MOST Analysis

Mission Statement

In the first program phase you established program goals and objectives. Then, during the second phase you performed an assessment focused on setting a baseline to identify the current state of your business and personal life. The purpose of the Feasibility Analysis Phase is to take the results of the first two phases and confirm you are ready to make it happen, to begin identifying any foreseen obstacles and roadblocks you will face, and to look for opportunities. After completing this phase, you will be in a position to begin better leveraging your time and establish priorities. Now that you have realistic goals in place and a sense of the current state of your business it is during this phase that you will start working closely with your mentor to start identifying ways you can make better time management a reality. A key component of creating a healthier work-life balance will be to better leverage your own time while making your actions more intentional and less random. During this phase you will begin market analysis with a focus on identifying any underserved niches in your target market that align with your expertise and vision. Identifying a niche you can leverage at this stage makes your path to success exponentially easier. The preliminary market research you conduct in this phase will also help you in subsequent stages when you begin to test your market. Also during this phase, you will take steps to evaluate the money, risk, earning potential, time frames, legal requirements, available resources, etc. Getting a real handle on these areas of your business now will help streamline the upcoming Priority Identification Phase and All-Star Identification Phase.

---

Objectives

01. Feasibility Importance: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
02. How it works: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
03. Financial Feasibility: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
04. Economic Feasibility: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
05. Market Feasibility: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
06. Technical Feasibility: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
07. Organizational Feasibility: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. 1 Month
08. Legal Feasibility: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
09. Scheduling Feasibility: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
10. Project Durability: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
11. Constraints: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
12. Key decisions: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month

 

---

Strategies

01. Feasibility Importance: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
02. How it works: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
03. Financial Feasibility: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
04. Economic Feasibility: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
05. Market Feasibility: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
06. Technical Feasibility: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
07. Organizational Feasibility: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
08. Legal Feasibility: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
09. Scheduling Feasibility: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
10. Project Durability: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
11. Constraints: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
12. Key decisions: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.

 

---

Tasks

01. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Feasibility Importance.
02. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze How it works.
03. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Financial Feasibility.
04. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Economic Feasibility.
05. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Market Feasibility.
06. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Technical Feasibility.
07. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Organizational Feasibility.
08. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Legal Feasibility.
09. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Scheduling Feasibility.
10. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Project Durability.
11. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Constraints.
12. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Key decisions.

---

Introduction

Introduction

The goal of a feasibility analysis is to determine the viability of a new enterprise and to identify both needed resources and important difficulties that exist now, so that they may be addressed early in the start-up process (Scarborough, 2012). In general, the feasibility analysis technique, content, and focus are well established (Berry, 2017). Product/service feasibility, industry/market feasibility, financial feasibility, and organizational feasibility are the four different but interrelated components of the new-venture start-up that are covered by feasibility study. Prior to producing the business plan, feasibility analysis sits in the center of recognizing opportunities and developing a business model. If the feasibility analysis is done thoroughly and honestly, the new venture’s chances of success increase. What is frequently overlooked, however, is a recognition of the new venture’s longer-term viability and sustainability concerns, indicating a lack of awareness of required resources both before and after launch (Coad et al., 2016).

While feasibility analyses are widely used and acknowledged as a way to improve the chances of a new venture’s success, the failure rate of new businesses remains high. In the United States, over one-third of all new businesses, both for-profit and non-profit, fail during the first two years of operation, with another considerable number failing within four years (Barringer and Gresock, 2008). Many variables can contribute to the failure of a new enterprise, including the lack of a feasibility analysis in the first place. However, flaws that should have been recognized during the feasibility research may be included among the other variables, particularly in terms of the firm’s long-term viability. The longevity of a new endeavor is predicated on having exceptional opportunity recognition in the first place, followed by a thorough and honest feasibility analysis, business model design, and finally, a business plan.

We emphasize the importance of maintaining a strategic lens, or an over-reaching perspective, throughout the typical four-part feasibility analysis in this work. We also propose that such an analysis focus on items generated by considering the context of the organization to be created, particularly those aspects relating to the organization’s core competencies (Barney, 1991), competitive advantage (Porter, 1996), fit with its environment (Fahey and Narayanan, 1986; Venkatraman, 1989), and the new venture’s overall growth and survival plan. This strategic lens provides a longer-term focused perspective/analysis, which is vital in addition to the conventional new venture’s immediate and urgent issues or needs as explored in the standard feasibility investigation.

By matching the feasibility analysis with strategic management theory, our proposed strategic lens improves its effectiveness. The strategic management literature asserts that organizational success depends on emphasizing differences between the organization and its competitors by relying on valuable, rare, costly to imitate, and non-substitutable resources and capabilities to create superior fit between the organization and its environment (Barney, 1991). (Venkatraman, 1989). The enhanced five-part feasibility analysis is tailored to include a longer-term view, which more effectively assesses the overall feasibility of the new venture after the doors are opened, rather than the traditional what-do-we-need-to-do-to-open-the-doors approach of the traditional four-part analysis.

The strategic lens gives the short-term focused feasibility analysis a long-term framework. The success of a business enterprise is determined not only by its capacity to take off and prosper at first, but also by its ability to maintain that success over time. If a business is to succeed in the long run, considerations such as the sustainability of a competitive advantage, substitutability, and imitability of the business product and procedures must be considered. Such attention ensures that the internal and external environments of the company are in sync.

The paper is divided into four parts. The first section provides an introduction of the standard four-part feasibility analysis, while the second section summarizes entrepreneurship and strategic management concepts. The benefits of the expanded feasibility analysis approach are presented in the third part. The fourth section discusses the model’s contributions and shortcomings, as well as making recommendations for further research.

Traditional Feasibility Analysis

Product/service feasibility, industry/market feasibility, organizational feasibility, and financial feasibility are the four aspects of a feasibility analysis for a new venture start-up (Barringer and Gresock, 2008). The overall appeal of the proposed product or service is evaluated in the product/service feasibility analysis (Klink and Athaide, 2006). The industry/market feasibility analysis assesses the overall attractiveness of the industry as well as the availability of niche markets that the new business may successfully access and serve (Allen, 2016). Managerial prowess, talent, expertise with entrepreneurial and business initiatives, and total resource sufficiency are all factors in determining organizational feasibility (Berry, 2017). Financial feasibility analysis focuses on determining how finance will be given not only for the beginning phase but also for ongoing business operations until break-even is achieved. The four-part feasibility study’ goal is to thoroughly and honestly evaluate a business idea’s potential merits, finding difficulties before they become important, and resolving these issues as early as possible in the start-up process (Scarborough, 2012). It also enables and provides as a basis for completing a variety of other tasks in the start-up process, such as budgeting, capital search, key hires and key hire scheduling, and locating essential professional support.

The feasibility analysis is the next step after recognizing the opportunity (Linder et al., 2019). The first phase in the entrepreneurial process is opportunity recognition (Baron, 2006), and it is usually associated with three factors: active search, personal attentiveness, and prior entrepreneur expertise, including life experience (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Shane, 2000). Social capital, cognitive and personality qualities, and a general knowledge of environmental conditions have all lately been recognized as crucial elements (George et al., 2016). Opportunity recognition (Ardichvili et al., 2003) is described as the discovery of a new way of creating value in the market, which then mixes and extends into feasibility studies. Following the feasibility investigation, the business model depicts the interconnected organizational activities that the firm engages in to produce value (Zott et al., 2011), demonstrating both a positive value proposition and a plan to support it (Zott et al., 2011). (McDonald and Eisenhardt, 2020). The feasibility analysis and the business model both contribute to a company’s long-term survival and growth, which is a fundamental concept (Massa et al., 2017).

Conducting a feasibility analysis, like other planning tasks, improves the odds of a new venture’s success (Delmar and Shane, 2003). Planning include determining what the company hopes to achieve, as well as establishing schedules for how and when activities to achieve these objectives will be implemented. Business founders benefit from planning because it improves their ability to make decisions more effectively than trial-and-error experimentation, by assisting them in locating and managing scarce resources, minimizing time-consuming bottlenecks, and more efficiently translating abstract goals into concrete operational activities (Delmar and Shane, 2003). A feasibility analysis can assist detect and avoid many of the usual problems that new venture entrepreneurs face, as well as solve many of the more general challenges that c