Strategic Business

Leader (SBL)
March / June 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) ................................................................... 8
Question 2(a) ................................................................... 9
Question 2(b) ................................................................. 10
Question 3(a) ................................................................. 11
Question 3(b) ................................................................. 12
Question 4(a) ................................................................. 13
Question 4(b) ................................................................. 14

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 1

General comments

This examiner’s report should be used in conjunction with the published March/June
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 charitable organisation called the North Ceeville
Community Project (NCCP). The candidate’s role throughout the exam was a
management consultant appointed by the executive board to provide independent
advice to help address the difficulties NCCP is facing.

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 in the future sittings, they are
strongly recommended to take mocks on computer first, to gain experience of dealing
with different types of exhibit 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.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 2

Exam performance

Overall, the standard of candidates’ answers resulted in one of the poorest sittings of
SBL so far.

Stronger candidates integrated and used information from the case study materials
throughout their answers, selecting relevant technical knowledge to support the
applied points they were making. They demonstrated professional skills through
analysis, evaluation and sound commercial awareness, and through how they
structured and presented their answers. Weaker candidates often used pre-learned
knowledge as the basis for most of their answers and did not adequately integrate or
apply the case material to the NCCP.

It was apparent that some candidates had not used and assimilated the guidance
produced by ACCA for Strategic Business Leader, including

• The examiners approach article

• The importance of effective communication article
• The SBL technique video
• Past exams and specimen exams

It is especially important that candidates spend sufficient time reading and assimilating
the information within the exhibits which make up the case study materials. Often
answers failed to make sufficient reference to the exhibits or failed to make use of the
full range of material in the exhibits. For example, Exhibit 3 (extracts of NCCP’s income
and expenditure) mentioned the cash reserves. However, many candidates ignored
these when answering Q3b, which would require 42% of NCCP’s cash reserves which
is significant and could have implications for other initiatives. Exhibit 3 also provided
information on the conditions applied by Ceeville Council to the funding it provides
which include running a Business Skills course. However many candidates ignored
this when answering Q3a and advised that the Business Skills course should no longer
take place.

Candidates should read the exhibits 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.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 3

The exhibits:

• Provide the material which underpinned 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 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. This
happened particularly when candidates were asked to assess NCCP’s stakeholders.
Several candidates merely copy and pasted information from the case 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 scores no 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. This has the advantage that candidates do not
need to keep looking at the task tabs and may help candidates to keep more focused
on the tasks.

It was noticeable 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 is
encouraging and 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.

In most cases, candidates answered the questions in order. Where they did not, they
appeared to be leaving one question, which they liked least, until the end. Although
this examination did not follow a timeline and therefore candidates should not have
been disadvantaged by answering questions out of sequence, it is recommended that
candidates answer the requirements in order. Future exams may follow a timeline or
have question requirements that progress in other ways.

Candidates also need to be aware of how time can be poorly used in this exam.
Wasting time by including material that was 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. Markers

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 4

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 mark awarded.

In most cases, those candidates who failed the exam did so because of:

• lack of analysis skills (demonstrated through an inability to select and then

appropriately use relevant information to answer task requirements),
• not explaining why the points being made were important,
• lack of commercial skills,
• failure to respond to the requirements in a professional/commercially sound
manner,
• a poor level of technical knowledge,
• wasting time making irrelevant points,
• failure to provide everything that the requirements specified.

It was also evident that some candidates had simply not read the question
requirement carefully enough and therefore failed to answer the question that had
been set. This is very disappointing and 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 to the NCCP and its environment, presented in the case study material.
• were specific to the decision or situation covered in the task requirement.
• showed the marker why the point being made was significant 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 information provided that relates the point directly to the NCCP
• explaining the consequences for the NCCP
• supporting the point made with relevant examples from the case material.

Weaker candidates often just repeated case material, particularly in Q2a where they
failed to evaluate the executive Board’s approach. Candidates who merely stated what
the board were doing with no evaluation on its value were awarded no marks.
Candidates also often reproduced information taken from the exhibits without
explaining WHY the information was important. For example, in answering Q3b)
candidates merely repeated the numbers from the new course proposal in Exhibit 6,
with no attempt to explain the implication for the NCCP. Demonstration of technical
knowledge alone or explanation of theory did not score marks in this exam.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 5

Professional skills marks

Many candidates had clearly thought about professional skills marks and attempted to
present their answers in an appropriate format, as requested in each task requirement.

Whatever the format requested, the recipient will be helped by an answer that is
presented and structured clearly, with headers throughout the answer and which
avoids overlong paragraphs or repetitive information.

There were several common faults:

• Failing to demonstrate understanding of the charitable focus and size of the

NCCP (commercial acumen), for example recommending a risk committee in
Q2a.

• Not paying attention to the format required, for example In Q2, which should
have been presented in briefing note format some candidates presented in an
essay format, with no headers or structured paragraphs to suggest a briefing
note layout.

• Not considering who was receiving the document produced, for example
assessing the executive board in Q1a.

• Poor tone and comments made, for example making inappropriate judgement
and challenge of the opinions of the CEO in Q3b (scepticism).

Candidates should remember that they are carrying out a professional task that has
a particular purpose(s) for a defined user or stakeholder. It is vital that candidates
read the technical and professional requirements together, as this will assist
candidates to formulate their answers in the correct style, tone and level of
professionalism. An example of where candidates failed to do this was in Question
2b. Candidates were asked to use compelling and logical arguments for why
information on internal controls should be shared with external stakeholders. Many
candidates’ answers were not suitably focused on communication skills to persuade
the CEO the benefits of sharing the information. Therefore, although they may have
presented the answer in an appropriate briefing note format, if they failed to
demonstrate good communication skills by clearly presenting their points as
compelling and logical arguments, they were awarded few professional marks.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 6

 Specific comments

Question 1(a)

Generally this task was reasonably done in terms of technical skills. Stronger
candidates formulated an assessment approach and applied it to each stakeholder.
Stronger candidates recognised that the influence of a stakeholder can be based on
their contribution to NCCP (volunteers) or could be impacted by the outcomes of
NCCP (course participants). Stronger candidates used information from the exhibits,
for example exhibit 8 the staff survey, to recommend how to better manage the
stakeholder expectations. Other candidates approached the assessment by reference
to the interest and power of the stakeholder, to gain marks the interest and power had
to be justified. Weaker answers were largely generic. For example, suggesting the
Ceeville Council have high power and high interest with no justification for the
assessment. Some candidates wasted time explaining what a stakeholder is and the
difference between internal and external stakeholders which was totally unnecessary.

Key weaknesses included:

• Failure to formulate an assessment approach, instead providing a general

discussion around the issues relating to each stakeholder.

• Failing to justify the assessment, so no justification for WHY a stakeholder had

low/high power and/or low/high interest.

• Considering the executive board as a stakeholder that needs to be considered,

failing to recognise they are the recipient of the report.

• Recommending ways to manage each stakeholder in isolation. For example

suggesting NCCP’s volunteers should be “kept informed” with no specific
explanation of what needs to be informed.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 7

 To score high professional skills marks, candidates needed to demonstrate
analysis skills in considering how each stakeholder could be appropriately
managed. Candidates who considered the current stakeholder relationship with
NCCP and identified the stakeholder need were able to recommend practical
suggestions on how to manage each stakeholder. Candidates who recommended
ways of managing stakeholders in isolation scored low professional marks.

Question 1(b)

The overall standard of answers to this task was quite disappointing. The question
requirement clearly asked for a critical assessment of NCCP’s sources of competitive
advantage. To evaluate sources of competitive advantage candidates could have
referred back to Q1(a) to consider the relationship NCCP has with its stakeholders.
Many candidates provided a general description of NCCP’s resources or listed
NCCP’s strengths and weaknesses. Most candidates ignored the “critical” part of
giving a critical assessment, choosing not to include any critical views in the
assessment and scored low marks on this task. Stronger candidates identified the
benefit NCCP’s courses provided, delivering a product that the participants need and
offering real value due to the subsidies, going on to evaluate the issues in the case
that would impact these competitive advantages in the future.

Key weaknesses included:

• Failing to recognise what set NCCP apart from other participant choices.

• Reproducing material from the case without explaining why it provides a source
of competitive advantage.

• Failing to identify the factors that would lead to NCCP’s competitive advantage
being compromised.

• Making assumptions about what might happen to NCCP’s competitive

advantage which is not evidenced in the case. For example another charity
being established in North Ceeville.

To score high Professional skills marks candidates needed to present a balanced

evaluation. The requirement to be critical indicates that a consideration of the
difficulties or problems with the sources of competitive advantage is required. Stronger
candidates (those scoring ‘Quite well’ or ‘Very well’), were those that included a critical
evaluation enabling the board to make informed decisions on the most appropriate
way forward for NCCP. Weaker candidates ignored the critical evaluation completely
and those that did, scored low marks on this task.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 8

Question 2(a)

This task was generally not well answered. Much of this was because many
candidates had not read the question requirement carefully, particularly the
information above the question. Here it stated that “the executive board is not pro-
active and is therefore neglecting its duty to NCCP’s stakeholders. This should have
been the focus of candidate’s answers, yet relatively few candidates focused on the
board’s duty, choosing to focus on the specific risks contained in the exhibit. Stronger
candidates evaluated the overall approach and identified weaknesses relevant to
NCCP rather than generic observations and included positive evaluations, for
example, creating the risk register was a positive first step to active risk management.

Key weaknesses included:

• Focusing on the two risks included in the extract of NCCP’s risk register,
providing an in-depth discussion of the two risks with less or no discussion of
the overall approach.

• Failing to demonstrate understanding of the charitable focus and size of the

NCCP, for example recommending a risk committee.

• Repeating information from exhibit 5 without adding any evaluation.

• Making unnecessary points. For example querying whether all relevant risks
were covered when the risk categories shown seemed to be comprehensive.
Some candidates spend too long discussing other risks that should be included
on the risk register. Exhibit 5 stated this was a brief extract of the completed
risk register.

• Failing to recognise that NCCP needed to consider impact and likelihood of

each risk in order to prioritise the 150 risks identified.

• Focusing on generic recommendations, for example, the use of a TARA

framework without showing how it could be applied.

Candidates who achieved high Professional skills marks (‘Very well’ or ‘Quite well’)
demonstrated good communication skills in presenting briefing notes that adopted a
suitably professional tone which was tactful without being judgemental and presented
clear and specific recommendations on how the board’s overall approach to risk

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 9

management could be improved. Candidates who scored lower marks on
professionalism did so due to demonstrating poor communications skills and/ or
because they did not present clear improvement actions for the board to take.

Candidates should be careful of the tone in which they present their answer, as some
candidates phrased their answers to this task in what would be considered as a highly
inappropriate tone. For example, making statements such as “the board have to date
been appalling in their approach to risk management” is a very unprofessional
approach and is very much discouraged in SBL.

Question 2(b)

This question was answered reasonably well by most candidates. Most candidates
identified the Ceeville Council and Donors as relevant external stakeholders. Some
candidates were able to expand on the relevant stakeholders, including the course
participants, local community and charity regulatory bodies in their identification.
Stronger candidates focused on the need of the external stakeholder and linked that
to why control information should be shared. For example the Ceeville Council need
to know their conditions have been, consequently information should be shared as
failure to do so is highly likely to result in funding being removed. Weaker answers
failed to provide justifications on why information should be shared.

In addition, many candidates failed to consider that their arguments needed to be

formed in such a way as to persuade the executive board of the usefulness of sharing
information on internal controls with external stakeholders. Some candidates failed to
adopt the correct tone or simply did not address the requirements of the CEO in
persuading the board of the need to share information. Candidates are reminded that
they must make sure they read the professional and technical marks requirements in
conjunction, as often the tone and format of the technical answer is driven by the
professionalism required.

Key weakness included:

• Discussion of internal stakeholders, most frequently volunteers, not recognising

that the requirement was asking for external stakeholders. Candidates are
reminded to read the question requirements carefully to make sure they are
answering the question that has been set.

• Focusing on why stakeholders were important, often repeating their answer to

Q1a) and implying that NCCP demonstrating good internal controls would keep
them happy. Again not answering the question set.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 10

 • Focusing on why stakeholders would be interested in the controls or would have
a right to see the controls as oppose to why their position in relation to NCCP
meant that information should be shared with them.

Candidates who achieved high Professional skills marks (‘Very well’ or ‘Quite well’)
demonstrated good communication skills in presenting a persuasive and well-
structured set of briefing notes for the CEO to present to the executive board, using
compelling and logical argument for why information should be shared. Candidates
who scored lower marks on professionalism did so due to demonstrating poor
communication skills because they did not present persuasive or logical arguments on
why the stakeholder position in relation to NCCP meant that information should be
shared with them.

Question 3(a)

The overall standard of answers to this task was quite disappointing. Many candidates
described the demand for courses rather than the viability, the question requirement
is clear and yet many candidates seemed to simply ignore the word viability. Stronger
candidates were able to consider whether there was any potential for growth of the
courses and/or were able to give practical solutions, for example undertaking market
research, in order to determine the long-term viability.

Key weakness included:

• Failing to read the information in the exhibits. Exhibit 3 states that the Ceeville
Council funding is conditional on NCCP running a Business Skills course, many
candidates suggested the business skills course should be stopped.
• Failing to discuss each course separately limited the technical marks that could
be gained.
• Discussing the change in demand without going on to explain how that would
impact viability

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 11

Question 3(b)

This question was answered reasonably well by most candidates. Many candidates
evaluated the proposal using the Suitability, Acceptability, Feasibility framework,
enabling a structured approach to the evaluation. Stronger candidates were able to
probe into the underlying reasons why the art course may not be a good idea. Stronger
candidates also produced a balanced answer which considered both the financial and
non-financial information, linking the information to the achievement of NCCP’s
mission and goals. Weaker candidates lacked balance and some candidates over
emphasised the position around stakeholders and what they might think of the
proposal, without considering other issues.

A small number of candidates framed their answer as a series of questions, for

example, “how realistic is the 20 participants?”, “ how much market research has been
undertaken?” without answering the question, giving any further information or
explaining what has caused them to question this. This is a poor and unprofessional
approach to answering SBL questions. The impact for the proposal needs to be clearly
evaluated.

Key weakness included:

• Inclusion of long introductions giving background on NCCP taken directly from

the case material with no additional evaluation

• Failing to provide a balanced evaluation:

o Focusing on drawbacks with no evaluation of the benefits of the proposal
o Focusing on non-financial with no evaluation of the financial aspects of
the proposal

• Failing to link the evaluation of the proposal to the mission and goals of NCCP.

• Calculating numbers then not using them to evaluate the course. In future
questions such as this, candidates must not only present a correct calculation,
but must also consider whether this is positive or negative in evaluating the
proposal.

Candidates who achieved high Professional skills marks (‘Very well’ or ‘Quite well’)
demonstrated good scepticism by probing into many of the relevant issues related to

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 12

the CEO’s proposal, including the financial issues. Some candidates achieved low
professional marks as the report was specifically addressed to the CEO, yet the tone
and style of some answers presented was simply not appropriate when the recipient
of the report is also the board member suggesting the proposal should go ahead.
Candidates must always take into consideration who they are writing to, as this will
determine the tone of response required. In this case, in criticising too deeply the
CEO’s opinion was being questioned. Therefore, this challenge to the CEO’s opinion
needed to be presented in a professional and objective way. Some answers did not
achieve this

Question 4(a)

This question was answered reasonably well by most candidates. Many candidates
made good use of Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 7 to help them formulate an appropriate
response to this question. Stronger candidates correctly identified the need for
cybersecurity and recommended actions the board should take to meet its
cybersecurity responsibilities. Importantly, stronger candidates also clearly linked the
NCCP’s reliance on technology to operate. Any of its courses could be at risk from a
cyber-attack. In recommending actions, stronger candidates demonstrated an
understanding of the practical actions for the board would be linked to ownership,
policy and contingency plans and the importance of regular reviews in the light of new
technology. Weaker answers were largely generic in explaining the need and focused
on operational controls in recommending actions. For example, firewalls and regular
changing of passwords.

Key weaknesses included:

• A failure to consider the needs of the stakeholders of the NCCP, in terms of

their expectations for protection of data and the liability that would fall onto
NCCP for any loss of data

• Not providing actions focused at the board. Some actions, for example
changing password regularly, although sensible would not be the main concern
for the board who need to consider the strategic actions needed. Candidates
are reminded to read the question requirements carefully to make sure they are
answering the question that has been set.

• Failing to demonstrate understanding of the charitable focus and size of the

NCCP (commercial acumen), for example recommending appointment of an IT
Director or outsourcing to a specialist firm are not really commercially viable for

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 13

 a charity that has potential financial difficulties. Seeking advice is a sensible
short term solution, a long term commitment would be inappropriate.

Some candidates achieved good professional skills marks for this question, as some
were able to demonstrate a sound level of commercial acumen in showing reasonable
understanding of both the organisational and wider factors impacting on the need for
cybersecurity and recommending actions relevant at board level. Those candidates
that made good use of the two relevant exhibits were best able to bring in a wide range
of factors specifically affecting the key stakeholders. Candidates who attained low
professional marks largely did so because they presented limited or generic answers
which were often descriptive and unapplied to the NCCP, therefore failed to show
adequate commercial awareness.

Question 4(b)

This task was generally not well answered. Much of this was because many
candidates had not read the question requirement carefully. The answer required an
explanation of why the operations director should not undertake both the role of
project sponsor and project manager. Many candidates were able to describe the
roles of the project sponsor and the project manager but made no reference to why
the operations manager should not take on the two roles. Stronger candidates did
explain the need for segregation of the roles, the expertise required to do the hands
on role of the project manager (which the operations director lacked) and the time
consuming nature of both roles could put the project at risk if they were not
separated. Weaker candidates failed to address the question requirement.

Key weaknesses included:

• Incomplete answers which only covered the role of the project sponsor and
project manager with no attempt to explain why the roles should be undertaken
by two different people.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2021 14