故事 · 一道便宜的「止损闸」 Origin Story · A Cheap Kill Switch
产品史上最贵的教训,几乎都不是「做得不够好」,而是「压根不该做」 —— 市场不需要、技术做不出、账算不过来,却因为已经投了钱而硬撑到量产才认输。 可行性评估就是为此而生的止损闸:在投入还很小的阶段,用一套结构化的步骤逐项盘问,故意去找那个会让项目崩盘的理由。 它不追求精确(那是后面详细设计的事),只追求一件事 —— 尽早、便宜地说出「这事不行」。能在第 3 步就喊停,远比量产后召回划算。 The most expensive lessons in product history almost never read "we built it poorly" — they read "we shouldn't have built it at all". The market didn't want it, engineering couldn't make it, the numbers never worked — but money was already in, so the team pushed all the way to mass production before giving up. A feasibility study is the kill switch built for exactly that moment. While the spend is still small, you walk a structured checklist and deliberately hunt for the reason this project will fail. It isn't aiming for precision — that's what detailed design is for. It's aiming for one thing: say "this won't work" early, and cheaply. Killing the project at step 3 beats a recall after launch every time.

1 9 步可行性台阶:逐关推进 The 9-Step Feasibility Staircase

绿灯放行Green · go

2 四维度短板:最弱的一块决定结论 Four Dimensions · the Weakest Decides

可行性不是四维度的平均分,而是受制于最短的那块板。市场再好,技术做不出也是空谈;技术再强,算不过账照样止步。拖左边滑块把任一维度压低,看综合结论怎么被它拽下来。 Feasibility isn't the average of the four scores — it's pinned by the shortest board. A booming market is empty talk if engineering can't deliver; brilliant technology stops cold if the business case doesn't pencil out. Drag any slider on the left down and watch the overall verdict get dragged with it.

3 可行性评估的现实用法 Feasibility Studies in the Real World

立项评估:进入正式开发前的「门」,过不了就别立项,把资源留给更靠谱的机会。 Project gate: a hard gate before formal development. If it doesn't pass, don't launch — save the resources for a better opportunity.
早期筛选:手里十个点子,先各跑一遍 9 步快筛,把明显不行的剔掉,集中弹药打剩下的。 Early screening: ten ideas on the table — run the 9 steps on each as a fast filter, cut the obviously bad ones, and concentrate firepower on the survivors.
可行性门槛:给四维度设最低线(如任一维度低于 4 分一票否决),让标准透明、决策不靠人情。 Feasibility threshold: set a floor per dimension (e.g. any score under 4 is a single-vote veto) so the bar is transparent and the decision doesn't ride on politics.
避免硬上:发现红灯就敢喊停,是成熟团队的标志 —— 沉没成本不是继续烧钱的理由。 Don't push through: calling a stop when the light turns red is what mature teams do — sunk cost is not a reason to keep burning more.
一句话In One Line
人一旦投入,就舍不得放手 —— 这叫沉没成本谬误。可行性 9 步的真正价值,是逼你在投入还很少的时候,冷静地、结构化地问一遍「凭什么这事能成」。 它的结论从来不是「平均还行就上」,而是木桶定律:任何一块板太短,整桶水都装不住。市场、技术、财务、资源 —— 缺一不可。 敢于在第 3 步喊停的团队,不是胆小,而是把钱花在了刀刃上。 Once people are invested, they hate to walk away — that's the sunk-cost fallacy. The real value of the 9-step feasibility check is that it forces you, while the spend is still small, to calmly and systematically ask "what makes this thing actually win?" Its verdict is never "the average is okay, ship it" — it's the law of the barrel: one short stave and the barrel holds no water. Market, technology, financials, resources — every one is required. A team that dares to call a stop at step 3 isn't being timid — it's putting money where it counts.
常见误用Common Mistakes
看平均分放行,忽视短板。可行性受最弱维度制约,任一红灯都要正视,不能用高分维度去补。 Approving on the average and ignoring the weak board. Feasibility is capped by the weakest dimension. Face every red light squarely — you can't paper it over with a high score elsewhere.
因为已投钱就硬撑。沉没成本不可回收;评估只看「往后值不值得」,不看「已经花了多少」。 Pushing through because money is already in. Sunk cost is gone. Only ask "is the forward spend worth it?" — not "how much have we already burned?"
把可行性做成精确预测。它是早期快筛,求的是「方向对不对」,精确测算留给后续详细设计。 Mistaking feasibility for a precise forecast. It's an early, fast filter — it answers "is the direction right?" Precise calculations belong to the detailed design that follows.

可行性 9 步