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

The business analysis guidance makes it clear that a business case is not a “one-and-done” document that stops being useful at implementation. Instead, it is revisited at multiple decision gates through the lifecycle, including points after development estimates are known, before deployment, and later during operation when benefits realisation is checked. This directly contradicts statement A, because the business case remains relevant beyond implementation to confirm assumptions and verify whether expected benefits were actually achieved.

Statement B is also incorrect. The guidance explicitly states that the “do nothing / maintain the status quo” option should always be considered and will usually appear in the business case. It may sometimes be rejected due to unacceptable consequences, but it should still be included so decision-makers understand the risks of inaction.

Statement C is correct because the business case should consider both tangible and intangible benefits. The documentation explains that many benefits (for example improved customer satisfaction or staff morale) can be intangible, meaning they cannot be credibly valued in advance. While organisations vary in how they treat intangibles, the framework recognises them as legitimate benefits (with the caution not to overstate them or assign “spurious” values).

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 documentation distinguishes clearly between mission/purpose, objectives, strategy, and tactics. A mission statement declares what business the organisation is in and what it is intending to achieve—it is the overarching purpose that provides direction and is meaningful to stakeholders such as employees and customers. In contrast, objectives are specific goals that can be measured, while strategy and tactics describe approaches and detailed means of execution.

Option C is the best “purpose/mission style” statement because it communicates a broad intent and aspiration in plain language that can be understood by both internal and external audiences. It expresses what the organisation aims to be known for and the overall value proposition it wants to deliver, which aligns with the role of a mission in providing clarity and direction.

Option A is a measurable target (an objective) tied to SLA performance, not a purpose statement. Option B describes an internal method/approach (closer to tactics or operational improvement activity) rather than the organisation’s reason for existence. Option D is a specific policy or initiative (sustainability sourcing), which can support purpose, but it is too narrow to represent the overall company mission.