Technical audits & feasibility studies help teams make confident build, buy, and refactor decisions by assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches before time and budget disappear into rework. SHAPE reviews your application architecture, codebase, infrastructure, security posture, and delivery practices—then translates findings into a prioritized plan your stakeholders can execute.

Good technical audits & feasibility studies turn uncertainty into a decision-ready plan.

Practical rule: If a team can’t clearly explain current constraints, risks, and realistic options, they don’t yet have feasibility—they have assumptions.

---

Technical audits & feasibility studies overview

SHAPE’s technical audits & feasibility studies are designed for one outcome: assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches so leadership can make a defensible decision and engineering can execute without surprises.

• Technical audit: evaluates what exists today—architecture, code quality, security, performance, reliability, data, and delivery practices.
• Feasibility study: evaluates what’s possible next—options, trade-offs, effort ranges, risks, and constraints for a proposed solution.

Related services (internal links)

Technical audits & feasibility studies often become the starting point for focused delivery work. Depending on findings, teams commonly pair audit outcomes with:

• App architecture & scalability to address structural issues driving slow delivery or instability.
• DevOps, CI/CD pipelines to make releases safer and reduce operational risk.
• Security audits & penetration testing when risk requires deeper validation.
• Performance & load testing to verify scalability limits and peak readiness.
• Legacy system modernization when the path forward is incremental replacement or replatforming.

What are technical audits & feasibility studies?

Technical audits & feasibility studies are a structured evaluation method used to understand (1) how a system currently works and (2) whether proposed changes are viable—technically, operationally, and economically.

In practice, assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches means answering questions like:

• What are the real constraints (architecture, data, infra, compliance, team skills, vendor limits)?
• Where are the highest-risk failure points (security, reliability, maintainability, performance)?
• What options are feasible (and what options are not worth pursuing)?
• What effort ranges are realistic, and what dependencies could change them?
• What should we do first to reduce risk the fastest?

Technical audit vs. feasibility study (the practical difference)

• Audit tells you what’s true today: system shape, risk hotspots, debt, and operational reality.
• Feasibility study tells you what’s realistic next: solution options, proofs, trade-offs, and delivery paths.

Audits reduce uncertainty about the present. Feasibility studies reduce uncertainty about the plan.

Why assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches matters

Most engineering failures aren’t caused by lack of effort—they’re caused by unclear constraints, hidden dependencies, and optimistic assumptions. Technical audits & feasibility studies prevent those failures by assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches before you commit to a costly path.

Measurable outcomes

• Faster decisions because trade-offs and constraints are explicit.
• Lower rework because feasibility is proven before implementation.
• Reduced incident risk by surfacing reliability and security gaps early.
• More predictable delivery with clearer scope boundaries and dependency mapping.
• Better stakeholder alignment because the plan is evidence-based, not opinion-based.

Common problems technical audits & feasibility studies solve

• “We don’t know what we’re inheriting” after acquisition, handoff, or vendor build.
• “We need to modernize, but can’t stop shipping” without breaking the business.
• “Performance is fine… until it isn’t” before a launch, migration, or big customer onboarding.
• “Every estimate is a guess” due to unknown dependencies and unclear architecture.

What we audit (systems, code, infrastructure, data)

Every engagement is scoped to your decision. But most technical audits & feasibility studies cover the layers below—because assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches requires end-to-end visibility.

1) Architecture & system boundaries

• Service/module boundaries and coupling
• Data flow and dependency graph
• Failure modes and blast radius
• Integrations and trust boundaries

2) Codebase quality & maintainability

• Project structure, testability, and technical debt hotspots
• Dependency hygiene and upgrade feasibility
• Risky patterns (duplicated logic, hidden side effects, brittle areas)

3) Delivery system (CI/CD, environments, release safety)

• Build/deploy pipeline reliability
• Environment parity (dev/stage/prod) and configuration drift
• Rollback readiness and release controls

Related: DevOps, CI/CD pipelines.

4) Security, compliance, and access control

• Authentication/authorization approach and common failure patterns
• Secrets management and least-privilege posture
• Vulnerability exposure and auditability gaps

Related: Security audits & penetration testing and Compliance (GDPR, SOC 2, HIPAA).

5) Performance, scalability, and reliability

• Capacity bottlenecks (DB, cache, queues, third-party dependencies)
• Latency and error behavior under load
• Observability coverage (logs, metrics, traces) and incident readiness

Related: Performance & load testing.

6) Data foundations (modeling, pipelines, reporting)

• Data model health and integrity risks
• Pipeline reliability and data quality controls
• Reporting consistency and “source of truth” rules

Related: Database design & data modeling and Data pipelines & analytics dashboards.

Deliverables: what you get from SHAPE

Technical audits & feasibility studies should end in a decision-ready plan—not a document that sits in a folder. Our deliverables connect assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches to clear next steps.

Typical deliverables

• System map: architecture overview, dependencies, and trust boundaries.
• Risk register: prioritized issues by impact/likelihood (security, reliability, maintainability, performance).
• Feasibility options: 2–4 solution paths with trade-offs and assumptions.
• Effort ranges: realistic level-of-effort estimates with dependency notes.
• Phased roadmap: foundations → enabling work → delivery milestones.
• Quick wins list: fixes that reduce risk fast (often within 1–2 sprints).
• Stakeholder readout: a concise briefing for leadership and delivery teams.

Practical tip: The best audit deliverable is a prioritized sequence of decisions and actions—not a long list of issues.

Use case explanations

Below are common scenarios where teams engage SHAPE for technical audits & feasibility studies—specifically for assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches before major commitments.

1) Pre-migration or replatforming decision (cloud, framework, database)

You want to migrate, but you don’t know the real blast radius. We assess existing systems, map dependencies, and validate technical approaches (rehost vs replatform vs refactor) so the migration plan is realistic—not optimistic.

Related: Cloud architecture (AWS, GCP, Azure).

2) Inheriting a system (acquisition, vendor handoff, new team ownership)

Inherited systems often have hidden coupling, missing tests, and unclear operational practices. Technical audits & feasibility studies create clarity fast: what’s risky, what’s stable, and what should be addressed first.

3) Launch readiness for enterprise customers

Enterprise onboarding raises the bar: security expectations, SLAs, and reliability evidence. We assess existing systems and validate technical approaches for hardening—so you can pass reviews and avoid incident-driven churn.

Related: Security audits & penetration testing.

4) Performance issues that only appear at scale

If your app is “fine” until traffic spikes, you need more than guesswork. We assess existing systems across app/API/DB layers and validate technical approaches for caching, indexing, queueing, and scaling.

Related: Performance & load testing.

5) You’re planning a major new feature with unknown technical risk

When a new feature touches data models, permissions, integrations, or concurrency, feasibility must be proven early. We validate options with lightweight spikes, architecture review, and dependency mapping—so the team builds the right thing the right way.

Related: API development (REST, GraphQL).

Step-by-step tutorial: run technical audits & feasibility studies

This playbook mirrors SHAPE’s approach to technical audits & feasibility studies. Use it to structure assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches into a repeatable decision process.

1. Step 1: Define the decision (what must be true to proceed?)
2. Step 2: Set scope and boundaries (systems, environments, timebox)
3. Step 3: Map the current system (architecture + data flow)
4. Step 4: Assess risk hotspots (security, reliability, performance, maintainability)
5. Step 5: Validate feasibility with evidence (spikes, tests, proofs)
6. Step 6: Compare options and document trade-offs
7. Step 7: Build a prioritized plan (quick wins → phases)
8. Step 8: Align stakeholders with a short readout

Step 1: Define the decision (what must be true to proceed?)

Write the decision in one sentence: migrate, modernize, build a feature, replace a vendor, or scale for load. Define pass/fail criteria and who owns the decision.

Step 2: Set scope and boundaries (systems, environments, timebox)

List in-scope repos, services, infra accounts, environments, and dependencies. Explicitly list what’s out of scope to prevent audit sprawl.

Step 3: Map the current system (architecture + data flow)

Create a system map: components, integrations, data stores, and trust boundaries. This is the baseline for assessing existing systems and validating technical approaches realistically.

Step 4: Assess risk hotspots (security, reliability, performance, maintainability)

Review the highest-impact areas first: auth/permissions, data integrity, deployment pipeline, production monitoring, and known incident history.

Step 5: Validate feasibility with evidence (spikes, tests, proofs)

For each proposed approach, run lightweight validation: prototype a migration step, benchmark a critical query, test an integration, or simulate load. Don’t rely on opinions—prove it.

Step 6: Compare options and document trade-offs

Produce 2–4 options with trade-offs: cost, timeline, risk, maintainability, and team capability. Make assumptions explicit and testable.

Step 7: Build a prioritized plan (quick wins → phases)

Turn findings into action: immediate fixes, foundational work, and phased delivery milestones. This is where technical audits & feasibility studies become an execution plan.

Step 8: Align stakeholders with a short readout

Present the system map, top risks, recommended approach, and next steps. The goal is alignment—so delivery can start without re-litigating assumptions.