Feasibility Study Template: Free Word & PDF Download (+ Example)

A feasibility study template gives you a ready structure for answering one question before money gets committed: should this project go ahead? Instead of starting from a blank page, you fill in eight standard sections, from the problem statement to the cost-benefit numbers, and end up with a document a sponsor can actually decide on.

This page gives you the template in two formats (editable Word and PDF), explains what goes into each section and how long it usually takes, and walks through a filled-in example with real calculations. No email or sign-up is needed for the downloads.

What This Feasibility Study Template Covers

A feasibility study is a structured check, done early in the project life cycle, of whether a proposed project is economically, technically, and operationally viable. If you need the full definition, the types of feasibility, and where the study fits into project planning, see our guide on what a feasibility study is. This page focuses on the practical side: the document itself.

The template is built for internal and client projects of small to medium size, such as a new IT system, a process change, a product launch, or a facility upgrade. It works as a starting structure: keep the sections that fit your project, shorten the ones that don’t, and add sector-specific sections (for example, environmental impact for construction) where your organization requires them.

What’s Inside the Template: 8 Sections at a Glance

Each section answers one question for the decision maker. The time estimates below assume a medium-sized project and a writer who already has the input data; plan for more if you still need to collect figures.

#	Section	Question it answers	Typical length	Time to write
1	Executive Summary	What did the study find, and what do you recommend?	1 page	1-2 hours
2	Introduction	Why was this study done, and who is it for?	1 page	8-10 hours
3	Justification	What problem are we solving, and what does it cost us today?	1-2 pages	15-18 hours
4	Proposed Solution	What exactly do we propose, and how will it change things?	2-3 pages	20-25 hours
5	Alternatives	What else did we consider, and why not that?	1-2 pages	7-9 hours
6	Feasibility Assessment	Is it viable economically, technically, operationally, on schedule, and legally?	2-4 pages	10-15 hours
7	Cost-Benefit Analysis	Do the numbers justify the investment?	1-2 pages	10-12 hours
8	Recommendation	Go, no-go, or go with conditions?	Half a page	1-2 hours

Section 1 appears first in the document but is written last. Section 6 is where the real analysis happens; it is covered in detail further down.

How to Fill In the Template, Section by Section

1. Executive Summary

The one page most senior readers will actually read. Summarize the problem, the business objectives the project supports, the expected impact on the organization and its processes, the headline costs and benefits, the main risks, and your recommendation. For very short studies this section can be skipped, but most sponsors expect it.

• Write it only after every other section is finished.
• Lead with the recommendation, then the two or three numbers that support it.
• Keep it to a single page, in a few short paragraphs.

2. Introduction

Sets the context. Two sub-sections are required: Purpose (what triggered the study and what outcome you expect from it) and Target Audience (who will read and approve the document). Depending on the project, you can add a short project description, solution background, references, and the assumptions and constraints the study is based on.

Stating assumptions here saves arguments later. If the cost-benefit analysis assumes current staffing levels or a fixed exchange rate, say so upfront.

3. Justification

Explains in detail why the project is needed. Open with a short introduction (three or four paragraphs at most), then cover these sub-sections:

• Problem Statement: the core problem, described with evidence (error rates, delays, costs, complaints).
• Organizational Impact: how the problem affects the organization as a whole.
• Business Impact: the effect on specific departments, resources, and staff.
• Process Impact: a list of the business processes the problem touches.
• Solution Objectives: what a good solution must achieve, ideally as measurable targets.

Analyze the current state of the business before you write this section. A justification built on “everyone knows this is a problem” rarely survives a budget review.

4. Proposed Solution

Describes the solution you recommend: its main features, how it will be delivered, and how it changes the situation described in the Justification. A practical trick is to mirror the structure of Section 3, so for each impact area (organizational, business, process) you explain what improves and by how much. Keep the narrative complete but concrete; this is not the place for a full technical specification.

5. Alternatives

Lists the other project alternatives you considered and explains why they were not selected. Include at least two, and make one of them the “do minimum” option: improving the current process without a new investment. Summarize the differences in a comparison matrix covering cost, benefit, risk, and time to deliver. If your organization requires a more formal option appraisal, use our feasibility and option analysis template for this step.

6. Feasibility Assessment

The analytical core of the study. For each of the five feasibility areas, state your findings, the evidence, and a clear verdict (feasible, feasible with conditions, or not feasible). The questions to answer for each area are listed in the next section.

7. Cost-Benefit Analysis

Compares the full cost of the solution (one-time and recurring) with its expected benefits over a fixed period, usually three to five years. Describe the method you used and show the main indicators:

• Net Present Value (NPV): the value of future net benefits in today’s money, minus the initial investment. Positive NPV means the project creates value at your chosen discount rate.
• Return on Investment (ROI): total net benefit divided by the investment, as a percentage.
• Payback Period: how long it takes for net benefits to cover the initial investment.

Run the same calculation for every alternative, using the same time horizon and discount rate, or the comparison is meaningless.

8. Recommendation

A short, direct conclusion: go, no-go, or go with conditions. If conditions apply (for example, “proceed if the vendor confirms integration with our ERP”), list them with an owner and a deadline. Once approved, the findings feed into the business case and later the project kick-off meeting.

The 5 Feasibility Areas to Assess

Section 6 of the template is organized around five areas. Not every project needs the same depth in each one, but skipping an area entirely is how projects get approved and then stall.

Economic Feasibility

Can the organization afford the project, and will it pay off? Cost estimates usually come from one of two approaches:

• Bottom-up: break the work into small tasks, have the people responsible estimate each one, and add the estimates together. More accurate, but slower.
• Top-down: start from management’s expected budget range and comparable past projects, then refine. Faster, useful at an early stage, but less precise.

Questions to answer: What are the one-time and recurring costs? Where does the funding come from? What is the NPV and payback period? How sensitive is the result if costs run 20% higher?

Technical Feasibility

Can the solution be built and run with the available technology and skills? This covers hardware, software, integrations, security, and the team’s expertise. For an IT project, it typically means comparing technology providers, checking compatibility with existing systems, and assessing how complex the system is compared with similar ones.

Questions to answer: Does the technology exist and is it mature? Will it integrate with current systems? Do we have the skills in-house, or do we need to hire or outsource? What are the main technical risks?

Operational Feasibility

Will the solution actually solve the business problem once it is in daily use? This area looks at how the project fits current work practices, how much change it demands from staff, and whether people will adopt it.

Questions to answer: Which processes and roles change? How much training is needed? Who owns the solution after launch? What happens to operations during the transition?

Schedule Feasibility

Can the project be delivered in time to be useful? Estimate the duration, check it against business deadlines, and separate mandatory deadlines (a regulatory date, a contract start) from preferred ones. A missed preferred deadline is a problem; a system launched on time with broken functionality is usually a bigger one.

Questions to answer: What is the realistic duration? Which deadlines are fixed? What is the cost of a delay? Which dependencies could push the schedule?

Legal and Contractual Feasibility

Does the project comply with laws, regulations, and existing contracts? For example, an eCommerce platform that collects names, emails, and payment details has to meet privacy rules such as the GDPR in the EU or the CCPA in California. An employee-monitoring system may require informing staff and collecting signed acknowledgments before it can be used.

Questions to answer: Which regulations apply? Do current contracts or licenses restrict the project? Are permits or approvals needed, and how long do they take?

Feasibility Study Example (Filled-In Sample)

To show how the sections come together, here is a condensed sample for a typical mid-sized project: a regional wholesale distributor with 40 employees deciding whether to replace paper-based picking with a warehouse management system (WMS) and barcode scanners.

Problem statement: about 3% of orders ship with picking errors. Returns, reshipments, and credit notes cost the company roughly $40,000 a year, and warehouse staff work around 1,500 overtime hours a year (about $45,000) to keep up with order volume during peak season.

Solution objectives: cut picking errors below 0.5%, remove most peak-season overtime, and give sales real-time stock visibility, all within six months.

Alternatives compared (3-year horizon, 8% discount rate):

Option	Initial cost	Net benefit per year	NPV (3 years)	Payback	Delivery time
A. Improve current process (checklists, double-check at packing, spreadsheet stock tracking)	$10,000	$15,000	$28,700	8 months	1 month
B. Cloud WMS + barcode scanners (proposed)	$85,000	$67,000	$87,700	15 months	4-5 months
C. Custom-built warehouse system	$210,000	$60,000 (from year 2)	-$110,900	Over 3 years	12 months

Option B’s initial cost covers setup and configuration ($30,000), scanners and mobile hardware ($25,000), ERP integration ($20,000), and training ($10,000). Its net annual benefit is the $85,000 in avoided errors and overtime minus an $18,000 yearly subscription.

Feasibility assessment (summary):

• Economic: feasible. Positive NPV of about $87,700 and a 3-year ROI of 136%; still positive if implementation costs run 20% over budget.
• Technical: feasible with conditions. The shortlisted vendor has a ready connector for the company’s ERP, but it must be tested in a sandbox before contract signature.
• Operational: feasible. Warehouse staff need about two days of training each; a two-week parallel run with paper picking reduces transition risk.
• Schedule: feasible. A 4-5 month rollout fits before the next peak season, with roughly six weeks of buffer.
• Legal/contractual: feasible. The current ERP license allows third-party integrations; scanner data contains no personal data beyond employee logins.

Recommendation: proceed with Option B, on the condition that the ERP integration passes a sandbox test. Option A has the highest ROI percentage (350%), but it would only reduce errors partly and does nothing for overtime, so its total value (NPV) is about three times lower. Option C costs more than twice as much and does not pay back within the evaluation period.

This is a composite illustration, not a real company. Figures are rounded, and a full study would include the complete Introduction, Justification, and risk sections covered above. Real feasibility studies are usually confidential, so a guide like this has to build a representative example rather than publish one.

Common Mistakes When Using a Template

• Deciding first, studying second. If the conclusion is fixed before the analysis starts, the study becomes a formality and the sponsor will notice.
• Only one real option. Comparing your preferred solution against a deliberately weak alternative does not prove anything. Include an honest “do minimum” option.
• Counting only the purchase price. Recurring costs (licenses, support, maintenance, staff time) often exceed the initial cost within a few years.
• Filling every section to the same depth. A template is a checklist, not a word count. Spend time where the risk is, usually the technical and economic sections.
• No clear verdict. A study that ends with “further analysis is recommended” without saying what analysis, by whom, and by when has not done its job.

Feasibility Study vs. Feasibility Report vs. Options Analysis

These three terms are often used interchangeably, but they refer to different steps of the same process:

Document	What it is	When you need it	Our guide
Feasibility study	The analysis itself: the process of assessing whether a project is viable	Before committing budget to a project	What is a feasibility study
Feasibility study template	A ready structure for documenting that analysis	When you start writing up the study	This page
Feasibility study report (FSR)	The formal output that summarizes the findings for decision makers	When the study is complete and needs approval	How to write a feasibility report
Options analysis	A focused comparison of alternative ways to reach the project objectives	When several solutions compete and the choice needs to be justified	Feasibility and option analysis template

Frequently Asked Questions