What Feasibility Studies Often Miss in Fragile Contexts
The technical content of a feasibility study is usually adequate. The contextual content — security, logistics, institutional continuity — is usually decorative.
- 01
Security and access risk is treated as a one-paragraph annex in 84% of reviewed studies — and is the single largest driver of cost and schedule variance.
- 02
Institutional continuity assumptions go unstated; when the counterpart unit dissolves, the project has no protocol.
- 03
Logistics costs are typically estimated at 8–12% of capex; observed actuals in fragile corridors run 22–35%.
Where studies are strong — and where they are not
Technical sizing, resource assessment, and equipment selection are by now reasonably standardised. Feasibility studies in fragile contexts get those sections right. They fail on the contextual sections that determine whether the project can actually be delivered: access windows, customs and clearance regimes, fuel and convoy availability, and the institutional fate of the counterpart agency.
A practical contextual checklist
- Access mapping by quarter, with named alternative routes and convoy partner
- Customs and clearance protocol, with named broker and historical clearance times
- Institutional continuity scenario — what happens if the counterpart dissolves or relocates
- Logistics cost stress-tested at 1.5× and 2.5× base estimate
- Security-driven schedule contingency, expressed in weeks per quarter not as a flat percentage
Let's build reliable, sustainable solar solutions together.
Partner with Radiance Advisory for independent, high-quality advice that strengthens programs and delivers measurable impact.