Strategic Business

Leader (SBL)
September/
December 2022
Examiner’s report
The examining team share their observations from
the marking process to highlight strengths and
weaknesses in candidates’ performance, and to
offer constructive advice for those sitting the exam
in the future.

Contents
General comments ........................................................... 2
Format of the exam ...................................................... 2
Exam performance ....................................................... 3
Analysing the exhibits ................................................... 4
Planning ........................................................................ 4
Time management........................................................ 5
Reasons for failure ....................................................... 5
Technical marks ........................................................... 6
Professional skills marks .............................................. 7
Specific comments ........................................................... 8
Task 1 ........................................................................... 8
Task 2 ........................................................................... 9
Task 3(a) .................................................................... 11
Task 3(b) .................................................................... 13
Task 4(a) .................................................................... 15
Task 4(b) .................................................................... 16
Task 5 ......................................................................... 18

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 1

General comments
This examiner’s report should be used in conjunction with the published
September/December 2022 sample exam which can be found on the ACCA Practice
Platform.

In this report, the examining team provide constructive guidance on how to answer
the tasks whilst sharing their observations from the marking process, highlighting the
strengths and weaknesses of candidates who attempted these tasks. Future
candidates can use this examiner’s report as part of their exam preparation,
attempting question practice on the ACCA Practice Platform and reviewing the
published answers alongside this report.

Format of the exam

The examination consisted of a 4-hour exam with a single compulsory section,

comprising five main tasks, about a house building company called Qualita Homes
Plc (QH). The candidate’s role throughout the exam was a senior finance manager
working in the finance department of QH, reporting directly to the Chief Finance
Officer.

The marking scheme included 80 Technical marks for the correct use and
application of technical knowledge. For every element of technical content, answers
needed to be applied to the case. Repetition of rote learned knowledge attracted
few, if any, marks.

In addition, the marking scheme included 20 marks for Professional skills and
competencies. The skill being examined in the requirement should have been
evident in how candidates answered the task, although candidates should draw on

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 2

other relevant skills when answering. When awarding Professional skills marks,
markers looked primarily at the professional skill being tested in the task
requirement, but also considered the general professionalism that candidates
demonstrated (which included whether answers were logical and well-presented,
avoided unnecessary repetition and answered the task set). Markers also considered
whether answers were presented in an appropriate tone for the recipient.

As candidates take the exam on computer, they are strongly recommended to take
mocks on computer first, to gain experience of dealing with different types of exhibits
and to estimate how much they can write in the time allowed. It is strongly advised to
use and assimilate the guidance produced by ACCA for the Strategic Business
Leader CBE exam.

Exam performance
The following exhibits, were presented to candidates which provided information
relevant to the case study:

1. An overview – an overview of Qualita Homes Plc (QH).

2. Extract from QH’s website – outlining its mission, board structure and
governance committees.
3. Extracts from QH’s annual report 20X1– highlighting its strategic objectives
and a selection of key performance indicators for 20X1.
4. Morlia economic outlook report – the 20X2 annual industry research report
highlighting trends in the housing market.
5. Cost management and control activities – an internal checklist used by
development Site Controllers to ensure cost management and control is
carried out at each housing development site.
6. Senior management meeting extract – extracts of a management meeting
held to discuss the problems that occurred at the Shendar housing
development site.
7. Risk management proposal – a proposal by the chief finance officer to
update the current risk management structure and the current principal
risks.
8. Report on poor customer service – a newspaper report highlighting QH’s
recent poor customer service across its housing development sites.

Overall, the standard of answers for the September 2022 sitting saw an improvement
on recent sittings. Candidates seemed to make good use of the reference material to
support their answers and made a reasonably good attempt to apply their answers
directly to the case context.

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 3

The most competent candidates integrated and used information from the case study
materials throughout their answers, selecting relevant technical knowledge to
support the applied points they made. They also demonstrated sound professional
skills through analysis, evaluation and sound commercial judgement, and through
presenting well-structured answers. However, the main weaknesses were lack of
depth and explanation of the points made and in failing to consider the context of QH
appropriately and logically.

It was also apparent that some candidates had not used and assimilated the
guidance and resources produced by ACCA for Strategic Business Leader. It is
worth remembering that this is an important part of exam preparation.

Analysing the exhibits

Candidates must spend sufficient time reading and assimilating the information
within the exhibits which make up the case study materials. Often answers failed to
make sufficient reference to the exhibits or failed to make use of the full range of
material in the exhibits. However, in the September sitting, it was encouraging to see
that many candidates did make better use of the exhibits than in previous sittings.
Candidates need to read the exhibits carefully, whilst keeping the requirements of
each task in mind, as this will help them to identify which tasks will be drawing on the
material in each exhibit. Candidates need to remember that material from more than
one exhibit may be relevant when answering each task, as was the case in this
exam.

The exhibits:
• Provide the material which underpin the applied points that candidates should
be making.
• Include necessary background information and explanation to provide context
to candidates’ answers.
• Help candidates to decide how to structure their answers.
• Highlight the most important issues that answers should cover.
However, candidates must remember that merely reproducing material from the
exhibits without commenting on it or developing points further will not score marks.
This point will be discussed later in the report.

Planning
Candidates must also spend sufficient time on planning, to ensure that their answers
are:
• Structured logically

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 4

 • Balanced in terms of the depth of discussion required with the breadth of
points to be made
• Covering the most important points
• Not padded out with material that does not address the task requirements
• Not making the same point two (or more) times
• Not overlapping
When taking the exam on computer it may be useful to copy and paste the task
requirements into the word processor answer area. Candidates then do not need to
keep looking at the task tabs and it may help them to remain more focused on the
tasks as they answer them.

Time management
Most candidates answered all five tasks and there was no significant indication that
they had run out of time or stamina on this examination. This suggests that
candidates are improving their time management skills. Candidates are strongly
recommended to take mock exams under full exam conditions before the actual
exam, to get used to the demands on concentration, thinking and writing that a four-
hour exam requires.

Candidates also need to be aware of how time can be poorly used in this exam:
• Wasting time by including material not relevant to the task requirements.
• Writing elaborate and lengthy plans.
• Making the same point twice or more in slightly different ways, particularly in
Task 3b in this exam. Markers will not give additional marks for points which
are repeated or re-stated, even if they are slightly reworded.

Reasons for failure

In most cases, those candidates who failed this exam did so because of:
• Lack of development of the points made (that is, not fully explaining why the
point was relevant/important in the context of the task requirements).
• Lack of analysis skills (demonstrated through an inability to select, and then
appropriately use, relevant information to answer task requirements).
• Failure to provide what the requirements specified.
• Lack of understanding of what was strategically significant for QH.
• Lack of commercial acumen.
• Poor level of technical knowledge.

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 5

 • Wasting time making irrelevant points.
It was once again disappointing to see candidates failing to read the task
requirements carefully enough, resulting in them not answering the question that had
been asked or not answering the whole requirement. This demonstrates poor
examination technique and a lack of professionalism, which then impacts on the
professional skills marks awarded.

Technical marks
Demonstration of technical knowledge alone or explanation of theory does not score
marks in the Strategic Business Leader exam. To gain each technical mark,
candidates needed to:
• Make points that addressed the requirements of the task, considering the
scope of answer required and what the task verb indicated should be
provided.
• Show the marker why the points being made were significant/relevant in the
context of QH.
• Consider issues that were specific to the decision or issue covered in the task
requirement.
Up to two marks were sometimes available for a well-developed point made.
However, candidates are reminded that two marks will only be awarded when the
candidate has successfully identified/explained a relevant point AND has then
developed this point by:
• Evaluating how significant the point is.
• Using the information provided that relates the point directly to QH.
• Explaining the consequences for QH.
• Supporting the point made with relevant examples from the case material.
In this sitting, candidates often reproduced information taken from the exhibits
without explaining WHY the information was important or made assertions without
supporting them with reasons. Examples included:
• Reproducing statements made in Exhibit 4, the Economic Outlook Report,
without evaluating why these points would impact on QH over the next five
years (Task 1).
• Re-stating the activities listed in the Site Controller checklist in Exhibit 5,
without any reference to why these activities were strategically important to
achieve sound cost management and control (Task 3a).
Weaker candidates often just repeated case material. This happened particularly in
Task 3a in this exam, where candidates were asked to advise on the strategic
importance to QH of sound cost management and control. Many candidates merely

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 6

copied and pasted information from Exhibit 5 without any consideration at all of the
strategic importance of the activities highlighted.

Candidates who presented very generic answers were awarded limited marks. This
often happened in answers to Task 2, where many candidates spent time presenting
detailed descriptions of the six capitals of Integrated Reporting, which was not asked
for and therefore gained no credit. Candidates must avoid presenting answers which
merely repeat knowledge or theory without any attempt to apply this to the case
context.

Professional skills marks

It was good to see that many candidates had clearly thought about professional skills
marks and attempted to present their answers in an appropriate format, as requested
in each task requirement.

Whatever the format requested, the recipient will be helped by an answer that is
presented and structured clearly, with headers throughout the answer and which
avoids repetitive information. Candidates should remember that they are carrying out
a professional task that has a particular purpose(s) for a defined user or
stakeholder(s).

Faults seen on several scripts included:

• Not paying attention to the format required. Some candidates continue to
produce essay-type answers for every requirement.
• Not considering who was receiving the document produced. For example, in
Task 4(a) candidates were asked to produce presentation notes and slides to
the board. Some of the comments made which then questioned the board
members’ skills and abilities in running separate risk and audit committees
were highly inappropriate.
• Overlong paragraphs, with aspects of a task (for example, the ethical and
business threats in Task 3(b)), discussed in a single paragraph containing
multiple points. This shows poor exam technique and lack of professionalism.
• Failing to demonstrate sound commercial acumen in understanding the wide
range of potential business threats facing QH, as a result of the site
controller’s behaviour referenced in Task 3(b). This was a good illustration of
a professional skill (commercial acumen) being important, even though
another skill (scepticism) gained the professional skills marks.
It is important to reiterate the importance of candidates reading the technical and
professional requirements together, as this will assist them in formulating their
answers in the correct style, tone and with the correct level of professionalism.

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 7

Specific comments

Task 1

The board is aware that changes in the external environment will have a major
impact on its strategic direction in the next five years. The chief executive has
asked you to:
Prepare a report for the board which evaluates the key external drivers of
change which are likely to impact QH in the next five years.
(14 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating analysis skills in

considering and reflecting effectively on the relevant external information and
evidence which could assist QH in evaluating its external drivers of change.
(4 marks)

This task required candidates to mainly focus on Exhibit 4, the economic outlook
report, which presented a wide range of external drivers that were likely to impact on
the housing market in the coming years.

Overall, this task was the best answered on the whole exam, largely because many
candidates made good use of the relevant exhibit material to identify and discuss a
wide range of external drivers of change. The best answers were those that used
and applied the full range of PESTEL factors to structure their responses, although
this framework was not necessary to gain the full range of marks. The most
successful candidates also ‘evaluated’ these external factors in the context of QH
i.e., they clearly discussed if these external drivers would have a positive or negative
impact on QH’s strategic direction in the next five years. For example, candidates
were rewarded for recognising that the upcoming Planning Policy Framework should
impact positively on the ease and speed of obtaining land for housing development,
which should enable QH to build more houses more quickly. Therefore, this was a
favourable driver of change. Candidates that presented this level of evaluation for
each external driver scored highly on this task.

The main weakness in candidates’ answers to task 1 was that many merely copied
and pasted large sections of Exhibit 4 into their answers, with no evaluation at all, of
the impact of the external driver on QH’s strategic direction in the next five years.

Other weaknesses included:

• Focusing on internal factors such as customer satisfaction issues and
wastage levels, which were not relevant in the assessment of external drivers

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 8

 of change.
• Using the PESTEL framework exclusively, thus ignoring the competitive
forces in the housing market, which were often a key omission in many
answers.
• Lack of focus on evaluating the impact on QH’s strategic direction of some of
the key external drivers of change. For example, technological changes in the
housing industry could be considered both positive and negative drivers of
change, but many candidates merely saw this as being a negative influence
due to the cost implications.
• Limited use of the exhibit material. Some candidates restricted their answers
by producing a Porters Five Forces analysis, which very much restricted the
range of points in their answers.
To score high professional skills marks, candidates had to analyse and reflect on a
wide range of information from the relevant exhibit, which most successfully
achieved. Candidates who did not score well on Professional skills marks did so
because their answers demonstrated limited analysis and reflection on the most
important external drivers of change. Candidate who copied and pasted points from
the exhibit with little or no evaluation did not score high professional skills marks.

Task 2

The Chief Executive is concerned that QH focuses too much of its external
reporting towards its investors. She has proposed that QH consider introducing
Integrated Reporting <IR> and has asked for your advice on whether it would be
beneficial to QH and its stakeholders.:

Prepare a report for the Chief Executive which advises on the role of
Integrated Reporting and its value to both QH and its wider stakeholders.
(12 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating commercial acumen skills
in using appropriate professional judgement to determine the role of <IR> and its
value to QH and its wider stakeholders.
(3 marks)

This should have been a straightforward question for a well-prepared candidate, as

Integrated Reporting <IR> has been examined several times before. The task had
three quite distinct elements, which candidates should have addressed separately:
the role of <IR>, the value of <IR> to QH and the value of <IR> to its wider

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 9

stakeholders, so candidates were given a very clear structure to help them present
this answer effectively.

Candidates that answered all three parts of this requirement were often the most
successful. Therefore, this is a good example of the importance of reading the
requirements carefully to ensure that all task elements are attempted. However,
equally important as full coverage of all elements of the task, was the need to apply
the answer directly to QH and its stakeholders. For example, when discussing value
of <IR> to stakeholders, credit would have been awarded for recognition that local
communities and potential customers could evaluate QH’s contribution to society
through community projects or social improvement, within the Natural Capital aspect
of <IR> capital reporting.

Performance was mixed on this question, with some very well structured and applied
answers, in which candidates clearly demonstrated sound understanding of the role
and value of <IR> and applied this directly to QH and its stakeholders, such as staff,
customers, communities and government. On the other hand, there were equal
numbers of candidates who clearly had a limited understanding of <IR>. Some
candidates simply did not read the requirement or chose to ignore it, and instead of
discussing the role and value of <IR>, described the six capitals. As this was not
asked for, then no credit was given to such answers. Candidates are reminded that
generic, textbook answers will gain no credit in Strategic Business Leader.

Professional skills marks on Task 2 were very much driven by the level of application
of answers to QH and its stakeholders. Generic answers which did not focus on the
value of <IR> to QH and its specific stakeholders did not score well on professional
skills. However, those candidates who demonstrated sound application also mostly
demonstrated good commercial acumen and therefore scored higher professional
skills marks.

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 10

Task 3(a)

QH has recently completed a housing development site of 270 Premier homes on

the outskirts of the large city of Shendar. This development was completed on
time, but the actual final cost was 4.5% above budgeted cost.
The Chief Executive is concerned that several of the current cost management
and control activities required for each housing development site may not be being
adhered to by the Site Controllers and this is having an impact on the overall
performance of the business. She has asked you to:

(a) Draft a memo for the Chief Executive to send to all housing development
Site Controllers which advises on the strategic importance to QH of
sound cost management and control.
(8 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating commercial acumen skills
in showing commercial insight into the strategic importance of effective cost
management and control activities for QH.
(3 marks)

This task was not answered well. Candidates needed to consider the site controller’s
checklist (Exhibit 5) together with other information in other exhibits which
demonstrated potential areas of concern in cost control (for example, the
performance graphs presented in Exhibit 3), in order to advise QH’s site controllers
on the strategic importance of cost management and control.

A disappointing aspect of answers to this task was that candidates did not make
sufficient linkages between the case material and their own knowledge and
understanding of the role of cost control mechanisms such as budgeting and
variance analysis. The case material made it clear that the industry was highly
competitive and that cost control for QH was a potential problem, but very few
candidates recognised the strategic implications of poor cost management at
development site level in the highly competitive housing industry.

Stronger candidates recognised that QH had a strategic objective of maintaining

financial strength (from Exhibit 3), which included the need for maintaining
profitability and robust cost control and therefore focused their answers specifically
on the strategic importance to QH of effective cost management and control. Better
answers also demonstrated strong information assimilation skills in recognising the
recent fall in profitability, as highlighted in Exhibit 3, and the current highly
competitive housing market highlighted in Exhibit 4, as key reasons for strong cost
management and control activities at development site level. Candidates that passed
this question were those that clearly understood that effective cost management and

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 11

control at development site level was key to the achievement of its strategic
objectives and the success of the business.

However, answers like this were rare and most candidates failed to adequately focus
on the strategic importance to QH of achieving one of its strategic objectives. This
lack of overall ability to demonstrate an awareness or understanding of the strategic
importance of effective cost management and control, even in general terms, was
very disappointing at this level of the qualification.

The main weaknesses were:

• Copying and pasting large sections of Exhibit 5 into the answer, with little or
no additional comment or analysis of the activities highlighted.
• Brief answers with no attempt to consider why cost management and control
is so important to QH within its current highly competitive environment.
• Using an inappropriate style and tone in presenting this answer to the site
controllers. Some answers were critical of the current site controllers, rather
than encouraging them to understand the strategic importance of their role in
achieving a key strategic objective of maintaining financial strength.
• A general lack of awareness of the strategic importance of sound cost control
activities at development site level.
Professional skills marks awarded were low on this task because most answers
failed to demonstrate sound commercial insight into the strategic importance of
effective cost management and control activities for QH. Most candidates were able
to demonstrate only a basic understanding of cost management and control activities
in general terms, with limited insight of its importance directly to QH. Therefore,
commercial awareness was generally weak.

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 12

Task 3(b)

Within the last couple of days, a consumer affairs TV programme was broadcast
throughout Morlia, highlighting a number of quality issues and customer
complaints about the Shendar housing development site. The programme
interviewed several unhappy customers who purchased new houses on this site.

The Chief Executive immediately called a Senior Management team meeting to

discuss this report, and you attended on behalf of the Chief Finance Officer.
Following this meeting, the Chief Executive asked you to:

(b) Draft a confidential memo for the Chief Executive which assesses the
ethical issues and business threats faced by QH as a result of the matters
discussed and the comments made by the Site Controller at the meeting.
(12 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating scepticism skills in
challenging professionally and appropriately the comments made at the meeting.
(3 marks)

There were some very strong answers to this task, and this was often the
discriminator between whether the candidate passed or failed this exam. Several
candidates scored close to maximum technical marks on this task.

The most successful candidates took a logical approach to this task, by structuring
their answers clearly into separate sections which addressed ethical threats and then
business threats. Also, within these sections better candidates then logically
considered each comment/ action of the site controller, taken from Exhibit 6, and
discussed these in turn. Most candidates made full use of the exhibit material to
assist them in answering this task and most answers were logical and well
structured.

Stronger candidates identified a range of ethical threats facing QH, as highlighted in

the contents of the meeting presented in Exhibit 6. It was disappointing though, that
relatively few candidates seemed to have sufficient knowledge and understanding of
the ethical principles to correctly apply these to the scenario context. For example,
most candidates correctly recognised that trying to pass off the roof tiles as locally
sourced ones was unethical but relatively few candidates recognised this was a
demonstration of lack of integrity. Many candidates repeatedly commented that the
actions of the site controller were ‘unethical’ or ‘unprofessional’ but failed to correctly
specify the ethical principle being challenged. Answers would have been improved
had candidates applied the ethical principles directly to the ethical threat being
discussed. Most answers suggested that there was a lack of professionalism

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 13

demonstrated by the site controller but overall, there was a general lack of detailed
knowledge or understanding of the ethical principles in candidates answers.

In terms of the business threats, this part of the answer was covered well by many
candidates, and it was encouraging to see many well applied answers to this part of
the task. Most candidates recognised the highly competitive nature of the housing
industry and as a result, the actions of the site controller could result in damaging
QH’s reputation, imposition of fines, loss of customers and loss of staff. Overall, most
candidates covered a reasonable range of well applied business threats as a
separate section of their answer.

The main weaknesses of answers to this task were:

• Repetition of the exhibit material with little or no further comment on why the
comments/ actions of the site controller were unethical.
• A lack of demonstration of knowledge and correct application of the ethical
principles. Some candidates merely repeated that the site controller ‘lacked
professionalism’ for all the ethical challenges they discussed. This was not
sufficient demonstration of understanding of the ethical challenges
highlighted.
• Poorly presented answers that failed to distinguish clearly between ethical
and business threats. It was clear that some candidates could not distinguish
between ethical and business threats.
• The tone of some answers was inappropriate. Although candidates were
required to demonstrate scepticism, this must be done in a professional way
and using professional language. To make comments like ‘the site controller
is obviously over the hill, as he has been in position for 30 years’ and ‘the site
controller is clearly incompetent and must be dismissed’ would be highly
inappropriate for a senior finance manager to make to the chief executive.
Candidates must maintain a respectful and business-like tone in all answers.
• Repetition of the same business threat. Many candidates repeatedly
mentioned reputational damage for every ethical threat considered.
Candidates are reminded not to continually repeat the same point, as the
mark can only be awarded once and therefore time is wasted repeating the
same point.
Professional skills marks were awarded for scepticism in challenging professionally
and appropriately the comments made by the site controller in Exhibit 6. Scepticism
is often the weakest professional skill demonstrated by SBL candidates but on this
exam, it was done reasonably well. Most candidates made several reasoned and
well applied challenges to the comments made and most did present their responses
in an appropriate tone for the chief executive. As discussed above, those candidates

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 14

that made inappropriate comments or comments which were unsuitable for
presentation to the chief executive did not score well on professional skills.

Task 4(a)

The Chief Finance Officer has set out a proposal which he considers could assist
in improving QH’s risk management framework. You have been asked by the Chief
Finance Officer to help him prepare a short presentation for the Board, to outline
the changes which he has proposed.

(a) Draft TWO presentation slides and accompanying notes which explain
the benefits and challenges of separating the current audit and risk
committee into two separate committees.
(8 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating communication skills in
persuasively and objectively informing Board members of the proposed changes to
QH’s committees.
(2 marks)

This should have been a straightforward question, one which focused on a proposed
change to QH’s corporate governance structure. Candidates were expected to make
use of the information presented in the first half of Exhibit 7 to consider the
challenges and benefits of separating the current audit and risk committee into two
separate committees. Exhibit 7 provided useful information on the current committee
structure, together with the responsibilities of the current audit and risk committee
and the internal audit function. This information should have provided some key
pointers to candidates to assist in challenging the current structure and
responsibilities.

Most candidates used the presentation slides area of the CBE environment to
present their answers to this question, and this helped them to present responses
clearly and effectively. Many answers presented a reasonable range of benefits to
splitting the audit and risk committee. However, relatively few answers discussed in
detail the work areas that would benefit from the separate committees having more
time and independence. Most answers were far stronger on presenting benefits than
presenting challenges.

On the challenges, cost was considered frequently, which in fact should not have
been a challenge to an organisation like QH. It would seem that ‘cost’ is
automatically presented as a challenge in most questions which ask for some sort of
evaluation of a proposal, but this is not always a valid answer, without credible case
evidence. Candidates should have focused more on the difficulties of finding

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 15

appropriate new NEDs and the time pressure for NEDs of serving on an extra
committee. When discussing internal audit, candidates often appeared confused
about what would be happening to it, with few candidates picking up the potential
challenges of internal audit reporting to more than one committee.

On the professional skills, candidates often scored low marks on this task, largely
because the content of the answer was either unbalanced (a good focus on benefits
but far weaker on challenges) or lacked the necessary information to clearly and
accurately convey to the board the information needed to make a sound decision.
Candidates seem to think that slides and notes will be sufficient to gain good
communication marks, but obviously, it is the actual content of the notes which is
most important.

Task 4(b)

Due to increasing focus on environmental and sustainability issues, the Chief

Finance Officer has suggested including additional risks in QH’s principal risk
register. The Chair of the current audit and risk committee has asked for your
help.
(b) Write a briefing note to the Chair of the current audit and risk
committee which explains how the proposed additional principal risks
could impact on the achievement of QH’s strategic objectives and
recommend how these risks could be mitigated.
(12 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating evaluation skills in
using professional judgement to clearly assess the impact of the additional risks
proposed in the principal risk register and the required mitigating actions.
(3 marks)

In the second half of Exhibit 7, candidates were presented with three additional
principal risks which QH were considering adding to its risk register. Task 4(b)
required candidates to consider how these additional risks would impact on the
achievement of QH’s strategic objectives, so candidates were expected to assimilate
the information presented in Exhibit 7 with information presented in Exhibit 3. The
task also asked for examples of mitigations for each of the proposed new risks.

Answers to this question were quite mixed. The stronger answers correctly and
directly focused on the potential impact of the new risks identified in the exhibit, but
relatively few candidates went on to consider how these risks would impact on QH’s
strategic objectives, as the question clearly asked. However, marks were awarded if
candidates clearly considered the general impact on QH’s business. For example,

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 16

many candidates recognised that reduced house sales and consequently lower
revenues and profits would likely occur if appropriate development land was not
available. Also, lower quality houses and consequent loss of future customers would
occur as a result of a lack of skilled workforce. However, few candidates then took
their answers further to discuss how these outcomes would subsequently impact on
the achievement of QH’s strategic objectives, such as maintaining financial strength
and providing quality houses. Those that did recognise the impact on the strategic
objectives scored high marks.

Mitigations were covered reasonably well by many candidates, although sometimes

these were not fully applied to the case context. Most candidates correctly
recognised the need for improved training and talent management as a mitigation for
the skilled workforce risk. Mitigations for land availability and climate change were
somewhat weaker and often not well explained or justified.

The main weaknesses of answers to this question were:

• Failure to answer the question asked, mainly because candidates either
described the additional risks generically or failed to present any relevant
mitigations.
• Failure to discuss the potential impact of the risk, instead identifying
mitigations only.
• Direct application to QH was often poor in weaker answers, with mitigations
such as ‘invest in technology’ presented but with no further elaboration on
what technology would be appropriate for QH and how this would mitigate the
climate change risk in particular.
Professional skills marks very much reflected the candidate’s performance on the
technical aspect of the question. Those candidates who focused on the strategic
impact and who provided sound mitigations which were applied to QH scored good
professional skills marks, but those that merely described the risks generically and/
or presented weak or no mitigations did not score well on professional skills.

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 17

Task 5

The Board is concerned that failures in QH’s customer service delivery in recent
years, and the publicity this is generating, are damaging its competitive position.
QH’s Chief Operating Officer has been assigned as the project sponsor of a
project which has been tasked with the review and re-design of QH’s customer
services process. You have been asked by the Chief Operating Officer to:
Present him with a briefing paper which:
(a) Applies an appropriate process-strategy matrix to explain how QH
could improve its customer services.
(7 marks)
(b) Advises on the key roles and responsibilities of the Chief Operating
Officer as the project sponsor within this project.
(7 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating communication skills in
explaining concisely and effectively an appropriate process re-design framework
and the role and responsibilities of the project sponsor to the Chief Operating
Officer.
(2 marks)

Task 5(a) was the worst performing question of the whole exam. Answers to this task
were very poor indeed, with very few candidates presenting a pass standard answer.
Most candidates demonstrated a total lack of awareness of the Harmon process
strategy matrix from the Strategic Business Leader syllabus. This was very
disappointing.

Those candidates that did know the model scored reasonably well, although answers
were often descriptive rather than applied. Candidates that recognised the strategic
importance and complexity of the customer service activities of QH often scored well.
However, such answers were very few indeed. Most candidates merely considered
each aspect of QH’s current customer services activities, as highlighted in Exhibit 8,
and made general recommendations for improvement, for example updating the
FAQ section of the website. However, most made no use at all of a process strategy
matrix to structure their recommendations and therefore failed to address the
question asked.

A significant number of candidates did not attempt this task at all, despite answering
task 5(b), which demonstrated that this was not a time management issue, rather a
complete lack of knowledge of this syllabus area. Candidates are reminded that the
Strategic Business Leader exam can and will test all aspects of the syllabus and

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 18

therefore they must be fully prepared to answer questions from every part of the
syllabus.

Task 5(b) should have been a straightforward question for a well-prepared

candidate. However, answers to this task were rather mixed. Some candidates
demonstrated sound knowledge and understanding of the role of the Chief Operating
Officer (COO), acting as project sponsor, and applied it well to the project to re-
design QH’s customer services process. However, it was clear that many candidates
had very limited knowledge of the specific roles and responsibilities of a project
sponsor, with many candidates confusing these with the roles and responsibilities of
a project manager. It was very disappointing to see how many candidates had
limited knowledge of the specific duties of a project sponsor and were unable to
apply these to the case context.

The main weaknesses of answers to this task were:

• A disappointing lack of syllabus knowledge of both parts of this task. Most
candidates who scored low marks did so due to the lack of knowledge of
Harmon’s process strategy matrix and a lack of knowledge of the difference
between the role and responsibilities of a project sponsor and a project
manager.
• Poor presentation of answers. Many candidates failed to use an appropriate
format when answering this task, as most answers were presented as bullet
points notes, which lacked development or adequate explanation of points
made. This could have been due to time pressure, but it appeared more likely
that in part 5(a) specifically, brief note form answers were caused by a lack of
knowledge of the syllabus area being tested.
Professional skills marks were low on this task, as many answers were generally
poorly developed and generic, with part (a) letting most candidates down, even if
part (b) was reasonably well answered.

Examiner’s report – SBL September/December 2022 19