Conducting Project Feasibility Studies

Don’t make these common mistakes in techno-economic assessments (and avoid misleading conclusions.) TEA is a powerful tool to assess the feasibility of emerging technologies. But even small mistakes can lead to misleading conclusions and poor decisions. Here are 5 key mistakes I’ve seen repeatedly—and how to fix them: 1. Overestimating Technology Performance Challenge: Assuming ideal or lab-scale performance when scaling up. Real-world conditions often bring inefficiencies. Fix: Use conservative assumptions, validate with experimental data, and conduct sensitivity analysis. 2. Ignoring Uncertainty Problem: Treating input values (e.g., costs, energy efficiency) as fixed leads to rigid, unreliable results. Fix: Perform sensitivity and scenario analyses to identify critical variables and explore best/worst cases. 3. Using Outdated or Poor-Quality Data The Problem: Relying on old data or inconsistent sources reduces the credibility of your TEA. Fix: Source data from updated literature, validated models, or credible industry benchmarks, and clearly document assumptions. If data is missing for new technologies, use proxy technologies and check uncertainties. 4. Oversimplifying Economic Analysis Problem: Focusing only on capital costs (CAPEX) while ignoring operating costs (OPEX), maintenance, or financing impacts. Or focusing on single metrics, like NPV. Fix: Include all cost components—CAPEX, OPEX, and life-cycle costs—and calculate key metrics like NPV, IRR, and payback period. 5. Neglecting Policy and Market Factors Problem: Ignoring factors like carbon pricing, subsidies, or fluctuating raw material costs can skew results. Fix: Integrate policy scenarios, market trends, and potential incentives to build a more realistic TEA. Techno-economic analysis is only as good as its assumptions and methods. Avoiding these mistakes will help you deliver insights that are credible, actionable, and valuable for decision-making. We’re going to discuss all these challenges with TEA and more during my workshop in Q1 2025. What challenges have you faced when conducting TEA? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments! #Research #ChemicalEngineering #Economics #Energy #PhD #Scientist #Professor

After the dinner I organised between Chinese investors and Saudi officials, a Saudi advisor messaged me. "The dinner was excellent. But the Chinese laughing loudly at how the Arabs were eating hot pot was inappropriate. It could damage the partnership." I had already noticed this during dinner and quietly addressed it with the Chinese delegation. They were genuinely surprised, in Chinese culture, laughing together over food mishaps builds rapport. They thought they were being warm and inclusive. But in Arab business culture, laughing at someone's unfamiliarity with food can be read as mockery, not friendliness. Both sides had good intentions. Neither understood how the other would interpret the moment. This is why I spend so much time on cultural briefings before bringing delegations together. One moment of misunderstood laughter can undo months of relationship building. The Saudi officials remained professional throughout, and the Chinese investors sent enthusiastic follow-up messages about collaboration. To an outside observer, the dinner looked successful. But I know that trust develops or breaks in these small cultural moments, not in formal negotiations. My Saudi contact is now arranging cultural training for Chinese workers joining an Aramco project next month. We'll use this as a case study, not as criticism, but as learning. After twenty years of facilitating cross-border partnerships, I've learned that cultural intelligence determines deal success far more than financial terms. The consultants who studied the Middle East will never catch these moments. Cultural fluency comes from being in the room, reading the signals, and managing both sides in real time. Successful partnerships require someone who understands what each side actually means, not just what they say. #CrossCulturalBusiness #MiddleEastBusiness #SaudiArabia #ChinaBusiness #CulturalIntelligence #InternationalPartnerships #BusinessStrategy #GCCMarkets #DealMaking #BusinessNegotiation #GlobalBusiness #MarketEntry #BusinessLeadership #StrategicPartnerships #CulturalAwareness

💡How to choose right UX research methods Selecting the best UX research method depends on the situation and the goal of your research. Two key criteria help guide this choice: ✅ Situation vs. Solution ✅ Qualitative vs. Quantitative 📕 Situation vs solution This criterion distinguishes whether you are exploring a problem space or evaluating a solution. Situation research is all about understanding users, their pain points, needs, and context in which they interact with your product. It typically includes methods like ✔ Interviews ✔ Ethnographic studies ✔ Contextual inquiry ✔ Diary studies Solution research is all about testing concepts to understand the effectiveness of a design solution. This research typically includes methods like ✔ Usability testing ✔ Heuristic evaluation https://lnkd.in/dJSw2KyH  ✔ A/B Testing https://lnkd.in/dYeD_yKG  ✔ Tree testing https://lnkd.in/dHsFc3te Situation vs solution: How to Decide? If you are in the early design phase → Use situation-focused methods to explore user needs. If you have a prototype or product → Use solution-focused methods to evaluate and optimize. 📘 Qualitative vs quantitative This distinction determines whether you need deep insights (why & how) or measurable data (what & how much). Qualitative methods will help you understand behaviors, motivations, and experiences of your users. Use methods like ✔ User interviews ✔ Concept testing ✔ Field studies ✔ Diary studies Quantitative methods aim to measure patterns, trends, and statistical significance. Examples of methods include ✔ User surveys ✔ Analytics ✔ A/B testing ✔ Heatmaps Qualitative vs quantitative: How to Decide? If you need rich, detailed insights → Choose qualitative methods. If you need large-scale, statistically valid data → Choose quantitative methods. Often, the best approach is a mixed-method strategy, using both qualitative and quantitative research. For example: 1️⃣ Start with user interviews (qualitative) to uncover pain points. 2️⃣ Validate findings with surveys or analytics (quantitative). 3️⃣ Conduct usability testing (qualitative) to identify issues in a prototype. 4️⃣ Run A/B testing (quantitative) to measure which solution performs better. 🖼️ Landscape of UX research methods by Konrad Group #UX #uxresearch #design #userresearch #productdesign

Why Every Developer Needs a “Community Feasibility Study” When we talk about feasibility, the focus is almost always financial: -What will it cost? -What’s the return? Those numbers matter. But they don’t tell the whole story. Because even the most bankable project can fail, not because of a spreadsheet, but because of people. The Blind Spot in Traditional Feasibility Most studies ask if a project can be built. Rarely do they ask if it should be, in this way, in this place, for these people. That’s where the trouble starts. A project might “pencil,” but if it doesn’t reflect the values, memory, or needs of the surrounding community, it will face resistance. We’ve all seen it: -A project breaks ground, but buy-in never follows. -Meetings get tense. Partnerships stall. -The deal drags. Costs balloon. Not because the design was bad, but because the process was incomplete. What a Community Feasibility Study Does Imagine starting every project with a trust plan, not just a site plan. Community feasibility looks beyond market data. It maps: -Who holds local trust? -What priorities or pain points already exist? -What early wins build credibility before construction? It’s not appeasement. It’s alignment. What You Gain When You Lead with Trust When trust leads, the process flows: -Neighbors become partners. -City staff move faster. -Lenders see reduced risk. This isn’t “soft” work, it’s smart strategy. And it performs. The best-aligned projects often outperform expectations because they’re powered by local energy, not built in spite of it. The Shift Developers Need We’re entering a new era: Where social alignment matters just as much as financial alignment. Especially in legacy communities, we can’t just ask what’s viable. We have to ask: What’s trustworthy, meaningful, and built to last? Feasibility should include trust, stewardship, and shared benefit, not just square footage. Because if a project can’t be trusted, it won’t be supported. And if it’s not supported, it won’t succeed. Before we ask if a project can get financed, we should ask if it can get trusted. That’s where real progress begins. What’s one question you think every developer should ask before breaking ground?

FIVE CATEGORIES OF PROJECT RISK Which of the five risk categories does your project belong to (for real, not optimistically)? If you don't know, you don't know what you're doing, risk-wise. The table below shows each of 23 project types classified into one of five distinct risk categories based on the Pareto 1 tail parameter (α) for cost risk, with lower α-values depicting higher risk: 1. For the category of extreme risk, the mean is infinite. Only IT-projects fall into this category. Risk may be mitigated, but it cannot be predicted by conventional methods. The law of regression to the tail applies. Conventional assumptions of normal or near-normal distributions, which are common in IT risk management and forecasting, do not apply, because they are wrong. They are optimistic and will grossly underestimate tail risk. Ignoring fat-tailed, high-impact risk exposes organizations to suboptimal decision-making with potentially devastating financial consequences. This is, today, the situation for IT decision making. 2. For the category of very high risk, variance is infinite while the mean is finite. Infinite variance implies that the law of regression to the tail applies while, again, the law of regression to the mean does not. For projects in this category, like buildings and nuclear power, the risk is somewhat less explosive than for IT, but it is still very fat tailed and unpredictable with a high risk of big blowouts. 3-4. For projects with elevated and high risk – e.g., aerospace and oil and gas – both mean and variance are finite. The law of large numbers speeds up and begins to result in convergence. Here, the law allows for more predictable outcomes with increasing sample size. This does not eliminate risk but allows for better risk management. 5. Finally, for moderate risk, we find a small number of relatively well-performing project types, e.g., wind and solar, with thin tails. For these project types, cost overruns are still frequent but the size and likelihood of large blowouts are comparatively small. Here, the law of large numbers converges at speed, ensuring regression to the mean, which allows for reliable estimates of risks based on conventional statistics and historical data, making cost risk in these project types predictable. For the full explanation of the five risk categories, and how to use them in your work, see our forthcoming article in Project Management Journal, here (free pdf): https://lnkd.in/eAPmdeHZ #Bartleby, at The Economist covers our new study, here: https://lnkd.in/exBAhTu3. Comments very welcome. Kindly help share 🙏 Alexander Budzier Jon Aaen Mark Keil Giorgio Locatelli Jonas Soderlund Project Management Institute IT-Universitetet i København

Rules of thumb for mine planning: **Economic Guidelines:** - Ore reserves should support at least 10-15 years of operation for new mines - Stripping ratio (waste:ore) should typically be below 3:1 for open pit viability - Cash operating costs should be in the bottom 50% of the cost curve for long-term sustainability - Capital payback period should be under 3-5 years **Open Pit Design:** - Overall slope angles: 35-50° depending on rock strength and groundwater conditions - Bench heights: 10-15m for most operations, up to 20m for very large mines - Minimum mining width: 3-4 times the largest equipment width - Road grades: maximum 8-10% for loaded haul trucks **Underground Planning:** - Pillar safety factor should be 1.6-2.0 minimum - Development costs are typically $1,000-3,000 per meter - Extraction ratios: 60-85% depending on mining method and ground conditions - Ventilation requirements: 2-3 m³/s per person minimum **Production Planning:** - Annual production should be 8-12% of proven reserves - Equipment availability: 85-90% for mobile equipment, 90-95% for fixed plant - Stockpile capacity should handle 7-14 days of mill feed - Maintain 2-3 months of developed ore ahead of production **Resource/Reserve Conversion:** - Typically 60-80% of resources convert to reserves after feasibility studies - Grade control drilling should be 4-10 times denser than resource drilling - Include 10-15% dilution and 5-10% ore loss in reserve estimates **Infrastructure:** - Power requirements: 15-25 kWh per tonne of ore processed - Water consumption: 0.5-2 m³ per tonne of ore processed - Tailings facility should accommodate 120-150% of planned production **Risk Management:** - Commodity price assumptions should be conservative (often 80-90% of current prices) - Include 15-25% contingency in capital cost estimates - Plan for 10-20% lower grades than resource model predictions These guidelines help ensure technically feasible and economically viable mine plans while managing key risks.

The 2024 Global Renewables Status Report has just been released by REN21. This annual publication provides a summary of global developments & trends in #renewableenergy. A further module of this report is due to be released in September too that specifically looks at economic and #socialvalue creation. 2 key things stood out to me in the status report this year, and both relate to the critical #socialimpact aspects of the energy transition: 1. Equity challenges - especially the disadvantages for low-income countries where the cost of capital for renewable energy projects is reaching as high as 10%, compared with less than 4% in high-income countries 2. The gap between policy ambition and implementation - "Worldwide, an estimated 3,000 GW of renewable energy projects remained underdeveloped as of 2023 due to inadequate grid infrastructure, insufficient financing, and permitting delays. These are major bottlenecks that risk derailing the energy transition". With respect to permitting delays, it has been recognised now that as the rush & intensity around renewable energy projects has increased, so has incidences of community opposition to some projects in host locations. This is a contributing factor to the delay & cost trends and is both symptom of too much in the energy space being led by the private sector and insufficient, timely government decision making in the public interest. Permitting & approvals is an area where I'm of the view a change in regulatory approval processes to involve earlier social impact assessment, including rapid social screening and social value projection of projects, would be beneficial and can be done well in advance of environmental impact assessments and other technical studies that need to take longer. I'm not talking about the proponent-serving social licence type considerations or throwing money at community benefit funds to win over local communities (or score high on a tender process). The emphasis instead needs to go towards understanding which renewable energy projects will create the most social value holistically in context (with benefits for people & communities including workers, suppliers and energy end users, and across the project lifecycle) and then prioritise those for implementation. The ultimate "S" question is not "how do we get public acceptance for the project?" but "is this project going to create a net positive value?". Good social performance & value creation potential does not always mean a project will have social licence at the time it is proposed too. Some projects without social licence at a particular point in time should still be supported to proceed if they are in the public interest. Early social impact assessment (to understand social risks and benefit opportunities) can help work out which projects those are so efforts can focus there and not be wasted elsewhere. What do you think? What else would help speed up the transition and get better social outcomes?

Want to know what a ‘work in progress’ drawing of a relatively large scheme of apartments looks like ? Like this.   Early testing of a scheme’s viability.   About a year ago we were approached by an organisation tasked with selling an old vacant church and their associated plots of land. Somewhere in Yorkshire. Quite a complicated land sale, it involves: -          Old church buildings. -          Ministers house. -          Separate garden space. -          Separate large undeveloped plot of land nearby. -          Graveyard.   We agreed that rather than selling on as it is, we should conduct some loose feasibility studies to find out what could be done with the land to increase its value, ready for a quick exit, without paying out for the full development costs and associated risks.   All plots of land are in a conservation area and some are in the green belt. The old church is a gorgeous Victorian stone building, it oozes character, is totally unique and is built to last. So, several challenges there straight away to overcome.   We agreed to phase the project into separate ‘bite size chunks’ to make the land sale easier to manage. Phase 1 = old church buildings and ministers house. Phase 2 = other parcels of land.   We then worked out the old church buildings could be converted and retrofitted and would probably generate about 16 apartments over three floors and the separate plot of land could generate 2 x new build apartments blocks of 9 units each, 18 total units. Overall total units = 34 apartments. All based on exceeding the Nationally Described Space Standards for dwelling sizes.   To test the viability of this we submitted a Pre-application Planning Enquiry to the Local Planning Authority. About 6 months later we received a 20 page pre-app report. Yep, you read that right, about 6 months later! This informed us the church building conversion was viable and probably a go-er, subject to some highways and landscaping issues that needed to be overcome. We also received some useful feedback about the Phase 2 developments too.   This wasn’t necessarily an exercise in establishing a final agreed scheme, but rather just testing early viability of the schemes to see what was possible and acceptable in principle. This has now enabled the Client to make firm decisions about what to do next and when.   If there any developers who are interesting in finding out more about these sites, please send me a message! Andrew Wootton-Jones MRICS Helen Williams Ryan Malee 🏗️ Property Developer Heather Smail + anyone else..?   #Property #Strategy #Collaboration

Japan scores 92 out of 100 on Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance Index. That's not a fun fact. It's their operating system. Ever since I came across Geert Hofstede's work in business school, it's been with me when I deal with Japanese clients. (For context: Hofstede surveyed over 100,000 IBM employees across 40 countries to map cultural dimensions in business. The research began in the 1970s and spans decades — his son still continues it today. The patterns hold. Japanese organizational behavior hasn't fundamentally changed, especially when you deal with large companies.) While Western companies reward "moving fast and breaking things," Japanese organizations are built to prevent things from breaking in the first place. Here's what that actually looks like: → Extensive feasibility studies before any project starts → Multiple internal reviews across departments → Requests for certifications, references, and test data → Questions about what happens when things go wrong This might feel bureaucratic. But the fact of the matter is: This is how the Japanese protect themselves — and their careers. The Japanese language doesn't even have a direct word for "risk." But it has multiple words for "uncertainty" — all including the character for "safe" (安). That tells you everything. When your Japanese counterpart says "we need more information," they really mean it. They're trying to answer the question their boss will ask them: "What could go wrong — and how will we handle it?" What you can do: → Provide local case studies and references upfront → Show detailed implementation plans, not just benefits → Explain your after-sales support structure → Be transparent about past failures and how you resolved them → Offer pilots, factory visits, or trial periods Most companies see Japanese due diligence as an obstacle. Smart negotiators see it as a roadmap to exactly what their counterpart needs to say yes. Reduce their uncertainty. Move projects forward. That's how you actually get to YES in Japan.

A Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) site survey is a crucial step before designing and deploying a BESS project. 1. Site Location and Accessibility ✅ Geographical Coordinates – Latitude & longitude of the site ✅ Site Access – Road conditions, distance from the main highway, transport feasibility ✅ Security – Fencing, surveillance, and access control requirements ✅ Environmental Conditions – Nearby water bodies, forests, flood zones 2. Electrical Infrastructure ✅ Grid Connection – Distance from the nearest substation, voltage levels, and grid capacity ✅ Existing Transformers & Switchgear – Availability, ratings, and need for upgrades ✅ Point of Interconnection (POI) – Location, capacity, and grid compliance requirements ✅ Power Quality Parameters – Voltage fluctuations, harmonics, and frequency variations 3. Load Profile & Energy Needs ✅ Peak Demand (MW/MWh) – Maximum and minimum load requirements ✅ Load Fluctuations – Seasonal variations and power demand curve ✅ Backup Requirements – Grid support, peak shaving, or islanding capability ✅ Future Load Expansion – Provision for additional capacity 4. Environmental & Climatic Conditions ✅ Temperature Range – Min/max temperature for BESS thermal management ✅ Humidity & Rainfall – Impact on enclosures, electrical components, and corrosion risk ✅ Seismic & Wind Load – Structural stability against earthquakes and storms ✅ Flooding Risk – Historical flood data, drainage facilities, and mitigation measures 5. Space & Layout Considerations ✅ Available Land Area – Space for BESS containers, transformers, and switchgear ✅ Ground Conditions – Soil testing, load-bearing capacity, and need for reinforcement ✅ Shading & Heat Islands – Impact of nearby structures on ventilation and cooling ✅ Fire Safety Clearances – Minimum spacing for fire protection and emergency access 6. Safety & Compliance ✅ Fire Suppression System – Availability of fire detection, suppression (e.g., FM-200, NOVEC) ✅ Local Regulations & Permits – Compliance with electricity board and environmental laws ✅ Battery Safety Standards – IEC 62619, UL 9540A, NFPA 855, and other applicable standards ✅ Hazardous Material Handling – Battery electrolyte safety and emergency handling procedures 7. Communication & Control Systems ✅ SCADA & Monitoring – Remote access, data logging, and integration with grid operations ✅ Internet Connectivity – Availability of fiber, cellular, or satellite communication ✅ Cybersecurity – Protection against hacking, data security protocols ✅ Telemetry & Alarms – Real-time alerts for temperature, SOC, SOH, and fault conditions 8. Civil & Structural Requirements ✅ Foundation Type – Concrete pad, piles, or elevated structures based on soil study ✅ Drainage & Water Management – Preventing water accumulation near battery enclosures ✅ Cable Routing & Trenching – Underground or overhead cabling for power and communication ✅ Cooling System Installation – HVAC or liquid cooling provisions