Project initiation analysis — judge the claim: “There are three stages involved when analyzing the initiation of an information systems project.” Decide whether this generalization is correct or incorrect and consider typical stage breakdowns.

Introduction / Context:
Many methodologies segment the earliest part of a project—often called initiation or inception—into a small number of structured activities. While labels vary, a three-stage pattern is common: identify/justify the opportunity, assess feasibility and scope, and obtain authorization with an initial plan. This question asks whether it is fair to say there are “three stages” in analyzing project initiation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Initiation focuses on the business need and decision to proceed, not detailed design.
• Stage names may differ (e.g., identification, selection, planning).
• The statement is a generalization, not a rigid standard.

Concept / Approach:
A helpful three-stage framing is: (1) Opportunity identification and problem definition, (2) Feasibility and high-level scoping (technical, economic, operational, schedule), and (3) Approval and initial planning (charter, stakeholders, constraints, success criteria). This structure ensures alignment with strategy before committing significant resources.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Compare to PRINCE2 (starting up a project, initiating a project), PMI (develop project charter; identify stakeholders), and software lifecycles (inception/elaboration). All present early work in a few discrete stages, often three in practice.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Incorrect” ignores widely used three-part framings, though exact names vary.
• “Only agile” or “only procurement” is too narrow; the pattern is methodology-agnostic.
• Feasibility is part of the stages, not a blocker to evaluation.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating initiation as mere paperwork; skipping feasibility; failing to define success metrics; prematurely locking scope without stakeholder alignment.

Final Answer:
Correct