Project Speed vs Feasibility Quality
Prioritise parallel investigation of material uncertainties that could change the investment decision before seeking board authorisation.
CyberTRIZ analysis · GreenFieldIndustrialProjects contradiction GFP004 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Business Context
Competitive or strategic pressure can push organizations to accelerate feasibility work. Excessive compression, however, can leave site conditions, technology assumptions, infrastructure, economics, or execution risks insufficiently investigated.
Green Field Industrial Projects TRIZ Resolution
Accelerate feasibility selectively rather than reducing analysis uniformly. Prioritize investigations capable of changing major investment decisions and perform independent workstreams concurrently where dependencies allow.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 1 – Segmentation divides feasibility into parallel analytical workstreams.
Principle 10 – Prior Action investigates high-impact uncertainties first.
Principle 20 – Continuity of Useful Action keeps independent development activities progressing simultaneously.
Expected Outcome
Shorter feasibility duration
Better decision quality
Earlier identification of critical risks
Reduced late project redefinition
Decision Indicators
Feasibility schedules are reduced without changing work methods.
Major assumptions remain unverified at approval.
Site investigations are postponed until engineering.
Critical feasibility questions emerge after investment authorization.
Teams repeatedly reopen fundamental project decisions.
Monitoring these indicators reveals when schedule acceleration is reducing development quality rather than improving development efficiency.