Skip to main content

analysis-template

id: ANALYSIS-NNN title: Feasibility analysis —

version: 1.0.0 status: draft spec: SPEC-NNN user_story: US-NNN ccn: <CCN-NNN or empty> prepared_by: AL Analyst date: <YYYY-MM-DD> recommendation: <GO | CONDITIONAL-GO | NO-GO> related_docs:

  • openspec/specs/SPEC-NNN-<kebab-title>.spec.md
  • openspec/userstories/US-NNN-.userstory.md

- docs/ccn/CCN-NNN-.md

template: 3_Analysis_Template.docx language: en​

ANALYSIS-NNN — Feasibility analysis for SPEC-NNN

This document is the AL Analyst's feasibility analysis output for SPEC-NNN, derived from user story US-NNN. The formal change-control note is CCN-NNN; this analysis file is the working artefact that supports it.

References​

ArtefactPathStatus
User storyopenspec/userstories/US-NNN-.userstory.md<Approved / Draft>
Specopenspec/specs/SPEC-NNN-.spec.md<Draft / Approved>
CCNdocs/ccn/CCN-NNN-.md<Pending Approval / Approved>

Change summary​

  • new tables — <Table 1>, <Table 2>, …
  • new pages — <Page 1>, <Page 2>, …
  • new facade codeunit(s) — <Codeunit> with <API style> public API.
  • new permission set(s), included in <Roles>.
  • existing object(s) modified — <Object> (<nature of change>).
  • Zero legacy objects touched; migration is deferred to a future story.

Scope & impact​

DimensionValue
New AL objects ()
Existing objects modified ()
Legacy objects modified
BC modules touched
External dependencies added<None / list>
Net new AL LoC (estimate)~ (incl. ~ in tests)
Object ID range usage

<US-NNN open questions resolution summary — e.g. "fully resolved in SPEC-NNN §1 (N/N). No design ambiguity remains at the time of this analysis.">

Time estimate​

Blended developer + part-time architect review hours. Expected column already absorbs typical review-cycle overhead; a 20 % cross-phase contingency is added to the total.

PhaseTasksOptimistic (h)Expected (h)Pessimistic (h)
1<Phase 1 short description>

2<Phase 2 short description>

3<Phase 3 short description>

4<Phase 4 short description>

5<Phase 5 short description>

Subtotal
Contingency 20 % on Expected—+<round(E*0.2)>—
Total~

Calendar duration (1 AL developer FTE + part-time architect review, 7 productive h/day, sequential phases):

ScenarioWorking daysWall-clock weeks
Optimistic~
Expected~
Pessimistic~

Cost estimate​

Rate: EUR / hour (). Currency: EUR.

ScenarioHoursCost
Optimistic€
Expected€
Pessimistic€

Cost breakdown (Expected): Phase 1 € · Phase 2 € · Phase 3 € · Phase 4 € · Phase 5 € · Contingency €.

Assumptions​

  • Developer already familiar with the extension (no ramp-up). If not, add ~ h to the Expected scenario.
  • .
  • No translation / licensing / sandbox provisioning costs included.
  • One architect review cycle per phase.

SWOT analysis​

Strengths​

  • <Strength 1> — <evidence: cite AC, object, design decision>.
  • <Strength 2> — .
  • <Strength 3> — .

Weaknesses​

  • <Weakness 1> — .
  • <Weakness 2> — .
  • <Weakness 3> — .

Opportunities​

  • <Opportunity 1> — .
  • <Opportunity 2> — .
  • <Opportunity 3> — .

Threats​

  • <Threat 1> — .
  • <Threat 2> — .
  • Cost of NOT implementing — .

Risk assessment​

#RiskLikelihoodImpactMitigation
R-01<Low/Medium/High><Low/Medium/High><Mitigation, citing phase/AC>.
R-02<Low/Medium/High><Low/Medium/High>.
R-03<Low/Medium/High><Low/Medium/High>.
R-04<Low/Medium/High><Low/Medium/High>.

Overall risk rating: <LOW | LOW–MEDIUM | MEDIUM | MEDIUM–HIGH | HIGH>. .

Feasibility recommendation​

<GO | CONDITIONAL-GO | NO-GO> — <unconditional | with conditions | reason>​

<One short justification paragraph citing: technical complexity, additive-vs-invasive nature, scope-creep risk, expected cost vs. strategic value.>

Non-blocking advisories at kick-off​

  1. <Advisory 1 — e.g. reserve a non-production tenant before Phase N>.
  2. <Advisory 2 — e.g. defer legacy migration to a separate CCN>.
  3. <Advisory 3 — e.g. grooming items for v2 (list)>.
  4. <Advisory 4 — e.g. frontmatter backfills>.

Handoff back to the Architect​

The Architect now owns the next decision:

  • If this analysis and CCN-NNN are accepted → set SPEC-NNN to status: approved and hand off to the AL Developer for Phase 1.
  • If the analysis surfaces issues requiring spec changes → revise SPEC-NNN and request a re-analysis.

This analysis file remains a living artefact. Update only when the underlying spec, user story, or CCN materially changes.