- Information
- AI Chat
SBL SD21 examiner's report
Strategic Business Leadership (SBL)
Recommended for you
Preview text
Strategic Business
Leader (SBL)
Sept/Dec 2021
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 Technical marks ........................................................... 5 Professional skills marks .............................................. 6
Specific comments .......................................................... 7
Question 1(a) ............................................................... 7 Question 1(b) ............................................................... 9 Question 2(a) ............................................................. 10 Question 2(b) ............................................................. 12 Question 3(a) ............................................................. 13 Question 3(b) ............................................................. 14 Question 4 .................................................................. 15
General comments
This examiner’s report should be used in conjunction with the published
September/December 2021 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
questions whilst sharing their observations from the marking process, highlighting the
strengths and weaknesses of candidates who attempted these questions. Future
candidates can use this examiner’s report as part of their exam preparation, attempting
question practice on the ACCA Practice Platform, 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 four main tasks, about a high-quality fitness and leisure club called Optima. The candidate’s role throughout the exam was a senior corporate business analyst for Optima, assisting the Finance Director in preparing information relating to strategic activities and decisions.
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 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 also looked at the general professionalism that candidates demonstrated (which includes consideration of logical, well-presented answers, which avoid unnecessary repetition and answer the question set). Markers are also looking for answers to be presented in an appropriate tone for the recipient.
As candidates will be taking 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 important to use and assimilate the guidance produced by ACCA for the Strategic Business Leader CBE exam.
segmentation types. Exhibit 3 also provided information on the CSR commitments of Optima, which again was ignored by many candidates when answering Q1b and Q2a.
Candidates should read the exhibits carefully whilst keeping the requirements of each question in mind, as this will help them to identify which tasks will be drawing on the material in each exhibit.
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 was evident far too often in this examination sitting, with many candidates cutting and pasting material from the exhibits into their answers without adding anything to it at all. This happened particularly in Q2a where candidates were asked to consider the opportunities and threats of the collaborative partnership on the B-Fit health programme and in Q3b, where candidates were asked to consider the benefits to Optima and its customers of mobile technology. Many candidates merely copied and pasted information from Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 without adding any additional assessment.
Candidates must also spend sufficient time on planning, to ensure that their answers are:
- Structured logically
- 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, as this does not score any marks
- 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. This has the advantage that candidates do not then need to keep looking at the task tabs and may help candidates to remain more focused on the tasks as they answer them.
It was encouraging that most candidates answered all four tasks and there was no real indication that they had run out of time or stamina on this examination. This suggests that candidates are improving their time management skills. As in previous reports, candidates are still 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 was a common weakness seen in several tasks this sitting. In addition, although planning is strongly recommended, some candidates wrote elaborate and lengthy plans or wasted time by making the same point twice or more in slightly different ways. This was particularly evident in Q1a and Q3b. Markers will not give additional marks for points which are repeated or re-stated, even if slightly reworded. Candidates must remember that apart from wasting valuable exam time, this approach can also have an adverse impact on the general professionalism demonstrated, and therefore may affect the professional skills mark awarded.
In most cases, those candidates who failed this exam did so because of:
- a poor level of technical knowledge,
- not answering the question that had been asked,
- wasting time making irrelevant points,
- lack of analysis skills (demonstrated through an inability to select and then appropriately use the most relevant information to answer task requirements),
- a lack of development of the points made (that is, not fully explaining why the point was relevant/ important to task requirements),
- lack of commercial acumen,
- failure to respond to the requirements in a professional/commercially sound manner,
- failure to provide everything that the requirements specified.
It was most disappointing that in many cases candidates had simply not read the question requirement carefully enough and therefore failed to answer the question that had been set. This demonstrates poor examination technique and a lack of professionalism. As discussed earlier, careful planning should help to reduce this.
Technical marks
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 question verb indicated should be provided.
- applied directly to Optima and its environment, presented in the case study material.
- were specific to the decision or issue covered in the task requirement.
- showed the marker why the point being made was significant/ relevant in the circumstances described.
Up to two marks were often available for a well-developed point made. However, candidates are reminded that this will only occur when the candidate has successfully identified/ explained a relevant point AND has then correctly developed this point by:
- evaluating how significant the point is
- using the information provided that relates the point directly to Optima
- explaining the consequences for Optima
- supporting the point made with relevant examples from the case material.
Weaker candidates often just repeated case material, particularly in Q3a and Q3b where they failed to discuss the opportunities and threats of big data analytics and the
informing the board members of Optima of the strategic importance of its social responsibility activities. Many candidates’ answers failed to demonstrate the communication skills necessary to effectively and concisely inform the board of the strategic importance of its CSR activities. Therefore, although they may have presented the answer in the appropriate presentation slides and notes format, if they failed to demonstrate sound communication skills, by presenting their points logically, concisely and in an appropriate tone to Board members, they were awarded few professional marks.
Specific comments
Question 1(a)
As a result of several challenges affecting the fitness and leisure industry in Ceeland, Optima’s board is about to meet to discuss how it should strengthen and protect its position in the market. The finance director has asked you to assist him in preparing for these discussions.
(a) Prepare briefing notes for the finance director which:
(i) Assess the value to Optima of undertaking customer segmentation analysis; and (ii) Advise on the most appropriate ways that Optima could segment its customers in order to target them more effectively. (12 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating commercial acumen skills in showing awareness of the usefulness of customer segmentation analysis to Optima. (3 marks)
Overall, only a small number of answers displayed a full understanding of customer segmentation. Stronger candidates were clearly those that knew and understood the syllabus topic and were able to both discuss the benefits to Optima and identify and explain a good range of segmentation types. However, there were many candidates who clearly did not understand the concept of customer segmentation in part (i) , indicating a clear syllabus knowledge gap. Weaker candidates often focused their answers incorrectly on the differences between high quality gym customers versus budget gym customers, instead of the specific value to Optima of segmenting its own customers. However, many candidates did pick up some marks by considering the importance of identifying specific customer needs, the impact on retention of customers and increasing market share. Better students would go on to gain marks for points such as marketing efficiency and reducing the risk of running marketing campaigns to uninterested consumers.
In part a(ii) most candidates were able to present a number of demographic segmentation examples such as age, gender and marital status and some did cover behavioural segmentation types such as fitness activity interests. Stronger students would gain 2 marks for each segmentation type if these examples were explained in the context of Optima. However very few candidates presented any examples of Psychographic segments. In several cases, candidates incorrectly discussed
methods of data collection (for example, big data and mobile applications) rather than segmentation types, demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge of customer segmentation. The best answers were those that picked up that professional marks were being awarded for commercial acumen and therefore focused their answers specifically on the value to Optima of customer segmentation.
Key weaknesses included:
A lack of basic technical knowledge of customer segmentation.
Failing to appreciate that Optima is applying a differentiation strategy, when
incorrectly suggesting that it should offer lower prices to segment its customers, which was inappropriate.
- Discussing the differences between the budget gym sector and the higher-quality
gym sector, which was not asked for and not appropriate to the question asked.
- Recommending ‘Income’ as a segmentation type, whereby Optima could focus on
lower income customers. Again, this completely ignored Optima’s differentiation strategy approach and demonstrated a lack of commercial awareness.
- Only recognising demographics as a way of segmenting customers (in most cases
by age and gender). Very few candidates discussed psychographic segmentation. Again, this demonstrated a lack of basic syllabus knowledge.
To score high professional skills marks, candidates needed to demonstrate sound commercial acumen skills in showing awareness of the usefulness of customer segmentation analysis specifically to Optima. Candidates who scored well on professional skills on this task did so because their answers were well focused on Optima and its customers and were not generic answers.
convincing the Board of Optima of the strategic importance of CSR activities. Therefore, this was not just about presenting well-presented slides and notes; the tone and strategic focus of the supporting notes were critical. Those candidates that failed to demonstrate a technical focus on strategic importance of CSR activities to Optima also then failed to score well on professional skills.
Question 2(a)
Optima’s chief executive has been approached by the Ceeland government’s Department of Health to work on a collaborative partnership to deliver the ‘B-Fit’ fitness programme for children from low income families. The finance director has been asked by the chief executive of Optima to undertake a preliminary evaluation of this proposal.
Prepare a report for the finance director which will:
(a) Analyse the potential opportunities and threats which Optima must consider in relation to undertaking a collaborative partnership with the Department of Health to deliver the ‘B- Fit’ programme. (13 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating analysis skills in considering and reflecting on the available evidence relating to the proposed collaborative partnership. (4 marks)
This task requirement provided candidates with a clear structure to analyse the collaborative partnership proposal that Optima was considering in conjunction with the Department of Health. The main source of information to assist candidates with this task was Exhibit 6.
One of the most obvious weaknesses in answers to this question was that many completely missed the significance of a collaboration between a private sector organisation such as Optima and a public sector body. The exhibit made this very clear, with information relating to Value For Money (VFM) and reference to the public sector body setting the objectives for the proposal, yet many candidates failed to pick up on these, which was disappointing. It was also surprising that many candidates chose to use the SAF model to structure their analysis, which often proved to be an unnecessary distraction. If candidates are given a definite structure to use in the actual requirement ( such as opportunities and threats) then they should use it.
However, many candidates scored reasonably well on this task, mainly gaining marks for recognizing opportunities such as raising Optima’s profile, establishing its CSR reputation, attracting more customers and attracting future related projects. In terms of threats, most candidates correctly considered the potential damage to reputation if the collaboration failed, the impact on its current customers and the uncertainty surrounding the performance measures. However, it was disappointing that relatively few candidates picked up on the threat that the Department of Health, as a public sector body, would have very different overall objectives from this proposal to Optima.
Better candidates often were awarded two marks per point made, as they clearly and
correctly analysed and reflected on the opportunities and threats of this specific collaborative proposal. Weaker students only gained one mark per each point made as they often did not adequately discuss the points raised. Candidates must remember that points should be developed/ explained in the context of the case to be awarded higher credit. The weakest answers presented lists of opportunities and threats which lacked the analysis that was needed for the professional marks.
In many cases, it was not so much what candidates did write (most points made were sensible and gained marks) but the brief answers simply omitted so many relevant points and therefore many candidates did not gain high marks on what should have been a straightforward analysis of opportunities and threats of this proposal. The related exhibit provided candidates with more than sufficient information to answer this question well, so it was disappointing when candidates made limited use of it.
Key weaknesses included:
Using the SAF approach to structure the answer instead of simply using the headings of ‘opportunities’ and ‘threats’ as directed in the requirement. Candidates should use the task wording wherever possible to help them structure their answers. SAF was often a distraction to those that used it.
Superficial analysis, whereby points were lifted straight from Exhibit 6, with little or no further comment.
A lack of recognition that this was a collaborative partnership between a public sector body and a private sector organisation. Many candidates failed to consider the potential challenges this could present to the proposal.
Failing to read the exhibit information correctly. Many candidates misinterpreted some of the key points from the exhibit and made several incorrect points as a result (for example, Optima having to close so that its instructors can work within the schools or that the school children would be coming into Optima’s clubs).
Candidates who achieved high Professional skills marks (‘Very well’ or ‘Quite well’) demonstrated good analysis skills in reflecting on the available evidence from Exhibit 6 relating to the proposed collaborative partnership. However, relatively few achieved a ‘Very well’ professional score, as most answers were not strongly focused on the challenges posed by a collaborative partnership with a public sector body. Unfortunately, many candidates did not achieve a pass mark on professionalism for this answer, largely because they did not present a suitable range of points discussed nor did they adequately reflect on the points they had made.
Question 3(a)
You have just attended a meeting, on behalf of the finance director, with several of Optima’s senior management team. At the meeting the latest applications of data analytics and mobile technology in the fitness and leisure industry were discussed (some of which are being used by several of Optima’s competitors in Ceeland). The IT director has proposed that some of these technologies be implemented by Optima. However, some of the other directors at the meeting did not agree that this is necessary for Optima.
Prepare briefing notes for the finance director which:
(a) Discuss the opportunities and threats to Optima of implementing big data analytics to assist in improving engagement with its members. (12 marks)
This question was answered reasonably well by many candidates. Many answers correctly included how big data analytics could help Optima with segmenting its market, retention of its members, identifying trends in the market and engaging better with its members. Many were also able to present a reasonable range of threats, including data security/hackers, high costs of investment and lack of skilled staff in data analytics. Weaker answers often got confused here and discussed mobile technologies instead of big data. Had they read the question requirements clearly and logically however, they would have seen that mobile technology was to be tested in part (b) of the task and therefore should not have been covered here. This was poor examination technique. Weaker answers were also often very theoretical (many merely outlining the 5 V’s of big data) and lacked real direct application of the benefits and threats directly related to Optima’s decision to implement big data analytics.
Comments made by the individual directors on the usefulness of big data analytics for Optima were overlooked in the vast majority of answers and therefore this impacted heavily on the professionalism marks awarded (see below).
Key weakness included:
- Presenting largely theoretical answers which did not adequately focus on the specific opportunities and threats for Optima.
- Discussing mobile applications and social media instead of big data analysis.
- Failing to refer to any of the comments made by the directors in Exhibit 7.
Question 3(b)
(b) Discuss the benefits for both Optima and its members of using mobile technology to market and deliver its services. (8 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating scepticism skills in questioning the opinions and assertions made in the meeting about the use of big data analytics and mobile technology, presenting evidence to challenge these in a professional way.
(4 marks)
This question was answered well by most candidates. Most answers identified and discussed a good range of benefits to Optima and its customers of implementing mobile applications, although answers weren't always structured well. On the whole, most candidates made a good attempt at applying the benefits directly to Optima and its customers. Weaker candidates tended to merely copy and paste information from Exhibits 4 and 7 with little added analysis.
A common weakness was that many candidates seemed to believe that older customers would be incapable of using mobile technologies. This is possibly a generational perception but one that is fundamentally flawed, and candidates should not make such sweeping assumptions about a large customer group without specific evidence. Some of the comments made by candidates regarding older customers was misplaced and strategically unsound.
Key weakness included:
Copying and pasting large sections of Exhibit 7 with little or no added comment/ analysis
Poor structure, with no clear distinction between the specific benefits for Optima and those for the customers.
Confusion between mobile technologies and big data analytics.
Professionalism was particularly poor on this question. In fact, very few candidates scored any professional marks at all. Scepticism was being tested but the majority of candidates ignored this altogether. There was no attempt to question the comments made by the Board members in Exhibit 7 at all. This was very poor exam technique and indicates that candidates are not considering the technical and professional marks together when reading the requirements. In both parts (a) and (b) candidates failed to question any of the comments made at the senior management team meeting. Where candidates did refer to the comments made, it was more a case of copying these statements into their answer rather than challenging them.
Key weaknesses included:
Too much reliance on copying and pasting from Exhibit 8 and then failing to adequately add any further value in assessing the impact of the internal control weaknesses identified.
Not fully justifying the recommendations made. When making a recommendation, candidates are reminded that they must always justify it in the context of the issue/ problem the recommendation is trying to solve.
Failing to present any impacts at all. This happened when candidates had copied the weaknesses from the exhibit and then neglected to consider the impacts and only presented recommendations.
Most candidates achieved good professional skills marks for this question, as most demonstrated sound evaluation skills in assessing the impact of the internal control weaknesses and then making sound recommendations. Candidates who attained low professional marks largely did so because they presented answers which did not adequately appraise the internal control weaknesses or presented weak and/or unjustified recommendations.
SBL SD21 examiner's report
Module: Strategic Business Leadership (SBL)
University: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
- Discover more from:
