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

 Porter’s Five Forces model is a technique for analysing the competitive forces that affect an organisation or industry. It helps to assess the attractiveness and profitability of an organisation or industry. Porter’s Five Forces model consists of five forces: threat of new entrants, bargaining power of customers, bargaining power of suppliers, threat of substitute products and competitive rivalry. Therefore, option B is the correct answer, as these preliminary findings would be documented in the bargaining power of customers force of Porter’s Five Forces model. Bargaining power of customers is the force that measures the ability and influence of customers to affect the price, quality and quantity of products or services offered by an organisation or industry. It depends on factors such as customer concentration, switching costs, differentiation and loyalty. An example of bargaining power of customers in this scenario is the market is saturated, customers have a lot of choice and it is easy for them to switch from one bank to another, which implies that customers have high bargaining power and can demand lower prices or better services from banks. Option A is not a correct answer, as these preliminary findings would not be documented in the threat of new entrants force of Porter’s Five Forces model. Threat of new entrants is the force that measures the likelihood and impact of new competitors entering an organisation or industry. It depends on factors such as entry barriers, economies of scale, capital requirements and brand loyalty. An example of threat of new entrants in this scenario is an overseas bank launching a new bank in the UK, which implies that there is a potential threat of new entrants to the existing banks in the UK. Option C is not a correct answer, as these preliminary findings would not be documented in the bargaining power of suppliers force of Porter’s Five Forces model. Bargaining power of suppliers is the force that measures the ability and influence of suppliers to affect the price, quality and quantity of products or services supplied to an organisation or industry. It depends on factors such as supplier concentration, switching costs, differentiation and dependency. An example of bargaining power of suppliers in this scenario is the suggested changes to the business structure will affect our relationships with suppliers, which implies that suppliers may have some bargaining power over the organisation or industry. Option D is not a correct answer, as these preliminary findings would not be documented in the threat of substitute products force of Porter’s Five Forces model. Threat of substitute products is the force that measures the likelihood and impact of customers switching to alternative products or services that satisfy their needs or wants better than those offered by an organisation or industry. It depends on factors such as availability, price, quality and performance of substitute products or services. There is no example of threat of substitute products in this scenario.

The documentation explains that CSFs are the areas where things “must go right,” and KPIs are the measures that show whether progress is being made toward achieving a CSF. KPIs should focus on specific performance areas and should be defined so they are SMART and monitored regularly.

For a CSF of “excellent customer service,” appropriate KPIs should reflect customer experience outcomes and customer loyalty/retention. Option C (“number of customers who post negative feedback”) is directly linked to service quality: negative feedback is a clear indicator that customers perceive service failures. Tracking it (and ideally setting a target such as “no more than X per month”) provides a measurable signal of whether service is improving.

Option D (“percentage of customers who renew their annual subscription”) is also strongly linked to customer service because renewal rates are a widely used indicator of customer satisfaction and loyalty: customers who experience consistently good service are more likely to continue their membership. As a KPI, it is measurable, trendable over time, and can be given SMART targets.

The other options are not direct indicators of customer service quality: restaurant ordering (A) is sales/upsell behaviour, fitness improvement (B) is an outcome of training/programming rather than service, and payment method (E) is an administrative preference. Therefore, the best KPIs for this CSF are C and D.

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.