Z7#+pPt!
General Comments w &(ag$p '
This examination paper was not quite as well answered as previouspaper P3 examinations.It appears to have exposed certain areas of weakness,whereperhaps candidates have elected to not learn or revise specific objectives inthe Study Guide.The areas of weakness relate to OnK4] S5
•Explaining three corporate rationales for adding value–portfoliomanagers,synergy managers and parental developers.This is learning objective B1e(in original Study Guide) and this was specifically examined in question1c. <N)oS-m>
•Exploring (through Mintzberg’s organisational configurations) thedesign of structure,processes and relationships.This was specifically examinedin question 3b.It relates directly to learning objective C1e in the originalStudy Guide. T |p"0b A
Question 4b,concerned the need to establish a business case as partof project initiation (learning objective G1d),to monitor benefits (learningobjective G3a) and to undertake benefits realisation (learning objective G3d)was also poorly answered. liZxBs
:%i
In contrast,question 1a(on portfolio analysis) and question 4a(oncosts and benefits) were answered very well.Question 2,the most popular optionalquestion,on e-marketing was also answered very well by most candidates.Question3a(on organisational culture) was reasonably well answered by candidates whoused the cultural web(or a similar framework) in structuring theiranswer.Question 1b,on the context and implementation of strategic change,provedto be a difficult question for many candidates.However,those who usedappropriate frameworks; such as Balogun and Hope Hailey,the cultural web,thestructured turnaround process and Lewin’s unfreeze–transition–freeze approachscored reasonably well.There was a lot of material in the case study to supportthis part of the question. q@&6#B
There was little evidence of time management problems and most of thescripts were well presented and well written,although some markers againcommented on poor handwriting of some scripts.Candidates must remember that whatcannot be read,cannot be marked.However,the main problem appears to have beenlack of knowledge of certain areas of the syllabus. H. c7Nle
Specific Comments / mMV{[
Section A question '7/)Ot(
Section A consists of one compulsory question based around a casestudy scenario.This scenario described three companies in a portfolio offourteen companies owned by an organisation called Shoal plc.These companieswere ShoalFish(a fishing fleet),ShoalPro(a fish processing company) andShoalFarm(a fish farming company).The first part of the question askedcandidates to assess the contribution and performance of these three companieswithin the Shoal plc portfolio.Most candidates answered this questionwell,correctly interpreting the textual and financial information given in thescenario.However,surprisingly few candidates actually used portfolioanalysis,despite the fact that the financial information was aligned to the dataneeded to classify the companies within the Boston Box.Furthermore,somecandidates analysed the data as if these three companies were the only companiesin the portfolio.In reality,there are eleven more companies for which data isnot given.It is important to carefully read the scenario.However,overall,thiswas a popular and well-answered part of the question. hc1N ~$3!G
The second part of the question began by asking candidates to analysethe contextual factors affecting how strategic change should be managed by Shoalplc at a company (Captain Haddock) it is about to acquire (question bi).Thequestion suggested that candidates should use an appropriate model,but nospecific model was mandated. 8QK&_n*
Performance was very patchy in this part of the question.Somecandidates wrote very little,others described the change process (required inbii),whilst others did identify an appropriate model (the Balogun and HopeHailey kaleidoscope or the cultural web) but failed to us it in the context ofthe case study scenario.The best answers used an appropriate model and providedrelevant cross-reference to the case study scenario for each facet of theirselected model. ;,TFr}p`
Part bii of this question asked candidates to identify and analysethe main elements of strategic change required to turnaround Captain Haddock andreturn it to profitability.This part of the question was reasonably wellanswered with some candidates being aware of an approach specifically geared toa turnaround situation.However,even those who were not familiar with thisapproach,were able to give a sensible answer gaining pass marks,often usingLewin’s unfreeze-transition (change)-freeze framework as an overall structure totheir answer. "z c l|@
The final part of this question was relatively theoretical.It askedcandidates to explain three corporate rationales;portfolio managers,synergymanagers and parental developers and to assess their relevance to the overallcorporate rationale of Shoal plc.As mentioned in the introduction,this was verypoorly attempted with many candidates scoring three marks or less.This appearsto have been due to a lack of knowledge in this area of thesyllabus. nEfK53i_
Section B questions GmG 5[?)
Candidates have to answer two of the three questions presented inthis section of the examination. U(Zq= M
Question Two concerned a specialist business book publisherconsidering investment in e-business.The first part of the question (worth 5marks) asked candidates to determine the main drivers for the adoption ofe-business and to identify potential barriers to its adoption.The case studyscenario provided a wealth of information and many candidates gained full marksfor this part of the question.Indeed,some answers were too long and elaboratefor the marks on offer and strayed too far into the answer to the second part ofthe question.Candidates are reminded of the need for effective time managementand the need to answer the specific requirement of thequestion. ]yu:i-SfP
The second part of the question asked candidates to evaluate howcertain elements of the marketing mix (price,promotion,product,physical evidenceand place) might be exploited through the adoption of e-business.Again,this wasrelatively well answered with many candidates giving relevant examples fromtheir own studies,from appropriate websites (such as Amazon) and fromcontemporary technology,such as Kindle Readers and iPads.Candidates whomarginally failed this question just did not make sufficient points to gain themarks on offer.Very few candidates who elected to answer this question werecompletely unaware of the marketing mix,although some did introduce the othertwo elements of the mix (process and people) despite these not being explicitlyrequired in the question. j [a(#V{
Question Three described a small electrical component importer ownedand managed by a dominant,autocratic manager.Candidates were asked,for fifteenmarks,to analyse this company using the cultural web or any other appropriateframework.Clearly candidates had to know the constituent parts of the culturalweb (or an appropriate alternative) to successfully answer thisquestion.Candidates who had such knowledge usually gained a pass mark on thispart of the question. VQs5"K"
The second part of question three asked candidates to explain how anunderstanding of organisation configuration could have helped predict thefailure of the company accountant’s proposal to formalise structure,controls andprocesses.The question also specifically referenced Henry Mintzberg’sconfiguration stereotypes,in the belief that this would help candidates identifywhich part of the Study Guide was appropriate to this part of the question.Asmentioned in the introduction,very few candidates answered this well,withperhaps less than one in ten familiar with the work of Mintzberg,despite itsexplicit reference in the Study Guide.However,even without this specificknowledge,candidates failed to pick up on the key words of structure,controlsand processes.Candidates could have focused their answer on these,recognisingthat the proposals of the company accountant,based on her experience in a largetax authority,were a very poor match for the centrallycontrolled,flexible,informal environment of a small organisation.Taking such anapproach could have gained five or six marks,which would have changed manymarginal fail answers into marginal passes.Most candidates who failed thisquestion did so because of their very poor performance in the second part of thequestion. I*&8^ r:A
Question Four considered a professional qualifications bodyconsidering the implementation of e-assessment.The first part of thequestion,worth fifteen marks,asked candidates to evaluate the perceived benefitsand costs of adopting e-assessment.In general,this was answered well by mostcandidates.Some scored very high marks,showing excellent analysis given the timeconstraints and pressure of the examination situation.Candidates who marginallyfailed this question usually did not provide sufficient discrete points to gainthe marks on offer.There was often too much repetition of the “reduces costs”benefit. ),)lzN%!
The second part of this question asked candidates to explain whyestablishing a business case,managing benefits and undertaking benefitsrealisation are essential,despite the claimed ‘self-evident’ justification ofadopting e-assessment.As mentioned in the introduction,this part of the questionwas poorly answered.Candidates failed to focus on the three elements; businesscase,managing benefits and benefits realisation.Even rudimentary parts of thebusiness case,for example,the need to undertake formal investment appraisal,wasrarely raised by candidates.Many candidates marginally failed this questionbecause they did not answer the second part of the question or only offered twoor three sentences that largely reflected the information given in their answerto the first part of the question.
