Examiner’s report

Strategic Business Leader (SBL)

July 2020

The examining team share their observations from the marking process to highlight strengths and
weaknesses in candidates’ performance, and to offer constructive advice for future candidates.
General comments
Format of exam
The examination consisted of a 4-hour exam with a single compulsory section about a company
who offered managed services to other organisations.
The marking scheme included 80 technical marks for the correct use and application of syllabus
knowledge. For every element of technical content, answers needed to be applied to the case.
In addition, the marking scheme included 20 marks for professional skills. The particular skill being
examined with each requirement should have been evident in how candidates answered the task,
although candidates may have drawn on other skills and competencies as well when answering.
When awarding professional skills marks, markers looked primarily at the professional skill being
tested in the task requirement, but they also looked at the general professionalism that candidates
were demonstrating.
Exam performance
Overall, the standard of candidates’ answers resulted in one of the poorest sittings of SBL so far.
Stronger candidates integrated and used the content of the case study exhibits provided
throughout all their answers, selecting relevant technical syllabus knowledge to support the applied
points they were making. They demonstrated professional skills through analysis and discussion,
and how they structured and presented their answers. Weaker candidates tended to produce very
theoretical answers, often based on rote learning of syllabus areas, and did not integrate the case
material adequately into their answers. The weaker candidates failed to apply their answers to the
organisation’s circumstances, often ignoring the scenario altogether.
It was apparent that some candidates had not used the learning support produced by ACCA for
SBL, particularly the following:
▪ Past exams and specimen exams
▪ The examiner’s approach article
▪ The importance of effective communication
▪ Strategic Business Leader – 10 things to learn from the September 2018 sitting
▪ Various videos and articles on how to plan and take SBL exams

At the start of the exam, candidates should spend sufficient time analysing all of the requirements
and then reading and assimilating the information contained the case study exhibits. This approach
will help them to structure their answers around the requirements and use the relevant scenario
content to develop their answers. Often answers failed to make sufficient reference to the exhibits

Examiner’s report – SBL July 2020 1

or failed to use the full range of material contained in the exhibits. Some answers also
demonstrated that the candidates had not read the exhibits sufficiently carefully.
There were six exhibits:
▪ comprised background information and explanation about the company’s business model, to
provide context for the answers;
▪ provided the useful material/information that underpinned the range of applied points that
candidates could be making in their answers;
▪ highlighted the most important issues that answers should cover; and
▪ helped candidates to decide how best to logically structure their answers.
Candidates should carefully read the exhibits with the requirements of every task in mind, as this
will help them identify which tasks will be drawing on the material in each exhibit. It should be
noted that the exhibits are not necessarily ordered in the same sequence as the tasks, for example
the business review of the company was relevant to most of the tasks in the exam. Candidates
should also be alert for links between different exhibits reinforcing or contrasting significant issues.
However, candidates should appreciate that merely reproducing material from the exhibits without
commenting on it, or developing points further, will not score marks. In particular, it was noted that
a number of the candidates sitting the exams on computer, simply cut and pasted material from the
exhibits into their answers without adding anything to it. This approach earned them no marks.
Candidates must also spend sufficient time planning, and considering carefully, what they will write
to ensure that their answers are:
▪ Covering all aspects of the task requirements, as marks are available for every element and it
is hard to score a passing mark without answering everything asked.
▪ Structured logically, ideally in line with the way the task as been presented
▪ Balanced in terms of the depth of discussion required with the breadth of points to be made.
Simply making points superficially will score very few marks.
▪ Covering the most significant points and issues, as these are more likely to appear the marking
scheme.
▪ Not padded out with material that does not address the task requirements, as this approach
scores no marks at all.
The vast majority of candidates answered all of the tasks, although a significant number failed to
complete one or more of the tasks in full. This suggested ineffective time management with many
candidates performing strongest on Task 1, indeed some answers potentially scoring more than
the full marks that were available. However, this left insufficient time to complete all of the other
tasks to the required standard. Therefore, earning maximum marks in Task 1was likely to be at the
expense of earning sufficient marks from the other tasks, and for many candidates this resulted in
a total mark below 50. Candidates are strongly advised to attempt mock exams before the actual
exam under full exam conditions, this will help them to get used to the challenging demands on
concentration, thinking, writing and organisation of time that a four-hour exam presents.

Examiner’s report – SBL July 2020 2

Although answer planning is definitely recommended, some candidates wrote elaborate and
lengthy plans, which they then crossed out, and subsequently ran short of time when answering
the tasks. Candidates also wasted time by making the same point twice or more in slightly different
ways in the same requirement. Markers will not give additional marks for points which are repeated
or re-stated, even if slightly reworded. Apart from wasting valuable exam time, repetition of points
can also have an adverse impact on the general professionalism demonstrated, so can affect the
professional mark awarded.
The vast majority of candidates answered the tasks in order, which is recommended. This is
because future exams may have task requirements that follow a timeline or progress in a
consecutive way.
In many cases those candidates who failed the exam did so because of:
▪ Lack of analysis skills with an inability to select relevant information to answer task
requirements.
▪ Failing to explain why the points made were significant in the context of the task requirements.
▪ A general lack of commercial awareness, and not relating their answer to the company
provided in the case study.
▪ Failing to respond to the requirements in a professional and commercial manner
▪ Wasting time making irrelevant points, or repeating points already made
▪ Failing to provide everything that the requirements specified.
▪ Not answering the whole exam.
Technical marks
To gain each Technical mark, candidates needed to make points that:
▪ Addressed the specific requirements of the task, considering the scope of answer required and
what the task verbs used indicate should be provided
▪ Applied to the organisation and the environment featured in the case study
▪ Were specific to the decision or situation covered in the task
▪ Showed the reader why the point being made was significant in the circumstances described
Up to two technical marks were often available for each well-developed point made. This might
include:
▪ Evaluating how significant the points were to the overall issue.
▪ Using information provided that related the situation and specific issues at organisation in the
case study
▪ Explaining the consequences of an event or recommendation on the organisation’s operation.
▪ Supporting the points made with relevant information from the case material.
The simple demonstration of technical knowledge or an explanation of syllabus theory does not
earn marks in this exam. Weaker candidates tended to give theoretical answers based on textbook
knowledge rather than relating their answer to the specific circumstances of the organisation in the
case study, thereby failing to explain why what they had written was significant.

Examiner’s report – SBL July 2020 3

Technical frameworks can help generate ideas. However, by simply using technical frameworks as
the basis for structuring answers led many candidates into forcing their answers to fit the
framework. This meant they produced answers that:
▪ Were in a form that was not helpful to the intended recipient.
▪ Included points of little or no importance.
▪ Failed to include relevant points that couldn’t be easily fitted into the framework
The SBL exam does not encourage candidates to try to use a model or framework whenever they
can. Instead of using a framework as the basis for their answers, candidates are often better off
using the different elements of the task requirements as the basis for structuring their answers.
Candidates should also remember that they are being asked to produce documents containing
practical business advice and analysis. So, by organising an answer around a theoretical
framework may not be helpful to whoever is meant to be receiving the candidates’ work.
However, there were several tasks that allowed candidates to use syllabus models and
frameworks that could have helped to effectively structure their answers.
Professional skills marks
Candidates’ overall professional skills marks often reflected their disappointing performance as
regards technical marks in this exam, with a number of common faults:
▪ Failing to provide all the task required.
▪ Not paying sufficient attention to the specific answer format required, with some candidates
using the same basic format throughout the whole exam.
▪ Failing to appreciate the usefulness of the document produced by the answer for the needs of
the stated user, for example not addressing the request of the finance director.
▪ Failing to produce a balanced answer, for example failing to discuss the mitigating actions to
address the risks arising from an acquisition
Candidates should remember that they are carrying out a professional task that has a particular
purpose for a defined user. Candidates must read the technical and professional requirements
together, as this will help them develop answers showing the correct style, tone and level of
professionalism.
Further comments on specific professional skills are given below.
Computer-based exam
This was the second time SBL was to be run partly as a computer-based exam, but with only a
small number of candidates at a limited number of centres being involved. There was no significant
difference in the performance between candidates sitting exams on computer and paper, the same
strengths and weaknesses being common to both. Whilst the quality of answers of quite a number
of candidates sitting on computer declined towards the end of the exam, this was also true of many
sitting the paper-based exam, and probably for the same reason of poor time management. A clear
benefit of the computer-based format was that many scripts, including those that scored low
technical marks, were presented well with good use of headers and paragraphing, this made them

Examiner’s report – SBL July 2020 4

easier to mark. The use of the presentation tab was particularly helpful and the spreadsheet tab
will be good for future exams with a computational element.
Candidates taking the exams on computer are strongly recommended to take mocks on computer
first, to gain experience of dealing with different types of exhibit on screen, and also to estimate
how much they can write in the time allowed.
Many candidates copied material in from the task requirements and content of the exhibits.
Copying in the task requirements had the advantage that candidates did not need to keep looking
at the requirements exhibit and may have helped keep them to be more focused on the tasks.
However, as discussed above, candidates who simply cut and pasted in exhibit material without
commenting on it further could not be awarded marks.
Specific comments
Task 1(a)
This task has two elements in the form of a brief report to the board of the company. Candidates
were required to evaluate a proposal to acquire another company and the associated risks. This
task required a careful review of a number of exhibits.
This was the best answered question in the exam with many candidates producing very
comprehensive answers to part (i), in fact often too detailed. Most candidates scored highly on this
question with many students gaining almost or full marks. It was good to observe that many
candidates did use the exhibits information extensively and were able to discuss a good range of
risks. However, weaker candidates omitted to discuss risks at all or omitted to discuss ways to
mitigate the risks.
The significant weaknesses can be summarised as:
▪ Spending too much time on this task affecting performance later in the exam.
▪ Using inappropriate strategic analysis models and frameworks to generate ideas, when the
question was concerned with the strategic evaluation of the acquisition.
▪ Risks not specifically related to the decision under consideration, i.e. “as a result of the
acquisition”.
▪ Risk mitigation considerations were too brief and underdeveloped.
There was some correlation between technical and professional marks. Candidates who referred
to the information provided in the supporting exhibits and considered the proposal from the
perspective of the company scored well.
Task 1(b)
This task was also in two parts and required candidates to produce two presentation slides with
accompanying notes in relation to management control required for the acquisition to ensure
compliance with regulations.
This was not well answered as few seemed to understand the relevant features of a suitable
internal management control system. This appears to be an area of weakness in syllabus

Examiner’s report – SBL July 2020 5

knowledge with candidates, as questions like this are often answered badly on SBL. Many
candidates just made observations about the membership of the current board and corporate
governance, and far too many simply suggested appointing “an external expert” without any
reference to the case in hand.

Other significant weaknesses included:

▪ A weak link between the points on the slide and the supporting notes, sometimes there was no
evident link at all.
▪ Some suggestions made, like switching off lights, although clearly sensible were not of interest
to the board who needed to think strategically.
▪ Some narrow, rather superficial and unconvincing points.
▪ Too much emphasis on corporate governance

Professional skills marks were available for communication skills, however some candidates are
still not sure of the correct way of preparing slides, although this should improve with the CBE
exams. However, some of the CBE candidates did not use the slides formats provided and
prepared the slides in the workbook. A small minority of candidates did not produce any slides at
all, so scored no professional marks.
Many candidates scored low professional marks because they did not try to present a clear answer
in the format required. Merely writing a couple of words in a box does not make it a presentation
slide.
Task 1(c)
This task required candidates to draft a memo to discuss cultural issues which may arise.
This question was reasonably well answered, although some candidates only discussed the issue
of individual members objections to the new practices, with other cultural elements not discussed
at all. Many candidates answered this question as change management as oppose to culture and,
although there is some overlap, it would be difficult to gain the full technical marks and would
negatively impact the professional mark awarded.
Weaker candidates did not discuss the changes to culture, other than to state that tasks and
routines may have modifications.
Other significant weaknesses included:
▪ Incorrectly focussing on board structure and the lack of NEDs and committees.
▪ Considering the issues generically, and more in line with change management, without
applying the points discussed to the case.
▪ Poorly presented answers of limited usefulness to the target audience
Professional marks were generally quite low on this one. Most answers simply did not present any
real depth of analysis of the issues under consideration. Some candidates made minimal attempt
to link the cultural issues with the actions required to manage them effectively.

Examiner’s report – SBL July 2020 6

Task 2(a) and (b)
These tasks required candidates to focus on the project management of the acquisition.
They were relatively straight forward tasks as they were largely knowledge driven, however
performance tended to be disappointing. It was quite evident from these answers that this syllabus
area is being neglected by candidates, so they need to be reminded that all areas of the syllabus
are equally weighted and can be examined on any exam. It was notable that many candidates did
not even attempt the second part of this task, therefore throwing away marks. Candidates should
be made very aware that failing to attempt any part of the exam reduces their chances of passing
considerably.
Significant weaknesses included:
▪ Failing to provide a clear and balanced answer that would have been useful to the user of the
briefing notes.
▪ Identifying a correct technique but not evaluating its usefulness in this situation, therefore
limiting the mark to be awarded.
▪ Not studying the project management area of the syllabus.
Professional skills were also largely weak and many students simply provided a list without
articulating their points effectively. As a result of poor technical answers, professional skills were
also poor for this question, as it was very difficult to award evaluation marks if the tools/ techniques
were incorrect/missing.
Task 2(c)
This task required candidates to write a memo to the operations director focused on governance
arrangements.
This question was also not well answered by most candidates. Often candidates merely re-wrote
what was in the exhibit. Far too many answers focused incorrectly on the board structure and the
number of NED’s and committees but not enough about what the board should be actually be
doing. Many candidates just wanted to write all they knew about corporate governance, most of
whichwas irrelevant and did not answer the question asked.
Other significant weaknesses included:
▪ Evidence of poor understanding of this area of the syllabus.
▪ Simply critiquing the corporate governance structure at the company and not focusing on the
specific task.
Professional skills were often weak on this answer, as answers were mainly generic and not
applied, so commercial acumen was not sufficiently displayed.
Task 3
This task required candidates to draft some briefing papers discussing both the strategic benefits
and potential risks associated with some new technologies.

Examiner’s report – SBL July 2020 7

This question was well answered by many candidates. The information was used well and
candidates demonstrated some really good syllabus knowledge, applying this knowledge to the
company. One disappointing observation was that the weaker candidates simply described what
the technology does without explaining how that could be of benefit to the company or its clients.
Other significant weaknesses included:
▪ Simply knowledge dumping about lots of different technologies.
▪ Poor presentation, probably arising from a shortness of time.
Professional marks awarded were quite variable for this task, perhaps due to candidates running
out of time and rushing their answers.

Conclusion
The way many candidates answered the exam for this session demonstrated their real insights into
the Strategic Business Leadership exam. However, some candidates are still not clear about how
answers should be presented, and some candidates are keen to simply knowledge dump all they
know about a subject without applying it to the case and the requirement in the question.
Unfortunately, a significant proportion of candidates did not attempt all the questions, which is
because they spent too much time planning their answers and describing models, frameworks and
concepts leaving less time to apply them to the task at hand. Future candidates are strongly
advised to undertake as much question practice as they can, getting feedback wherever possible,
so that they fully appreciate the requirements and demands that will equip them for this challenging
exam.

Examiner’s report – SBL July 2020 8