My first question to both stopped them cold: “Have you validated that customers will actually pay what you need to charge to make this profitable?”

Silence from both. Then similar responses:

• European manufacturer: “We assumed if it works in Europe, it’ll work in Australia.”
• Brisbane distributor: “Our customers already trust us, so they’ll buy this too.”

Six months later:

• European manufacturer: €480,000 spent learning that Australian market dynamics, competitor responses, and regulatory requirements were completely different from Europe
• Brisbane distributor: $320,000 invested in inventory, marketing, and staff training for a product line that cannibalized existing sales without adding profit

Both could have learned these expensive lessons in 90 days for a fraction of the cost.

This scenario plays out constantly across Australian businesses—whether you’re an international company entering Australia, an Australian business expanding into new markets, or a local company testing new products or services. The pattern is always the same: enthusiasm and apparent opportunity blind businesses to the need for rigorous, time-bound feasibility analysis before committing resources.

Market entry and expansion decisions can’t be rushed—but they also can’t drag on forever. This is where the 90-day feasibility framework delivers its power: compressed enough to maintain urgency and momentum, long enough to gather genuine market intelligence that prevents disasters.

Why Traditional Feasibility Studies Fail

Most feasibility studies fall into one of two camps, both problematic:

The Endless Analysis Trap

Some businesses commission feasibility studies that stretch for 6-12 months, producing comprehensive reports that are:

• Outdated by the time they’re completed (markets move fast)
• So extensive that critical insights get buried in data
• Expensive enough that businesses feel obligated to proceed regardless of findings
• Academic exercises that don’t translate to actionable decisions

By the time you’ve spent a year studying market entry or product launch, your competitors have already moved, market conditions have shifted, and the opportunity window may have closed.

The “We’ll Figure It Out As We Go” Disaster

On the opposite extreme, many businesses skip formal feasibility entirely:

• “We’ll test the market with a small initial investment” (that snowballs)
• “Our product/service is so strong, it’ll sell itself” (it doesn’t)
• “We know our customers, so we know this will work” (different offering = different dynamics)
• “Feasibility studies are for big corporations, not us” (wrong)

This approach typically results in 12-18 months of expensive learning, sunk costs, damaged relationships, and opportunity cost that’s impossible to recover.

The 90-Day Sweet Spot

Ninety days is long enough to gather genuine market intelligence and short enough to maintain decision-making urgency. This timeframe forces clarity, prevents analysis paralysis, and creates actionable insights whilst markets are still relevant.

The framework borrows from Michael Lennington’s concept in The 12 Week Year: shorter timeframes demand focus, create urgency, and drive execution. Applied to feasibility analysis, this approach transforms market testing from a theoretical exercise into a strategic decision-making process.

Here’s how the 90-day feasibility framework works:

Weeks 1-3: Market Reality Check

The first three weeks focus entirely on understanding actual market conditions—not what you hope they are, but what they genuinely are.

Customer Discovery Interviews (Not Surveys)

Surveys tell you what people think they might do. Conversations reveal what they actually do and why.

What this looks like in practice:

• 15-25 in-depth interviews with potential customers in your target segments
• Conversations with people currently solving the problem your product/service addresses
• Understanding their current solutions, pain points, and buying criteria
• Testing price sensitivity with real scenarios (not hypothetical questions)
• Identifying decision-making processes and procurement requirements

Critical insight: You’re not asking “Would you buy this?” (everyone says yes to be polite). You’re asking “How do you currently handle this? What do you pay? What would make you switch?”

International Example: A UK construction materials manufacturer wanted to enter Australia. Customer interviews revealed that whilst their product was technically superior, Australian builders prioritised local supplier relationships and just-in-time delivery over product specifications. Their European model of superior product = premium price wouldn’t work here. We discovered this in week 2, not year 2.

Local Example: A Gold Coast service business wanted to add premium tier offerings to their existing mid-market customer base. Interviews revealed customers valued them specifically for cost-effectiveness and would view premium services as “not for people like us.” However, interviews uncovered a different segment willing to pay premium rates—just not their current customers. This pivot saved them from alienating existing clients whilst opening new revenue streams.

Competitive Positioning Analysis

Who are you really competing against? It’s rarely who you think.

Deep competitive assessment includes:

• Direct competitors (obvious players in your category)
• Indirect competitors (different solutions to the same problem)
• “Doing nothing” as a competitor (often the strongest)
• Competitive pricing structures and value propositions
• Market share distribution and competitive dynamics
• Barriers to entry and defensive moats competitors have built

Reality check: One Queensland manufacturer discovered their real competition for a new product line wasn’t other manufacturers—it was customers choosing to continue with inferior but “good enough” solutions rather than investing in change. Understanding this shifted their entire go-to-market strategy from product features to change management and risk reduction.

Regulatory and Compliance Mapping

Regulatory requirements catch both international entrants and local businesses expanding into new categories.

Critical areas to map:

For International Market Entry:

• Product certification and testing requirements (Australian standards often differ)
• Import regulations and customs processes
• Industry-specific licensing and compliance obligations
• Employment law and workplace safety requirements
• Timeline for regulatory approvals (often 6-18 months)

For Local Business Expansion:

• New product category certifications (different from existing approvals)
• Industry licensing for adjacent services
• Compliance requirements for new customer segments (e.g., government contracts)
• Environmental or safety standards for new operations
• Professional indemnity or insurance requirements

Cost of ignorance—International: A European manufacturer discovered Australian electrical safety certification would take 14 months and cost $180,000—neither factored into initial plans.

Cost of ignorance—Local: A Brisbane-based business discovered that their new service offering required professional indemnity insurance that would cost $45,000 annually (vs $8,000 for existing services), fundamentally changing their pricing and margin assumptions.

Distribution Channel Assessment

How will you actually get your product or service to customers? This seemingly simple question has complex, market-specific answers.

Key questions apply to both international and local expansion:

• What distribution channels dominate your target market?
• Do you need new warehousing or can you use existing infrastructure?
• What are the economics of different distribution models?
• Who controls channel access and what are their requirements?
• What are typical payment terms and working capital implications?

Geographic reality for international entrants: Australia’s population distribution creates unique logistics challenges. What works for reaching customers in compact European markets may be economically unviable across Australia’s distances.

Channel reality for local expansion: Adding new product lines or services often requires different distribution channels than your existing business. Your current B2B relationships may not translate to B2C channels, or vice versa.

Weeks 4-6: Financial Viability Testing

By week 4, you have a realistic picture of market conditions. Now the critical question becomes: Can you make money doing this?

Pricing Strategy Development and Testing

Pricing isn’t just about your costs plus margin. It’s about customer value perception, competitive positioning, and market dynamics.

Strategic pricing analysis:

• What price points does the market actually support?
• How does your value proposition justify your required pricing?
• What pricing models work in this market (per unit, subscription, value-based)?
• How do competitors price, and what does that signal about market maturity?
• What price flexibility exists for market entry versus long-term positioning?

Testing methodology: Use customer interviews from weeks 1-3 to test pricing scenarios. Present realistic use cases with price points and gauge reactions. This isn’t “Would you pay $X?” but rather “You currently pay $Y for solution Z. Our solution offers [specific benefits]. At $X, would you switch, and what would that decision process look like?”

Cost Structure Modelling (Complete Australian Reality)

Your cost assumptions need rigorous testing—whether you’re international or local.

Comprehensive cost modelling includes:

For International Market Entry:

• Local staffing costs (Australian salaries often higher than expected)
• Office/warehouse facilities and occupancy costs
• Professional services (legal, accounting, regulatory compliance)
• Marketing and customer acquisition in unfamiliar market
• Logistics and distribution expenses
• Technology and systems infrastructure
• Insurance and regulatory compliance costs
• Foreign exchange impact and hedging considerations

For Local Business Expansion:

• Incremental staffing costs (new skills or additional headcount)
• Additional facility needs or operational space
• New technology or equipment investments
• Marketing to reach new segments (your existing channels may not work)
• Training and capability development
• Inventory or working capital for new offerings
• Insurance and compliance for new activities

Hidden cost surprise—International: Many international companies underestimate Australian employment costs. Total employment costs (including superannuation, leave provisions, and compliance) run 30-40% above base salary—higher than many other markets.

Hidden cost surprise—Local: A Sydney manufacturer adding a new product line discovered that whilst manufacturing costs were as projected, customer acquisition costs for the new category were 4x higher than their established products because they lacked credibility and references in the new space.

Break-Even and ROI Scenario Planning

With realistic pricing and cost structures mapped, you can now model financial viability across different scenarios.

Critical financial projections:

• Conservative, moderate, and optimistic revenue scenarios
• Break-even analysis (timeline and volume required)
• Cash flow modelling including working capital requirements
• Return on investment calculations across different timeframes
• Sensitivity analysis (what happens if key assumptions are wrong?)

Honest assessment required: If your break-even requires capturing 20% market share in year one, that’s not a plan—it’s wishful thinking. Realistic projections based on comparable entries or launches are essential.

Working Capital Requirements

This is where many expansions fail even when the business model is sound. New ventures create significant working capital demands that catch businesses unprepared.

Working capital considerations:

• Initial inventory requirements (can’t start with zero stock)
• Payment terms customers expect (often 30-60 days in B2B)
• Supplier payment terms you’ll receive (likely cash or 14 days initially for new relationships)
• Operational expenses during ramp-up (before revenue arrives)
• Buffer for unexpected costs and delays

Cash flow reality: A business might be profitable on paper at month 6 but require $400,000 in working capital to reach that point. Understanding this upfront prevents crisis fundraising or premature market exit.

Weeks 7-9: Risk Assessment & Strategy

The final three weeks synthesise everything learned into actionable strategic recommendations.

Risk Identification and Quantification

Every market entry or expansion involves risk. The question is whether those risks are manageable, and at what cost.

Systematic risk assessment:

Market Risks:

• Demand lower than projected (what’s the impact?)
• Competitive response to your entry (price wars, defensive tactics)
• Market timing (are you too early, too late, or in a market downturn?)
• Customer adoption slower than expected (extended sales cycles)
• Cannibalization of existing business (for local expansion)

Operational Risks:

• Supply chain disruption or delays
• Key staff unavailable or underperforming
• Regulatory approval delays
• Quality issues in new production/delivery
• Capacity constraints affecting core business

Financial Risks:

• Currency fluctuations impacting profitability (international)
• Working capital requirements exceeding projections
• Funding unavailable when needed
• Longer than expected timeline to profitability
• Impact on existing business financial performance

Strategic Risks:

• Expansion distracts from core business performance
• Opportunity cost of resources deployed here versus elsewhere
• Reputational damage if expansion fails publicly
• Inability to achieve minimum viable scale
• Customer confusion about your positioning (local expansion)

Quantification approach: For each risk, assess:

• Probability (low/medium/high)
• Impact if it occurs (financial and strategic)
• Warning indicators that would signal the risk is materialising
• Mitigation strategies available

Mitigation Strategy Development

Identifying risks without mitigation plans is just complaining. Week 8 focuses on practical strategies to manage the identified risks.

Effective risk mitigation includes:

Pilot or Staged Entry:

• Test with limited geography or customer segment first
• Validate assumptions before full commitment
• Build case studies and references in controlled environment
• Maintain ability to pivot or exit with minimal sunk costs

Strategic Partnerships:

• Local distribution partners who understand the market (international)
• Complementary businesses that share customer base (local)
• Joint ventures that share risk and provide expertise
• Agency relationships that minimise capital requirements
• Strategic alliances that provide market credibility

Financial Safeguards:

• Stage funding to match achievement milestones
• Maintain exit options if predetermined metrics aren’t met
• Build contingency budgets for unexpected costs
• Structure agreements with flexibility for market learning
• Ring-fence core business financial health

Operational Protections:

• Regulatory approvals completed before launch commitments
• Supply chain redundancy and contingency planning
• Key personnel identified and committed before launch
• Quality control systems proven before scaling
• Core business operations protected from expansion demands

Go-to-Market Roadmap (If Feasible)

If the feasibility analysis supports proceeding, week 9 develops a comprehensive launch roadmap.

Strategic roadmap components:

Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1-3)

• Legal entity establishment and regulatory compliance (if required)
• Initial team hiring or capability development
• Foundational partnerships and supplier relationships
• Marketing and positioning development
• Infrastructure and systems setup

Phase 2: Launch (Months 4-6)

• Product/service launch to initial target segments
• Early customer acquisition and case study development
• Feedback gathering and offering refinement
• Distribution channel activation
• Performance monitoring and rapid iteration

Phase 3: Scale (Months 7-12)

• Expansion to additional segments or geographies
• Scaling operations to meet growing demand
• Team expansion and capability building
• Marketing amplification
• Process optimisation

Phase 4: Optimisation (Year 2+)

• Operational efficiency improvements
• Margin enhancement and profitability focus
• Market leadership positioning
• Adjacent opportunity identification
• Integration with core business (local expansion)

Clear Go/No-Go Recommendation with Supporting Data

The final deliverable is a clear, data-supported recommendation: proceed, proceed with modifications, or do not proceed.

Go Recommendation requires:

• Market demand validated through customer conversations
• Competitive positioning that provides sustainable advantage
• Financial model showing path to profitability within reasonable timeframe
• Risks identified with practical mitigation strategies
• Resources and capabilities adequate for execution
• Strategic fit with broader business objectives

No-Go Recommendation includes:

• Specific reasons the opportunity isn’t viable
• Data supporting the recommendation
• Alternative opportunities or markets that may be more promising
• Conditions that would need to change to revisit the decision

Modified-Go Recommendation provides:

• Specific changes needed to make entry viable
• Alternative market segments, pricing models, or approaches
• Staged entry strategies that reduce risk
• Timeline for reassessment based on market changes

Case Study 1: International Success (When Feasibility Said “Go” with Repositioning)

A European manufacturing client engaged FBS Consulting for feasibility assessment on entering the Australian market with modular construction components. Their initial plan targeted residential builders with premium pricing justified by European engineering standards.

Weeks 1-3 Discovery: Customer interviews revealed residential builders were extremely price-sensitive and preferred established local suppliers. However, conversations with commercial construction companies showed strong interest in quality, speed, and regulatory compliance—areas where European standards provided genuine competitive advantage.

Weeks 4-6 Financial Modelling: Residential market would require 15% price reduction to compete, destroying margins. Commercial market supported 20% premium pricing due to project timelines and compliance requirements. Break-even in commercial segment: 18 months. Residential segment: 36+ months (unacceptable).

Weeks 7-9 Strategy Development: Recommendation: Proceed with market entry, but target commercial construction exclusively. Delay residential market until commercial foothold established and costs optimised.

Outcome:

• $2.2M revenue in 18 months (commercial segment)
• Profitable from month 8
• Strong case studies and references
• Positioned for residential expansion in year 3 (from position of strength)

Investment: $28,000 feasibility study
Return: Avoided $200K+ in residential market mistakes, accelerated path to profitability by 12-18 months, positioned for sustainable growth.

Case Study 2: Local Business Success (When Feasibility Prevented Cannibalization)

A Brisbane-based B2B distributor with $8M annual revenue wanted to launch a premium product line targeting their existing mid-market customer base. Logic seemed sound: existing relationships, established credibility, similar purchasing processes.

Weeks 1-3 Discovery: Customer interviews revealed their mid-market positioning was precisely why customers valued them. Premium offerings would create cognitive dissonance and potentially damage existing relationships. However, interviews uncovered a different segment—project-based buyers at larger companies—who valued premium quality and would see the distributor as credible if positioned correctly.

Weeks 4-6 Financial Modelling: Original plan (selling premium to existing customers): 12% projected uptake, 35% cannibalization of existing sales, net negative impact on profitability.

Revised plan (targeting new segment): 8% market penetration achievable in 18 months, zero cannibalization, 42% gross margins vs 28% on existing products.

Working capital required: $180,000 (vs $280,000 for original broader launch).

Weeks 7-9 Strategy Development: Recommendation: Proceed with premium line, but create separate brand positioning and target project buyers at enterprise level. Maintain clear distinction from existing mid-market brand to protect current business.

Outcome:

• $1.4M in premium sales within 15 months
• Zero cannibalization of existing business
• Higher margins improving overall profitability
• Expanded total addressable market without damaging core

Investment: $32,000 feasibility study
Return: Avoided $200K+ in potential cannibalization losses, achieved 42% margins vs 28% on existing products, protected core business relationships.

Case Study 3: The Near-Miss (When Feasibility Said “No” and Saved $300K+)

An Australian manufacturer wanted to expand into a related product line serving the same customer base. Surface logic was compelling: existing relationships, similar manufacturing processes, leveraging current capabilities.

Weeks 1-3 Discovery: Customer interviews revealed limited interest. Existing customers were satisfied with current suppliers. New customers saw the client as specialists in their current category, not credible in the new one. Market was already dominated by two established players with better distribution.

Weeks 4-6 Financial Modelling: Required pricing to compete would produce 8% gross margins (vs 35% in current business). Break-even required 15% market share within 18 months—unrealistic given competitive dynamics. Working capital required: $380,000. Payback period: 4+ years (if successful).

Weeks 7-9 Strategic Assessment: During deeper analysis, identified adjacent opportunity serving different customer segment with existing capabilities. This alternative market had weak competition, strong demand, and 28% sustainable margins.

Recommendation: Do not proceed with original plan. Pivot to alternative opportunity identified during feasibility process.

Outcome:

• Original market entry avoided (saved $300K+ in certain losses)
• Alternative market entered successfully
• 35% profit margins achieved within 8 months
• No distraction from core business strengths

Investment: $32,000 feasibility study
Return: $300K+ avoided losses, plus $180K incremental profit from alternative opportunity in first year.

Sometimes the most valuable outcome of a feasibility study is a confident “no” that saves you from expensive mistakes and redirects resources to better opportunities.

The Investment Equation: $15K-$35K Feasibility vs $300K-$500K Failed Expansion

Let’s be direct about costs:

90-Day Feasibility Investment:

• Professional feasibility study: $15,000-$35,000 (depending on complexity)
• Systematic market intelligence gathering
• Financial modelling and risk assessment
• Clear go/no-go recommendation with supporting data
• Strategic roadmap if proceeding

Compare to failed expansion costs:

• Initial setup and launch costs: $50,000-$80,000
• 6-12 months operational expenses before realising failure: $150,000-$300,000
• Inventory, equipment, or facility commitments: $80,000-$200,000
• Opportunity cost of leadership time and attention: $100,000+
• Damaged relationships and reputational impact: Incalculable
• Potential damage to core business performance: Significant

Total typical cost of failed expansion: $300,000-$500,000+

The ROI equation is clear: spending $15,000-$35,000 to avoid $300,000-$500,000 in preventable losses is one of the smartest investments a growing business can make.

But the value isn’t just risk avoidance. When feasibility says “go,” you proceed with:

• Confidence based on data, not hope
• Realistic financial projections and resource requirements
• Identified risks with mitigation strategies
• Strategic roadmap for execution
• Competitive positioning that works in actual market conditions

This dramatically increases your probability of successful expansion and accelerates time to profitability.

Why 90 Days Is the Sweet Spot

Not Too Rushed:

• Adequate time for meaningful customer discovery (15-25 interviews)
• Comprehensive competitive and regulatory assessment
• Rigorous financial modelling across scenarios
• Thoughtful risk analysis and mitigation development
• Strategic thinking, not just data gathering

Not Analysis Paralysis:

• Compressed timeline prevents endless deliberation
• Market conditions remain relevant throughout study
• Maintains decision-making urgency and momentum
• Forces prioritisation of critical questions
• Creates actionable insights, not academic reports

Optimal for Decision-Making:

• Leadership can maintain focus throughout (vs 6-12 month studies they forget about)
• Market intelligence is current when recommendations are delivered
• Financial commitments haven’t been made whilst studying
• Competitive windows remain open
• Results in decisions, not indefinite consideration

This framework leverages the 12-week year concept: shorter, focused sprints produce better outcomes than extended, unfocused processes. Applied to feasibility analysis, this creates strategic intelligence that actually drives decisions.

When You Need 90-Day Feasibility Analysis

Consider professional feasibility assessment if you’re:

Planning International Market Entry:

• Entering Australia from overseas markets
• Australian business expanding internationally
• Navigating unfamiliar regulatory environments
• Uncertain about local market dynamics and competitive landscapes
• Need to validate business model translation across markets

Evaluating Major Product/Service Expansion:

• Adding product lines to existing business
• Expanding into adjacent market segments
• Launching new service offerings to existing or new customers
• Significant departure from current core capabilities
• Requires substantial investment and resource commitment

Testing New Business Models:

• Shifting from B2B to B2C (or vice versa)
• Moving from product to service-based offerings
• Subscription or recurring revenue model evaluation
• Franchise or licensing opportunity assessment
• Platform or marketplace business model validation

Considering Strategic Acquisitions:

• Market entry through acquisition or partnership
• Need validation of target market opportunity
• Assessing strategic fit and synergies
• Understanding integration challenges and costs

Facing High-Stakes Go/No-Go Decisions:

• Investment required exceeds $250,000
• Strategic significance would impact core business
• Failure would have material consequences
• Success depends on accurate market understanding
• Multiple stakeholders need confidence before committing

Uncertain About Market Opportunity:

• Customer demand appears strong but hasn’t been validated
• Competitive dynamics are unclear or changing rapidly
• Financial viability depends on assumptions that need testing
• Risk of cannibalizing existing business needs assessment

What Happens After the 90 Days?

The feasibility study produces three possible outcomes:

Outcome 1: Clear “Go” Recommendation

You proceed with confidence because:

• Market opportunity validated through real customer conversations
• Financial model shows realistic path to profitability
• Competitive positioning provides sustainable advantage
• Risks identified with practical mitigation strategies
• Strategic roadmap provides clear execution path

Next steps: Implement the go-to-market roadmap, deploy resources systematically, and measure progress against feasibility projections.

Outcome 2: “Go with Modifications” Recommendation

The opportunity is viable but requires changes:

• Different market segment than originally planned
• Alternative pricing or business model
• Staged entry that reduces risk
• Partnership approach rather than direct entry
• Separated brand positioning to protect core business

Next steps: Refine strategy based on recommendations, validate modified approach, then proceed with adjusted plan.

Outcome 3: “No-Go” Recommendation

The expansion isn’t viable because:

• Market demand insufficient or pricing unsustainable
• Competitive dynamics prevent profitable entry
• Regulatory or operational barriers too significant
• Financial returns don’t justify risk and investment
• Strategic fit weaker than alternatives
• Risk of damaging core business too high

Next steps: Avoid expensive mistakes, redirect resources to better opportunities, and potentially identify alternative approaches discovered during analysis.

All three outcomes deliver value. Sometimes the most valuable result is a confident “no” that saves hundreds of thousands in preventable losses and redirects resources to genuinely promising opportunities.

DIY Feasibility vs Professional Assessment

Can you conduct feasibility analysis internally? Possibly, but consider:

DIY Approach Works If:

• You have deep expertise in the target market or category
• Internal team has capacity for 3-month dedicated project
• You can maintain objectivity about your own assumptions
• Investment is modest and easily reversible
• You have proven methodologies for market validation
• No regulatory complexity or unfamiliar channels

Professional Assessment Delivers More If:

• Entering unfamiliar markets or categories
• Significant investment makes mistakes expensive
• Internal team lacks time for rigorous analysis
• Objectivity about your business model is difficult
• Proven methodologies and market expertise accelerate insights
• Cross-industry perspective would identify blind spots

The Objectivity Factor: Perhaps the most valuable aspect of professional feasibility assessment is objective perspective. When you’re excited about expansion opportunity, it’s extraordinarily difficult to maintain the scepticism necessary to identify genuine flaws in your assumptions.

An experienced external assessor asks uncomfortable questions you might not ask yourself:

• “Why would customers switch from current solutions?”
• “What happens if your pricing assumptions are 20% too optimistic?”
• “How will established competitors respond to your entry?”
• “What if regulatory timelines are twice as long as hoped?”
• “Could this damage your core business relationships or positioning?”

These questions aren’t pessimism—they’re realism that prevents expensive mistakes.

The FBS Consulting Advantage

For International Clients: FBS Consulting brings unique cross-cultural expertise—having operated in both European and Australian markets for 30+ years. We understand how to translate business models across distinct environments, navigate Australian regulatory complexities, and identify competitive positioning that works in local context.

For Australian Clients: We bring external perspective combined with deep understanding of Australian market dynamics across manufacturing, B2B services, and distribution. Our systematic approach identifies blind spots that internal teams miss and prevents the common pitfalls of expansion into adjacent markets or new categories.

For All Clients:

• Proven 90-day methodology that balances speed with rigour
• Direct customer discovery conversations (not just desk research)
• Realistic financial modelling based on actual market conditions
• Objective risk assessment without emotional investment in outcomes
• Clear, actionable recommendations that drive decisions
• Strategic roadmap if proceeding (not just “yes/no” answers)

Take the 90-Day Expansion Test

If you’re considering market entry or business expansion, ask yourself:

Market Validation Questions:

□ Have you spoken with 15+ potential customers about real buying behaviour (not hypothetical interest)?
□ Do you understand exactly why customers would switch from current solutions to yours?
□ Can you articulate your competitive advantage in terms customers actually care about?
□ Have you identified the actual decision-makers and procurement processes?

Financial Reality Questions:

□ Have you modelled complete cost structures (including hidden costs)?
□ Do your financial projections include realistic customer acquisition costs?
□ Can you survive if revenue ramps 50% slower than projected?
□ Do you understand working capital requirements month-by-month?
□ Have you assessed potential cannibalization of existing business?

Risk Assessment Questions:

□ Have you identified what could go wrong and how you’d respond?
□ Do you know the regulatory requirements and approval timelines?
□ Can you articulate the opportunity cost of this expansion?
□ Do you have clear metrics that would trigger exit decisions?
□ Have you assessed impact on core business performance?

If you answered “no” or “not sure” to more than three questions, you need feasibility analysis before proceeding.

Your Expansion Deserves Better Than Hope

Market expansion based on enthusiasm and surface-level research is gambling, not strategy. The businesses that succeed in new markets or with new offerings do so because they invest in rigorous feasibility analysis that separates genuine opportunities from expensive mistakes.

90 days of focused market intelligence delivers:

• Confidence that expansion decisions are based on evidence, not assumptions
• Clear understanding of what success requires and what could prevent it
• Realistic financial projections that guide resource allocation
• Strategic roadmap that increases probability of successful expansion
• Risk awareness with practical mitigation strategies
• Protection of core business from expansion missteps

The investment is modest compared to expansion costs. The returns—whether avoiding $300K+ disasters or accelerating profitable growth—are transformational.

Don’t let enthusiasm override evidence. Don’t let “let’s just try it” replace systematic analysis. Don’t risk your business, capital, and time on untested assumptions about unfamiliar markets or new offerings.

Your expansion opportunity deserves professional validation. Your stakeholders deserve confidence based on data. Your business deserves strategic decisions that maximise success probability whilst minimising preventable risks.

The bottom line: Ninety days of focused market intelligence can save you from 12-24 months of expensive expansion mistakes. The question isn’t whether you can afford feasibility analysis—it’s whether you can afford to expand without it.