Use These Four Steps for Completing a Feasibility Study

A Feasibility Study may need to be completed for your project. The best time to complete it is when you have identified a range of different alternative solutions and you need to know which solution is the most feasible to implement. Here's how to do it.

Step 1: Research the Business Drivers

In most cases, your project is being driven by a problem in the business. These problems are called "business drivers" and you need to have a clear understanding of what they are, as part of your Feasibility Study. For instance, the business driver might be that an IT system is outdated and is causing customer complaints, or that two businesses need to merge because of an acquisition. Find out why the business driver is important to the business, and why it's critical that the project delivers a solution to it within a specified timeframe.

Step 2: Confirm the Alternative Solutions

Now you have a clear understanding of the business problem that the project addresses, you need to understand the alternative solutions available. For example, if it's an IT system that is outdated, your alternative solutions might include redeveloping the existing system, replacing it with a package solution or merging it with another system. Only with a clear understanding of the alternative solutions to the business problem can you progress with the Feasibility Study.

Step 3: Determine the Feasibility

You now need to identify the feasibility of each solution. The question to ask of each alternative solution is "can we deliver it on time and under budget?" In other words - is it feasible to complete this project for a reasonable timeframe and cost? To answer this question, you need to use a variety of methods to assess the feasibility of each solution. Here are some examples of ways you can assess feasibility:

• Research: Perform research to see if other companies have implemented the same solutions. This may tell you if the solution is practical.
• Prototyping: Identify the part of the solution that has the highest risk, and then build a sample of it to see if it's possible to create. This will tell you if the solution is technically feasible.
• Time-boxing: Complete some of the tasks in your project plan and measure how long it took vs. planned. If you delivered it on time, then you know that your overall schedule may be feasible.

Step 4: Choose a Preferred Solution

With the feasibility of each alternative solution known, the next step is to select a preferred solution to be delivered by your project. Choose the solution that is most feasible to implement, has the lowest risk, and you have the highest confidence of delivering.

After completing these four steps, get your Feasibility Study approved by your sponsor so that everyone in the project team has a high degree of confidence that the project can deliver successfully.

Are NGOs fit for the purpose of advocacy and campaigning?

The World Social Forum, which begins in Tunis today, is an important reminder of the pivotal role civil society organisations have often played in major social and political transformation.

The anti-slavery movement played a crucial part in bringing about legislation to end slavery in the 19th century. Across the world, the trade union movement has been the lynchpin behind achieving basic labour rights and improvements in working conditions. The anti-apartheid movement brought about the downfall of the racist apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1990s, while the women's movement in different historical periods and contexts achieved landmark breakthroughs in law to push for gender equality.

Of course, not all movements achieve their objectives; nor can success be attributed solely to them – alliances with different economic and political interests, as well as getting the general public and media on board have also been crucial. Civil society and NGOs have long been key to challenging systems that would favour the few over the many, and give a voice to the voiceless but is this the case today? Are they still fit for purpose?

There are many reasons why one might think that NGOs have never been better equipped to advocate and campaign. Dedicated campaigning and fundraising departments; professional, qualified, experience and media-savvy staff now fill advocacy roles. And thanks to better and cheaper telecommunications, social media and the internet, even small, previously obscure charities are able to quickly access information, images, stories from the field, turn them into campaigns and connect with their audiences. This bureaucratised, expert, 24/7 globally linked machinery contrasts with the looser, slower, less 'professionalised' workings of the women's movement, anti-slavery or anti-apartheid movements. But has this made today's campaigners more effective? Is it all enough?

Let me suggest some reasons why we should be concerned that this may not be enough. More than a result of a polished campaign strategies, the achievements of past movements can be attributed to highly driven, passionate participants, who exhibited a high degree of solidarity rooted in a shared set of beliefs, values and visions. They were largely independent from governments: they neither took nor sought government funding. They were often subject to state surveillance; any engagement with government was highly strategic.

This contrasts with NGOs today which resemble more professional, technocratic bureaucracies, housing experts with well honed functional and technical skills, providing opportunities for internship and career development. Employees jump from one NGO to another – today working on environmental issues, tomorrow on children. Maybe in Rwanda and then in Vietnam. The modern NGO campaigner can also move neatly into government or business, and back into an NGO, a chameleon-like bricolage of employment experiences. Working in an NGO has become a career, an alternative to the public or private sector, diplomatic or political life.

The close working relationship with government – where NGOs seek state funding, becoming co-producers of welfare, development and security – also raises issues about autonomy and political positioning. Two recent events have exposed the limits and authenticity of the well-oiled, professional advocacy machine so central to NGOs today.

First, the extraordinary measures implemented as part of the global war on terror unsettled the everyday view of charities as benign, harmless, benevolent organisations. In the climate of fear that prevailed after 9/11, politicians cast a veil of suspicion over charities. In October 2006 Gordon Brown, then chancellor of the exchequer, asserted with confidence that "many charities and donors have been and are being exploited by terrorists". Islamic charities in particular bore the brunt of such accusatory statements.

In the US the only not-for-profit organisations to be designated on the list of proscribed organisations since 9/11 have been Islamic charities, including the largest , the Holy Land Foundation. In researching the book I co-authored 'Counter-terrorism, aid and civil society', we found many NGOs in the US, UK and other parts of Europe, most NGOs were slow to come to the defence of Islamic charities, and more importantly, were slow to defend the spaces of civil society as national security concerns began to trump historically earned freedoms.

The reasons for this initially lack of action are complex but there is at least one important factor that cannot be overlooked. That is, the risks of too cosy a relation to governments that provide an umbilical cord of sought after funding. The current recession has brought this brutally to the surface.

A report by the Independence Panel in January of this year, gave chilling evidence of the growing threat to the independence of the voluntary sector. In describing some of the key challenges facing the UK voluntary sector, it stated that "as many organisations fear for their survival, self-censorship is becoming a significant problem. For those that do speak out, there is a growing climate of opinion against the campaigning activities of charities".

What then has happened to protecting the autonomy of civil society, the freedom of expression and assembly, and defending the rights of minorities? What has happened to solidarity in civil society? NGOs today have moved some distance away from the autonomous, passionate, fearless campaigners of past movements. But can they salvage the situation?

Perhaps, but only if there is some serious self-reflection about core issues of autonomy and positioning. The sector must answer questions such as: at what point does intense competition among NGOs for commercial or government funding risk compromising key values and agendas? To what extent does the scramble for resources pit one NGO against another rather than fashion solidarity and collective campaigning? And to what extent does this come at the expense of broader commitments to protect minorities and to defend the spaces of civil society? As co-producers of welfare, development and security, NGOs now have maybe more to lose. But in the long term, unless they face these raw challenges, their role as agents of emancipatory social transformation can only diminish. Indeed, their very relevance may be at stake.

Professor Jude Howell - director of the Non-Governmental Public Action Research Programme at the London School of Economics

A new study from Prof. Daya Somasundaram on collective trauma in northern Sri Lanka. Published this Thursday 4 October

Associate Professor Somasundaram has completed a study on collective trauma in northern Sri Lanka, comparing effects on the community of the chronic war with those of the 2004 tsunami which killed 31,000 Sri Lankans. The research is published this Thursday 4 October in the online open access, peer-reviewed publication International Journal of Mental Health Systems.


“The natural disaster was a one-off catastrophic event that left a trail of destruction and loss,” says Assoc. Professor Somasundaram. “But it did not continue to exert a prolonged effect. As a result the severity of the collective trauma was much less. In fact, having lived through a prolonged war situation has meant that Tamil communities have learned skills and strategies that make them better able to cope with disasters.”

Assoc. Professor Somasundaram found the effects of chronic disasters, such as war, went beyond the individual to family, community and the wider society. Relief, rehabilitation and development programs to be effective need to address the problems of collective trauma, he says.

His study suggests that grass roots work within communities may work best. “In the aftermath of war communities suffer from mistrust, suspicion, silence, brutalisation, deterioration in morals and values, poor leadership, dependency, passivity and despair,” Assoc. Professor Somasundaram says.

“Apart from attending to the immediate basic needs and other acute problems in the rescue and relief phases after a major disaster, rehabilitation, reconstruction and development strategies need to include collective-level interventions. In fact, our experiences show that many individually oriented mental health interventions appear to fair much better when undertaken within an overall framework of a community strategy.”

The study, ‘Collective trauma in northern Sri Lanka: a qualitative psychosocial-ecological study’, is based on published data and qualitative research methods including participatory observation, key informant and focus group interviews.

The whole research can be read at: http://www.ijmhs.com/content/1/1/5

institutional care is the fate of many children in Sri Lanka?

In Sri Lanka today institutional care is the fate of many children who have been abandoned by their parents. According to UNICEF, out of over 21,000 children in orphanages in Sri Lanka, one or both parents of over 19,000 of them are still alive.

UNICEF says in most cases it is a family member who leaves the child at an orphanage. "In Sri Lanka institutional care has become the sole option for many children because their family unit is destroyed, by such things as parental loss, separation or parental conflict. Another reason may be the war and displacement factors," UNICEF said in a 24 July report entitled, "Out of Sight - Out of Mind." Poverty is also a root cause with the family feeling they cannot afford to adequately provide for the child, according to the UN agency.

Poor conditions in orphanagesThe UNICEF report, published in collaboration with the government's Ministry of Child Development and Women's Empowerment, aims to improve living conditions in orphanages and ensure the children are cared for adequately.
There are currently 488 voluntary children's homes in Sri Lanka. Most are found in Batticaloa District which has 66, followed by Colombo with 60.
Living conditions for children in some of these homes is less than idyllic. According to the UNICEF report, only 12 children's homes are found to be fully compliant with current standards of care. Most homes are overcrowded and lack sufficient staff to provide the individual attention children need.

According to the UNICEF report, 136 orphanages said they did not have a sufficient number of beds: many of the children ended up sleeping on mats on the floor. In addition, UNICEF found that 142 homes were unable to provide separate storage space for children's personal belongings.

Theft from orphansDuring festivals children receive gifts and cash donations from well-wishers and foreigners who visit the area. However, according to the bureau, last year alone it received over 150 complaints against staff members for theft, during these festivals, of belongings and cash from children living in orphanages. Most of the complaints were lodged by relatives of the children.
The UNICEF report suggests a large number of cases of child institutionalisation could be avoided if better programmes were implemented to support families. "A clearer focus on family in child care policies could strengthen awareness about the rights to protection and care to which every child is entitled," UNICEF said. Currently Sri Lanka has no such policies in place.