Examiner’s report
P3 Business Analysis
June 2014
Examiner’s report – P3 June 2014 1
General Comments
Generally the candidate scripts for this examination were not as good as at recent sittings. Overall, the section A
question was answered relatively well, with many candidates scoring a good pass mark. However, section B
questions were often poorly answered and contributed to many candidates failing the examination.
None of the optional questions of section B covered significant new ground. Question Two concerned a pricing
policy and a similar question was asked in December 2011 (question 4, ATL). A similar question to question
three, on the selection, evaluation and implementation of a software package was asked in the June 2012 paper
(Flexipipe). Finally, although question four was the least popular question, dubious investment appraisals have
been the topic of at least two previous questions (June 2012, Tillo community centre and June 2011 – 8-Hats
promotions).
It was a paper where too many candidates did not answer the question that was actually asked (for example;
giving advantages and disadvantages, when only advantages were asked) or did not provide clear answers (is the
poor financial position a threat or a weakness?). Too many answers were not structured around the required
process or framework, with candidates electing to produce long unstructured answers that filled answer books
but gained few marks.
Specific Comments
Question One
The first part of this question asked candidates to undertake a SWOT analysis of a company called ReInk Co.
Strengths and weaknesses are based on an internal analysis of the organisation and so reflect competencies and
resources (patents, technical expertise) and internal problems (financial losses, lack of commercial acumen).
Opportunities and threats are based on external factors, such as a rise in green consumers (opportunity) and the
possibility of legal action from Original Equipment Manufacturers (threat). This first part of the question was
worth twenty marks. Candidates answered this part question relatively well. The main problem was
misclassification. For example; classifying the financial situation of the company as a threat (presumably because
it is a threat to the firm’s existence), rather than as an internal weakness. Misclassified answers were given some
credit, but in SWOT analysis classification is important, otherwise the analysis is just an unstructured list.
Furthermore, some candidates gave relevant points, extracted from the case study, in their answer but actually
did not actually classify them at all. This really is just copying parts of the scenario into an answer. Little credit
could be given for such answers.
The second part of the question asked candidates to evaluate the effect of contextual features on the introduction
of strategic change at ReInk Co. These contextual factors are from the Balogun and Hope Hailey model and were
specifically defined in the scenario. Thus candidates did not have to recall the model; but they had to apply it.
Part of this application was an understanding of the meaning of the contextual factor itself. For example; time is
concerned with how much time is available to execute the change. Is there a need for rapid strategic change? It
is not concerned with ‘it is time that this organisation changed’. This part question was worth fourteen marks.
Although this model has been used in a number of past examinations, many candidates still seemed unfamiliar
with it. They were forced to guess what each of the contextual factors is (although some are indeed easy to
guess) and many answers made little reference to the scenario. Importantly, the model (and the question) is
