Pre-Feasibility vs. Feasibility

In the early stages of a capital project, few decisions have greater long-term consequences than the choice between pursuing a pre-feasibility study (PFS) or a complete feasibility study (FS). Yet many organizations blur the line between the two—rushing into feasibility too soon, or stretching a pre-feasibility past its limits.

The result is a study that’s misaligned with its purpose. It might carry the wrong label, ask the wrong questions, or attempt to answer more than the current data can support. And when that happens, the risks don’t just stay on paper. They carry forward into execution, funding, and stakeholder trust.

Understanding the real difference between these study phases—and knowing which one your project needs—is essential for de-risking future phases and maintaining credibility at every gate.

The Purpose Behind Each Stage

The distinction between pre-feasibility and feasibility is more than just a matter of terminology. Each serves a specific function in the project lifecycle, and each carries a different burden of proof.

A pre-feasibility study is designed to test whether a project concept is viable. It answers directional questions: Is the opportunity real? What options exist? Which path shows promise? At this stage, the goal is not to confirm every detail, but to evaluate alternatives and eliminate flawed concepts. The analysis is comprehensive, encompassing a wide range of costs, schedules, and return expectations.

A feasibility study, by contrast, is a commitment to a defined path. It assumes the concept has been selected and now needs to be confirmed with confidence. This means tighter cost accuracy, refined execution plans, validated designs, and stakeholder-ready economics. The feasibility study isn’t just about possibility—it’s about demonstrating deliverability.

Confusing the two stages often leads to underdeveloped feasibility documents or overworked pre-feasibility ones. Both scenarios are dangerous. The former moves into funding or execution with weak foundations. The latter burns time and money trying to solve problems that haven’t been properly framed.

The Risks of Mislabeling a Study

Projects that jump into feasibility too soon often struggle to complete the study at all. Without a selected concept, the FS process becomes bloated—filled with side-by-side comparisons, unresolved design trade-offs, and repeated rework. This creates fatigue among contributors and dilutes focus from the tangible deliverables that should define a feasibility-level report.

On the other hand, projects that linger too long in the pre-feasibility phase may present directional studies as investment-grade. This creates tension with investors, decision-makers, and partners who expect greater precision, only to discover that the underlying assumptions are still fluid.

Mislabeling isn’t just a semantic issue. It confuses expectations, weakens accountability, and misaligns stakeholders. And when it reaches external audiences—whether regulators, board members, or financiers—it risks damaging credibility.

Understanding What Each Study Must Deliver

At the pre-feasibility level, confidence ranges are wider. Design options are still open. Execution models are conceptual. The purpose is to build a rational framework to choose a preferred option, not to prove it’s ready to build.

A good PFS will help eliminate poor alternatives and define what needs to be tested next. It’s a scoping exercise, not a commitment.

By contrast, a proper feasibility study closes those gaps. It defines a single path forward and backs it up with site-specific, costed, scheduled, and risk-adjusted logic. It’s a decision document, intended to unlock capital, initiate permits, or prepare for procurement. And because of that, it must be built on solid data, validated assumptions, and tightly integrated planning.

When teams attempt to extract feasibility-level commitments from pre-feasibility-level inputs, they often end up making promises they can’t keep, thereby embedding risk into every future phase.

Why Organizations Get It Wrong

One of the biggest reasons teams confuse the two stages is internal pressure. There’s a natural desire to show progress. Advancing from PFS to FS is often seen as a milestone worth accelerating. However, that acceleration only works if the pre-feasibility is complete, the concept has been selected, and the data supports a deeper dive.

There’s also a funding dynamic at play. Some sponsors may hesitate to fund both studies, or may push to combine them. However, studies that attempt to be both pre-feasibility and feasibility assessments simultaneously often fail at both. They lack the broad exploration of a true PFS and the rigor of a complete FS.

Another reason is cultural. In some organizations, any study that involves engineering and modeling is casually referred to as “the feasibility.” Without defined standards or clear stage gates, naming conventions become arbitrary, and that arbitrariness introduces confusion that spreads across the organization.

Recognizing When You’re Ready for Feasibility

The transition from pre-feasibility to feasibility should be marked by clarity. If key alternatives have been narrowed, if scope has been stabilized, and if major risks have been defined and mapped, then a feasibility study can begin. However, if core questions about project viability remain unanswered, moving forward will only complicate them further.

It’s also important to recognize that feasibility does not guarantee project success. But it should be a guarantee of project readiness. That means your plan can be priced, permitted, resourced, and scheduled with a high degree of confidence. If that’s not yet true, the project is still in pre-feasibility, regardless of what the cover page says.

The Value of Getting It Right

When study phases are respected, the entire project benefits. Teams work within the right expectations. Leaders receive reports that reflect the maturity of the data. Capital is allocated based on confidence, not enthusiasm. And external stakeholders are more likely to trust the process—and the people behind it.

A clear study progression also reduces waste. Pre-feasibility work doesn’t need to over-deliver. Feasibility studies don’t need to backfill gaps left unaddressed in the previous phase. And most importantly, execution begins with fewer surprises and more substantial alignment.

How TMG Helps Projects Stay on Track

At TMG, we collaborate with owners, sponsors, and project teams to clarify their current stage in the study process and determine the required level of output at each stage.

We help pre-feasibility teams define scope, test assumptions, and determine when they’re ready to commit. We help feasibility teams refine execution plans, validate costs and schedules, and build deliverables that meet internal, investor, and regulatory standards.

Our role is not to re-label your study. It’s to make sure your study delivers what it promises—and nothing less.