- Information
- AI Chat
SBL examiner's report
Strategic Business Leadership (SBL)
Recommended for you
Preview text
Examiner’s report
Strategic Business Leader (SBL)
March 2020
The examining team share their observations from the marking process to highlight strengths and weaknesses in candidates’ performance, and to offer constructive advice for future candidates.
General comments
Format of exam
The examination consisted of a 4-hour exam with a single compulsory section, about a firm of information technology consultants, Techthere4U Co (TT4U), that offered a range of services, including technology support and data hosting. The candidate’s role throughout the exam was the leader of a team from an external consultancy firm that the directors had engaged to advise them. 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. In addition, the marking scheme included 20 marks for Professional skills and competencies. The particular skill being examined in the requirement should have been evident in how candidates answered the task, although candidates may have drawn on other skills as well when answering. When awarding Professional skills marks, markers looked primarily at the professional skill being tested in the task requirement, but they also looked at the general professionalism that candidates were demonstrating.
Exam performance
Overall the decline in the standard of technical answers noted in the December 2019 examiner’s report was maintained and this was one of the poorest sittings of SBL so far.
Stronger candidates integrated and used the case study materials throughout all their answers, selecting relevant technical knowledge to support the applied points they were making. They demonstrated professional skills through analysis and discussion, and how they structured and presented their answers. Weaker candidates produced purely theoretical answers, did not integrate the case material adequately and failed to apply their answers to TT4U’s circumstances.
It was apparent that some candidates had not assimilated guidance produced by ACCA for SBL, particularly the following:
- Past exam papers and specimen exams
- The examiner’s approach article
- The importance of effective communication
- Strategic Business Leader – 10 things to learn from the September 2018 sitting
- Getting connected to the Internet-of-things
Candidates should spend sufficient time reading and assimilating the case study materials. Often answers failed to make sufficient reference to the exhibits or failed to use the full range of material in the exhibits. Some answers also demonstrated that some candidates had not read the exhibits
sufficiently carefully, for example making reference in their discussion in Task 1(b) about the Internet-of-things investment to the investment appraisal (Exhibit 6) that related to investment in cloud services.
The exhibits:
Provided the material which underpinned the applied points that candidates should be making
Included background information and explanation about the business to provide context for the answers
Helped candidates decide how to structure their answers
Highlighted the most important issues that answers should cover
Candidates should read the exhibits with the requirements of every task in mind, as this will help them identify which tasks will be drawing on the material in each exhibit. In this exam, the transcript of the directors’ meeting (Exhibit 1) included material that was relevant to most of the tasks in the exam.
Candidates should also be alert for links between different exhibits reinforcing or contrasting significant issues. For example, the Services director’s assertion that TT4U could secure government contracts by strong service performance was called into question by the client survey (Exhibit 4), which revealed a number of weaknesses in the level of service that TT4U currently provided.
However, candidates must remember that merely reproducing material from the exhibits without commenting on it or developing points will not score marks. In particular, a number of candidates taking the exams on computer cut and pasted material from the exhibits into their answers without adding anything to it.
Candidates must also spend sufficient time planning and considering carefully what they will write, to ensure that their answers are:
- Covering all aspects of task requirements
- Structured logically
- Balanced in terms of the depth of discussion required with the number of points to be made
- Covering the most important points
- Not padded out with material that does not address the task requirements, as this scores no marks
- Not making the same point two (or more) times
- Not including material that is relevant to other task parts but not the one being answered
Generally candidates answered all three tasks, although quite a number failed to complete Task 3. Candidate performance was often strongest overall on Task 1 and fell away towards the end with Task 3(c) being particularly poorly answered, suggesting shortage of time at that stage after candidates had taken too long to answer earlier tasks. Candidates are strongly recommended to
example why the problems they discussed in Task 1(a) would result in TT4U not retaining or gaining clients, and why the elements of the investment appraisal that they discussed in Task 2(a) were questionable. Weaker candidates also gave theoretical answers based on textbook knowledge rather than specific answers related to the circumstances of TT4U.
Technical frameworks can help generate ideas. However, using a technical framework unnecessarily as the basis for structuring answers led many candidates into forcing their answers to fit the framework, particularly in Task 2(b), rather than paying attention to the issues described in the exhibits. This meant they produced answers that:
Were in a form that was not helpful to the recipients
Included points of little or no importance
Failed to include relevant points that couldn’t be fitted into the framework
It is NOT the case in the SBL exam that candidates should try to use a model or framework whenever they can. Instead of using a framework as the basis for their answers, candidates are often better off using the different elements of the task requirements as the basis for structuring their answers. Candidates should also remember that they are being asked to produce documents containing practical business advice and analysis. Organising an answer around a theoretical framework may well not always be helpful to whoever is meant to be receiving the candidates’ work.
Professional skills marks
Candidates’ overall performance as regards professional skills marks often reflected their disappointing performance as regards technical marks in this exam, with a number of common faults:
Failing to provide all the task required, for example not discussing the benefits to both TT4U and employees of implementing the new Mieobed approach in Task 3(b)
Failing to demonstrate understanding of the needs of the clients’ business
Not paying attention to the format required, with some candidates using the same format throughout all their answers
Not considering who was receiving the document they produced, for example failing to address employees directly in the letter in Task 3(b)
Failing to produce a balanced answer, for example failing to discuss the potential problems of the strategic options covered in Task 1(b) as well as their potential benefits
Poor tone and comments made, for example making slanderous comments about the marketing director in Task 1(c).
Candidates should remember that they are carrying out a professional task that has a particular purpose(s) for a defined user or stakeholder. Candidates must read the technical and professional
requirements together, as this will help them develop answers showing the correct style, tone and level of professionalism.
An example of this was the second part of Task 1(c), where candidates were required to discuss the risks and ethical issues relating to the threat to reveal confidential information, with the answer being framed within the context of the professional skill of scepticism in challenging what the marketing director had said in relation to this threat. The marketing director’s comments therefore related to relevant risk and ethical issues, discussing these generated technical marks and challenging courteously what the marketing director said within the discussion scored professional marks.
Candidates should also remember that professional skills may be relevant not just in the tasks where they are rewarded, but other tasks as well. For example, part of Task 3(c) required the candidate to assess the information that should be supplied to the board. Commercial acumen was the professional skill being assessed. In addition though, showing strong analysis skills by identifying from the exhibits, the main issues affecting business development and client relations about which the directors needed to be informed, would also have helped generate marks.
Further comments on specific professional skills are given below.
Computer-based exam
This was the first sitting of SBL to be run partly as a computer-based exam, with candidates at a limited number of centres being involved. There was no noticeable general difference in performance between candidates sitting exams on computer and paper, the most important strengths and weaknesses being common to both. Whilst the quality of answers of quite a number of candidates sitting on computer declined towards the end of the exam, this was also true of many sitting the paper-based exam. Many scripts, including those that scored low technical marks, were presented well with good use of headers and paragraphing, and this was encouraging. However, the letter in Task 3(b) was presented poorly in many scripts, emphasising that candidates must still know how to present the range of documents described in the article on Effective communication.
Candidates taking the exams on computer are strongly recommended to take mocks on computer first, to gain experience of dealing with different types of exhibit and also to estimate how much they can write in the time allowed.
Candidates often copied material in from the task requirements, both the requirements and content of the exhibits. Copying in the task requirements had the advantage that candidates did not need to keep looking at the requirements exhibit and may have helped keep them more focused on the tasks. However, as discussed above, candidates often cut and pasted in exhibit material without commenting on it further and this could not be awarded marks.
Specific comments
Task 1(a)
This task required candidates to analyse the main risks threatening TT4U being awarded new contracts and retaining current contracts. Professional skills marks were available for
This task was generally answered well, in many cases candidates answered this task better than any other in this exam. For both choices, answers often had more coverage of their advantages than their problems. Weaker candidates reproduced phrases from the exhibits and did not interpret their significance. Many candidates analysed the two options using the Suitability, Acceptability, Feasibility framework. Some candidates used the framework well. However, in other instances adopting the framework meant that candidates wasted time describing the framework, repeating the same points for both options and describing issues such as availability of financial resources that were not relevant to the task requirements.
Other significant weaknesses included:
Failing to consider strategic positioning, that focusing on the government work with limited innovation needs would go against necessary upgrading of the technology services supplied to private clients, and whether Internet-of-things applications could be sold to existing clients
Believing that TT4U would easily be able to develop Internet-of-things applications as it had experience in many different sectors, it would need to invest in additional expertise
Failing to consider competition, in particular that in developing Internet- of-things applications, TT4U would be competing against larger companies with greater resources to develop their services
Not appreciating that although the government contract work might provide guaranteed returns for a long time, these returns might not be very high because of government value for money concerns
Not mentioning that the government contracts would be high profile, with possible good or bad impacts on reputation
Not reading the exhibits properly and discussing the results of the investment appraisal (Exhibit
- which related to new cloud services and not Internet-of-things applications
As with Task 1(a), spending too much time on the task for the marks available
Candidates often scored low professional marks because they did not consider the problems of one or both options, meaning the answer lacked balance. Failing to consider organisational issues or competitive positioning also limits professional marks. The requirement to produce a section of the report meant that a tabular format was not appropriate.
Task 1(c)
This task required candidates to advise on the actions that TT4U could take to ensure that its controls on the confidentiality of data were operating effectively, and to discuss the risks and ethical issues relating to communicating to a client of TT4U (Rex) that TT4U had received a threat to reveal confidential information relating to that client. Professional skills marks were available for demonstrating scepticism skills in challenging the views expressed about responding to the threat by TT4U’s marketing director. The format required was a confidential email for TT4U’s chief executive officer.
The first part of the task required candidates to appreciate the difference between controls being in place and controls operating effectively, and to suggest ways of ensuring and obtaining evidence that controls operated effectively. Discussion of the risk issues meant weighing the risks of communicating against the risks of not communicating. The discussion of the ethical issues should have made the decision of whether to communicate the threat easier, as ethical principles together with the Mieobed approach should have directed TT4U towards communicating the threat.
Answers on controls were generally either very good or poor. A number of candidates pleasingly appeared to use their own experience of computer security to make realistic recommendations. Other candidates only suggested a narrow range of actions to ensure controls had been effective, particularly failing to consider reviewing system activity. Some candidates made unrealistic recommendations, such as locking the data away in a safe and allowing only directors to access it.
Many candidates discussed both the risks of disclosure and non-disclosure, though fewer considered the risks of not disclosing and the client finding out anyway or the upside of better relations with the client Rex if the problem was dealt with effectively. A number of answers did not state clearly that the ransom should not be paid and that Rex should have been informed. Thankfully only a minority of candidates stated that Rex should not be told and very few suggested that the ransom should be paid. A more common weakness was stating that Rex should be told on ethical grounds and then not stating clearly what the ethical grounds were.
Other significant weaknesses included:
Discussing generic controls such as risk committee or controls relating to data corruption rather than data access
Not considering out-of-office security issues such as use of mobile devices and memory sticks, or talking about clients outside the office
Discussing risk issues that were not relevant to communicating the threat
Failing to discuss risk to reputation if Rex found out and what had happened was publicised
Not mentioning the Mieobed approach, which was based on openness and communication with the client
Professional marks were mixed, with some candidates showing good scepticism in clearly challenging the marketing director’s views, others not challenging the views at all or discussing ethical theory without referring to what the marketing director had said. Professional marks were limited in some instances because of candidates failing to discuss risks or ethical issues as the task required. Professional marks were also restricted sometimes because of tactless, and occasionally slanderous, remarks about the marketing director, including unsubstantiated allegations that he had been involved in stealing the confidential data.
Task 2(a)
This task required candidates to critically evaluate an investment appraisal of development in cloud-based services prepared by the finance director’s assistant. Professional skills marks were
This task required candidates to recommend how e-marketing could be used to attract and retain clients for TT4U’s new cloud-based services. Professional skills marks were available for demonstrating commercial acumen skills by showing awareness of effective methods for e- marketing the new cloud-based services. The format required was briefing notes to the board.
The requirements of the task required candidates to consider methods that would be effective in attracting clients to TT4U’s services initially, and then look at the methods that would be used to reinforce and strengthen the client relationship once established.
This task was generally answered poorly. Some candidates did make a number of creative suggestions of how e-marketing could be used, although very few did so within the framework of establishing and strengthening relations with clients. Many candidates discussed the benefits of e- marketing without showing how e-marketing methods could attract TT4U’s clients. The 6 Is framework was often used in answers and was often not much help. Frequently candidates made general comments under a number of the Is that were not related to TT4U’s situation and needs, and thus were not awarded marks. Some candidates discussed the cloud services that TT4U would be providing rather than how they would be marketed.
E-marketing was also examined in the June 2019 exam and performance was also poor then, suggesting that this is an area where candidates need to be better prepared.
Professional marks for this task were often low, in line with technical marks. Most candidates scored one of the lower grades as they failed to discuss e-marketing methods in the context of TT4U. Candidates who did discuss relevant, real-life, methods scored well.
Task 3(a)
This task required candidates to advise TT4U’s chief executive officer on the responsibilities and activities involved in effective preparation for, and implementation of, the transformation of Tt4U required to introduce the Mieobed approach. The format required was an email for the chief executive officer.
The discussion on the responsibilities needed to focus on the CEO’s and senior management’s responsibility to lead the transformation, with the CEO’s first responsibility being convincing the rest of the board to be as enthusiastic for change as she was. Following a structured approach was the best way to generate ideas for activities. Although no marks were awarded for stating the stages of Lewin’s model of organisational change, candidates could apply knowledge of the activities involved in each stage to TT4U’s circumstances and generate plenty of marks.
Performance was variable on this task. Discussion about responsibilities tended to focus on the responsibilities of the chief executive officer. Less was said about the other directors. Discussion about activities was often strong on the initial stages of transformation – communication with, and involvement of, staff and ways to overcome resistance. Answers were often less strong on the later stages – the activities during the transformation process, the need to maintain staff motivation and the need to confirm that staff were behaving as required once the transformation process had been completed. A number of answers failed to focus on the transformation process or discussed Lewin or project management frameworks without application to TT4U.
Other significant weaknesses included:
Discussing the changes that needed to be made rather what was needed in the transformation process
Focusing the involvement of, and the need to, convince clients and shareholders in the change process rather than employees
Giving insufficient detail about the activities involved, for example just saying that the chief executive officer should communicate with employees without describing what should be communicated
Making recommendations that were too strong, suggesting punishing and dismissing staff rather than trying to persuade them
Task 3(b)
This task required candidates to explain the benefits of introducing the Mieobed approach for TT4U and its employees, and explain the main changes to team structures and behaviours below board level that the new Mieobed approach would require. Professional skills marks were available for demonstrating communication skills in persuading TT4U’s employees of the benefits of TT4U adopting the new approach in its working practices. The format required was a letter to TT4U’s employees signed by the chief executive officer.
Candidates needed to discuss the benefits to TT4U in the context of how long-term relationships could be improved and more services provided, using Mieobed to address the issues highlighted in the client survey. Candidates could usefully draw on what would appeal to themselves in discussing benefits to employees (enhanced knowledge, capabilities, responsibilities and rewards). Explanation of the changes required candidates to address issues mentioned in the transcript of the directors’ meeting (Exhibit 1) and client survey (Exhibit 4).
Performance was variable on this task, with some answers covering the requirements systematically and identifying from the exhibits the issues that needed to be addressed. Other answers lacked balance in their coverage of benefits, missing out important benefits that would appeal to employees such as greater rewards. Instead candidates discussed benefits to clients without linking them to benefits to TT4U or employees, which was what the task required. Answers to the second part of the task often focused on changes in structure and often failed to consider other changes in behaviour, particularly towards clients. Time pressure may well have been an issue for some candidates when they answered this task, with candidates who allowed themselves enough time, scoring better marks.
Other significant weaknesses included:
Repeating material from the Mieobed model in Exhibit 2 or even reproducing it in full without explaining its application or its benefits to employees
Discussing in detail weaknesses of TT4U and the problems of changes, which was inappropriate in a letter with a positive tone
Because there was a need for a separate full time role (Marketing Director)
Because of the need for board representation of an important business function (the importance of a strong employee team suggesting the need to recruit a Human Resource Director).
Instead candidates wasted time by discussing board committees which relate to the structure and operation of the board, not its membership.
Discussion on information requirements was often limited to discussing the qualities of good information without any specific suggestions about what information should be supplied.
Other significant weaknesses included:
Discussing the company’s structure rather than board membership
Generally discussing integrated reporting, which relates to the requirements of external stakeholders
Suggesting that TT4U’s board should be supplied with generic information that boards generally need to control their business such as financial data and internal audit reports
Recommending TT4U’s board should be supplied with key performance indicators but not saying what these key performance indicators should be
Professional marks reflected the poor performance for technical marks, with most candidates scoring one of the two lower grades. Marks were also limited by candidates failing to make realistic suggestions about information that would indicate the state of relationships with clients.
SBL examiner's report
Module: Strategic Business Leadership (SBL)
University: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
- Discover more from:
