Stop Asking What’s Feasible. Start Building What’s Possible.
By John M. Suddes | April 15, 2026
For decades, fundraising firms have positioned feasibility studies as the natural starting point for organizations planning a capital campaign. It’s become almost automatic—‘of course we need to start with a feasibility study.’
But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Feasibility studies are not designed to maximize your opportunity—they are designed to manage your expectations.
And too often, that comes at a cost—your vision.
Over the years, we’ve had countless YMCA clients come to us after completing a traditional feasibility study—frustrated by results that felt underwhelming and, way too often, discouraging. In my 30 years leading Suddes Partners, I can’t recall many studies that concluded that a campaign goal was actually “feasible.”
Most sound something like this: “Based on our findings, we believe your YMCA can only raise…” That one word—only—can quietly redefine the ambition of an entire organization…and not in a good way.
The Problem with the Traditional Approach
At its core, the feasibility study process is built on a flawed premise. Let’s walk through it.
You begin with a preliminary vision—most often still evolving—and work with fundraising counsel to shape it into a case for support. By necessity, that case is simplified and conceptual, which often leaves important questions unanswered.
Then, too early in the process, you take that case to a broad group of prospective donors and ask for input—and proceed to test potential gift levels. Often, it looks something like this: “Would you support this campaign, and if so, at what level?”
But think about the position this puts your prospective donors in. Not exactly the easiest question to answer on the spot. They are being asked to react to a conceptual plan and indicate how much they would be willing to give to a capital campaign. So, what do they do?
Exactly what you and I would do—they respond cautiously and conservatively. First, there has been no justification yet on why the prospective donor should stretch to consider a more significant level of gift. Very similar to the feasibility premise itself, it results in the prospective donor not wanting to maximize, but rather minimize, expectations.
Here’s the real problem – that feedback, in turn, becomes the basis for determining what is “feasible.”
The Real Risk
The danger isn’t just that feasibility studies produce conservative results. It’s that they can unintentionally cap your vision before it even has the chance to fully develop.
Capital campaigns—especially within the YMCA—are not just about funding buildings. They are about transformational impact, which includes expanding access, strengthening communities, and advancing mission at scale. That kind of impact should never be defined by what feels safe or easily attainable.
A Better Approach: The Viable Path
So instead of asking, ‘What is feasible?’ YMCAs should be asking something very different:
“What is the most impactful vision—and what is the viable path to achieving it?”
After helping lead what is now approaching $1 billion in YMCA and other nonprofit capital projects over the years, I know firsthand that there is a more effective way forward. It’s not about what is feasible—it’s about defining a viable path to success.
Keys to the Viable Path Approach
- Start with vision—not constraints
Define the impact you want to have. Think big. Let mission lead. - Clarify and prioritize projects
Align your capital needs with your overall vision. - Build a funding roadmap (capital formation)
Identify all potential sources, including, but not limited to, capital campaign, public funding, strategic partnerships (healthcare, education, other nonprofits), new market tax credits, state and federal grants. - Engage and validate early leadership
Focus on those who can help shape and lead—not just react.
Do these steps with a disciplined approach, and then—it’s go time.
A Closer Look: Engaging and Validating Leadership
Meetings will still be conducted with key stakeholders, potential leadership donors, and strategic partners. However, this is not a feasibility “interview”—it’s a strategic and cultivation conversation. And the tone of that conversation matters.
A complete plan to achieve your vision is laid out, and a “working” campaign goal has been established as part of the overall funding strategy. The conversation is to validate that a viable path does exist to achieve the capital campaign portion of the overall funding strategy.
As importantly, it is a cultivation meeting. What resonates with the prospect? What messaging did they align with? What questions or concerns did they share? All this sets up for a very successful “ask” when the leadership solicitation begins.
Final Thoughts
This is your organization. Your vision. Your community.
You deserve an approach that expands possibilities—not one that quietly limits them before you’ve even had a chance to fully define them.
Feasibility studies should never define the ceiling of what’s possible. Because in the end, the most successful campaigns are not built on what is deemed “feasible.” They are built on bold vision, clear messaging, strong leadership, and disciplined execution. Most organizations don’t fall short because their vision was too big… they fall short because it was set too small.
So as you consider your next capital campaign, stop asking what’s feasible — start building what’s possible.
