Advanced

Performance
Management (APM)
Sept / Dec 2020
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 exam.................................................................... 2
General Approach to the APM examination ........................ 2
Question 1 – Deeland Police ............................................... 5
Part (i) .............................................................................. 5
Part (ii) .............................................................................. 6
Part (iii) ............................................................................. 7
Part (iv) ............................................................................. 7
Professional marks .......................................................... 8
Question 2 – Roan University & Saugh University .............. 9
Part (a) ............................................................................. 9
Part (b) ........................................................................... 10
Question 3 – Clonyard & Elrig ........................................... 11
Part (a) ........................................................................... 11
Part (b) ........................................................................... 12
Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 1
Conclusion ......................................................................... 12
General comments

This examiner’s report should be used in conjunction with the published

September/December 2020 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 exam

The examination comprised two sections, A and B. Section A consisted of one

compulsory question for 50 marks in total. Section B consisted of two compulsory
questions for 25 marks each. Four professional marks were available within Section A
for the format, style and structure of the discussion of the candidate’s answer which
should be written as a report.

General Approach to the APM examination

The examining team continue to be concerned by the quality of answers which has
been observed which is consistent with that of the previous diets of APM. The advice
in past examiners’ reports and approach articles does not seem to have been taken
up by many candidates. The examining team would strongly advise that candidates
use these materials to ensure that they have the right overall attitude to APM, which
is intended to lie at a post-graduate level.

Principally, this means paying specific attention to the question requirement: at APM,
questions demand that scenarios are “analysed”, “evaluated” and “assessed” rather
than described. The difference is fundamental and crucial, as an analysis involves a
study of applicability rather than a description. Also, providing a history of how and
when models were developed, although interesting, adds little benefit when providing
advice.

Knowledge of any technique is essentially taken for granted at this level. The essence
of APM is the application of this knowledge to a practical scenario and it is the
demonstration of these skills which will make for a successful response on this
examination. For example, part of Question 1(iv) required candidates to explain the
use of league tables in measuring performance of a police department. Several
candidates simply listed the generic advantages and disadvantages of using league
tables without any specific reference to the fact that the organisation in the scenario
was a police force and therefore such comments relating to how league tables can
help customers make decisions scored no marks. In addition, Question 2(b) required
candidates to evaluate the introduction of an enterprise resource planning system
(ERPS) into a retail company. Those candidates who specifically evaluated such a
system in relation to the conditions in the scenario scored well. However, many
candidates simply listed the characteristics of an ERPS and/or generically discussed
Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 2
the advantages and disadvantages of an ERPS with no reference to the scenario.

Candidates who come to the APM examination expecting to repeat memorised

material will probably score only between 20% and 30%. Many candidates have
clearly been taught that they should define in their answer any ‘jargon’ terms in the
question requirement. However, they are wrong to assume that this alone will provide
them with a passing answer at APM.

A lack of basic knowledge was demonstrated by many candidates across these

questions – a significant number of candidates appeared not to understand what key
performance indicators are, and many did not know what economy, efficiency or
effectiveness mean in relation to a value-for-money analysis. Even where models were
provided for candidates, there were a significant number of candidates who failed to
use them appropriately.

Candidates need to be aware that performance management is an area which, at an

advanced level, is dependent upon situation and environment. A good, professional-
level answer will go beyond the mere repetition of how a technique works and focus
on relating it to the entity's specific environment. As in previous diets, it was very clear
to the examining team that those candidates that had grasped the need for this went
on to pass the examination. Also, those candidates who specifically answered the
requirements, addressing each part specifically, paying attention to the relevant verbs
scored well.

It should also be noted that candidates failed to score as well on professional marks
for Question 1 compared to previous diets. Future candidates should be aware that
well-structured, professional answers are essential to score these marks. The trend
over recent diets demonstrated an improvement in this area, however that
improvement appears to have stalled.

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 3

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 4
Question 1 – Deeland Police

This 50-mark question was based around a country’s police force and included one
appendix with a relatively small amount of information relating to key performance data
over the past three years.

Candidates should be able to see from the published question the links between the
exhibits and requirements. APM questions are specifically designed this way to help
candidates make the connections between the scenario and the requirements.

Part (i) asked candidates to respond to a request by the CEO of the police force to
provide justifications as to why critical success factors (CSFs) had been changed, and
to provide up to two key performance indicators (KPIs) for each CSF (there were four
CSFs in total). Many candidates scored well on this section, and this was achieved by
following the requirement of the question i.e. justify the change in the CSFs,
recommend KPIs and justify each of them.

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 5

However, common mistakes fell into four categories;
• firstly, candidates often failed to try to explain the change in the CSFs and
instead simply discussed why CSFs (new, old or in general) are useful;
• secondly, KPIs were often suggested but with no justification, or at least a
justification that was not suitable at this level e.g. ‘regarding whether the police
are better at catching criminals a suitable KPI would be the number of criminals
caught as a percentage of crimes reported. This is suitable as it measures
whether the police are better at catching criminals.’ Reiterating why you are
trying to measure something is not a justification as to the choice of measure;
• thirdly, a significant number of candidates did not appear to understand what a
KPI is and instead made suggestions as to what the police should do to improve
performance e.g. ‘the police should communicate more with the local
community’. A KPI is a measurable value that demonstrates how
effectively an organisation is achieving the objectives, in this case the
CSFs, not what the organisation should do to achieve the objectives. This
difference is significant, and those who failed to identify this invariably scored
few marks on this section;
• finally, there were a number of candidates who failed to offer sensible KPIs and
candidates should be advised when recommending KPIs to carefully consider
what they are trying to measure, why they were trying to measure it and actually
whether or not it is even possible to measure it.

It is also worth noting that the requirement specifically asked for KPIs to be limited to
up to two for each CSF.

Candidates who offered more than two may feel that they are providing more value
but should be aware that marks cannot be given for the extra KPIs suggested above
the two required, and as such time is being wasted by the candidate. Also, it is
unprofessional to not do what is specifically requested, in this case by the CEO, and
this will be reflected in the professional marks detailed below.

An ideal way for candidates to have structured their answer to (i) would have been:
• Use a heading for each of the CSFs and under each heading:
o Explain why the CSF had been changed
o Recommend the first KPI and justify the recommendation
o Recommend the second KPI and justify the recommendation
• Note that the KPIs needed to be suitable for the CSF they were being
recommended for and this should form part of the justification as to why they
were chosen.

Part (ii) asked candidates to explain each of the 3Es of a value-for-money exercise
and how they link to the CSFs and KPIs from part (i). Candidates were also asked to
evaluate, using the information in the appendix, whether a value-for-money service
was being provided by the police.

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 6

This question was answered reasonably well by some candidates, mainly those who
specifically structured their answers along the lines of the requirement. Again, a useful
structure to use here would have been:
• Explain each of economy, efficiency and effectiveness (the 3Es)
• Explain how the 3Es link to the CSFs and KPIs
• Then use a heading for each E and under each heading:
o Use the data in Appendix 1 where relevant
o Evaluate the service being offered

Many candidates however failed to attempt to link the 3Es back to the CSFs and KPIs.
Most concerningly was the fact that a large minority of candidates did not know the
difference between economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Not only did this result in
marks for explaining each term being lost, but also meant that attempts to evaluate
each of these were poorly done as they were based on inaccurate definitions. Although
the crux of the APM examination is application of theory to the scenario, candidates
are expected to have a sound grasp of the underpinning knowledge, particularly
important models such as the 3Es. This model does tend to prove problematic for
candidates which is concerning for the examining team as the 3Es are covered in both
the MA and PM examinations also.

Part (iii) focused on non-financial performance indicators and specifically required

candidates to explain why financial indicators are not particularly useful for public
sector organisations. Candidates were also asked to illustrate their explanations with
examples relating to the scenario. A recurring theme in this question is that those
candidates who systematically answered each part of the requirement, identified the
relevant verb(s) and related their answers to the scenario scored well. This part of the
examination was answered well by the vast majority of candidates who attempted it.
There was clear evidence that candidates understood the distinction between profit-
focused organisations and not-for-profit organisations such as those in the public
sector, and thus the need to have non-financial performance indicators. The only main
problem demonstrated in this part of the question was some candidates discussed the
problems faced by not-for-profit organisations e.g. multiple stakeholders, multiple
objectives etc. and although some of these comments may have scored marks
depending on how they were discussed, time was wasted discussing areas that were
not specifically asked for. Some candidates also lost out on marks by not illustrating
their explanations with relevant examples as requested.

Part (iv) of this question asked candidates to assess the use of a league table that
compared the performance of the police force with those in other countries.
Candidates were also asked to explain how the exercise may affect the police officer’s
behaviour. The performance on this question was varied, again differentiated by those
who applied their answers to the scenario. The general knowledge regarding the
mechanics of league tables and their relative merits and demerits was evident, and
those who specifically included examples relating to police forces scored well. The
majority of candidates also successfully discussed how a league table can affect the
behaviour of police officers, and many ensured that they discussed both positive and
negative aspects of this.

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 7

The major failing on this section of the question was discussion of generic points
regarding league tables that appear to have been pre-learnt and did not apply
specifically to the police force in the scenario. For example, discussing the fact that
league tables can be used by customers to help them decide which company to use
for a particular good or service may be appropriate for a profit making organisation, or
even a not-for-profit organisation such as a school or university, but this would not be
applicable for a police force given that a) there are no customers in this scenario, only
the general public, and b) the general public do not get to choose whether to use their
domestic police force or one in another country.

Candidates should also take care when giving suggestions that they are suitable to
the scenario and relate to the specific requirement asked. For example, a suggestion
that a league table may be open to manipulation as the police force are developing a
virtual crimes division and may therefore have experts who could hack the system,
although may be true, is not really an issue with league tables but would instead reflect
an ethical/legal issue within the police force which was not under discussion in this
question.

Professional marks

As mentioned in previous examiner’s reports, the marking team was looking for
suitable report headings, an introduction, a logical structure, signposted by the good
use of subheadings in the answer, and a clear, concise style which responds to the
instructions of the question. A conclusion was not required for the four marks but if a
suitable and substantive one was offered then it was given credit. It may be worth
noting that introductions of the form ‘I am writing this report at the request of the CEO’
are inadequate. A more substantive description of the contents of the report is
required.

The general performance by most candidates here was good, but there were more
instances of candidates failing to have introductions and suitable heading then has
been seen previously.

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 8

Question 2 – Roan University & Saugh University

Question 2 was based around a new university that had been set up by two separate
universities (Roan University and Saugh University) via a joint venture model. The joint
venture was set up in Deeland, which is the country that Saugh University currently
operated in, but Roan University operated in a different country, Teeland. The question
had two parts - the first part for 16 marks and the second part for 9 marks. Part (a)
was based around the problems of managing and measuring performance within the
joint venture. Part (b) focused on performance measures which could be used in
relation to three key stakeholder groups.

Part (a) specifically asked candidates to discuss the problems that could be
encountered by the joint venture with regards to managing and measuring
performance. This part of the question was generally well answered by candidates.
Those candidates who structured their answers to specifically cover problems
managing performance and problems measuring performance went on to score well.
Candidates should be aware that there is a difference between managing performance
and measuring performance. The former is trying to generally improve performance,
whereas the latter is using metrics to gauge the relative success or failure of the
former. As a general rule, if there are two separate words in the requirement, they
have different meanings and thus should be addressed separately. Good candidates
tended to discuss problems of managing performance within the scenario, but also
went on to develop their points and link them to the issues of measuring the
performance.

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 9

Despite the good performance on this part of the question, there were some
candidates who did not manage to score well. Poor performance here was usually
based around one of two problems. The first was a misunderstanding of the
organisation that was being considered in the requirement – namely the joint venture
university, and not the individual universities who have set up the joint venture.
Although credit could be awarded to answers that were still relevant, candidates’
answers quickly became limited if they were not focused on the joint venture university.
The second problem was the brevity of some points made, mainly candidates simply
repeating the features of the organisations listed in the scenario, as opposed to
specifically identifying the problem. For example, stating that the two universities
setting up the joint venture have different objectives will not score marks, especially
as this was clearly stated in the scenario. However, discussion of how having different
objectives will lead to problems of creating a strategy and measuring performance
would score well. This is key for candidates attempting APM.

Part (b) required candidates to recommend and justify an appropriate performance

measure for Roan University for each of three of its stakeholder groups, namely the
Government of Teeland, Roan teachers’ trade union, and a Public pressures group in
Teeland. This was on average very poorly attempted by the majority of candidates. As
noted previously, candidates who structured their answers along the lines of the
requirement scored well:
• Use a heading for each stakeholder and then under that heading:
o Recommend a performance measure
o Justify the performance measure being recommended
However, the majority of candidates failed to do this, with poor answers ranging from
very brief comments suggesting generic performance measures such as ‘gross profit’
or ‘student satisfaction scores’ with no justification as to why they might be appropriate,
to those who entered into lengthy discussions of how the organisation can manage
each stakeholder to keep them happy, which wasn’t what was asked for. Candidates
should appreciate the need to specifically answer the requirement asked, even if they
can see a business opportunity that the organisation in the scenario should follow. For
example, it may be a good idea for the organisation in the question to liaise with staff
to identify areas of concern and then implement reward schemes to motivate them.
But if the requirement is asking for suggestions of performance measures, which is
not the same as suggest ways to improve performance, then answers must be
focused on this area. The examination team can and do award credit for answers that
develop points, especially where they are commercially sensible, but the emphasis
must be on answering the specific requirement asked.
Several candidates also focused on the Mendelow assessment which was provided in
the scenario and discussed the accuracy and appropriateness of this assessment,

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 10

despite this not being asked for either. This did not score any marks and candidates
wasted precious examination time.

Question 3 – Clonyard & Elrig

Question 3 was based around a private company which sold shoes to adults and
children that had recently been the subject of a hostile takeover by a larger listed
company. The question had two parts – the first part for 15 marks and the second part
for 10 marks. Part (a) related to using the McKinsey 7S model. Part (b) focused on
the introduction of an enterprise resource planning system (ERPS).

Part (a) asked candidates to evaluate, using the soft elements of the McKinsey 7S
model, whether the two companies were properly aligned. A diagram of the model was
provided in the examination, including specific reference to the four soft elements –
skills, staff, style and shared values. The examining team provided the diagram of the
model so that candidates would have a good starting position for their evaluation. A
detailed scenario was provided, and candidates were expected to discuss each of the
four soft elements in relation to the issues raised regarding the two companies.
Candidates generally performed well on this part of the question, many correctly
identifying the issues raised and explaining the consequences for the new combined
entity. Most candidates also correctly used the soft elements as headings in their
answer which allowed them to structure their points more effectively.
It should be noted that when requirements specifically ask for an evaluation, a
candidate should look to give more than a simple explanation of the issue under the

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 11

right heading, but instead discuss, in this instance, whether or not the two companies
were aligned. The examining team were also aware that certain issues could be
discussed under more than one of the ‘soft’ elements and awarded credit where such
answers showed how the points being made related to those elements.
Candidates who failed to use the soft elements to structure their answer often lacked
focus to the points they were making and made it difficult for the examining team and
marking team to determine what they were trying to say. A significant minority, also,
spent time discussing all seven sections of the model despite the requirement
specifically asking for only the ‘soft’ four. This was a waste of examination time. There
were also several candidates who wrote about headings that are not part of the model,
and therefore the examination team feel the need to stress that the entire question,
including the scenario and appendices, should be carefully read by candidates before
answering the requirement.

Part (b) required candidates to evaluate the introduction of an ERPS into the overall
business. This section was generally well answered by candidates, which has been
reflective of the upward trend the examining team are seeing in relation to questions
about technology and systems. Candidates clearly demonstrated a good
understanding of the characteristics of an ERPS, including generic advantages and
disadvantages, with many successfully developing these points by applying them to
the scenario. Answers that simply discussed any advantages and disadvantages
without application however scored minimal marks. Going forward candidates should
always try to illustrate their points with supporting evidence from the scenario e.g.
advantage of ERPS and why that would be relevant to Clonyard and Elrig.

Conclusion

Overall, there were opportunities on these questions to score well, and some
candidates on each part of each question managed to do this. However, as with
previous diets the main lessons that can be learnt for those attempting APM in the
future are;

• ensure that fundamental, underpinning knowledge is learnt and understood;

• specifically answer the requirement that is set and ensure that all parts are
answered;
• use the requirement and its component parts to define the structure of the
answer, and;
• all answers should relate to the scenario set, and sensible examples from the
scenario should be used/suggested.

The examining team would advise candidates to practice using the requirement and
its component parts to structure questions when attempting them. In addition, it is
recommended that candidates use the Practice Platform to familiarise themselves with
the CBE environment and how APM is presented on CBE. This will help candidates to

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 12

assimilate the APM questions more effectively and produce professional and targeted
answers which will improve examination performance.

Examiner’s report – APM September/December 2020 13