Feasibility Study Performance Based Budgeting - Idscs
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingEuropean Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)FEASIBILITY STUDYPERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETINGFOR ENHANCED BUDGETING PROCESS AND INCREASEDTRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY1
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingFEASIBILITY STUDYPERFORMANCE BASEDBUDGETINGFOR ENHANCED BUDGETING PROCESSAND INCREASED TRANSPARENCY ANDАCCOUNTABILITYCENTER FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSES (CEA)Institute for Democracy Societas Civilis - IDSCSMarjan Nikolov, PhDBorce Trenovski, PhDBiljana Tasevska, MScThis project is financed by the European UnionThis publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union.The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors andcan in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European UnionEuropean Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)2012-2013 Supporting a civil society through Country-Based Support SchemesReference: EuropeAid/134-015/L/ACT/MKSkopje, December 20142
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingPublisher Center for Economic Analyses – CEAFor the publisher Marjan NikolovTitle FEASIBILITY STUDY: PERFORMANCEBASED BUDGETING FOR ENHANCEDBUDGETING PROCESS ANDINCREASED TRANSPARENCY ANDАCCOUNTABILITYIllustration Jordan GjorchevCopies 100CIP - Каталогизација во публикацијаНационална и универзитетска библиотека "Св. Климент Охридски", Скопје336.146(497.7)NIKOLOV, MarjanPerformance based budgeting for enhanced budgeting process andincreased transparency and accountability : Feasibility study /[Marjan Nikolov, Borče Trenovski, Biljana Tasevska]. - Skopje :Institute for Democracy Societas Civilis - IDSCS, 2015. - 130 стр. :табели ; 30 смФусноти кон текстот. - Содржи и: AnnexISBN 978-608-4731-21-41. Trenovski, Borce [автор] 2. Tasevska, Biljana [автор]а) Буџет - Транспарентност - МакедонијаCOBISS.MK-ID 977904743
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingDear reader,An assessment of the costs and benefits of a reform which includes anintroduction and implementation of a performance budgeting inMacedonia is not an easy task. A certain amount of courage is requiredto make an assessment, given that we did not find a general assessmentin the literature of any country (except sectorial calculations. Forkindergartens in Macedonia see for example Nikolov 2006). Moreover,the findings of the survey based field research, as to whether theintroduction and implementation of performance budgetingaremeaningful, move from one extreme to the other (see Robinson M. andBrumby J. 2005). However, we believe that a preliminary estimate for areform for introducing performance budgeting must be quantifiedwithinan ambitious activity such as our project, which is supported bythe European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).The approach to this cost benefit analysis, in terms of costs is based on aphased introduction and implementation, where we consult theRegulatory impact assessment methodology. In terms of benefits, we areusing a microeconomic approach to assessment of technical efficiency(Data Envelopment Analysis-DEA and Stochastic Frontier AnalysisSFA) of the budget allocations and executions of the budget users,compared with the corresponding sectorial gross value added in the GDPwhich is obtained and is assumed as a final performance. The assessmentof the costs and benefits are then assumed for a long period of 50 yearsdue to the very nature of such a reform.Furthermore, the text consists of a brief overview of the need for such areform, because we believe that performance budgeting is a naturalqualitative step towards further enhancement of public finances qualityin Macedonia. This section refers to the findings and recommendationsof several previous studies within the framework of this project. In thetext, we also provide a description of the assessment methodology of thecosts and benefits of such a reform in Macedonia and finally we providea draft-phased approach for such a reform in Macedonia.With Respect,Marjan Nikolov, PhDProject Coordinator4
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingTable of Contents7EXECUTIVE SUMMARYI. INTRODUCTION131. Scope of the study142. Why performance budgeting?15II. PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING211. Definition, reasons for implementation and modalities212.Is the concept applicable for Macedonia? Steps in designing andimplementation of the performance based budgeting23III. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS261. Approach and data262. Current situation273. Efficiency and effectiveness324. Reform plan4.1. Proposed steps for implementation of performance based budgeting3839IV. COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASEDBUDGETING IMPLEMENTATION541. Performance based budgeting cost assessment1.1 Assessment of additional costs54712. Benefit assessment of performance based budgetingintroduction2.1. Methodology on Benefit calculation2.2.Data Envelopment Analysis -DEA frontiers2.3. Stochastic Frontier Analysis - SFA2.4. Model72757679805
Feasibility Study: Performance Based Budgeting8081842.5. Data2.6. Estimation Results2.7. Conclusion3. Cost Benefit Analysis86REFERENCE LIST (RELEVANT LITERATURE)89ANNEX936
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingExecutive SummaryPerformance based budgeting in Macedonia--Performance based budgeting is a concept that allows us to gatherinformation/data on when and whether the budget programs, agenciesand other institutions providing public services, efficiently andeffectively carry out the required obligations and works. It aims toimprove the efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure by linkingthe public sector organizations/institutions’funds with the results thatthey deliver.One of the main reasons for implementation of the concept ofperformance based budgeting (as opposed to the traditional concept) isthe opportunity to determine whether the projects and activitiesundertaken by the state institutions produce results and make changes inpeople's lives. Performance budgeting: Serves as a tool for strategic planning, by improving the understanding/communication between departments/institutionsand the staff, to achieve the objectives of the projects/activities; Allowsthe departments and institutions to get a sense of directionand the objectives which should directtheir activities; Allows freedom in defining the project direction, freedom ofcentralized control and input control, enabling a usage of higherdiscretion in creating the right mix of resources/inputs fortheachievement of the expected objectives.Experiences, evaluation and lessons learned from theimplementation of performance-based budgeting: In most of the cases the information on performance are includedin the budgeting process as a part of a broader package of publicexpenditure control and public sector reform; The concept represents a long-term trend that has its ownevolutionary path, which leads us further to insist on itsimplementation in Macedonia (most countries are working atleast 5 years on developing outputs (of their budgets), while 40%of the countries are working on developing this concept for over10 years; almost ¾ of OECD countries include non-financial dataand performance information in their budget documents);7
Feasibility Study: Performance Based Budgeting Most of the OECD countries today, present their performancetargets to the Parliament and the public within the preparedobjectives and the performance plans;The adopted approach for the implementation of performancebased budgeting vary from country to country, indicating that theprocess is not static and is constantly evolving, while dependingon the structure, culture and history of each country –leading tothe conclusion that it would be important to model and adapt tothe Macedonian economic-socio-political environment;Generally, the Ministry of Finance does not use the results of theperformance measurementsto financially "punish" or "reward"budget users;The lack of the institutional capacity and power or the lack ofpolitical support,often limits the capacity of the Ministry ofFinance to eliminate or even try to cut the funding for someprograms which are ineffective;The performance information is most often used for increasingaccountability of the ministries/institutions – serving as an initialtriggerfor the Ministry of Finance to closely monitor and analyzethe work of the units and programs;Thecommon challenges regarding the concept areimproving theperformance measurement, finding appropriate ways ofintegrating the information within the budgeting process, gainingthe attention of the policy-makers and improving the quality ofthe received performance information;In most cases, the governments failed (faced with difficulties) toprovide policy makers with high quality, credible, relevant andtimely information that would be directly used in the budgetingprocess;There are common objectives expected from the implementationof the performance budgeting concept based on which we cangenerally divide the countries into three groups: control of publicexpenditure; improved spending allocation and efficiency;improved public sector performance; and improvedaccountability and transparency of politicians and the public.Macedonia could be found in each of these objectives / groups ofcountries.The steps and the guidelines for designing the concept ofperformance-based budgeting and its implementation details areworked out in the section that analyzes the applicability of thisconcept in the Republic Macedonia8
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingRecommendations- Given the current situation in the country, the most appropriateimplementation is through: top-down approach; partial implementation;and gradualist approach. Creation of a special body which will be concerned firstly, withthe design of appropriate modality and implementation of theconcept of performance-based budgeting that will be mostsuitable for R. Macedonia; The partial implementation would mean selection andintroduction of performance-based budgeting on a pilot budgetusers’ level; Gradualist approach would involve a phased introduction ofperformance-based budgeting among the pilot budget users;- All budget users will apply: Introduction of program budgeting among all budget users; Identification of input indicators, output (results) indicatorsamong all budget users. In the first phase, simple indicators canbe introduced, such as number of employees as input indicatorsand simple output indicators (e.g. Number of users of a respectiveprogram); The strategic plan of all budget users should be available inelectronic form and should include a compliance timeframe; The final accountsof the budget users should contain a narrativeexplanation of the differences between the projected and actualexpenditures; The final account ofthe budget users,needs to explain the reasonsfor the differences between the originally projected estimates ofoutput indicators and the actual results for the year, as well as thedifferences between the originally estimatedresults indicators andthe actual results of the year; All budget users should publish evaluation of the achievedprogram outputs. The evaluations should contain a separateanalysis of the changes in theprofile and the number of users ofpublic services as well as the changes of thebudget users’ needs; The audit results of the budget expenditures, after the publishingof the audit report by the State Audit Office (SAO) should beavailable in electronic form; The action plan for the actings, based on the findings of the SAOshould be available in electronic form;9
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingCost-benefit Analysis1. COSTS In order to assess the costs in our cost-benefit analysis we areusing Regulatory Impact Assessment - RIA1. This methodologyis fully aligned with the existing system for strategic planning inthe ministries and the policy coordination procedures and thedecision-making in the Government of Republic of Macedonia;The costs of each of the formerly developed activities andprocedures in the implementation phase are identified. Moreover,the method of the calculation is explained;In the process of identification of the costs, the those taken intoconsideration include: the costs for the organization of theplanned activities (meetings, trainings, etc.), calculation of thecost for creating new bodies/departments/institutions, calculationof the costs accounting for the time and the commitment of theparticipants in the implementation of the concept, as well as theapproximate costs for the employees who will be part of thereform;The amount of costs is dynamically assessed, illustrated in thetable given bellow both in denars and in euros.The Net Present Value of the estimated costs for a period of50 years is 99 million euro (with a discount rate of 8%2).Table 1Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6Functioning Period– the same cost isrepeated in thefollowing 483.791,23189.591,341Ministry of information society and administration is a ministry user and ministrywhich manages the process. See more on the regulation, reports prepared anddocuments regulating the area on: https://ener.gov.mk/default.aspx2According to the CEA assessment public sector discount rate in Macedonia. al.pdf.10
Feasibility Study: Performance Based Budgeting2. BENEFITS To assess the benefits we will use microeconomic approach formeasuring the technical production efficiency of gross valueadded in the Macedonian GDP, using the inputs of the budgetusers’budgets of the and their employee number.On one hand, we have budget users which are using public fundsto create the socioeconomic environment for the economicagents, and on the other hand, the result is measured in a sectorialgross value added of the GDP.The idea behind our model is that through the allocation of thebudget funds and the number of employees, the budget users areproviding adequate socioeconomic and societal environment inorder to produce an appropriate value added i.e. GDPIn the process, some budget users are more efficient and moreeffective in their work and thus produce relatively highervalueadded than average, and other budget users are less efficientand less effective andthus produce relatively lower value addedthan average.By using this methodology, though the valuation of the averageefficiency in production of 1 denar value added of GDP from theallocation of one denar to the budget user and the payment of 1denar per employee, we obtain a quantified rate of how muchmore value added would have occurred in the Macedonian GDPwith an increased efficiency of the budget users to the efficiencyof those budgetary users which are assessed as relatively mostefficient in the RM.This relative higher efficiency would result in proportionallyhigher value added, and the higher efficiency will be a proxyfor the increase of the value added if the budget users thinkwithin the frameworks of performancebased budgeting.The expected benefits of the introduction of the performancebased budgeting by using this methodology are within the rangeof 13%-40%of the gross value added of the GDP. These are thepotential benefits within the range from 850 million to 2,5 billioneuros.Still, these benefits cannot be expected immediately. It isassumed that these will gradually take place in the following 50years with 2 percentage points per annum.11
Feasibility Study: Performance Based Budgeting The net present value of the benefits is expected to reach 4,2billion euro in the next 50 years (with a discount rate of 8%3)with a 13% technical efficiency improvement.The net present value of the benefits is expected to reach 13billion euro in the next 50 years (with a discount rate of 8%4)with a 40% technical efficiency improvement.The estimated benefits are higher than the estimated costs forthe same period with a net present value of 99 million euro.Or, for every denar invested in this reform there areadditional 2.600 denars of gross value added in theMacedonian GDP expected, if there is 13% technicalefficiency improvement or for every denar invested in thisreform there are additional 8.000 denars of gross value addedin the Macedonian GDP expected, if there is 40% technicalefficiency improvement.3According to the CEA assessment public sector discount rate in Macedonia. al.pdf.4According to the CEA assessment public sector discount rate in Macedonia. al.pdf.12
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingI. INTRODUCTIONOne of the most frequently asked questions related to the public sectorand the fiscal policy issues represents the size of the budget (publicsector/state) and the more prominent dimension, concerning the efficientallocation of the public resources, and lately the issues of transparencyand accountability of public consumption. These issues are of utmostimportance for every citizen, given that the public revenue generationand the provided public goods are directly related to the life of anyeconomic agent in the country. Therefore, the logics for raising thequestion: How efficiently are the public budget resources spent and isthere any way to determine the efficiencyof the implementation and themanagement of the budget activities. It is of particular importance, anidentification of the performances to be achieved for each budgetactivity, in order for for these to be realistically assessed as more/lesssuccessful. This process is not very easy considering: the politicalcontext, the administrative capacity, the level of transparency indetermining the results and the outputs/results of each activity(performance), an independent audit of the performance/results,integration of the performances in the political decisions, etc.Provided that all of these steps are accompanied with numerous issuesand dilemmas we prepared the feasibility study for organization of theprocess and implementation of performance based budgeting, as one ofthe key preconditions for increased accountability and more transparentbudgeting process in the country.The activities (research/studies) implemented and used as a platform fordevelopment of the feasibility study, within the EU funded project are:---Development of a methodology for monitoring ofaccountability and transparency of the budget users, May2014Monitoring report of the transparency and accountability ofthe budget users, August 2014Performance based budgeting – for improved budgetaryprocess and increased transparency and accountability withneeds assessment, September 2014Accountability and transparency of the budget users,November 2014Workshop for the concerned interested parties and finallyFeasibility study on performance based budgeting13
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingWe are aware that this is a lengthy process that even in the mostdeveloped countries it is not fully completed and faces numerousobstacles. However, we sincerely hope that our project and the researchwill be the initial trigger that will activate, encourage and steer thisimportant category towards the further development of the budgetprocess in our country.Further on, sections of the other researchs andstudies listed above which are part of this projecta are also used.1. Scope of the studyThe definition of the structure, organization and implementation of theconcept of performance based budgeting is an extremely complex andintricate activity that requires a combination of methodologies, data andknowledge of the many affected areas, aiming to adequate execution.Thus we are faced with the first challenge - how deeply and how widelyto extend the scope for preparation of the feasibility study. Given theimplemented activities and the goals (conclusions and recommendationswhich they derive), as well as the generally defined structures of suchresearch, we attempt to provide a specific, direct and clear picture of theprocess of organization and implementation of performance basedbudgeting.This study should at least aid to the answering of the followingquestions: Why should performance budgetingbe implemented? How should the implementation of the conceptbe organized? Which are the institutions/organizations/economic agents thatare included and concerned with the implementation of thenew concept? What are the benefits, and what are the costs related to theimplementation of the performance based budgeting? What is the amount of time and the resources required forthe implementation? What are the risks that could affect the organization and theimplementation of performance based budgeting? What are the wider macroeconomic environment effects ofthe implementation of the concept?Hence, the specific parts of the feasibility study are defined in a mannerthat should answer the previously stated questions:14
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingI. The first two parts will analyze and summarize the situationconcerning performance budgeting in Macedonia. After the briefelaboration of the features of the new concept, the results of themonitoring, conducted by CEA and IDSCS, will be considered, whichrevealed several trends and gaps in the state budget process (which is ofutmost importance for the implementation of the new concept). Howdoes the performance budgeting present a natural evolution of the budgetprocess in the country will also be pointed out. In the second part, a briefpicture of the experiences and lessons learned from other countries’implementation of the concept is provided, and a general overview of theinitial steps to be taken in the performance budgeting implementation inour country given its specifics.II. The third part is a cost-benefit analysis considering both the direct andindirect costs related to the implementation of performance budgeting,and the expected benefits for the budget users, institutions, citizens,regulatory bodies, etc. Prior to determining the costs and benefits boththe used approach and data is also elaborated, as well as the currentsituation regarding the subject area.III. The fourth part is an evaluation of the costs and benefits ofintroducing of performance budgeting with an assessment of internal rateof return (IRR).2. Why performance budgeting?This section is based on the three studies that were conducted as part ofthis project, as well as the findings and lessons learned from the studytrip to Finland where we met representatives of the Finnish institutionsthat implement performance budgeting. The first study is regarding themonitoring of the transparency and accountability, the second study onthe transparency and accountability itself, and the third is the assessmentof the needs for introduction of performancebased budgeting.The results and the conclusions summarize the situation which connectsthe budget activities with the performances that need to be achieved in R.Macedonia, based on the first monitoring of this aspect conducted byCEA and IDSCS within the project Enhancing transparency andaccountability through performance based budgeting. This is the firststudy of this kind ever conducted in Macedonia.15
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingStudy One. Monitoring research – findings and recommendationsThe research covered 60 out of the 91 budget users of the budget of R.Macedonia, or 66% of all budget institutions in the country. Thesebudget users manage/allocate around 91% of the total state expenditures,or more specifically for the last three years: 90,3% in 2011, 91,3% in2012 and 91,7% in 20135. The budget users were firstly monitored andanalyzed through the web sites and the published documents, andsecondly through direct interviews with the budget user’s representativesresponsible for the preparation of the budgets for each of the institutions,providing answers to specific questions on the implemented proceduresof accountability and transparency (See Trenovski, Damjanov, 2014).The parts which are covering the areas directly related to theperformance budgeting have shown that: Only 26,7% of the monitored institutions classify the expenditures ofthe budget by program classification. None of the monitored institution does not publish a budget thatcontains output indicators (at the end of the Annex we provide anextensive table of budget users and indicators used in Macedonia),nor they are used in combination with results/outcome indicators. In terms of transparent disclosure of information/data regarding thestrategic plans, programs of the institutions, budget programs, publicrevenues and expenditures, the situation in Macedoniaaccording tothe conducted monitoring can be summarized as following: 96,7% ofthe institutions6 do not publish their timetables for strategicplaningand program adopting; 38,3% of the institutions do notprovide an explanation of the differences between the projected andactual expenditures/revenues in the Final accounts; none of theinstitutions do not explain the differences between the originalprojection of the output indicators and the specific outcome for thatyear; only 5% of institutions publish the results of the budgetexpenditure audit; 76,7% do not publish semi-annual and annualreportsfor program implementation in the last fiscal year; only 30%of institutions have published their current strategic plan on theofficial website; only 21,7% of the monitored institutions publish andpublically share their work program.5The percentage calculation is based on the available data from the final accounts of theBudget of R. Macedonia from 2009-2013.6From here on, the institutions refer solely to the institutions which are subject ofmonitoring conducted by CEA and IDSCS.16
Feasibility Study: Performance Based Budgeting 93,8% of the interviewees answered that they know what thestrategic priorities of the Government of R. Macedonia are, and only65,6% answered that the strategic plan and the strategic goals of theinstitution are based on the strategic priorities of the Government,while 9,4% responded negatively. Regarding the evaluation of the budget proposals, only 25% of theinstitutions are using a prescribed methodology, the remaining 56,3%partially use a prescribed methodology, and 18,8% do not use one.While only 21,9% of institutions use a prescribed methodology forevaluation of the achieved program outputs, 37,5% partiallyuse it andthe highest percentage of 40,6% do not use a prescribed evaluationmethodology. Only 18,8% of the institutions in R. Macedonia responded that theyperform analysis of the changing needs of users concerned with thework program of the institution, while the dominant part of the56,3% do partial analysis; Only 28,1% of the institutions answered that they are not facingdifficulties in relating the budget plan with the goals of the strategicplans, 3,1% answered that the objectives in the strategic plans are notclear enough. Only 34,4% of institutions in Macedonia have linked their finalbudget accounts with an output and outcome indicators of relevantprograms, 18,8% have done this partially, and the remaining 46,9%have not linked to the budget accounts with output and outcomeindicators; Finally, it is interesting to see whether the institutions of the Republicof Macedonia have heard of performance based budgeting, andwhether they know what the concept means. 31,3% havenot heardof performance basedbudgeting. About 50% have heard about it,but do not know exactly what it is and only 18,8% know exactlywhat performance based budget is. Meaning that only 1/5 of theinstitutions of the Republic of Macedonia,covered by the analysisare clear what performance based budgeting is.The summarizedanswers of those interviewed representativesand who respondedthat they know whatperformance based budgeting is included:preparation, programming and implementation of the budgetbased on criteria, activities and programs built on the resultsthat are related to the strategic objectives of the organization.17
Feasibility Study: Performance Based BudgetingMonitoring recommendations Introduction of program budgeting among all budget users Identification of input indicators and output, outcome (results)indicators for all budget users. In the first phase, simple indicatorscould be introduced such as number of employees as input indicator,and simple output indicators (e.g. Number of users of the respectiveprogram) The strategic plans of all budget users must be available in electronicversion, on the official web sites and must include an implementationtimeframe The final accounts of budget users need to contain an explanation ofthe differences between the projected and actual expenditures The final accounts of budget users need to contain an explanation ofthe reasons for the differences between the original output indicatorsprohjections and the actual results for the year, as well as explanationof the differences between the original projections of the resultsindicators and actual results for the year All budget users need to disclosean evaluation of the achievedprogram outputs. The evaluation needs to contain a separate analysisof the profile and the number of public service users as well as theirchanging needs and the program'sresponse of the particular dynamics The audit results of the budget expenditures must be available in theelectronic form on the official website, after the audit report has beenpublished by the State Audit Office (SAO) The action plan for actingsupon the findings of the SAO must beavailable in electronic formon the o
Feasibility Study: Performance Based Budgeting 1 European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) FEASIBILITY STUDY . using a microeconomic approach to assessment of technical efficiency (Data Envelopment Analysis-DEA and Stochastic Frontier Analysis-SFA) of the budget allocations and executions of the budget users, .
Study. The purpose of the Feasibility Study Proposal is to define the scope and cost of the Feasibility Study. Note: To be eligible for a Feasibility Study Incentive, the Feasibility Study Application and Proposal must be approved by Efficiency Nova Scotia before the study is initiated. 3.0 Alternate Feasibility Studies
Capital budgeting is seen as a means through which investment decisions by micro finance enterprises are majorly based on. Capital budgeting is a required managerial tool [1]. Multinational capital budgeting, like domestic capital budgeting, focuses on the cash flows of prospective long-term investment projects [2].
Our reference: 083702890 A - Date: 2 November 2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY REFERENCE SYSTEM ERTMS 3 of 152 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 EU Context of Feasibility Study 9 1.2 Digitalisation of the Rail Sector 9 1.3 Objectives of Feasibility Study 11 1.4 Focus of Feasibility Study 11 1.5 Report Structure 12 2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 13
GENERAL LEDGER BUDETING AND POSITION BUDGETING 6 GENERAL LEDGER BUDGETING General Ledger Budgeting Introduction There are many different approaches to budgeting in the Infinite Visions Accounting system, and no one method is necessarily preferred over the other. It truly comes
1) explain the nature and importance of capital budgeting decision. 2) discuss the types of capital budgeting decisions. 3) impart knowledge about the process of capital budgeting decisions. 4) enable you to estimate the cash flows of the investment projects. STRUCTURE 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Nature of Capital Budgeting 3.3 Significance of Capital .
The feasibility study (or the analysis of alternatives1) is used to justify a project. It compares the various implementation alternatives based on their economic, technical and operational feasibility [2]. The steps of creating a feasibility study are [2]: 1. Determine implementation alternatives. 2. Assess the economic feasibility for each .
In 2006, a 300 MW solar PV plant, generator interconnection feasibility study was conducted. The purpose of this Feasibility Study (FS) is to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed interconnection to the New Mexico (NM) transmission system. In 2007, a feasibility study of PV for the city of Easthampton, MA was conducted.
The Leaving Certificate Russian syllabus is set out in the context of a common syllabus framework for the teaching and examining of French, German, Spanish and Italian. The syllabus is "communicative" in the sense that it is based on the purposes to which learners are likely to want, need or expect to put the knowledge and skills they acquire in class to use, and in the sense that the .
