Examiner’s report

Strategic Business Leader (SBL)

July 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.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the June 2020 exam was postponed and sat in July 2020. This
report labelled July 2020 refers to this exam.
General comments
Format of exam
The examination consisted of a 4-hour exam with a single compulsory section about a company,
OpenSpace, that operated 250 business centres. Each of the business centres was comprised of a
number of flexible office workspaces that offered a wide range of business services to both
individual clients and companies. The candidate’s role throughout the exam was as a senior
business manager working at the OpenSpace head office in the fictitious country of Foreland.
The marking scheme included 80 technical marks for the correct use and application of syllabus
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. The particular skill being
examined with each requirement should have been evident in how candidates answered the task,
although candidates may have drawn on other skills and competencies 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 standard of candidates’ answers resulted in one of the poorest sittings of SBL so far.
Stronger candidates integrated and used the content of the case study exhibits provided
throughout all their answers, selecting relevant technical syllabus 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 tended to produce very
theoretical answers, often based on rote learning of syllabus areas, and did not integrate the case
material adequately into their answers. The weaker candidates failed to apply their answers to
OpenSpace’s circumstances, often ignoring the scenario altogether.
It was apparent that some candidates had not used the learning support 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
▪ Various videos and articles on how to plan and take SBL exams
▪

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020

At the start of the exam, candidates should spend sufficient time analysing all of the requirements
and then reading and assimilating the information contained the case study exhibits. This approach
will help them to structure their answers around the requirements and use the relevant scenario
content to develop their answers. Often answers failed to make sufficient reference to the exhibits
or failed to use the full range of material contained in the exhibits. Some answers also
demonstrated that the candidates had not read the exhibits sufficiently carefully, for example failing
to identify the specific areas environmental regulation in Exhibit 5 before drawing up the two
presentation slides in Q1b), as this would have helped to populate the content of their answer.
There were six exhibits:
▪ comprised background information and explanation about the OpenSpace business model, to
provide context for the answers;
▪ provided the useful material/information that underpinned the range of applied points that
candidates could be making in their answers;
▪ highlighted the most important issues that answers should cover; and
▪ helped candidates to decide how best to logically structure their answers.
Candidates should carefully 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. It should be
noted that the exhibits are not necessarily ordered in the same sequence as the tasks. In this
exam, the OpenSpace business review [Exhibit 1] and independent market research -Leeland
summary [Exhibit 2] included material that was relevant to most of the tasks in the exam.
Candidates should be alert for links between different exhibits reinforcing or contrasting significant
issues. For example, the memo to the operations director in Q2(c) required an explanation of the
governance arrangement at OpenSpace [Exhibit 1] and the social responsibilities expected of
OpenSpace as a corporate citizen [Exhibit 6].
However, candidates should appreciate that merely reproducing material from the exhibits without
commenting on it, or developing points further, will not score marks. In particular, it was noted that
a number of the candidates sitting the exams on computer, simply cut and pasted material from the
exhibits into their answers without adding anything to it. This approach earned them no marks.
Candidates must also spend sufficient time planning, and considering carefully, what they will write
to ensure that their answers are:
▪ Covering all aspects of the task requirements, as marks are available for every element and it
is hard to score a passing mark without answering everything asked.
▪ Structured logically, ideally in line with the way the task as been presented
▪ Balanced in terms of the depth of discussion required with the breadth of points to be made.
Simply making points superficially will score very few marks.
▪ Covering the most significant points and issues, as these are more likely to appear the marking
scheme.
▪ Not padded out with material that does not address the task requirements, as this approach
scores no marks at all.

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 2

The vast majority of candidates answered all of the tasks, although a significant number failed to
complete one or more of the tasks in full. This suggested ineffective time management with many
candidates performing strongest on Task(1a), indeed some answers potentially scoring more than
the 18 marks that were available. However, this left insufficient time to complete all of the other
tasks to the required standard. Therefore, earning maximum marks in Task 1(a) was likely to be at
the expense of earning sufficient marks from the other tasks, and for many candidates this resulted
in a total mark below 50. Candidates are strongly advised to attempt mock exams before the actual
exam under full exam conditions, this will help them to get used to the challenging demands on
concentration, thinking, writing and organisation of time that a four-hour exam presents.
Although answer planning is definitely recommended, some candidates wrote elaborate and
lengthy plans, which they then crossed out, and subsequently ran short of time when answering
the tasks. Candidates also wasted time by making the same point twice or more in slightly different
ways in the same requirement. Markers will not give additional marks for points which are repeated
or re-stated, even if slightly reworded. Apart from wasting valuable exam time, repetition of points
can also have an adverse impact on the general professionalism demonstrated, so can affect the
professional mark awarded.
The vast majority of candidates answered the tasks in order, which is recommended. This is
because future exams may have task requirements that follow a timeline or progress in a
consecutive way.
In many cases those candidates who failed the exam did so because of:
▪ Lack of analysis skills with an inability to select relevant information to answer task
requirements.
▪ Failing to explain why the points made were significant in the context of the task requirements.
▪ A general lack of commercial awareness, and not relating their answer to OpenSpace.
▪ Failing to respond to the requirements in a professional and commercial manner
▪ Wasting time making irrelevant points, or repeating points already made
▪ Failing to provide everything that the requirements specified.
▪ Not answering the whole exam paper.
Technical marks
To gain each Technical mark, candidates needed to make points that:
▪ Addressed the specific requirements of the task, considering the scope of answer required and
what the task verbs used indicate should be provided
▪ Applied to the OpenSpace organisation and the environment featured in the case study
▪ Were specific to the decision or situation covered in the task
▪ Showed the reader why the point being made was significant in the circumstances described
Up to two technical marks were often available for each well-developed point made. This might
include:
▪ Evaluating how significant the points were to the overall issue.

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 3

▪ Using information provided that related the situation and specific issues at OpenSpace.
▪ Explaining the consequences of an event or recommendation on the OpenSpace operation.
▪ Supporting the points made with relevant information from the case material.
The simple demonstration of technical knowledge or an explanation of syllabus theory does not
earn marks in this exam. Weaker candidates tended to give theoretical answers based on textbook
knowledge rather than relating their answer to the specific circumstances of OpenSpace, thereby
failing to explain why what they had written was significant. For example, the project management
techniques to be described in Task 2(b) were not then evaluated in terms of their usefulness with
Project Wyvern, which was the whole point of the question.
Technical frameworks can help generate ideas. However, by simply using technical frameworks as
the basis for structuring answers led many candidates into forcing their answers to fit the
framework. This meant they produced answers that:
▪ Were in a form that was not helpful to the intended recipient.
▪ Included points of little or no importance.
▪ Failed to include relevant points that couldn’t be easily fitted into the framework
The SBL exam does not encourage candidates to 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. So, by organising an answer around a theoretical
framework may not be helpful to whoever is meant to be receiving the candidates’ work.
However, there were several tasks that allowed candidates to use syllabus models and
frameworks that could have helped to effectively structure their answers. For example, in Task 1(c)
it would have been possible to discuss the cultural issues arising from adopting the new
environmental practices by using the various elements of the Cultural Web, and the POPiT
framework could have bene used in the same task to suggest how the cultural issues could be
managed.
Professional skills marks
Candidates’ overall 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 in Task 3 only discussing the strategic
benefits of adopting new technologies in its business centre without covering the related risks.
▪ Failing to demonstrate understanding of the impact on the OpenSpace’s business model.
▪ Not paying sufficient attention to the specific answer format required, with some candidates
using the same basic format throughout the whole exam.
▪ Failing to appreciate the usefulness of the document produced by the answer for the needs of
the stated user, for example not explaining the role and responsibilities of the project manager
to the finance director for her new role as the project sponsor in Task 2(a).

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 4

▪ Failing to produce a balanced answer, for example failing to discuss the mitigating actions to
address the risks arising from the acquisition of Wyvern Task 1(a)
Candidates should remember that they are carrying out a professional task that has a particular
purpose for a defined user. 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 Task 1(b), where candidates were required to produce two presentation
slides for the business development director to then present to the board. Many candidates simply
drew up two slides about the more stringent environmental standards with accompanying notes,
without giving any consideration to the fact that these would form part of a wider board level
discussion about they would be implemented using internal management controls, that the board
would be ultimately accountable for. The professional marks in Task 1(b) were for demonstrating
communication skills and in particular how the slides and notes assisted the business development
director to effectively present to the board.
Further comments on specific professional skills are given below.
Computer-based exam
This was the second time SBL was to be run partly as a computer-based exam, but with only a
small number of candidates at a limited number of centres being involved. There was no significant
difference in the performance between candidates sitting exams on computer and paper, the same
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, and probably for the same reason of poor time management. A clear
benefit of the computer-based format was that many scripts, including those that scored low
technical marks, were presented well with good use of headers and paragraphing, this made them
easier to mark. The use of the presentation tab was particularly helpful for Task 1(b), and I expect
the spreadsheet tab will be good for future exams with a computational element.
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 on screen, and also to estimate
how much they can write in the time allowed.
Many candidates copied material in from the task 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 to be more focused on the tasks.
However, as discussed above, candidates who simply cut and pasted in exhibit material without
commenting on it further could not be awarded marks.
Specific comments
Task 1(a)

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 5

This task has two elements in the form of a brief report to the board of OpenSpace. Candidates
were required to evaluate a proposal to acquire Wyvern, and then analyse the risks associated
with the proposal and suggest ways to mitigate the risks identified.
This task required a careful review of Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to identify those factors that would
contribute to the evaluation of the proposal. Exhibit 3 provided background information on the
target company, Wyvern, as well as detail on its recent financial performance. This could have
been related to detail of the OpenSpace business model at Exhibit 1, when strategically evaluating
the proposal from OpenSpace’s perspective. Exhibit 2 had useful information about the office
services industry in Leeland, the country in which Wyvern operates, and this would have helped to
identify some of the risks that could be faced by OpenSpace if they proceeded with the acquisition.
This was the best answered question on the paper with many candidates producing very
comprehensive answers to part (i), in fact often too detailed. Most candidates scored highly on this
question with many students gaining 14 or more marks out of 18 In part (i) many candidates used
the suitability, acceptability, feasibility framework, which was the most suitable choice. A minority
successfully used alternative strategic analysis models SWOT, PESTEL and Porters diamond .
It was good to observe that many candidates did use the exhibits information extensively, with
many attempting to calculate the percentage drop in profit, customers numbers etc. for Wyvern to
support their answers.
Most candidates were also able to discuss a good range of risks in part (ii) of the answer, with
most recognising the relevance of regulatory risks and the currency risks. However, weaker
candidates omitted to discuss risks at all or omitted to discuss ways to mitigate the risks.

Some candidates included the risks of the acquisition within their evaluation, and then repeated the
same points within the risks section. Clearly this impacted on their professional marks.
The significant weaknesses can be summarised as:
▪ Spending too much time on this task affecting performance later in the exam.
▪ Using inappropriate strategic analysis models and frameworks to generate ideas, when the
question was concerned with the strategic evaluation of the acquisition.
▪ Risks not specifically related to the decision under consideration, i.e. “as a result of the
acquisition”.
▪ Risk mitigation considerations were too brief and underdeveloped.
▪ Not drawing up the answer as a report, the required framework, so not including a brief
introduction and conclusions, limiting professional marks to a maximum 1.33 out 4.
There was some correlation between technical and professional marks, which were awarded for
commercial acumen. Candidates who referred to the information provided in the supporting
exhibits and considered the proposal from the perspective of OpenSpace scored well. Candidates
who made minimal reference to the scenario information tended to display no discernible
commercial acumen and so scored low professional marks. Some candidates also scored low
marks because the failed to write a brief report, as required.

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 6

Task 1(b)
This task was also in two parts, and required candidates to produce two presentation slides with
accompanying notes.
Sub-task (i) should have formed the first presentation slide and notes. It was concerned with the
actions that the board would need to take in order to comply with the more stringent environmental
standards in Leeland. Candidates should have been targeting 4 of the 8 marks for part (i), so
ideally, they would have identified up to four actions from Exhibits 2 and 3 that OpenSpace would
need to address. Technical marks were available for the supporting notes only. Sub-task (ii) then
required the candidate to describe the features of an internal control system suitable for ensuring
compliance with the new regulations. Weaker candidates merely stated the elements of a generic
internal control system, so failed to provide convincing answers on the main features of internal
management control which OpenSpace would need in order to comply with regulations.
For part (i), some candidates did identify the actions corresponding to those presented in Exhibit 5,
but often, the answer went little further than listing these with no real explanation offered. Very few
considered the need for communication and audit, as detailed in the ISO 14001 standard [Exhibit
5].
Part (ii) was not answered well by most, as few seemed to understand the relevant features of a
suitable internal management control system. This appears to be an area of weakness in syllabus
knowledge with candidates, as questions like this are often answered badly on SBL. Many
candidates just made observations about the membership of the current board and corporate
governance, and far too many simply suggested appointing “an external expert” without any
reference to the case in hand.

Other significant weaknesses included:

▪ A weak link between the points on the slide and the supporting notes, sometimes there was no
evident link at all.
▪ Some suggestions made, like switching off lights, although clearly sensible were not of interest
to the board who needed to think strategically.
▪ Rare use of the ISO14001 information in Exhibit 5, even though it provided clear guidance.
▪ Some narrow, rather superficial and unconvincing points.
▪ Too much emphasis on corporate governance in part (ii)

Professional skills marks were available for communication skills by producing an answer that
would be readily usable by the business development director when presenting to the board. Some
candidates are still not sure of the correct way of preparing slides, although this should improve
with the CBE exams. However, some of the CBE candidates did not use the slides formats
provided and prepared the slides in the workbook. A small minority of candidates did not produce
any slides at all, so scored no professional marks.

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 7

Many candidates scored low professional marks because they did not try to present a clear answer
in the format required. Merely writing a couple of words in a box does not make it a presentation
slide.
Task 1(c)
This task required candidates to draft a memo for the business development director that
discussed the possible cultural issues that could arise in the current OpenSpace operation from the
adoption of the new stringent environmental practices, together with how these could be effectively
managed.
This question was reasonably well answered, although only a few candidates used the obvious
model – the cultural web - to structure their response. Some candidates only discussed the issue
of individual members objections to the new practices, with other cultural elements not discussed
at all. Many candidates answered this question as change management as oppose to culture and,
although there is some overlap, it would be difficult to gain the full technical marks and would
negatively impact the professional mark awarded.
The better candidates recognised the potential resistance to the new environmental practices and
provided a reasonable range of actions to manage such resistance, including training, involvement
and rewards. Only a few candidates used the POPiT model in this response, but this was not
necessary if they used alternative change management approaches.
Weaker candidates did not discuss the changes to culture, other than to state that tasks and
routines may have modifications. Instead they repeated what they had written in Q1(b) about
actions to improve environmental behaviour. Some candidates had clearly not read the question
properly and discussed the cultural clashes that would take place with the staff of Wyvern after the
acquisition.
Other significant weaknesses included:
▪ Merely describing the various elements of the cultural web rather that applying it to the
situation.
▪ Incorrectly focussing on board structure and the lack of NEDs and committees.
▪ Considering the issues generically, and more in line with change management, without
applying the points discussed to the case.
▪ Poorly presented answers of limited usefulness to the target audience
Professional marks were generally quite low on this one, as candidates did not adequately
demonstrate analysis skills in identifying an adequate range of cultural issues. Most answers
simply did not present any real depth of analysis of the issues under consideration. Some
candidates made minimal attempt to link the cultural issues with the actions required to manage
them effectively.
Task 2(a)

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 8

This task required candidates to prepare briefing notes for use by the finance director in her new
role as the sponsor of the Wyvern project. The memo should have explained the project sponsors
role and responsibilities alongside those of the assigned project manager.
This was a relatively straight forward task, provided that candidates used their project management
syllabus knowledge in the context of Project Wyvern specifically.. However, it was hugely
disappointing to see how many candidates had such poor knowledge of this area of the syllabus.
Only a minority showed knowledge of this area of the syllabus and scored highly on this
requirement
Many candidates presented confused and incorrect answers, demonstrating little or no knowledge
of the roles and responsibilities of the project sponsor and project manager; two separate and
distinct project roles. It was quite evident from these answers that this syllabus area is being
neglected by candidates, so they need to be reminded that all areas of the syllabus are equally
weighted and can be examined on any exam.
Weaker candidates only discussed the skills and attributes of a project manager and/or project
sponsor rather than the roles and responsibilities as required by the question.
Significant weaknesses included:
▪ Getting the two roles confused, like incorrectly suggesting that the project sponsor has an
operational role.
▪ Failing to provide a clear and balanced answer that would have been useful to the finance
director when assuming her new project sponsor role.
▪ Not studying the project management area of the syllabus.
▪ Focusing purely on the financial management aspects of the project for the project sponsor
role, probably because the sponsor was the finance director. in the case study
Professional skills were also largely weak, as communication skills demonstrated were often poor
with the ability to clarify the roles not demonstrated adequately. Many students simply provided a
list and did not distinguish which roles and/or responsibilities were related to the project sponsor or
the project manager. Some candidates only discussed the project sponsor and totally omitted to
discuss the project manager, so reducing their mark significantly.
Task 2(b)
This task required candidates to draft a brief report to the finance director describing the key
techniques that could be used to develop a project plan, and how these would be useful with
Project Wyvern.
This was answered very badly, which can probably be put down to lack of relevant syllabus
knowledge. Most candidates clearly demonstrated that they did not know the tools and techniques
of project management. However, there were some who did correctly consider tools relating to
scope, objectives, budget, constraints, etc, with credit given for correctly discussing Gantt charts,
milestones, budgets, etc.

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 9

Some weaker candidates discussed anything and everything from project initiation documents to
post completion audits; the latter clearly not relevant to project planning. However, little credit was
given to the weaker answers that discussed general strategic and financial planning tools, such as
NPV and SWOT.

There were a few candidates who discussed the new technologies in Exhibit 4 to answer this
question, which was totally inappropriate and displayed a real lack of understanding. This could be
because it was the next exhibit in the exam, their answer needed to use this information. This is
poor exam technique and something that students need to be made aware of. The exhibits are not
necessarily in order of use and they must not assume that because exhibits 1-3 were used in Q1,
then exhibit 4 must relate to question 2.
It was notable that many candidates did not even attempt this question, therefore throwing away 14
marks. Candidates should be made very aware that failing to attempt any part of the exam reduces
their chances of passing considerably. In this situation by not attempting Task 2(b), the maximum
mark possible would be 86, and the pass mark of 50 represent 58% of this, which is above the
overall average mark.
Other significant weaknesses included:
▪ Answering too broadly, and failing to focus on the project planning phase.
▪ Incorrectly focussing on board structure and the lack of NEDs and committees.
▪ Identifying a correct technique but not evaluating its usefulness in this situation, therefore
limiting the mark to be awarded.
▪ Appreciating that this would be the first time the finance director, in her role as project sponsor,
would be involved in planning and not meeting her needs.
Professional marks were available for evaluating the usefulness of the techniques. Therefore, as a
result of poor technical answers, professional skills were also poor for this question, as it was very
difficult to award evaluation marks if the tools/ techniques were incorrect or missing..
Task 2(c)
This task required candidates to write a memo to the operations director explaining how
governance arrangements [Exhibit 1] and accepted corporate social responsibilities would help
OpenSpace attain corporate citizen status, as detailed in Exhibit 6. Professional marks were
available for demonstrating commercial acumen by explaining how aspects of governance related
to adopting corporate citizenship at the company.
This question was also not well answered by most candidates. Many did try to use exhibit 6 as a
structure, but often candidates merely re-wrote what was in the exhibit with little or no attempt to
consider the relationship between board level governance and social responsibility expectations.
Far too many answers focused incorrectly on the board structure and the number of NED’s and
committees, without considering anything at all about how this would address/ impact corporate
social responsibility. Many answers made no link between the two at all.

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 10

Candidates came up with a considerable variety of answers, with most using the ‘5 Stages of
Delivering Corporate Citizenship or Social Responsibility’ and others suggesting how OpenSpace
should be restructured in order to adhere to governance arrangements and social responsibilities
required to become a corporate citizen. The explanations consistently included the need for the
board to establish relevant audit committee and appoint more NEDs as a means of addressing
compliance with regulations. However not enough was written about what the board should
actually be doing.

Weaker candidates simply did not use any of the information provided in Exhibit 6 at all, and others
simply copied out the information in the exhibit. Many candidates just wanted to write all they knew
about corporate governance, most of which was irrelevant and did not answer the question asked.
Other significant weaknesses included:
▪ Evidence of poor understanding of this area of the syllabus.
▪ Simply critiquing the corporate governance structure at OpenSpace without relating this to
social responsibilities.
▪ Discussing the meaning of social responsibility without explaining how the corporate
governance impacts on this.
▪ Ignoring the status of corporate citizenship entirely, which was the point of the question.
Professional skills were often weak on this answer, as candidates demonstrated poor commercial
acumen in not understanding how OpenSpace’s governance arrangements impact on its corporate
citizenship. Answers were mainly generic and not applied, so commercial acumen not sufficiently
displayed
Task 3
This task required candidates to draft some briefing papers for the operations director discussing
both the strategic benefits and potential risks associated with OpenSpace adopting new
technologies in its business centres, as detailed in Exhibit 4. The exhibit provided five different
technologies, the inclusion of which in a well-developed answer would have been sufficient to
score all of the available 16 technical marks.
This question was well answered by many candidates. Exhibit 4 information was used well and
candidates demonstrated some really good syllabus knowledge, applying this knowledge to
OpenSpace. Most candidates identified a good range of benefits and risks and were able to
consider the impact of these on OpenSpace.
The quality of candidate answers differed considerably from those that really only described the
technologies adding only a few comments to the stronger candidates who discussed strategic
benefits and risks fully applying them to the OpenSpace business model. However, most of the
answers demonstrated a deep understanding the internet and other existing technologies and how
they benefit OpenSpace as well as the risks involved. The weaker candidates simply described
what the technology does without explaining how that could be of benefit to OpenSpace or its
clients, for example by reciting textbook learned definitions of the internet of things, without relating

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 11

this to the business of OpenSpace. Some candidates were repetitive in their risk answers with data
being “hacked” used as the risk for more than one of the technologies.
As most candidates presented a balanced answer, including both the benefits and risks, there was
clear evidence of scepticism in their answer and so they scored well on professionalism marks.
Other significant weaknesses included:
▪ Simply knowledge dumping technologies, some of which were not even mentioned in the
scenario or relevant to OpenSpace.
▪ Poor presentation, probably arising from a shortness of time.
Professional marks awarded were quite variable for this task, with many being awarded the
maximum 4 marks. However as this was the last question on the paper, it was evident that many
candidates were running out time and rushed their answers to Task 3
Conclusion
The way many candidates answered the exam paper for this session demonstrated their real
insights into the Strategic Business Leadership exam. However, some candidates are still not clear
about how answers should be presented, and some candidates are keen to simply knowledge
dump all they know about a subject without applying it to the case and the requirement in the
question.
Unfortunately, a significant proportion of candidate did not attempt all the questions, which is
because they spent too much time planning their answers and describing models, frameworks and
concepts leaving less time to apply them to the task at hand. Future candidates are strongly
advised to undertake as much question practice as they can, getting feedback wherever possible,
so that they fully appreciate the requirements and demands that will equip them for this challenging
exam.

Examiner’s report – SBL June/July 2020 12