BAPv5 Exam Dumps : BCS Practitioner Certificate in Business Analysis Practice v5.2

The statement commits to two outcomes: good quality accommodation and repairs addressed in a timely manner. The documentation emphasises that performance targets and measures must be chosen carefully and should reflect not only internal views but also customer expectations; otherwise performance may look “fine” internally while failing customers. It also stresses that KPIs/targets should be SMART and monitored regularly.

Option A provides a clear, measurable proxy for property condition: if emergency repairs are needed in a high proportion of properties, that indicates poor underlying condition and reactive maintenance. Setting a target like “no more than 5%” directly measures progress toward “good quality accommodation.”

Option C translates tenant experience into a clear target: limiting complaints about condition/repairs to a defined maximum per month is specific and measurable, and it reflects the customer perspective that the press statement is trying to reassure.

Option B is a valid measure but it is not defined as a target (it has no threshold), so it is less aligned to the question asking for “targets to measure performance against.” Option D measures media coverage, which is indirect and can be influenced by factors outside operational performance; it is not a reliable operational KPI for accommodation quality or repair timeliness. Therefore, A and C are the best targets.

The documentation defines gap analysis as exploring the differences between a current state (“as is”) and a desired future state (“to be”). The emphasis is on understanding where the organisation wants to be and, by comparing with the current situation, identifying what needs to change to reach that target state. It also states that the outcome of gap analysis is a list of business requirements to be delivered—typically phrased at the “what” level rather than prescribing detailed solutions.

In this scenario, the retailer’s desired future state includes a more capable online experience and integration with inventory and other applications—this is fundamentally a change in capability. Therefore, identifying new and improved business capabilities (and capturing them in a target view such as a Target Operating Model) is exactly the kind of work performed in gap analysis: it clarifies what the future business system must be able to do, so gaps against the current capabilities can be identified and addressed.

By contrast, a Gantt chart (A/B) is delivery planning, not gap analysis; a RACI matrix (C) is a responsibilities definition; and brainstorming (D) is an idea-generation technique that may help option creation but is not the core “compare as-is to to-be and identify gaps” activity.

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.