The feasibility study

A feasibility study presents the argument for the optimum solution to a problem.

For the purposes of this course, it outlines the designer's solution activities whilst following the rudimentary design process, and describes :

• the problem statement (including any broadening considered by the designer)
• the bank of solution candidates generated
• all the constraints and criteria deemed relevant
• how the candidates were practicalised
• the decisions made during candidate evaluation
• the optimum solution (without painting it rosier than it actually is)
• any development of the solution carried out after manufacture.

A professional feasibility study would generally not mention all the ideas considered, but would concentrate only upon the optimum solution including detailed costing. Undergraduates' reports however are expected to spell out everything (in brief!) - though students' inability to forecast accurate manufacturing cost for example calls for care when costing ( if costing is required ).

Writing such a report is just another occasion for 'putting yourself in the other guy's shoes'.Any feature of your report which prevents the reader from assimilating it as briefly, as completely, and as painlessly as possible is guaranteed to raise hackles. You must try to visualise a reader's reaction to your submission.
Attributes of feasibility studies which are sought here include the following :

FEASIBILITY STUDY ESSENTIALS

• SHOW CONSIDERATION FOR READER
  • Neat and legible; succint; unified; preferably word-processed
  • Introduction/synopsis to put the reader on track
  • Layout (clear section headings might parallel design steps)
  • Table of contents with page or section indexing
  • Multiple calculations, sketches & programs relegated to appendices
  • Report bound in a folder and LH pages blank
  • English must be impeccable : spelling - " it's wagging its tail "   ( "it's" = "it is", it's not possessive ); absence of colloquialisms - 'go for', 'basically' &c; impersonality 'the writer' rather than 'I'
• PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF COMPLETE PROBLEM DEFINITION
  • What criteria are relevant apart from the obvious ones in the (appended) Specification?
  • Has the Specification been interpreted too constrictively (fictitious bounds)?
• PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF INVENTION
  • Breakdown of total problem into sub-problems if appropriate
  • Techniques; sketches; ingenuity; creative effort and determination
  • More than just a couple of ideas
• PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PRACTICALISATION ATTEMPTS
  • Practicalisation before attempting to choose optimum solution
  • Remedial action rather than mere criticism; perseverance
  • Possible theoretical models of certain features
  • Testing and physical development if appropriate
• PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF FORESIGHT
  • What problems are foreseen and how can they be corrected? Outsmarting Murphy
• PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF LOGICAL ARGUMENT
  • Justification - not unsubstantiated opinions. Beware '. . the writer thought . .' if you're wrong!
  • Consistent use of the Guidelines When Evaluating - all criteria uniformly applied across all candidates when selecting the most suitable solution
  • Arguments must not be tailored in an attempt to justify preconceptions
• PROOF READ EFFECTIVELY BEFORE PRESENTATION