MT207 Unit 5 Feasibility Study Example

Reviewed by Chester Goodwin, MBA Starting a Business Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This MT207 Unit 5 feasibility study tests a composite Spokane dryer vent cleaning venture four ways, market, operations, founder and money, and returns a conditional yes: proceed only if three apartment communities covering at least 600 units sign letters of intent before the founder buys a van or resigns. Purdue Global MT 207 asks for a verdict in Unit 5, and each test here ends in one. The market passes if proposals beat the November budget window. Operations pass on a timed pace of about twenty apartment units a day, with contractor registration for duct repairs still open. The founder passes after certification and a sales course. Money passes only through contracts: break-even needs about 41 home cleanings or 115 apartment units a month. Cassar and Kahneman and Lovallo explain the caution. It is a BS in Business Administration study.

CourseMT207 Starting a Business
UnitUnit 5
Paper typeFeasibility study
LengthAbout 1,100 words, 7 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Business Administration
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for MT207 Unit 5

1

A Conditional Yes Before the Van Is Bought: A Unit 5 Feasibility Study for a Dryer Vent Cleaning Service

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT207: Starting a Business

Unit 5 Feasibility Study

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Clearline Vent Care, its founder and every figure are composite and illustrative; bracketed figures stand where quotes and records would supply the numbers; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingStating the condition in the lead tells the reader the study reached a decision rather than a list of considerations.
2

Purpose and Method

Barringer and Ireland (2019) describe feasibility analysis as the step between an idea and a business plan, in which a founder tests whether the product, the industry, the organization and the finances can support a venture. This study follows that order, using the Unit 3 market count, the Unit 4 competitor calls, quotes from two equipment suppliers and an insurance broker, and the founder's own budget. Each test asks a question that could be answered no.

Market Feasibility

The question is whether enough buyers exist within reach. The Unit 3 summary estimated about [15,300] cleanings a year within a forty-minute drive, worth roughly [$915,000], with a long lead time from the dominant competitor and no rival offering airflow readings or reports. Fourteen of twenty-two property managers said their vents had gone more than two years without cleaning, and eleven said they would look at a proposal.

The weakness is concentration. Most of the value sits in apartment contracts, and property owners set vendor budgets in November. A venture that misses the November window waits a year for most of its contract revenue. The test passes, with a timing condition: proposals must reach managers by the end of October.

Operational Feasibility

The question is whether the work can be done safely, legally and at the expected pace. The work requires a van, a rotary brush system and a high-powered vacuum, an inspection camera, an airflow meter, ladders and fall protection for roof terminations, and a stock of rigid metal duct and replacement vent hoods. All are available from two suppliers within a week.

Pace is the main operational assumption. The founder timed herself cleaning vents in her current building: about [12] minutes per unit on short runs, [25] minutes on long runs with a roof termination. At an average of [18] minutes, a technician can clean about twenty apartment units in a working day, allowing for setup, resident access and travel between buildings. Homes take about forty-five minutes each, plus travel, so four to six a day is realistic.

One open item remains. If a technician replaces crushed foil duct inside a wall, the work may require contractor registration with the state's labor department. The founder will confirm before offering duct replacement; cleaning alone does not appear to require it. The test passes with that item open.

Disposal is simpler than in many trades. Lint and debris go into sealed bags with ordinary commercial trash, and no wash water is produced, so no sewer or environmental permit applies to the cleaning itself. Old foil duct removed during repairs goes to a metal recycler, which takes it free.

What this part is doingTesting the pace assumption with the founder's own timed work gives the operational verdict evidence instead of a guess.
3

Founder Feasibility

The question is whether this founder can run this business. She has eleven years of apartment maintenance, including five as a supervisor, and knows how property managers buy, what they fear and how residents react to a technician at the door. She has managed vendor schedules for a 300-unit community. She has never run a business, kept books or sold a service.

Two gaps follow. The first is technical: she has cleaned vents in her own buildings but holds no industry certification. A dryer exhaust technician certification course costs about [$450] and takes two days, and several managers said their insurers would ask for it. The second is commercial: she has bought services but never sold them. She plans to take the local small business development center's free course on sales and bookkeeping before launch. The test passes, conditionally on both steps.

Financial Feasibility

The question is whether the venture can cover its costs and pay its owner. Monthly fixed costs come to about [$4,250]: an owner's draw of [$2,600], the microloan payment of [$410], the van payment of [$341], insurance of [$310], phone and booking software of [$140], marketing of [$350] and accounting of [$100]. The owner's draw is modest, about [$31,200] a year, which is less than half her current salary.

Each home cleaning at [$119] carries variable costs of about [$14] for fuel, supplies and card fees, a contribution of [$105]. Each apartment unit at [$42] carries about [$5] in variable costs, a contribution of [$37]. Homes alone would require about forty-one cleanings a month to break even. Apartments alone would require about [115] units a month, which is roughly six days of apartment work.

That second figure is what makes the venture feasible. A single 200-unit community on an annual contract, cleaned building by building, contributes about [$7,400] a year, enough to cover nearly two months of fixed costs. Three communities with 600 units would cover almost half the year's fixed costs before any homeowner calls.

Cassar (2010), studying nascent entrepreneurs' forecasts, found that their sales expectations were generally optimistic compared with what they later achieved. That finding argues for setting the condition on signed letters rather than on the founder's projections, and for assuming that homeowner volume will come in below plan. Kahneman and Lovallo (1993) described the same pattern as an inside view, in which planners focus on their own case and neglect how similar ventures usually turn out. The study answers it by requiring evidence from buyers before money is spent.

A spreadsheet of hoped-for homeowners cannot carry this business; three signed apartment letters can.

Summary of Verdicts

Market feasibility passes, on condition that proposals reach managers before the November budget decisions. Operational feasibility passes, with the contractor registration question to be confirmed before duct replacement is offered. Founder feasibility passes, on condition that she completes the certification and the small business course. Financial feasibility passes only if apartment contracts sign, since homeowner volume alone would take too long to cover fixed costs.

Recommendation

The venture is feasible on one controlling condition: letters of intent from at least three apartment communities totaling 600 units, collected by mid-November, before the founder buys a van or resigns. If the letters come in, she should proceed to the business plan and funding request. If fewer than two communities sign, she should keep her job, offer weekend homeowner cleanings with rented equipment for one season, and test demand again next fall. A study that can only say yes is not a test, and this one names the result that would mean no.

What this part is doingEnding with the result that would reverse the verdict shows the study was a real test.
4

References

Barringer, B. R., & Ireland, R. D. (2019). Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures (6th ed.). Pearson.

Cassar, G. (2010). Are individuals entering self-employment overly optimistic? An empirical test of plans and projections on nascent entrepreneur expectations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 822-840. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.833

Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17

Reading the MT 207 Unit 5 instructions

Unit 5 generally asks for a feasibility study that decides whether the venture should go ahead. Most prompts follow a set of tests, often market, operational or technical, organizational or founder, and financial feasibility, each ending with a judgment. Use the market and competitor work from earlier units, and add what the operation physically requires, what the founder can and cannot yet do and a break-even calculation. Each test should ask a question that could be answered no. Many sections reward a conditional verdict, provided the condition can be checked before money is committed. The financial test needs enough detail to compare break-even volume with demand, while full startup costs and funding usually come later. A summary of the verdicts and a recommendation, including what result would reverse it, close the study. A typical study runs four or five pages, citing feasibility sources such as Barringer and Ireland.

How the MT 207 Unit 5 example is put together

The study opens by placing feasibility between idea and plan, citing Barringer and Ireland, and lists the evidence used. Market feasibility draws on the Unit 3 count and calls and finds the November budget window. Operational feasibility lists the equipment, then tests pace with the founder's own timed cleanings, and a margin note marks that evidence; disposal and the duct-repair registration question follow. Founder feasibility weighs eleven years of maintenance against no selling or bookkeeping experience and names two steps to close the gaps. Financial feasibility builds fixed costs line by line, works out contributions per home and per unit and shows that one 200-unit contract covers nearly two months of fixed costs. Cassar and Kahneman and Lovallo explain why signed letters, not projections, set the condition. The highlighted line makes that point, verdicts are summarized and the recommendation states the result that would mean no.

Where the points sit in the MT207 Unit 5 rubric

Feasibility studies are usually graded on the honesty of each test and the clarity of the verdict. A test that could not fail earns little, so graders look for real questions with evidence, such as a timed pace or a counted market. Using earlier units shows the course building on itself. The financial test earns credit when fixed costs are itemized and break-even is compared with demand rather than stated alone. Founder feasibility rewards candor about gaps and a specific plan to close them. A conditional verdict scores well when the condition is measurable and timed, such as signed letters by a date. Research on optimism or forecasting bias, applied to the founder's own numbers, shows judgment beyond arithmetic. A recommendation that names what would reverse it proves the study was a test. Barringer and Ireland, Cassar and Kahneman and Lovallo need complete APA 7 entries.

MT207 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points

The most common weakness in feasibility studies is a yes reached before the analysis begins, with every test written to pass. Another is a financial section that lists revenue hopes without a break-even figure. Some studies skip operational feasibility, though licensing, equipment and pace often decide whether a service can work. Others ignore the founder, as if anyone could run the business. Conditions are sometimes too vague to check, such as if demand is strong. Be careful with projections drawn only from the founder's expectations, since research consistently finds them optimistic. If your study ends in a no, explain it well; a supported no often scores as well as a yes. Bring the venture and the numbers your Units 3 and 4 produced, and a writer can help design four honest tests, build the break-even and state a condition you can verify.

Get an MT207 Unit 5 example written to your instructions

Attach the Unit 5 instructions, the rubric and whatever earlier units produced, the market count, the rival research, rough costs. The study returns with each test ending in a verdict, break-even compared against demand, and conditions that can be checked before spending. It is free as a first custom sample, typically within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More MT207 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT207 Unit 5 questions, answered

Can a feasibility study conclude that the venture should not start?

Yes, and a well-supported no often scores as well as a yes. The grader is looking for tests applied honestly and a verdict that follows from them. A study concluding that break-even requires more than half of the reachable market, and recommending a different model or location, shows the judgment the unit is built to assess.

How much financial detail belongs here versus later units?

Enough to reach a break-even volume and compare it with demand. Full startup cost worksheets and funding structures usually come later in MT207, so the feasibility study can use rounded monthly fixed costs and a per-sale contribution with their origins stated. When later units refine the figures, the plan updates the break-even and notes what changed.

What counts as a condition in a conditional verdict?

Something specific that can be verified before money is committed. Signed letters of intent from a stated number of buyers, a written answer from a permitting office, or a quote from a supplier all qualify. Vague conditions, such as strong marketing or hard work, cannot be tested and read as hope, which most sections grade accordingly.

Where can I find a free MT207 Unit 5 sample paper?

A complete MT207 Unit 5 feasibility study appears on this page. It tests a dryer vent cleaning venture on market, operations, founder and money, computes break-even and returns a conditional yes tied to signed apartment letters, with margin notes.

Why is the verdict tied to apartment letters rather than homeowner demand?

Because homeowners alone would need about forty-one cleanings a month to break even, which could take years. Three signed communities with 600 units cover close to half the year's fixed costs before any homeowner calls.