03/09/2026
Recently, we shared insights on how an Abu Dhabi based mushroom production project looked viable on paper — featuring a 20% cost advantage—yet failed to account for real market dynamics. That case wasn’t an isolated incident. Across three entirely different sectors, our advisory team saw three distinct assumptions lead to the exact same fundamental mistake.
1. | | Mushroom Production
A cost advantage was treated as guaranteed market share, but it was never tested against low-cost imports or the established portfolio-selling strategies of local producers.
2. | | Indian Curriculum School
Enrolment projections were benchmarked against a top-performing school elsewhere in the region without adjusting for local neighbourhood demographics. When we analyzed actual household income and competition in the immediate area, the numbers dropped significantly. Even a small drop in enrolment made the financial model unviable—a scenario no one had stress-tested.
3. | Metals & Steel | Steel Fabrication
A third-party study assumed raw material prices would stay flat, projecting a payback period of under four years. The model completely ignored input cost volatility. (We’ll dive deeper into this case in our next post.)
These three projects spanned different industries and locations, but they all suffered from the same core issue: each feasibility study answered the question it was asked, but no one stopped to check if they were asking the right questions in the first place.
The issue is rarely the absence of a feasibility study. It is the absence of questioning the assumptions built into it.
Email [email protected] our team of experts can help you challenge the assumptions, ask the right questions, and make better-informed decisions that enable business growth.
