Talk:Feasibility study

Readability of Article

I recently recommended Wikipedia for research for my students who are aged 16-18. They found this particular article very difficult to comprehend. Having run the text of this article through a readability formula test, the results showed that the text required graduate level reading skills to read and comprehend the article. Is there anyone who feels they are able to address this issue? One of the problems raised included the length of sentences and vocabulary that may be suitable for a wide audience including students who have limited vocabulary and interest in the subject.

There's a special version of wikipedia written for those whose grasp of english is shaky. The articles are much easier to read, relying on simple vocabulary and grammatical constructs. Go to "simple.wikipedia.org". yandman 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with yandman in that I am 17 and found this article to be easy to comprehend and sufficiently readable. Although, as this relates to an Australian Year 12 Software Design and Development course (or at least in my case it does), it is entirely possible that others may have difficulty in understanding it. Is it likely that the article would be referred to for other reasons? If so, keep it as it is, otherwise edit it accordingly. Xoddera 07:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank for this articles, which are very usefull and readable even for those who do not belong to english mother tongue countries.Youssef —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.129.119 (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How to write a Feasibility Study

A section on how to write one would be very helpful for IPT students. I'm not so sure how myself. TerrorBite 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Tagging for cleanup. The article seems to be written casually, ramble on, and make no point in particular. --Chris (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Schedule Feasibility is written two times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.226.233 (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

check feasibility

for a RND project using linux as a platform, PHP and perl as language, AI concepts, 2 years time, budget is 80 lakh, man power is 2 developers is the project feasible ??

Categorization

Tried to categorize the article. I put in Business_process, as I considered this a process control technique, but someone might come up with something better.

TELOS

Shouldn't a feasibility study follow five factors called TELOS? They are:

• Technological Feasibility - does the technology exist?
• Economic Feasibility - Is it affordable, do the benefits outweigh the costs?
• Legal Feasibility - is there any legal impediment (e.g. the DPA)
• Operational Feasibility - how will the new system affect people's working lives?
• Schedule Feasibility - can the new system be implemented in the desired time-frame?

Some of those heading are on the article but not in that order. arsenalwwerulz 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the order around, to be TELOS, but retained the original extras DanielFaulknor (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The TELOS model was first presented in 2007 by James A. Hall in his book, "Accounting Information Systems." You should probably give him credit. Kortoso (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Heathcote may have come up with it first. Kortoso (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Technology >> Information Technology

The article as written equates "technology" ("the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective") with "information technology" ("the acquisition, processing, storage and dissemination of vocal, pictorial, textual and numerical information"). This neglects, for example, evaluating the feasibility of a proposed aircraft, bridge, or manufacturing plant.

This use of the term "technology" is far too restrictive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.13.144 (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I think this is easily fixed by stripping out the IT-specific terms; I took a stab at it. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there any standard for Feasibility Studies?

Dear Wikipedia Contributors, please accept my kindest greeting. I have unsuccessfully looked for standards related to Feasibility Studies or Analysis. Can anyone point me into the right direction? (I am a Computer Engineering and currently working on a project that requires me to use standards throughout the whole process as much as possible.)

Regards.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Feasibility study topics echo"

"Feasibility study topics echo" appears to be a redundant heading. Unless there's any objection, I am going to remove it and promote all its sub-heads. Kortoso (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Prefeasibility study?

We don't have a topic (or redirect) for this, although many articles refer to such, and it's a common option for cos. with large projects and/or limited finances and/or difficult environmental concerns. Perhaps all 3 and more! Anyway, as time & energy permit, I'm thinking the best approach is to write a paragraph here, and set it up as a redirect from the many existing refs to Prefeasibility studies. I've contributed to a couple myself, back in the day.

Here are a couple of articles on the topic:

• What are Prefeasibility and Feasibility Studies? For investors new to the resource sector, one of the most important things to know is what prefeasibility and feasibility studies are.
• The Difference between Pre-feasibility Study and Feasibility Study. Chemical engineering context.

--Pete Tillman (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Feasibility study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221092721/http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/ext_other/feasibility_study.pdf to http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/ext_other/feasibility_study.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916131105/http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sr58.pdf to http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sr58.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)