Project Initiation, Feasibility and Stakeholder Analysis

Introduction and Context

Construction projects begin long before excavation, procurement, or mobilisation. They begin when an organisation identifies a need, opportunity, risk, or statutory obligation and decides that a project may be an appropriate response. The initiation phase converts a broad intention—such as improving transport capacity, constructing a housing development, or replacing an unsafe facility—into a defined and justifiable proposal.

Poor initiation is a major source of construction failure. Projects may proceed with unclear objectives, unrealistic budgets, incomplete requirements, unresolved land issues, weak stakeholder support, or inadequate understanding of environmental and regulatory constraints. Later project controls cannot fully compensate for decisions made on an inadequate foundation. Initiation therefore provides the bridge between organisational strategy and controlled project delivery.

This chapter examines the business case, feasibility study, project charter, objectives, requirements, assumptions, constraints, stakeholder analysis, engagement planning, and social licence to operate. The emphasis is on construction applications, where technical, commercial, social, environmental, and political considerations interact.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Explain the purpose and components of project initiation.
2. Develop a preliminary business case for a construction project.
3. Distinguish technical, economic, financial, legal, environmental, organisational, and social feasibility.
4. Prepare a project charter containing clear objectives, authority, boundaries, and governance arrangements.
5. Identify requirements, assumptions, constraints, dependencies, and exclusions.
6. Apply stakeholder power–interest and salience analyses.
7. Develop proportionate stakeholder engagement and communication strategies.
8. Explain social licence to operate and its relevance to construction.
9. Evaluate initiation decisions ethically and critically.

1. From Need to Authorised Project

A project is a temporary undertaking created to deliver a unique product, service, or result. In construction, the result may be a building, road, bridge, utility system, industrial plant, or refurbishment. Initiation is the process through which a potential project is examined, authorised, and given an initial management framework.

A useful initiation sequence is:

Need or opportunity → options identification → feasibility investigation → business case → approval decision → project charter → early stakeholder and requirements baseline

This sequence is not strictly linear. New information may require an earlier decision to be revisited. For example, a geotechnical investigation may reveal that a proposed site is unsuitable, or community consultation may identify a major access concern. Good initiation is therefore iterative and evidence-based.

Projects, programmes, and operations

A project should be distinguished from ongoing operations. Constructing a new hospital is a project; operating the hospital is an operation. A portfolio is a collection of projects and programmes managed to support strategic objectives. A programme coordinates related projects to obtain benefits that would be difficult to achieve separately, such as a metropolitan transport improvement programme.

This distinction matters because project initiation must identify the intended benefits and the organisation responsible for sustaining them after handover. A project may deliver a technically complete facility but still fail if the facility cannot be operated, maintained, financed, or accepted by its users.

2. The Business Case

The business case explains why a project should be undertaken and provides a basis for comparing alternatives. It is not merely a request for money. It connects the proposed investment with organisational strategy, stakeholder needs, expected benefits, costs, risks, and implementation arrangements.

A construction business case commonly contains:

• the problem, opportunity, or statutory need;
• strategic alignment;
• project objectives and expected benefits;
• options considered, including a do-nothing or minimum-intervention option;
• preliminary scope and requirements;
• cost estimate and funding model;
• schedule and key milestones;
• feasibility findings;
• risks, assumptions, and dependencies;
• environmental and social impacts;
• procurement and delivery strategy;
• governance and accountability;
• monitoring criteria and decision gates.

Strategic alignment

A proposal should show how it contributes to approved objectives. For example, a municipal school project may support population growth planning, educational access, climate resilience, and local employment. Strategic alignment does not prove that a project is viable, but lack of alignment is a strong reason for rejection or redesign.

Benefits and disbenefits

Benefits are measurable or observable improvements resulting from the project, such as reduced travel time, increased capacity, lower energy consumption, improved safety, or increased rental income. Disbenefits are negative consequences accepted or created by the project, such as construction disruption, loss of open space, increased traffic, or relocation of households.

Benefits should be assigned owners. The project manager may deliver the facility, but an operations director, transport authority, or property manager may be responsible for realising the benefit after completion.

Options appraisal

The business case should compare credible alternatives rather than justify a predetermined design. Typical options include:

1. Do nothing, where legally and ethically permissible.
2. Maintain or repair the existing asset.
3. Change operating processes or demand management.
4. Refurbish or extend an existing facility.
5. Construct a new facility.
6. Use a different site, technology, procurement route, or phasing strategy.

Each option should be assessed against common criteria. Weighted scoring can assist comparison, but scores are not objective facts; they depend on the criteria, weightings, evidence, and judgement used.

Financial appraisal

Where reliable data exist, financial appraisal may use net present value (NPV). Future cash flows are converted into present values because money available today can generally be invested and because future costs and benefits carry uncertainty.

Here, CF_t is the net cash flow in period t, r is the discount rate per period, and n is the final period. Cash inflows are positive and outflows negative. The formula assumes that cash flows occur at defined intervals and that the selected discount rate is appropriate for the appraisal context.

For a public project, economic appraisal may include wider social benefits and costs, while a private developer may focus on project cash flows, financing, profitability, and risk-adjusted return. These are different decision perspectives and should not be confused.

For example, suppose a project requires an initial investment of £1,000,000 and produces net cash inflows of £450,000 in each of the next three years. At a discount rate of 10%:

The positive NPV indicates that the forecast benefits exceed the initial investment at the selected discount rate. It does not prove that the project should proceed. The result depends on the quality of the forecasts, treatment of taxes and inflation, residual value, risk, external impacts, and the appropriateness of the discount rate.

Payback period, return on investment, and internal rate of return may also be used, but each has limitations. Payback ignores benefits after the recovery point and may ignore the time value of money. A simple return ratio can conceal the timing and risk of cash flows. Financial indicators should therefore support, not replace, strategic, technical, environmental, and social judgement.

3. Feasibility Studies

A feasibility study tests whether a proposed project is practicable and desirable under stated conditions. It should identify fatal flaws early, reduce uncertainty, compare alternatives, and indicate what further investigation is required.

Technical feasibility

Technical feasibility considers whether the project can be designed, constructed, commissioned, and operated using available methods and resources. Questions include:

• Is the site suitable in terms of ground conditions, access, utilities, topography, and hazards?
• Are required materials, equipment, skills, and specialist contractors available?
• Can the proposed structural, civil, mechanical, and electrical systems meet performance requirements?
• Are interfaces with existing assets understood?
• Can the facility be safely maintained and adapted?

A desktop study is useful at an early stage but cannot replace surveys, geotechnical investigations, utility searches, or specialist design analysis where those are necessary.

Economic and financial feasibility

Economic feasibility asks whether the overall value of the project justifies resource use. Financial feasibility asks whether the project can be funded and whether cash flows are affordable for the sponsoring organisation. A socially beneficial project may have weak direct revenue but still be economically justified. Conversely, a profitable project may impose unrecognised social or environmental costs.

Cost estimates at initiation are uncertain. Estimates should state their basis, price level, exclusions, allowances, escalation treatment, and confidence range. Presenting a single precise figure can create false confidence. Contingency should reflect identified uncertainty and should not be used as an unexplained reserve for scope growth.

Legal and regulatory feasibility

The study should identify planning permission, building regulations, environmental permits, land rights, heritage controls, health and safety duties, labour requirements, procurement rules, accessibility obligations, and contractual constraints. Legal feasibility is not limited to obtaining planning approval. A project may be legally permissible yet commercially or socially unacceptable.

Environmental feasibility

Environmental assessment may address carbon emissions, biodiversity, water, waste, noise, dust, traffic, contaminated land, flood risk, and resource consumption. The preferred option should reflect the mitigation hierarchy: avoid impacts where possible, minimise unavoidable impacts, restore affected environments, and offset only where appropriate and credible.

Organisational feasibility

The sponsor must have the capability, authority, governance, funding arrangements, and operational capacity to deliver and use the project. Organisational questions include who will make decisions, who will own the asset, whether specialist expertise is available, and how the project will interact with existing programmes.

Social feasibility

Social feasibility considers affected communities, users, workers, vulnerable groups, cultural heritage, displacement, access, safety, and perceived fairness. Consultation should occur early enough to influence options. A public meeting held after the design is effectively fixed is communication, not meaningful participation.

4. The Project Charter

The project charter is the document that formally authorises a project and gives the project manager authority to apply organisational resources. It is not a complete project management plan. It is a high-level agreement about purpose, boundaries, authority, governance, and initial expectations.

A construction charter normally includes:

The charter should be concise enough to be usable but sufficiently specific to prevent contradictory interpretations. It should also state what the project is not intended to deliver. Exclusions are particularly important in construction, where stakeholders may assume that landscaping, furniture, digital systems, tenant fit-out, or future expansion are included.

Objectives and success criteria

A strong objective identifies the result, measure, time condition, and sometimes quality or cost boundary. The familiar SMART model—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound—can be useful, but it should not encourage meaningless precision. Objectives must remain connected to genuine benefits.

An objective such as “construct a 12-classroom primary school on the approved site, achieving statutory compliance and handover for occupation by August 2028 within the approved funding limit” is more useful than “build a high-quality school quickly.”

Success criteria should distinguish project outputs from outcomes. An output is a completed building; an outcome may be increased school capacity and improved learning conditions. The charter should identify how both will be assessed.

5. Requirements, Assumptions, Constraints, and Dependencies

Requirements

A requirement is a needed capability, condition, or characteristic. Requirements may be:

• functional, describing what the asset must do;
• performance-based, specifying measurable performance rather than a particular solution;
• technical, specifying materials, systems, interfaces, or standards;
• regulatory, arising from law or approval conditions;
• user-based, reflecting the needs of occupants or operators;
• sustainability-related, addressing energy, carbon, water, waste, or ecology;
• information-related, defining drawings, models, records, and handover data.

Requirements should be traceable from stakeholder need through design, procurement, construction, inspection, testing, and acceptance. Ambiguous requirements create claims and rework. For example, “provide an energy-efficient building” is incomplete unless energy performance, operating conditions, measurement method, and responsibility are defined.

A requirements register may include an identifier, statement, source, priority, acceptance criterion, owner, verification method, status, and change history. Prioritisation methods such as “must, should, could, will not” can help when scope and funding are limited.

Assumptions

An assumption is a condition accepted as true for planning, despite not yet being verified. Examples include availability of a site by a particular date, continued access to a utility connection, or availability of a specialist workforce. Assumptions should have owners and verification dates. An untested assumption is a risk in disguise.

Constraints

A constraint limits available choices. Common constraints include fixed funding, statutory completion dates, restricted working hours, land boundaries, environmental conditions, planning controls, supply shortages, and requirements to maintain operations during construction.

Dependencies and exclusions

A dependency is a relationship in which one activity, decision, approval, or external event relies on another. Examples include land acquisition before site mobilisation, utility diversion before excavation, or planning approval before procurement. Dependencies outside the project’s direct control require active monitoring.

6. Stakeholder Identification and Analysis

A stakeholder is an individual, group, organisation, or institution that can affect the project, be affected by it, or perceive itself to be affected by it. Stakeholder analysis is not a one-time administrative exercise. Stakeholders and their influence can change as the project moves from planning to construction and operation.

Typical construction stakeholders include the sponsor, client, end users, project manager, designers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, regulators, utility owners, financiers, insurers, local authorities, neighbouring residents, businesses, transport operators, environmental groups, media, emergency services, and future operators.

Identification techniques include document review, organisational analysis, interviews, workshops, site observation, community mapping, and analysis of statutory and contractual relationships. Attention should be paid to groups with limited formal power, including tenants, children, disabled users, informal workers, and communities with language or access barriers.

Power–interest analysis

A simple power–interest matrix categorises stakeholders according to their ability to influence the project and their level of concern. High-power, high-interest stakeholders require close management. High-power, low-interest stakeholders should be kept satisfied. Low-power, high-interest stakeholders should be kept informed and given appropriate opportunities to participate. Low-power, low-interest stakeholders require monitoring rather than intensive communication.

The matrix is a prioritisation aid, not a justification for ignoring low-power stakeholders. A group with little formal power may possess legitimacy, specialist knowledge, moral authority, or the capacity to mobilise public or legal opposition.

Stakeholder salience

The salience model evaluates stakeholders through three attributes:

• power: ability to influence project decisions or outcomes;
• legitimacy: whether the stakeholder’s relationship or claim is recognised as appropriate;
• urgency: the degree to which the claim requires immediate attention.

Stakeholders possessing one, two, or all three attributes may be classified differently. Salience is dynamic. A regulator may have high legitimacy and power throughout the project, while a local resident group may become highly urgent after unexpected noise or access disruption. Salience analysis supplements, rather than replaces, power–interest mapping.

Stakeholder attitudes and interests

Stakeholders do not always share the sponsor’s definition of success. A contractor may prioritise productivity and payment certainty; residents may prioritise noise control and property access; an operator may prioritise maintainability; a regulator may prioritise compliance; and users may prioritise safety and accessibility. Analysis should record interests, expectations, concerns, potential contributions, current attitude, desired attitude, and preferred engagement method.

7. Engagement Planning and Social Licence

Stakeholder engagement is the systematic process of listening, informing, involving, negotiating, and maintaining relationships. Communication is one element of engagement, but engagement also includes decision processes, grievance handling, collaboration, and response to feedback.

An engagement plan should identify:

• stakeholder or stakeholder group;
• issues and interests;
• information required and information to be obtained;
• engagement objective;
• method and frequency;
• responsible person;
• accessibility and language arrangements;
• records and feedback mechanism;
• escalation and response commitments.

Methods may include briefings, workshops, design reviews, surveys, site walks, drop-in sessions, liaison committees, digital platforms, formal consultations, and one-to-one meetings. The method should match the decision and stakeholder. A technical workshop may suit professional users, whereas accessible community sessions may be more appropriate for residents.

Social licence to operate

Social licence to operate is the continuing acceptance or approval that a project receives from affected communities and wider society. It is not the same as a legal licence, planning permission, or contractual right. A project may be legally authorised yet face protests, reputational damage, delays, litigation, or loss of political support if it is perceived as unfair, unsafe, deceptive, or harmful.

Social licence is strengthened by:

• transparency about impacts, uncertainty, and trade-offs;
• respectful treatment of affected people;
• meaningful participation before major decisions are fixed;
• fair compensation and benefit-sharing where appropriate;
• credible environmental and safety performance;
• accessible grievance and remedy processes;
• consistent fulfilment of commitments;
• independent monitoring where trust is low.

Engagement should not be used to manipulate stakeholders or create the appearance of consent. Consultation must not substitute for legal rights or formal consent where consent is required. Nor should promises be made that the project team cannot control.

8. Governance, Ethics, and Decision Gates

Initiation decisions should be governed through clear authority and evidence. A sponsor or investment committee may approve continuation at defined gates, such as concept approval, feasibility approval, design approval, procurement approval, and construction release. Each gate should specify the information required and the decision options: proceed, revise, defer, or stop.

Ethical initiation requires honesty about uncertainty, distributional impacts, and conflicts of interest. Common ethical risks include:

• understating costs to obtain approval;
• presenting a preferred option as the only feasible option;
• excluding affected communities from consultation;
• accepting undisclosed benefits from suppliers;
• shifting risks to workers, residents, or future users;
• using vague sustainability claims without evidence;
• ignoring accessibility or cultural rights;
• manipulating appraisal assumptions.

A decision record should explain the evidence considered, assumptions adopted, alternatives rejected, dissenting views, and conditions attached to approval. This creates accountability and helps later teams understand the basis of the project.

9. Technology and AI in Initiation

Digital tools can improve initiation when they support evidence and traceability. Geographic information systems can combine site, transport, environmental, and utility data. Building information modelling can support early option development, area studies, quantity assessment, and operational information planning. Digital consultation platforms can widen access, although they may exclude people with limited connectivity or digital literacy.

Artificial intelligence may assist with document classification, stakeholder-theme analysis, preliminary risk identification, cost benchmarking, and comparison of options. However, AI outputs are not automatically reliable. Bias in training data, fabricated references, incomplete local knowledge, privacy risks, and unexplained recommendations can produce poor decisions. Human professionals must verify sources, protect confidential information, test assumptions, and retain accountability. AI should support judgement rather than replace statutory review, engineering investigation, community participation, or ethical responsibility.

10. Illustrative Case: Riverside Community Health Centre

Background

A regional authority proposes a community health centre on a previously used industrial site. The facility is intended to improve access to primary care, provide diagnostic services, and reduce pressure on a nearby hospital.

Problem

The initial proposal assumes a two-storey building with a fixed opening date. Early review identifies contaminated land, limited public transport, nearby residents concerned about traffic, and a potential flood pathway. The health authority also has no confirmed budget for long-term facilities management.

Analysis

The team develops three options: refurbish an existing clinic, construct a smaller centre on an alternative site, or construct the proposed centre after remediation and flood mitigation. Stakeholder analysis identifies the health authority as a high-power, high-interest stakeholder; the planning authority as high-power and high-legitimacy; residents as high-legitimacy and potentially high-urgency; patients and disability advocates as high-interest; and the future facilities operator as essential to defining maintainability requirements.

Technical and environmental studies confirm that the industrial site can be used, but only after remediation and drainage works. Transport analysis indicates that the original parking arrangement would increase congestion. Engagement reveals that residents support improved healthcare but oppose unrestricted evening access and loss of a pedestrian route.

Approach and solution

The business case is revised to include remediation, a controlled access plan, public transport coordination, pedestrian protection, and a facilities-management funding model. The project charter defines the centre’s clinical capacity, accessibility requirements, opening target, approved funding limit, and explicit exclusions such as future specialist expansion. The charter also makes the operator responsible for confirming maintenance and handover information requirements.

A stakeholder engagement plan establishes monthly community liaison meetings, accessible design reviews, a complaints route, and published responses to major concerns. The project proceeds through a conditional approval gate, requiring confirmation of land remediation and funding before construction release.

Outcome

The project avoids proceeding on an incomplete site assumption. Although the revised option costs more initially, it reduces the likelihood of regulatory delay, redesign, community opposition, and operational failure. The final decision is supported because the project demonstrates not only technical feasibility but also social, financial, and organisational readiness.

Learning points

1. The cheapest early concept is not necessarily the best whole-life option.
2. Assumptions should be tested before they become commitments.
3. Stakeholders contribute knowledge, not merely approval or opposition.
4. Operational ownership must be established during initiation.
5. Social acceptance depends on fair process and credible performance.
6. A conditional decision can be better than premature approval or unnecessary rejection.

Challenges and Limitations

Initiation is affected by incomplete information, political pressure, optimism bias, strategic misrepresentation, changing markets, and difficulty valuing social or environmental impacts. Feasibility studies cannot eliminate uncertainty; they make uncertainty more visible and manageable. Cost estimates remain estimates, stakeholder attitudes can change, and early designs may create an illusion of certainty.

Frameworks such as matrices and scoring models simplify reality. They should be supported by professional judgement, documented evidence, sensitivity analysis, independent challenge, and periodic review. Stakeholder engagement can also create expectations that cannot all be met. The ethical response is to explain decision boundaries and reasons transparently rather than promise universal agreement.

Best-Practice Checklist

Before authorising a construction project, confirm that:

• the problem and intended benefits are clearly defined;
• credible alternatives, including a do-minimum option, were considered;
• technical, financial, legal, environmental, organisational, and social feasibility were examined;
• cost and schedule estimates state assumptions, exclusions, and uncertainty;
• requirements are traceable and prioritised;
• assumptions have owners and verification dates;
• the charter defines scope, authority, governance, and success criteria;
• stakeholders with low formal power have not been overlooked;
• engagement occurred early enough to influence decisions;
• grievances, accessibility, cultural issues, and social impacts are addressed;
• the operating organisation accepts responsibility for benefits and maintenance;
• approval conditions and stop or revise criteria are documented;
• ethical, privacy, safety, and regulatory responsibilities are clear.

Chapter Summary

Project initiation converts a construction need or opportunity into an authorised and governable project. The business case establishes strategic justification, compares alternatives, identifies benefits and disbenefits, and examines affordability and risk. A feasibility study tests technical, economic, financial, legal, environmental, organisational, and social viability. The project charter formally authorises the project, defines high-level scope and objectives, assigns authority, and records assumptions, constraints, risks, governance, and success criteria.

Requirements should be clear, prioritised, verifiable, and traceable. Assumptions require verification, while constraints, dependencies, and exclusions must be made visible. Stakeholder analysis combines identification with assessment of power, interest, legitimacy, and urgency. Engagement should be proportionate, inclusive, transparent, and capable of influencing decisions. Social licence to operate depends on trust, fairness, credible performance, and fulfilment of commitments; it cannot be created by legal approval alone.

Strong initiation does not guarantee project success, but weak initiation makes later success substantially less likely. Professional construction managers therefore treat early decisions as evidence-based, ethical, iterative, and connected to the whole life of the asset.

Key Terms

Business case: Structured justification for undertaking an investment or project.

Feasibility study: Investigation of whether a proposed project is practicable and desirable.

Project charter: High-level document that formally authorises a project and its manager.

Sponsor: Person or organisation accountable for strategic ownership and support.

Benefit: Positive improvement expected from project outputs and outcomes.

Disbenefit: Negative consequence associated with a project or its implementation.

Requirement: Needed capability, condition, or characteristic of the project or asset.

Assumption: Condition treated as true for planning but not yet fully verified.

Constraint: Limitation restricting project choices or performance.

Dependency: Relationship in which one activity, decision, or event relies on another.

Stakeholder: Person or group that can affect, be affected by, or perceive itself affected by a project.

Power–interest matrix: Tool that classifies stakeholders by influence and level of concern.

Stakeholder salience: Relative importance of a stakeholder based on power, legitimacy, and urgency.

Engagement: Process of informing, listening to, involving, and responding to stakeholders.

Social licence to operate: Continuing social acceptance of a project by affected communities and society.

Governance: Structures and processes through which authority, accountability, and decisions are exercised.

Decision gate: Formal review point at which a project may proceed, change, pause, or stop.

Traceability: Ability to link a requirement from its source through design, delivery, verification, and acceptance.

Whole-life value: Value assessed across development, construction, operation, maintenance, adaptation, and disposal.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What is the main purpose of a project business case?
2. Distinguish between a project output and a project outcome.
3. Define an assumption and explain why it should have an owner.
4. What are the three attributes in the stakeholder salience model?
5. Why is social licence to operate different from legal permission?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain the principal components of a construction feasibility study and show how they inform an approval decision.
2. Describe the contents of a project charter and explain how the charter supports project governance.
3. Discuss how requirements, assumptions, constraints, dependencies, and exclusions influence early scope definition.
4. Compare power–interest analysis with stakeholder salience analysis, including the strengths and limitations of each.
5. Explain how ethical conduct and transparent engagement can affect the success of a construction project.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A proposed urban redevelopment has strong financial returns but would displace small businesses and reduce public open space. Design an initiation analysis that compares alternatives and addresses economic, social, environmental, and ethical considerations.
2. A contractor reports that a planned project depends on a utility diversion controlled by a third party, but the sponsor has assumed the diversion will occur on time. Analyse the assumption, identify related risks, and recommend governance and engagement actions.
3. Residents support a new transport interchange but have lost confidence after several consultation promises were not fulfilled. Develop a stakeholder engagement and social-licence recovery plan for the next project stage.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which document formally authorises a project and gives the project manager initial authority to use organisational resources?

A. Project charter

B. Daily site report

C. Defects register

D. Final account

Correct Answer: A. Project charter

Question 2

Which option should normally be included in a construction options appraisal where it is legally and ethically permissible?

A. Only the sponsor’s preferred design

B. The do-nothing or minimum-intervention option

C. Only the fastest procurement route

D. Only options already approved by a contractor

Correct Answer: B. The do-nothing or minimum-intervention option

Question 3

In the NPV expression NPV = Σ CF_t ÷ (1 + r)^t, what does r represent?

A. Residual value

B. Discount rate per period

C. Construction quantity

D. Risk register size

Correct Answer: B. Discount rate per period

Question 4

Which of the following is an example of a project assumption?

A. A statutory working-hour restriction

B. A fixed site boundary

C. The utility connection will be available by the planned mobilisation date

D. A requirement to provide accessible entrances

Correct Answer: C. The utility connection will be available by the planned mobilisation date

Question 5

A stakeholder with high power and high interest should generally be:

A. Monitored with minimal communication

B. Kept informed only through public notices

C. Kept satisfied but excluded from decisions

D. Managed closely

Correct Answer: D. Managed closely

Question 6

Which attribute is not one of the three core attributes in the stakeholder salience model?

A. Power

B. Legitimacy

C. Urgency

D. Profitability

Correct Answer: D. Profitability

Question 7

Which statement best describes social licence to operate?

A. A substitute for planning permission

B. Continuing social acceptance of a project

C. A contractor’s insurance certificate

D. A statutory building-control approval

Correct Answer: B. Continuing social acceptance of a project

Question 8

Why should requirements be traceable?

A. To connect needs with design, verification, delivery, and acceptance

B. To prevent any stakeholder from reviewing them

C. To eliminate the need for testing

D. To guarantee that scope will never change

Correct Answer: A. To connect needs with design, verification, delivery, and acceptance

Question 9

Which feasibility perspective focuses most directly on whether the organisation can fund and afford the project?

A. Financial feasibility

B. Geological feasibility

C. Cultural feasibility only

D. Aesthetic feasibility

Correct Answer: A. Financial feasibility

Question 10

A project team holds a community meeting after the design is fixed and does not permit feedback to influence decisions. This is best described as:

A. Meaningful participation

B. Early option development

C. Communication with limited engagement

D. Stakeholder empowerment

Correct Answer: C. Communication with limited engagement