Feasibility fails when it produces numbers without decisions. We structure feasibility as a decision system - brief, studies, options, sensitivities, and a log - so owners know what they are approving.
The problem we see
Owners receive thick consultant reports that do not answer a proceed question. Architects show a preferred option; quantity surveyors price it; planners list risks - but nobody integrates trade-offs. Capital committees see optimistic yield with buried contingencies. Later, redesign consumes the savings feasibility was meant to protect.
In South Australian corridor and infill contexts, planning risk is often the dominant variable - not construction $/sqm alone. Feasibility must foreground pathway, conditions likelihood, and time, not only spreadsheet cells.
What we recommend
Start with a one-page brief: objectives, constraints, non-negotiables, and measures of success. Commission studies tied to decisions - if acoustic corridor policy applies, acoustic concept advice precedes detailed façade design. Build two or three viable envelopes, not six variations that differ cosmetically.
Maintain a decision log alongside the model. Each line records the decision, date, approver, and implications for scope. When the log is empty at feasibility end, the process was illustration, not feasibility.
Sensitivities that matter in Adelaide
- Approval duration bands and appeal risk
- Infrastructure contributions and utility connection timing
- Construction pricing volatility versus contract type
- Absorption pace for product types in the target corridor
- Heritage or character controls affecting envelope efficiency
KT position: We will recommend pausing when studies show a constraint cannot be mitigated within owner risk thresholds. Proceeding to “keep momentum” without resolving the constraint transfers cost to design and delivery.
Handover quality
Feasibility should end with a gateway pack: preferred option, conditions precedent list, programme to approval, and brief for design teams. Without that pack, design starts with ambiguous assumptions and planning submissions re-open settled questions.
When owners should pause
Pause is appropriate when infrastructure capacity is unconfirmed, environmental legacy is unknown, or stakeholder agreements are unsigned while design assumes their contributions. Pausing is not failure; proceeding without resolution transfers risk to construction pricing and authority relations.
Documentation for lenders and investors
Lenders often request summaries that feasibility did not structure for them. We prepare annexes mapping studies to questions financiers ask - approval pathway, cost bands, programme, sensitivities - without duplicating entire consultant reports.
Related service: Feasibility & Advisory.
Owner governance hooks
Capital committees should approve feasibility scope before studies start, and approve outcomes via decision log—not only financial metrics. We provide committee-ready summaries with explicit decisions requested.
Exit strategies
Feasibility should articulate exit or hold strategies—sell after approval, build to hold, joint venture—because consultant briefs differ for each. A feasibility optimised for sale without documenting hold costs misleads owners who pivot later.
Tax and structuring
We do not provide tax advice; we flag when structuring questions affect how feasibility should present cash flows to accountants owners appoint.
Contingency disclosure
Contingencies should state what risk they cover - approval delay, geotechnical, market - not appear as opaque margin. Owners approve contingency purpose, not only percentage.
Committee packs
We prepare feasibility summaries for governance with explicit decisions requested, not only financial tables. Committees approve scope and outcomes via decision log, reducing retroactive debate.
Exit and hold strategies
Feasibility should document exit or hold strategies because consultant briefs differ for sale-after-approval versus build-and-hold models.