+1-530-388-5507
+91 91633 67905
Why Arobit Supports Verified .IN Domains: Building Trust in India�s Digital Space
Knowledge Base
A
Amit De
A business signs a three-year ERP contract worth $350,000 based on a vendor demo and a reference call. Eighteen months in, the system does not support the company's primary billing workflow. A $120,000 customisation is on the table, the go-live is delayed nine months, and the board wants to know how this was approved. No feasibility study was conducted before the contract was signed.
The vendor's ROI calculator shows a 3-year payback. The CFO approved the project. Two years in, the actual ROI is negative — the vendor did not account for integration costs, data migration, or staff retraining. A structured financial model with independently verified assumptions would have shown a 5.5-year payback before any contract was signed.
A SaaS platform was built to handle 50,000 users. At 8,000 users, the architecture is already showing stress. The original technical design was never validated against growth scenarios. A technical feasibility assessment before development started would have flagged the architecture risk — a $40,000 fix versus the $280,000 re-platform now required.
The pattern is consistent: technology investment decisions made on vendor presentations, internal estimates, and optimistic assumptions rather than independent, structured evidence. A Techno Economic Feasibility Study replaces opinion with evidence — before the contract is signed, the capital is committed, or the project is announced.
Can this project actually be built, implemented, or operated given your current infrastructure, team, and technology choices?
Does the financial case hold when independently modelled — not estimated by the vendor or the internal team proposing the project?
What can go wrong, how likely is it, and what does it cost if it does?
Every TEFS engagement produces a structured, investment-grade report your team owns entirely. The report is formatted for its audience: executive summary for the board, financial model for the CFO, technical appendix for the engineering team. No proprietary format — delivered as PDF and editable source files.
| Project | [Client Project Name] |
| Study Date | Q2 2026 |
| Engagement Type | Techno Economic Feasibility Study |
| Scope | ERP Implementation — Manufacturing Operations |
| Recommendation | PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS |
| Confidence | HIGH — Score: 82/100 |
| Metric | Conservative | Base Case | Optimistic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Project Cost | $1.24M | $980K | $860K |
| Annual Savings | $210K | $285K | $340K |
| ROI (3-year) | 18% | 43% | 67% |
| Payback Period | 4.9 yrs | 3.4 yrs | 2.5 yrs |
| NPV (5-year) | $142K | $398K | $612K |
All figures independently modelled. Assumptions fully documented. Editable Excel model delivered on completion.
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data migration complexity | High | High | Parallel run for 60 days before cutover |
| Vendor delivery delay | Medium | High | Penalty clause + milestone-linked payment escrow |
| User adoption failure | Medium | Medium | Structured change management programme |
| Integration with legacy billing | Low | High | API proof-of-concept validated in Phase 1 |
| Decision | PROCEED — Phase 1 Only PROCEED |
| Conditions | 3 milestone gates required before Phase 2 approval |
| Next Steps | Issue vendor RFP with defined scoring criteria and penalty framework |
| Review Date | 90 days post-Phase 1 go-live |
Current ERP evaluated against 14 architecture criteria. Integration layer identified as critical path. API-first approach recommended.
3 vendors assessed across 18 criteria: technical capability (40%), financial stability (20%), implementation track record (25%), contract terms (15%). Vendor B leads with score 81/100.
7 integration points identified. Billing system integration classified HIGH risk. Legacy warehouse module requires middleware bridge.
The vendor has presented ROI numbers and a reference list. Your team has completed a demo. A TEFS independently validates the financial case and technical fit before you are locked into a multi-year agreement.
A feasibility study for ERP implementation conducted before contract signing is the single most effective way to prevent budget overruns.
The project has internal support but the board wants a third-party feasibility assessment before approving capital. A TEFS provides the structured, independent evidence that satisfies due diligence requirements.
A techno economic feasibility study for investors gives your board the confidence to approve without exposing them to unvalidated assumptions.
Many lenders and subsidy programmes require a Detailed Project Report (DPR) or techno-economic feasibility assessment as a condition of application.
A TEFS produces a bankable report in the format lenders expect — with independent financial modelling, sensitivity analysis, and a risk-adjusted recommendation.
Three options are on the table, each with different cost profiles, timelines, and risk levels. A TEFS models all three scenarios and produces a structured recommendation with financial and technical evidence behind it.
The project is over budget, behind schedule, or abandoned. A post-implementation TEFS audit documents what happened, why, and what the realistic recovery options are — without bias from the team that ran the original project.
The initiative has executive support but no structured business case. A TEFS produces the financial model, risk register, and implementation sequence your board needs to approve funding with confidence.
We define the scope, sign a mutual NDA before any discovery conversation takes place, and agree on the report format and the audience it is written for. We collect initial project documentation and lock scope in writing before work begins. Nothing proceeds without a signed scope document.
Structured interviews with technical, finance, and operations stakeholders. We review vendor proposals, existing architecture documentation, financial assumptions, and integration requirements. Vendor-supplied financial projections are not accepted as inputs — we gather assumptions from primary sources and verify them independently.
We evaluate technical feasibility against your current infrastructure. We score vendor capability against a defined framework. We map integration complexity, identify architecture risks, and validate the implementation timeline against projects of comparable scope and complexity.
We build an independent financial model — not adapted from the vendor's calculator. The model documents every assumption, cites every source, and runs sensitivity analysis across conservative, base, and optimistic scenarios. All formulas are visible. The model is yours after delivery.
We score all identified risks by probability and financial impact. We model financial outcomes under each scenario. We map the critical assumptions the entire business case depends on — the ones where a 20% variance changes the go/no-go decision.
We deliver the structured TEFS report and present findings to leadership or the full board. We provide the editable financial model and all source files. A 30-day Q&A window is included as standard — not an upsell — for questions from the board, CFO, investors, or legal team.
The primary deliverable: a structured, investment-grade report covering technical feasibility, financial analysis, risk assessment, and recommendation. Delivered in PDF and editable format so your team can update it as the project evolves. Full IP transfer on delivery.
A fully documented software investment ROI study: all assumptions listed, all formulas visible, sensitivity tables built in. You own it — no proprietary tool, no ongoing licence, no black box.
A scored risk matrix covering technical, vendor, financial, regulatory, and execution risks. Each risk includes probability rating, impact score, and a specific mitigation recommendation.
Where vendor selection is in scope: a structured scorecard comparing vendors across technical capability, financial stability, contract terms, and reference quality. Designed to survive board scrutiny.
A standalone executive summary formatted for board presentation, investor due diligence, or bank submission. Written for decision-makers, not technical teams. Ready to submit without modification.
Available for 30 days after delivery for questions from the board, CFO, investors, or legal team. Standard on every engagement — not an optional add-on.
Manufacturing technology investments often involve ERP implementations, automation, and OT/IT integration — each with significant capital requirements and long payback windows. A TEFS provides the structured evidence that justifies the spend to the board and validates vendor claims before contracts are signed.
Healthcare technology decisions carry regulatory, patient safety, and data sovereignty dimensions that make independent feasibility assessment especially critical. We assess both the technical and compliance dimensions alongside the financial case.
FMCG and retail technology investments — from demand forecasting platforms to omnichannel infrastructure — move fast and carry high integration complexity. A TEFS identifies integration risks and validates vendor ROI claims before they become contractual commitments.
Logistics technology investments typically involve WMS, TMS, and real-time tracking infrastructure — each with integration complexity that vendors consistently underestimate. A TEFS maps integration dependencies before implementation begins, not after the contract is signed.
Fintech technology investments must meet regulatory requirements while delivering financial returns. We assess technical feasibility against compliance requirements and model financial outcomes across regulatory scenarios.
EdTech investments — from LMS platforms to AI tutoring systems — require validation against student outcome data and budget constraints. A TEFS models the financial case alongside the infrastructure requirements that purely financial assessments miss.
The ERP vendor's ROI model shows a 2.5-year payback. The board approves $800,000. Eighteen months into implementation, integration costs alone have consumed the projected savings for Year 1. The actual payback is now estimated at six or more years. Nobody modelled the integration costs.
An independent TEFS financial model accounts for all integration, training, data migration, and change management costs. The board approves with a revised budget that includes a $120,000 integration reserve and a vendor performance clause. The real payback is 4.1 years — uncomfortable, but accurate. The board signed off knowing the real number.
AI vendor demos impressive capabilities. Team recommends $300K investment. Six months in, data quality is too poor to support the model. Project paused at $180K spent, nothing deployed.
TEFS data readiness assessment finds 60% of historical transaction data incomplete. Recommendation: invest $45,000 in data infrastructure first, run 12-week pilot, then scale. Company spends $45,000 instead of $300,000 to reach the same point — with independent evidence that scaling will work.
Internal team recommends custom SaaS at estimated $400,000. Month 8, scope is at $720,000 and architecture won't support multi-tenancy at scale. Product rebuilt from scratch.
Pre-build technical feasibility assessment identifies 3 critical scalability gaps. Revised scope with different database strategy and API-first architecture estimated at $490,000 — $90,000 more upfront, $230,000 less than the rebuild eventually required.
Bank requires DPR. Internal team submits business plan. Bank rejects as insufficient, requests third-party techno-economic study. Three months delay, project starts without loan.
TEFS report produced before bank submission. Meets DPR requirements: independent financial modelling, technical assessment, sensitivity analysis, risk-adjusted recommendation. Accepted in first review cycle.
| Criterion | TEFS by Arobit | Internal Business Case | Vendor ROI Model | Big Four |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independence | Fully independent — no vendor relationship | Internal bias — the team proposing the project owns the model | Vendor bias — optimised to win the sale | Independent, but expensive |
| Financial Modelling | NPV, IRR, TCO, payback period, sensitivity analysis across three scenarios | Usually NPV and basic ROI only — assumptions rarely documented | ROI cherry-picked to support the vendor recommendation | Comprehensive |
| Technical Assessment | Architecture, integration complexity, vendor capability, risk scoring | Limited — proposing team is often non-technical | Limited to the vendor's own implementation experience | Comprehensive |
| Report Format | Board-ready, bankable, lender-accepted | Variable quality — rarely lender-accepted | Not designed for lender or board submission | Board-ready |
| Cost | $15,000–$40,000 typical engagement | Internal time cost only | Free — but not independent | $80,000–$300,000+ |
| Turnaround | 4–6 weeks | 2–4 weeks (but not rigorous) | 1–2 weeks (but not independent) | 8–16 weeks |
A TEFS engagement that costs $80,000–$150,000 with a Big Four firm typically runs $15,000–$40,000 with Arobit — with senior consultants averaging 10+ years of IT delivery experience on every engagement.
We build all financial models in Excel or Google Sheets with fully documented assumptions, visible formulas, and built-in sensitivity tables. No proprietary financial modelling software — every model is yours to operate and update independently after the engagement ends.
We will tell you within one conversation whether a TEFS engagement is right for your investment decision, what scope would be appropriate, and what a realistic cost and timeline looks like. An NDA is signed before that call — your project details stay confidential from the first conversation.
Request a Feasibility Study Scoping CallSenior consultant assigned to every engagement. No junior analysts. No offshore handoffs without disclosure.
Stay on top of the latest trends and industry developments with our insightful blogs.
