefit case, or funding approval
- Project proposal review request, sponsor pitch, supplier offer, project authorization, charter authority, budget authority, contract, purchase order, or delivery commitment
- Detailed requirements baseline, scope statement, work breakdown, resource allocation, project schedule, budget baseline, release plan, acceptance plan, or implementation plan
- Privacy, security, accessibility, legal, financial, safety, regulatory, or compliance certification, assurance opinion, permit, or professional advice
- Automatic weighted viability score, universal feasibility standard, guaranteed delivery, guaranteed returns, proven market demand, or future-outcome promise
- Personal data, credentials, confidential supplier information, protected security findings, or other sensitive evidence in the public pack
DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE
Download the feasibility study template pack
Start with the unknown-safe record, replace fictional references with authorized stable evidence, keep specialist findings in their accountable systems, and run the validator before the named human review.
Feasibility study template pack
A deterministic record for one bounded concept with criteria, evidence, assumptions, estimates, gaps, experiments, specialist reviews, a human finding, limitations, and expiry.
Format: ZIP with Markdown, starter and example JSON, closed JSON Schema, criteria/evidence/gaps CSVs, dependency-free validator/tests, README, and deterministic builder
Locally reproduced August 1, 2026. SHA-256: 0572272d9aae0c071657d9a2501c818b6892a7aed96624926a4b3e01705caf01
Included
- Editable Markdown feasibility study with explicit adjacent-owner and false-authority boundaries
- Validator-clean starter JSON that keeps every unsupported question unknown
- Safely non-green fictional example with supported, unsupported, unknown, and blocked criteria
- Closed Draft 2020-12 JSON Schema and dependency-free semantic validator
- Criteria, evidence, and gaps CSV views protected against spreadsheet-formula injection
- Mutation tests plus a fixed-time exact-allowlist ZIP builder
Verification boundary
The starter and fictional example were validated; mutation, reference, state, privacy, CSV-safety, source/public/archive parity, fresh extraction, and cross-time-zone checks were run locally. A passing validator cannot authenticate evidence or create authority, certification, approval, investment merit, delivery readiness, or viability.
Three bounded studies that preserve a non-green answer
The concept changes, but the record stays evidence-led: define the criterion, attach current evidence and limitations, expose the gap, and route the next qualified review without manufacturing a favorable answer.
Workflow integration concept with an unknown dependency
Use when: A team has one defined workflow concept but does not yet know whether a critical external system exposes the access, limits, and stable interfaces the concept requires.
Test representative data, authentication, rate limits, recovery, operator burden, and the dependency owner. Keep the criterion unknown or blocked until the required access and specialist review exist.
Structure
- Exact interface and evidence references with observed versus estimated behavior
- Operational, security, privacy, accessibility, and dependency criteria kept separate
- Small safe experiment with a stop condition and an expiring human finding
Watch for: A working prototype does not prove production capacity, provider continuity, data rights, security, accessibility, supportability, or authorization.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [world-bank-feasibility], [govuk-secure-service], [govuk-accessible-service]
Service-process concept with an unsupported resource criterion
Use when: A bounded operating change appears technically possible, but current staffing, specialist capacity, timing, or support evidence does not meet its declared threshold.
Record the observed process, estimated effort, role coverage, schedule window, operating constraints, and the evidence that makes the resource criterion unsupported rather than smoothing it into a positive average.
Structure
- Operational and resource questions with explicit owners, units, evidence dates, and limitations
- A non-green finding that identifies the unmet criterion and possible bounded retest
Watch for: The study does not hire resources, approve a schedule, establish a budget, authorize process change, or guarantee adoption.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [ovfm-mega-projects], [uk-cost-estimating]
Data-migration concept blocked on specialist review
Use when: A representative technical path exists, but data classification, privacy, security, accessibility, legal, retention, or supplier questions require qualified review before the concept can advance.
Keep sensitive records out of the public file, store stable redacted references, document the blocked questions and review owner, and expire the finding before source conditions can silently drift.
Structure
- High-level data categories and processing purpose without personal data or credentials
- Blocked specialist criteria, required review evidence, safe experiment boundary, and expiry
Watch for: A schema match or validator pass is not privacy, security, accessibility, legal, retention, migration-completeness, or compliance assurance.
Sources: [feasibility-pack], [govuk-secure-service], [govuk-accessible-service], [wcag-22]
Route each feasibility result to the next accountable owner
The record is credible when it refuses to turn a current evidence finding into investment advice, authorization, a detailed plan, certification, or a viability guarantee.
The team needs to compare alternatives, lifecycle costs, benefit hypotheses, risks, and a preferred investment path.
Choose: Hand the feasibility evidence to the business-case owner for structured option appraisal and a named investment decision.
Tradeoff: The feasibility study owns less, but one concept is not silently promoted into a spend recommendation.
The team needs to request review or authorization for a bounded project response.
Choose: Use the project proposal to request review and the project charter only after a qualified authority grants authorization.
Tradeoff: More than one record remains, but evidence, proposal, and authority stay attributable.
The concept needs detailed scope, requirements, work, resources, dates, costs, acceptance, release, or recovery planning.
Choose: Move the approved inputs into the accountable requirements, scope, budget, and project-plan owners after authorization.
Tradeoff: Detailed planning waits for the right gate instead of making the feasibility study look more certain than it is.
A privacy, security, accessibility, legal, financial, safety, or regulatory criterion needs assurance.
Choose: Keep the criterion unknown or blocked and request review from the qualified specialist or authority. Link the resulting controlled reference without copying sensitive detail into the public record.
Tradeoff: The overall finding may remain deferred, but the template does not manufacture professional assurance.
Evidence has expired, a dependency changed, an estimate no longer reconciles, or a required experiment has not completed.
Choose: Expire the finding, reopen the affected criteria, and retest from the current evidence cutoff before any next-stage decision.
Tradeoff: The study cannot remain permanently green, but downstream reviewers see the evidence that is current now.
START FROM UNKNOWN
Download the pack and make every conclusion traceable
Define the concept, criteria, thresholds, references, assumptions, estimates, gaps, experiments, specialist reviews, human finding, and expiry. Keep unsupported and blocked evidence visible.
Download the feasibility packThe pack checks an editorial record. It cannot authenticate evidence, recommend investment, authorize delivery, certify compliance, or guarantee viability.
Compare investment options with the business case templateThe feasibility study tests one concept. The business case owns option appraisal, lifecycle value, and the investment recommendation.
What this feasibility template cannot prove
Structure makes evidence and uncertainty inspectable. It does not make a study universal, a source true, an estimate accurate, a specialist conclusion valid, or a concept viable.
- The pack is a Playcode editorial artifact, not a universal feasibility standard, professional-services deliverable, business case, proposal, charter, scope baseline, project plan, contract, certification, assurance report, or approval record.
- Every organization, role, concept, value, estimate, finding, evidence reference, gap, experiment, review, decision, and date in the completed example is fictional teaching data, not a benchmark, quote, recommendation, customer result, or expected outcome.
- The validator checks closed shape, IDs, exact references, dates, evidence states, measurement and estimate reconciliation, criteria coverage, gaps, experiment boundaries, finding rules, expiry, privacy strings, CSV safety, and false-authority flags. It cannot inspect real evidence or professional judgment.
- HM Treasury and Office for Value for Money guidance cited here describes specific UK central-government major- and mega-project processes. UK cost guidance is infrastructure-oriented, World Bank guidance is PPP-oriented, and GOV.UK digital-health guidance is evaluation-specific. None is presented as one universal feasibility-study standard.
- GOV.UK service guidance and WCAG 2.2 support early security, privacy, access-needs, and accessibility questions. They do not make this artifact a control assessment, privacy assessment, accessibility audit, conformance statement, legal opinion, or certification.
- Keep personal data, credentials, protected security findings, confidential commercial terms, supplier bids, legal advice, and other restricted evidence in their authorized systems. Store only stable redacted references when appropriate.
- A supported criterion does not override one blocked mandatory criterion. A favorable human finding still expires and does not authorize a project, approve spend, validate market demand, or guarantee delivery or outcomes.
- This ordinary informational article does not grant AI signup credits. The linked product page follows its own current eligibility rules.
Current official guidance and artifact evidence
These current official sources support the bounded stage, evidence, uncertainty, estimates, specialist review, privacy, security, accessibility, and adjacent business-case boundary. Their institutional scopes stay explicit; the template and validation rules are Playcode editorial work.
[feasibility-pack] Playcode:Feasibility study template pack
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: The same-release Markdown, starter and fictional JSON, closed schema, criteria/evidence/gaps CSVs, validator, mutation tests, deterministic builder, and recorded SHA-256.
[hm-treasury-approvals] HM Treasury:Treasury Approvals Process for projects and programmes
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: Current 2026 UK central-government guidance that places an initial feasibility study before detailed business-case work for prospective major projects and distinguishes technical achievability from later option cost, benefit, risk, and preference analysis.
[ovfm-mega-projects] UK Office for Value for Money:Value for money study: governance and budgeting for mega projects
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: Current 2026 UK mega-project guidance for feasibility at the outset, broad early cost and schedule ranges that reflect uncertainty, incremental stage decisions, and specialist capability. The context is not a universal project mandate.
[uk-cost-estimating] UK Infrastructure and Projects Authority:Cost Estimating Guidance
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: Infrastructure-oriented guidance for evidence quality, assumptions, estimate methods, ranges, confidence, scope and schedule dependencies, review, and re-estimation as information matures. It does not produce an overall feasibility verdict.
[world-bank-feasibility] World Bank PPP Resource Center:Assessing Project Feasibility and Economic Viability
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: PPP-oriented guidance for technical feasibility, unreasonable technical risk, economic and financial questions, legal, environmental, social, expert-review, and dependency considerations. It is a scoped prompt set, not approval or a viability guarantee.
[govuk-digital-health-feasibility] UK Office for Health Improvement and Disparities:Feasibility study for evaluating a digital health product
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: A domain-specific example of smaller-scale feasibility work used to test practicalities, expose problems, and refine a later full-scale evaluation without overclaiming from preliminary results.
[govuk-accessible-service] UK Government Digital Service:Make sure everyone can use the service
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: Current service guidance for accessibility standards, representative research including people with access needs, digital-access gaps, and appropriate support. It does not certify this artifact or a real service.
[wcag-22] W3C:Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: The current web-content accessibility standard, designed for a combination of automated testing and human evaluation while acknowledging that not every user need is covered. It does not make the feasibility record a conformance statement.
[govuk-secure-service] UK Government Digital Service:Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: Current service guidance for early security risks, privacy-respecting data handling, accountable expertise, third-party due diligence, lifetime planning, risk review, and control testing. It does not certify security, privacy, or compliance.
[hm-treasury-business-cases] HM Treasury:Guidance on developing business cases
Checked August 1, 2026. Supports: The current Five Case Model owner for strategic, economic, commercial, financial, and management investment appraisal beyond this feasibility record.
Feasibility study template questions
What is a feasibility study?
A feasibility study is a bounded, dated assessment of whether one concept appears achievable enough to move to a next qualified review. It records criteria, current evidence, assumptions, estimates, gaps, confidence, limitations, required tests or specialist reviews, a human finding, and expiry. It is not authorization or a viability guarantee.
What is the difference between a feasibility study and a business case?
The feasibility study tests whether one bounded concept appears technically and operationally achievable under current evidence. A business case compares viable alternatives, lifecycle costs, benefit hypotheses, risks, affordability, and value before a named investment decision. Feasibility evidence can feed that appraisal but does not choose the investment.
What is the difference between a feasibility study and a project proposal?
The feasibility study tests one concept and exposes what is supported, unsupported, unknown, or blocked. A project proposal frames a problem, high-level response, deliverables, assumptions, and exact request for review. Neither document authorizes itself; a project charter owns authorization after a qualified decision.
Which feasibility criteria should the template include?
Use criteria that match the concept and decision boundary. Common categories include technical, operational, resource, schedule, economic, data, security, accessibility, and external dependencies. Each criterion needs its own question, threshold, evidence, limitation, status, and specialist-review requirement rather than one opaque total score.
Can unknown or blocked evidence still produce a positive finding?
No. Unknown means evidence is missing or inconclusive, and blocked means the required experiment or qualified review cannot currently proceed. Neither state counts as support. A human may defer the overall finding, require revision and retest, or stop the concept, but should not convert missing evidence into a favorable result.
Does a completed feasibility study prove compliance or viability?
No. A template, schema, validator, score, prototype, or human finding cannot certify privacy, security, accessibility, legal, financial, safety, or regulatory compliance, and cannot guarantee technical viability, delivery, market demand, returns, or future outcomes. Qualified evidence owners and authorities remain responsible.
When should a feasibility finding expire?
Set an expiry based on how quickly the decisive evidence can change. Reopen the affected criteria sooner when a dependency, requirement, environment, estimate, source, specialist decision, or experiment result changes. The template uses explicit dates so downstream reviewers cannot silently rely on stale findings.
BUILD THE NEXT SAFE TEST
Turn the unresolved concept into a bounded working experiment
Describe the records, roles, states, checks, privacy boundary, failure paths, and evidence you need. Build a small version that can answer the next feasibility question without pretending to authorize the project.
Build an internal toolThis ordinary informational article does not grant AI signup credits. Playcode does not certify feasibility, compliance, investment merit, delivery, or outcomes.