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

The business analysis guidance notes that reviewing a company website can reveal useful inferences about the organisation’s branding, values, priorities, and strategic positioning, including how it balances cost versus perceived quality. In particular, the guidance contrasts “populist” signals (primary colours, flashing icons, exclamation marks, “Bargain!” language) with a quieter, more restrained design, which tends to imply a more premium / quality-focused positioning.

The described site is muted (greys/whites), uses “lots of white space,” and includes only a few carefully chosen images. Those choices align strongly with conclusion D: the company is positioning its offering as high quality rather than “cheap and cheerful.” The seamless movement through information and concise, well-structured sections also indicate attention to usability and information architecture—signals consistent with high technical and design standards (conclusion C).

However, nothing in the description proves the firm is “well established” (A), “market leading” (B), or “very profitable” (E). Those claims require external evidence (market share, history, financial performance), whereas the website evidence supports positioning and quality/technical execution, not market status or profitability.

 A stakeholder management strategy is a plan for how to engage and communicate with stakeholders based on their level of interest and influence in the organisation or project. A stakeholder management strategy can vary depending on the stakeholder’s position on the power/interest grid, which has four quadrants: high power, high interest; high power, low interest; low power, high interest; and low power, low interest. Therefore, option C is the correct answer, as it represents appropriate stakeholder management strategies for Harvey based on his position on the grid before and after his role change. Watch means to monitor the stakeholder’s level of interest and influence and keep them informed of relevant developments. This is suitable for when Harvey was in the low power, low interest quadrant, as he had little authority or concern over the project. Constant active management means to involve the stakeholder closely in the project and seek their input and feedback regularly. This is suitable for when Harvey moved to the high power, high interest quadrant, as he became the sponsor and owner of the project. Option A is not a correct answer, as keep informed means to provide the stakeholder with sufficient information and updates to maintain their interest and support. This is more suitable for when Harvey was in the low power, high interest quadrant, not the low power, low interest quadrant. Option B is not a correct answer, as ignore means to disregard the stakeholder’s views and needs and exclude them from communication. This is not a good strategy for any stakeholder, especially one who has some power or influence over the project. Option D is not a correct answer, as constant active management means to involve the stakeholder closely in the project and seek their input and feedback regularly. This is more suitable for when Harvey was in the high power, high interest quadrant, not the low power, low interest quadrant.

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.