--- # === IDENTITY === id: business/startup-planning/initial-feasibility-quick-check/2026 canonical_question: "How do I run a 10-question rapid feasibility check — market size, competition, technical feasibility, regulatory flags?" aliases: - "Quick startup idea validation checklist" - "Is my startup idea feasible? Rapid assessment" - "10-question startup feasibility scoring framework" entity_type: execution_recipe domain: business > startup-planning > initial feasibility quick check region: global jurisdiction: global temporal_scope: 2024-2026 # === VERIFICATION === last_verified: 2026-03-11 confidence: 0.87 version: 1.0 first_published: 2026-03-11 # === TEMPORAL VALIDITY === temporal_validity: status: evolving last_breaking_change: null next_review: 2026-09-07 change_sensitivity: medium # === CONSTRAINTS === constraints: - "This is a rapid screen, not a full feasibility study. Use to kill bad ideas fast, not to validate good ones." - "A passing score means 'worth investigating further' — not 'this will succeed.'" - "Regulatory flags require domain-specific legal review. This check identifies flags, it does not resolve them." # === SKIP CONDITIONS === skip_this_unit_if: - condition: "Need full market validation with customer interviews" use_instead: "business/customer-validation/customer-discovery-interview-playbook/2026" - condition: "Need detailed financial projections" use_instead: "business/startup/financial-model-template-library/2026" # === AGENT HINTS === inputs_needed: - key: idea_classification question: "What type of startup is this?" type: choice options: ["SaaS", "Marketplace", "Hardware/D2C", "Services", "API/Infrastructure", "E-Commerce", "Media/Content", "Other"] - key: founder_background question: "What is the founder's relevant experience?" type: choice options: ["Domain expert (5+ years in industry)", "Technical expert (can build the product)", "Business generalist", "First-time founder with no domain experience"] - key: time_horizon question: "When does the founder need revenue?" type: choice options: ["Under 3 months", "3-12 months", "12-24 months", "No urgency (funded or side project)"] # === EXECUTION METADATA === execution: required_inputs: - name: "Idea Classification Report" source: "business/startup-planning/idea-classification-framework/2026" format: "JSON with primary_type and customer_segment" - name: "Idea description" source: "founder" format: "text (2-3 sentences minimum)" outputs: - name: "Feasibility Scorecard" format: "JSON" description: "10-dimension scored assessment with overall go/no-go/pivot recommendation" - name: "Red Flag Report" format: "structured list" description: "Critical blockers identified during assessment with severity and resolution paths" tools_required: - name: "Web search" purpose: "Quick market size and competition checks" tier: free cost: "$0" alternatives: ["Google", "Perplexity", "ChatGPT web browsing"] - name: "Spreadsheet" purpose: "Score tabulation and visualization" tier: free cost: "$0" alternatives: ["Google Sheets", "Excel", "Notion table"] credentials_needed: [] estimated_duration: "45-90 minutes" estimated_cost: "$0" # === DISTRIBUTION === canonical_source: "https://knowledgelib.io/business/startup-planning/initial-feasibility-quick-check/2026" suggested_citation: "Source: knowledgelib.io — AI Knowledge Library (verified 2026-03-11)" # === RELATED UNITS === related_kos: depends_on: - id: "business/startup-planning/idea-classification-framework/2026" label: "Business model classification determines scoring weights" feeds_into: - id: "business/market-research/market-sizing-methodology/2026" label: "Deep-dive market sizing for ideas that pass feasibility" - id: "business/market-research/competitive-landscape-mapping/2026" label: "Full competitive analysis for feasible ideas" related_to: - id: "business/market-research/competitor-analysis-framework/2026" label: "Detailed competitor profiling methodology" alternative_to: [] # === SOURCES === sources: - id: src1 title: "Conducting a Feasibility Analysis" author: OpenStax url: https://openstax.org/books/entrepreneurship/pages/11-3-conducting-a-feasibility-analysis type: technical_blog published: 2023-06-01 reliability: authoritative - id: src2 title: "Feasibility Study: Steps, Types, Checklist & Examples" author: Asana url: https://asana.com/resources/feasibility-study type: technical_blog published: 2025-08-15 reliability: high - id: src3 title: "21 Questions A Feasibility Study Must Answer For Startups" author: Grow Enterprise url: https://growenterprise.co.uk/2018/11/19/21-questions-a-feasibility-study-must-answer/ type: technical_blog published: 2018-11-19 reliability: moderate - id: src4 title: "Evaluating an Idea for Feasibility" author: UT Dallas Jindal School url: https://jindal.utdallas.edu/blog/evaluating-idea-feasibility/ type: technical_blog published: 2024-03-01 reliability: high - id: src5 title: "Feasibility Check: Startup Success through Professional Analysis" author: Foundor url: https://foundor.ai/en/blog/feasibility-checks type: technical_blog published: 2025-01-10 reliability: high - id: src6 title: "Beating the odds in market entry" author: McKinsey & Company url: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/beating-the-odds-in-market-entry type: industry_report published: 2024-05-01 reliability: authoritative --- # Initial Feasibility Quick Check ## Purpose This recipe produces a scored feasibility assessment across 10 dimensions in under 90 minutes. The output is a go/no-go/pivot recommendation with specific red flags and their severity. It kills bad ideas before founders invest weeks in business plans, and it surfaces critical blockers that would otherwise emerge months into execution. ## Prerequisites - [ ] **Idea Classification Report** from [Idea Classification Framework](/business/startup-planning/idea-classification-framework/2026) (primary type, customer segment) - [ ] **Idea description** — minimum 2-3 sentences describing the product, customer, and value proposition - [ ] **Founder background** — relevant experience level (affects scoring weights) - [ ] **Web access** for quick market size and competition research ## Constraints - This is a 90-minute screen, not a multi-week feasibility study. Use to eliminate obviously bad ideas, not to confirm good ones. [src1] - A score of "feasible" means "worth spending 2-4 more weeks investigating." It does not mean the idea will work. [src2] - Regulatory dimensions flag potential issues only. Any red flag in dimensions 8 or 9 requires consultation with a domain-specific lawyer before proceeding. [src4] - Scoring is subjective. Two evaluators may disagree by 1-2 points per dimension. Average scores from multiple evaluators when possible. [src5] - Do not skip dimensions you find uncomfortable or difficult. Those are often the dimensions that kill startups. [src6] ## Tool Selection Decision ``` Which path? ├── Founder doing self-assessment │ └── PATH A: Solo Quick Check — web search + scoring sheet ├── Agent evaluating idea for founder │ └── PATH B: Agent-Assisted — automated research + scoring ├── Accelerator/incubator batch screening │ └── PATH C: Batch Assessment — standardized scoring across N ideas └── Investor doing deal screening └── PATH D: Investment Screen — weighted toward market + team ``` | Path | Tools | Cost | Speed | Output Quality | |------|-------|------|-------|---------------| | A: Solo Quick Check | Browser + spreadsheet | $0 | 60-90 min | Medium (subjective) | | B: Agent-Assisted | LLM + web search + spreadsheet | $0.05-0.20 | 30-45 min | Medium-high (research-backed) | | C: Batch Assessment | Spreadsheet + template | $0 | 20 min/idea | High (standardized) | | D: Investment Screen | Research tools + spreadsheet | $0-50 | 45-60 min | High (market-weighted) | ## Execution Flow ### Step 1: Set Up the Scoring Framework **Duration**: 5 minutes **Tool**: Spreadsheet or text editor Create the 10-dimension scoring matrix. Each dimension is scored 1-5: ``` SCORING SCALE: 1 = Critical blocker (likely fatal) 2 = Significant concern (requires major pivot or investment to overcome) 3 = Neutral (neither advantage nor disadvantage) 4 = Favorable (competitive advantage in this area) 5 = Strong advantage (clear moat or exceptional fit) ``` The 10 dimensions and their weights (total = 1.00): ```json { "dimensions": [ {"id": 1, "name": "Problem Severity", "weight": 0.15, "question": "How painful is the problem for the target customer?"}, {"id": 2, "name": "Market Size", "weight": 0.12, "question": "Is the addressable market large enough to build a venture-scale business?"}, {"id": 3, "name": "Competition Intensity", "weight": 0.10, "question": "How crowded is the market and how strong are incumbents?"}, {"id": 4, "name": "Differentiation Clarity", "weight": 0.10, "question": "Can you articulate a clear, defensible difference from alternatives?"}, {"id": 5, "name": "Technical Feasibility", "weight": 0.10, "question": "Can this be built with available technology and within budget?"}, {"id": 6, "name": "Founder-Market Fit", "weight": 0.12, "question": "Does this team have unfair advantages in this specific market?"}, {"id": 7, "name": "Business Model Viability", "weight": 0.10, "question": "Is the revenue model proven for this type of product?"}, {"id": 8, "name": "Regulatory Risk", "weight": 0.08, "question": "Are there regulatory, legal, or compliance barriers?"}, {"id": 9, "name": "Timing", "weight": 0.08, "question": "Is the market ready now? Too early? Too late?"}, {"id": 10, "name": "Capital Efficiency", "weight": 0.05, "question": "Can this reach first revenue without massive upfront investment?"} ] } ``` **Verify**: All 10 dimensions present with weights summing to 1.00 **If failed**: Adjust weights proportionally. Do not drop dimensions. ### Step 2: Score Problem Severity (Dimension 1) **Duration**: 10 minutes **Tool**: Web search Answer these 3 sub-questions: ``` 1a. Are people currently PAYING to solve this problem? (Yes = 4-5, Free alternatives only = 2-3, Nobody is trying = 1) 1b. How often does the problem occur? (Daily = 5, Weekly = 4, Monthly = 3, Yearly = 2, Rarely = 1) 1c. What happens if the problem goes unsolved? (Revenue loss / safety risk = 5, Major inconvenience = 4, Minor annoyance = 3, Cosmetic issue = 2, Nothing = 1) ``` Average the 3 sub-scores. Search for: "{problem} solutions market" and "{problem} complaints" to validate. **Verify**: Score backed by at least one data point (competitor pricing, forum complaints, market report) **If failed**: If no evidence of people caring about this problem, score 1-2 regardless of founder conviction ### Step 3: Score Market Size (Dimension 2) **Duration**: 10 minutes **Tool**: Web search Quick market size estimation (not full TAM/SAM/SOM — that comes later): ``` 2a. Can you find a market size number from a reputable source? (>$10B TAM = 5, $1-10B = 4, $100M-1B = 3, $10-100M = 2, <$10M = 1) 2b. Is the market growing? (>20% CAGR = 5, 10-20% = 4, 5-10% = 3, 0-5% = 2, shrinking = 1) 2c. How many potential customers exist? (>1M = 5, 100K-1M = 4, 10K-100K = 3, 1K-10K = 2, <1K = 1) ``` Search for: "{industry} market size 2025" and "{industry} growth rate forecast." **Verify**: At least one market size data point from Statista, IBISWorld, Gartner, or industry report **If failed**: If no market data exists, the market may be too niche or too new. Score 2 and flag for deeper research. ### Step 4: Score Remaining 8 Dimensions **Duration**: 25 minutes **Tool**: Web search + judgment For each remaining dimension (3-10), answer the sub-questions: **Dimension 3 — Competition Intensity:** - How many direct competitors exist? (0-2 = 5, 3-5 = 4, 6-10 = 3, 11-20 = 2, 20+ = 1) - Are there well-funded incumbents? (No = 5, Bootstrapped only = 4, Some funded = 3, Major players = 2, FAANG-level = 1) - Note: Low competition can mean no market exists. Score 3 if 0 competitors + no validation. **Dimension 4 — Differentiation Clarity:** - Can you state the difference in one sentence? (Yes, compelling = 5, Yes but weak = 3, No = 1) - Is the difference sustainable for 18+ months? (Yes = 5, Maybe = 3, No = 1) **Dimension 5 — Technical Feasibility:** - Can a prototype be built in 4-8 weeks? (Yes = 5, 8-16 weeks = 3, 16+ weeks = 1) - Does it require unproven technology? (No = 5, Partially = 3, Yes = 1) **Dimension 6 — Founder-Market Fit:** - Years of experience in this domain? (5+ = 5, 2-5 = 4, 1-2 = 3, 0 = 2) - Access to first 10 customers? (Yes, warm intros = 5, Some network = 3, Cold start = 1) **Dimension 7 — Business Model Viability:** - Has this revenue model been proven in this market? (Yes, by competitors = 5, In adjacent market = 3, Novel = 1) - Can unit economics work at scale? (Clearly yes = 5, Plausible = 3, Unclear = 1) **Dimension 8 — Regulatory Risk:** - Any regulated industry involvement? (No = 5, Light regulation = 4, Moderate = 3, Heavy = 2, Pending legislation = 1) - Data privacy requirements? (None = 5, Standard = 4, HIPAA/GDPR = 2, Classified = 1) **Dimension 9 — Timing:** - Are enabling technologies/platforms mature? (Yes = 5, Emerging = 3, Not yet = 1) - Are buyer budgets being allocated to this category? (Yes = 5, Exploring = 3, No = 1) **Dimension 10 — Capital Efficiency:** - Can you reach first paying customer for under $25K? (Yes = 5, $25-100K = 3, $100K+ = 1) - Is the business model capital-light? (Yes = 5, Moderate = 3, Capital-heavy = 1) **Verify**: All 10 dimensions scored 1-5 **If failed**: Any unscored dimension defaults to 2 (concern) with a flag for investigation ### Step 5: Calculate Weighted Score and Recommendation **Duration**: 5 minutes ``` weighted_score = SUM(dimension_score * dimension_weight) for all 10 dimensions RECOMMENDATION THRESHOLDS: >= 3.8 → GO — Proceed to full market research and validation 3.0-3.7 → CONDITIONAL GO — Address flagged dimensions first 2.5-2.9 → PIVOT — Core concept has merit but significant issues to resolve < 2.5 → NO-GO — Kill this idea or fundamentally rethink it RED FLAG RULES (override score): - Any dimension scored 1 = automatic RED FLAG regardless of total score - Dimensions 1 + 2 both below 3 = automatic NO-GO (no problem + no market) - Dimension 8 scored 1 = STOP until legal review completed ``` **Output files**: - `feasibility_scorecard.json` — Complete 10-dimension scorecard with recommendation - `red_flag_report.md` — List of critical blockers with severity and resolution paths ## Output Schema ```json { "output_type": "feasibility_scorecard", "format": "JSON", "columns": [ {"name": "idea_summary", "type": "string", "description": "2-3 sentence idea description", "required": true}, {"name": "overall_score", "type": "number", "description": "Weighted score 1.0-5.0", "required": true}, {"name": "recommendation", "type": "string", "description": "GO, CONDITIONAL_GO, PIVOT, or NO_GO", "required": true}, {"name": "dimension_scores", "type": "array", "description": "Array of 10 scored dimensions with rationale", "required": true}, {"name": "red_flags", "type": "array", "description": "Critical blockers with severity and resolution", "required": true}, {"name": "next_steps", "type": "array", "description": "Ordered list of actions based on recommendation", "required": true}, {"name": "confidence_level", "type": "string", "description": "High/medium/low based on data availability", "required": true} ], "expected_row_count": "1", "sort_order": "N/A (single document)", "deduplication_key": "idea_summary" } ``` ## Quality Benchmarks | Quality Metric | Minimum Acceptable | Good | Excellent | |---------------|-------------------|------|-----------| | Dimensions scored with evidence | > 6/10 | > 8/10 | 10/10 | | Sub-questions answered per dimension | > 1 | > 2 | All sub-questions | | Time to complete | < 120 min | < 90 min | < 60 min | | Red flags identified and addressed | All critical noted | All noted + severity | All noted + resolution paths | **If below minimum**: Spend more time on web research. A feasibility check without evidence is just opinion. ## Error Handling | Error | Likely Cause | Recovery Action | |-------|-------------|----------------| | Cannot find market size data | Market too new or too niche | Use bottom-up estimation: count potential customers * average deal size | | All dimensions score 3 (flat) | Insufficient research or analysis paralysis | Force-rank: pick best 3 and worst 3, then re-score | | Founder insists on GO despite NO-GO score | Confirmation bias | Document score objectively; suggest specific experiments to disprove concerns | | Two evaluators disagree by >2 points | Different assumptions or data | Identify the specific assumption causing the gap, research it | ## Cost Breakdown | Component | Free Tier | Paid Tier | At Scale | |-----------|-----------|-----------|----------| | Web research | $0 (Google/Bing) | $0 | $0 | | Market data (optional) | $0 (Census, BLS) | $39/mo (Statista Basic) | $500/mo (IBISWorld) | | Scoring template | $0 (this card) | $0 | $0 | | **Total per assessment** | **$0** | **$0-39** | **$0-500** | ## Anti-Patterns ### Wrong: Scoring 4-5 on every dimension because you love the idea Confirmation bias is the #1 killer of feasibility checks. If every dimension scores above 3, you are not being honest. Every idea has at least 2 weak dimensions. [src1] ### Correct: Score with evidence, not enthusiasm Require at least one data point per dimension. No data = score of 2. The purpose of this check is to find weaknesses early, not to validate what you already believe. ### Wrong: Spending weeks on a feasibility check A multi-week feasibility study is a different exercise. This is a 90-minute screen designed to kill obviously bad ideas. Spending 3 weeks on it defeats the purpose. [src2] ### Correct: Timebox to 90 minutes, accept imperfect data Use the "good enough" principle. A rough score with directional accuracy is more valuable than a precise score that arrives too late. ## When This Matters Use immediately after classifying a startup idea, before investing any time in market research, product development, or business planning. This check saves founders an average of 4-8 weeks by killing ideas that have fundamental feasibility problems. If the idea passes, proceed to deep market research. ## Related Units - [Idea Classification Framework](/business/startup-planning/idea-classification-framework/2026) — Required input: business model type - [Market Sizing Methodology](/business/market-research/market-sizing-methodology/2026) — Next step for ideas that pass feasibility - [Competitive Landscape Mapping](/business/market-research/competitive-landscape-mapping/2026) — Deeper competition analysis - [Competitor Analysis Framework](/business/market-research/competitor-analysis-framework/2026) — Individual competitor deep-dives