BCS BAPv5 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

A stakeholder management strategy is a plan for engaging and communicating with stakeholders based on their level of power and interest in an organisation or project. It helps to ensure that stakeholders are appropriately involved and informed throughout the organisation’s or project’s lifecycle. Therefore, option A is the correct answer, as keep satisfied is the further strategy that is required for one of the three stakeholders in this scenario. Keep satisfied is the strategy for managing stakeholders who have high power but low interest in an organisation or project. It involves meeting their needs and expectations without over-communicating or over-involving them. The stakeholder who requires this strategy in this scenario is the financial accountant assigned to the project to monitor the financial benefits of the new system. This stakeholder has high power, as he is essential to the project and can influence its outcome. However, he has low interest, as he is not interested in the detail of the project. Option B is not a correct answer, as watch is not the further strategy that is required for any of the three stakeholders in this scenario. Watch is the strategy for managing stakeholders who have low power and low interest in an organisation or project. It involves monitoring their behaviour and attitude without engaging or communicating with them too much. None of the stakeholders in this scenario have low power and low interest, as they are all involved or affected by the project in some way. Option C is not a correct answer, as ignore is not a valid strategy for managing any stakeholder in an organisation or project. Ignore is the strategy of disregarding or neglecting stakeholders who have no power or interest in an organisation or project. It involves excluding them from any engagement or communication activities. This strategy is not advisable, as it may lead to stakeholder dissatisfaction, resentment or resistance. Option D is not a correct answer, as keep informed is not the further strategy that is required for any of the three stakeholders in this scenario. Keep informed is the strategy for managing stakeholders who have low power but high interest in an organisation or project. It involves providing them with regular and sufficient information and updates without overloading them with details. None of the stakeholders in this scenario have low power but high interest, as they are all involved or affected by the project in some way.

The guidance on prior research for business analysis work states that analysts should first study relevant background material to gain an “entry point” into the domain before undertaking deeper investigation. For projects focused on specific processes (such as re-engineering a customer-facing process with excessive handoffs), the documentation explicitly recommends studying procedure manuals and current system documentation to understand what the process is supposed to be and how it is documented. It also recommends studying the organisation chart to understand reporting lines, functional groupings, and where responsibilities and handoffs may occur—particularly important here because the goal is to reduce handoffs and support remote working practices.

Financial statements and annual reports can be useful for strategic or corporate-level analysis, but the scenario is operational and process-focused (re-engineering a process linked to declining customer satisfaction). The most direct “initial analysis” sources, aligned with the prescribed prior-research approach for process-oriented work, are therefore procedure manuals/documentation and organisation charts.

Crucially, the guidance cautions that documentation may become out of date and can reflect “what we thought it ought to have been,” so these sources support orientation and preparation, but they must be followed by proper investigation techniques (e.g., interviews, observation, workshops, and quantitative methods) to confirm what actually happens in practice.

The business case guidance states that risk assessment should identify principal risks and—critically—define countermeasures: what can be done to reduce the likelihood of the risk occurring or lessen its impact. It notes that some risks can be transferred (e.g., via insurance), but the key is choosing countermeasures that actually address the cause.

Here, the risk is behavioural: managers may struggle to adopt a new management style required by the change. The book explicitly recognises that business change often requires changes to working practices and sometimes management style, especially where roles and authority shift. The most direct countermeasure is to build capability and readiness in the affected managers—through training, education, coaching, and support—so they understand the new behaviours, can practise them, and can be reinforced through agreed expectations. This reduces both the probability of failure (managers not changing) and the impact (inconsistent adoption harming productivity).

Option A (insurance) does not address behavioural adoption; it might transfer financial impact in some scenarios but won’t make managers change. Option C explicitly avoids change and therefore cannot mitigate the stated risk. Option B could work in extreme cases, but replacing the entire management team is a far more disruptive and costly response than necessary and is not the “most likely” effective countermeasure when the risk is capability/behaviour adoption. Therefore, training and educating the managers is the most appropriate countermeasure.