Strategic Business

Leader (SBL)
December 2023
Examiner’s report

The examining team share their observations from

the marking process to highlight strengths and
weaknesses in candidates’ performance, and to
offer constructive advice for those sitting the exam
in the future.

Contents
General comments ........................................................... 1
Format of the exam ....................................................... 2
Pre-seen information .................................................... 3
Exam performance ....................................................... 3
Analysing the exam exhibits ......................................... 4
General comments
Planning ........................................................................ 5
Time management ........................................................ 5
This examiner’s report should be used
in conjunction with the published
Reasons for exam failure .............................................. 6
December 2023 sample exam which
Technical marks ............................................................ 7 can be found on the ACCA Practice
Professional skills marks .............................................. 8 Platform.
Task 1 ........................................................................... 9
In this report, the examining team
Task 2 ......................................................................... 12 provide constructive guidance on how
Task 3 ......................................................................... 16 to answer the various tasks set in the

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 1

December 2023 exam whilst sharing their observations from the marking process,
highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of candidates who attempted these tasks. Future
candidates can use this examiner’s report as part of their exam preparation, attempting
question practice on the ACCA Practice Platform and reviewing the published answers
alongside this report.

Format of the exam

The examination consisted of a 3 hours and 15 minutes integrated case study exam,
comprising three main tasks, about a fictitious well-known cloud service company called
NCTech. The candidate’s role throughout the exam was as a consultant working for
Chelwood Consultants, a firm engaged by NCTech to advise on a range of strategic issues.

The marking scheme included 80 technical marks for the correct use and application of
technical knowledge drawn from the Strategic Business Leader (SBL) syllabus. For every
element of technical content, answers needed to be applied to specific issues identified at
NCTech. Therefore, the repetition of rote learned knowledge attracted few, if any, marks.

In addition, the marking scheme included 20 marks for various professional skills. The
specific skill being examined in the requirement should have been evident in how candidates
answered the task, although candidates should also draw on other relevant skills when
answering. When awarding professional skills marks, markers looked primarily at the
professional skill being tested in the task requirement, but also considered the general
professionalism that candidates demonstrated (which included whether answers were logical
and well-presented, avoided unnecessary repetition and answered the task set). Markers
also considered whether answers were presented in an appropriate tone for the recipient.

As candidates take the exam on computer, they are strongly recommended to take mocks
on the ACCA practice platform first, to gain experience of dealing with different types of
exhibits and to estimate how much they can write in the time allowed. Candidates are

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 2

strongly advised to assimilate all of the guidance produced and articles published by ACCA
for SBL, as these could provide invaluable assistance when sitting the exam.

Pre-seen information
December 2023 was the second SBL examination to be supported by pre-seen information.
This pre-seen provided candidates with an overview of the cloud service industry in the
fictional country of Farland, and further background information relating directly to NCTech,
an established Farland industry operator. Cloud services is a very contemporary industry of
growing importance to most business sectors. The pre-seen was divided into two discrete
but integrated sections, the first focusing on the Harland cloud computing industry and the
second section specifically on NCTech.

The pre-seen is designed specifically to allow candidates to establish a sound understanding

of the forthcoming examination industry and company context. This should help to provide a
relevant setting for candidates when analysing and understanding the exhibit information
that is presented to them on the exam day.

However, candidates must fully appreciate that the pre-seen information should not be used
to ‘question spot’, as the tasks set in the exam do not use information detailed in the pre-
seen. The questions on exam day will be focused primarily on the information contained
within the four examination exhibits, and this is what candidates will be expected to focus on
as the primary source for developing their answers.

Of course, some information within the pre-seen will be useful to support points made in
answers, but candidates must avoid the temptation to copy and paste sections of the pre-
seen into their answers. The pre-seen information is designed to assist candidates’ overall
understanding of the industry and the company, NCTech, but it will not itself provide a full
source for examination answers.

Exam performance
On the exam day, the following four exhibits were presented to candidates which provided
additional information relevant to the case study:

1. Data breach investigation: email from the chair of the risk committee summarising the
preliminary findings of the data breach investigation.
2. IT security: extract from NCTech’s IT security manual.
3. Talent management: article from the Farland Business Review on talent management.
4. Board transcript: details of a board discussion around the recent client survey.
Overall, the standard of answers for the December 2023 exam was fairly similar to the
September 2023 exam, the first sitting using the new pre-seen format and shorter exam
time.

However, evidence did suggest the following:

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 3

▪ Many candidates made insufficient use of the information presented in the exam exhibits
to support their answers, despite these being key to generating relevant points to use in
their answers.

▪ Some candidates continue to answer the task they wish had been set rather than the
task actually set in the exam. This is a common trait often leads to exam failure.

▪ Simply copying and pasting pre-seen and exam exhibit information into answers with
little or no attempt to relate this content to the question set, so adding no further value.

▪ There was insufficient application of the relevant information provided in the exam in
answers, and an inability to sufficiently develop points in support of arguments made.

▪ There was evidence of the use of rote learnt pre-prepared answers that were solely
based on the pre-seen information regardless of the question asked.

▪ Poor command of the English language was a significant problem, with many candidates
unable to make themselves understood to the marker.

It was clear that the vast majority of candidates had read the pre-seen information. The
better candidates used the detail in the pre-seen to provide appropriate context for their
answers, with the weaker candidates making concerted efforts to force any pre-seen detail
no matter how inappropriate into their answers. Unfortunately, the same could be said of the
exhibits information provided in the exam. Candidates must provide well applied answers,
but the weaker ones took any feasible detail from the exhibits and then attempted to relate it
to their answer.
The most competent candidates integrated and used information from the relevant exhibit
materials, supported by their knowledge and understanding of the pre-seen, whilst selecting
relevant technical SBL syllabus knowledge to support the applied points they made. They
also demonstrated sound professional skills through analysis, evaluation and sound
commercial judgement, showed scepticism where necessary, and presented well-structured
and logical answers.

It was apparent that some candidates had not used the SBL guidance, articles and other
resources on the ACCA Hub. It is worth remembering that these are vital components for
effective exam preparation.

Analysing the exam exhibits

Candidates must spend enough time reading and understanding the information within the
exhibits that make up the SBL exam. With the introduction of the pre-seen information,
candidates should now be familiar with the case context before exam day and therefore less
time should be needed to assimilate the new exhibit information.

As already suggested, some of the answers produced often failed to make sufficient
reference to the exhibits or failed to make use of the full range of material in the exhibits. At
the start of the exam candidates need to read all of the exhibits carefully, whilst keeping the
requirements of each task in mind, as this will help them to identify which tasks will be

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 4

drawing on the material in each exhibit. Candidates need to remember that material from
more than one exhibit may be relevant when answering each individual task.

The exhibits aim to:

▪ provide the material which underpins the applied points that candidates should be
making.
▪ include necessary background information and explanation to provide context to
candidates’ answers.
▪ help candidates to decide how to structure their answers.
▪ highlight the most important issues that answers should cover.
However, it must be stressed that merely reproducing or restating material taken directly
from the exhibits without adequately commenting on it or developing points specifically in
relation to the task set will not score any marks. This point will be further discussed later in
the report in relation to candidates’ performance on the various examination tasks.

Planning
Candidates must spend sufficient time on planning, to ensure that their answers are:

▪ structured logically in line with the precise wording of the task

▪ balanced in terms of the depth of discussion required with the breadth of different
points to be made
▪ covering the most important points relevant to the task’s requirements
▪ not padded out with material that does not address the task’s requirements
▪ not making the same point two (or more) times
When sitting the CBE exam it may be useful to copy and paste the task requirements into
the word processor answer area. Candidates then do not need to keep looking at the task
tabs, which may help them to remain more focused on the tasks as they answer them.
However, it would be helpful to the marker if any copied requirements could be deleted after
the task is answered or clearly separated from the answer.

Time management
The vast majority of candidates were able to answer all three tasks and there was no
significant indication that they had run out of time or stamina during this examination,
suggesting that candidates are continuing to improve their time management skills.
Candidates are strongly recommended to attempt mock exams under full exam conditions
before the actual exam, to get used to the demands on effective reading, planning, thinking,
and writing that the SBL exam demands.

However, there was a significant minority of candidates who failed to answer all of Task 3,
suggesting that some may have struggled to produce a full answer to the exam in the 3
hours 15 minutes allowed. If candidates use the first 15 minutes to read and assimilate the

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 5

exam exhibits and tasks, and produce an outline plan, this would leave 180 minutes (3
hours) to produce answers to all three tasks. On this basis, the residual time should have
been allocated in relation to the marks assigned to each task (including professional marks)
as follows:

Task 1 (a) 18 marks 32 minutes

Task 1 (b) 18 marks 32 minutes
Task 2 (a) 10 marks 18 minutes
Task 2 (b) 20 marks 36 minutes
Task 3 (a) 18 marks 32 minutes
Task 3 (b) 16 marks 30 minutes

Adopting this approach ensures candidates have sufficient time to attempt every part of
every task, thereby giving them the best chance of passing the exam.
However, candidates should also be aware of how time can be ineffectively used in the SBL
exam:

▪ Wasting time by including material not specifically relevant to the actual task
requirements.
▪ Writing elaborate and lengthy plans, resulting in too little time to produce meaningful
and complete answers.
▪ Making the same point more than once in slightly different ways.

Reasons for exam failure

In most cases, those candidates who failed this exam did so because of:

▪ Lack of development of the points made (that is, not fully explaining why the point
was relevant/important in the context of the task requirements).
▪ Lack of application of points made to the NCTech case scenario.
▪ Lack of analytical skills, demonstrated through an inability to select, and then
appropriately use, the full range and most relevant information to answer task
requirements.
▪ Wasting time by including irrelevant content.
▪ Not answering the question that has actually been asked.
▪ Failure to provide everything that the requirements specified.
▪ Poor level of technical knowledge; candidates should appreciate that any area of the
SBL syllabus could be examined.
▪ Lack of commercial acumen and professionalism, which underpins the SBL exam.
The application of information provided to answers was quite disappointing, particularly in
the light of candidates having access to the pre-seen information in advance of the exam,
which should have meant a better understanding of the case context, and therefore better
applied answers. However, there was even more evidence of copying and pasting of exhibit

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 6

information into answers than in some previous sittings, with little or no attempt to add any
further value to this. Such an approach scores absolutely no marks in the SBL exam.

It was also concerning to see some candidates still failing to read the task requirements
carefully, resulting in them not answering the question that had been asked or not answering
the whole requirement. This demonstrates poor examination technique and a lack of
professionalism, which also impacts on the professional skills marks awarded.

Technical marks
Demonstration of technical knowledge alone or explanation of theory does not score marks
in the SBL exam. To gain each technical mark, candidates needed to:

▪ Make points that directly address the requirement(s) of the task, considering the
scope of answer required and what the question verb (e.g., evaluate, explain,
recommend) indicates should be provided.
▪ Clearly explain to the marker why the points being made are significant and relevant
in the context of NCTech.
▪ Consider issues that are specific to the matters, choices or decisions detailed in the
task requirement.
Generally, up to two marks were available for a well-developed point made. However,
candidates are reminded that two marks will only be awarded when a relevant point has
been successfully applied and developed by:

▪ Evaluating how significant the point is.

▪ Using the information provided that relates the point directly to NCTech.
▪ Explaining the consequences for NCTech.
▪ Supporting the point made with relevant examples from the case material.
A failure to develop points made was often evident in this exam. This was particularly
notable in Task 1 (b) where candidates were required to draft a briefing paper evaluating the
four security layers in the NCTech IT Manual. There was a polarisation of responses to this
task and it was apparent that many candidates had no understanding of the layers so they
merely cut and pasted extracts from exhibit 2. Many candidates did not consider all four
layers detailed in the exhibit. Weaker answers simply stated that better controls were
needed, and failed to analyse the existing controls detailed within the exam with relevant
suggestions of further improvements.

As in previous sittings, candidates often reproduced or repeated information taken from the
exhibits with no attempt to add further value. Examples included:

▪ Exhibit 1 for Task 1(a) and from Exhibit 2 for Task 1(b), even though these
sometimes contradicted each other e.g. they acknowledged in 1(a) that the breach
was largely down to staff not checking the firewall and not notifying management,
but went on to say in 1(b) that everything was fine, especially regarding the human
layer.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 7

 ▪ Task 2 (b), where those scripts that just did a ‘cut and paste’ of the points made in
Exhibit 3 with little attempt to contextualise. They failed to tell the HR Director
anything he hadn’t already read in the article itself.
Candidates who presented purely generic answers were awarded very limited marks. This
often occurred in answers to Task 3 (b), where many candidates simply described the six
Capitals used in Integrated Reporting without making any attempt to explain how these could
be used to help NCTech’s stakeholders. Candidates must avoid producing answers that
merely repeat SBL syllabus knowledge without making any attempt to apply this knowledge
to the exam context, and instead focus on answering the specific question set.

Professional skills marks

It was good to observe that many candidates had evidently thought about how to earn
professional skills marks and attempted to present their answers in the appropriate format,
as requested in each task requirement.

Irrespective of the format required by the task, the target recipient would be helped by an
answer presented which should be structured clearly with headers used to avoid repetition of
information. Candidates who used such an approach in Tasks 1(b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) often
provided better answers than those candidates who didn’t. Candidates should be aware that
they are carrying out a professional task, and in this exam acting as a consultant, serving the
needs of NCTech directors and/or other stakeholder(s). Therefore, it is important for
candidates to read the technical and professional requirements together, as this will assist
them in formulating their answers as asked and in the correct style, tone and with the correct
level of professionalism.

This was particularly important in Task 2 (b) when evaluating the adoption of a formal talent
management programme. The task sought both the advantages and disadvantages of the
programme to NCTech, but the scepticism skill tested meant that the professional marks
would be awarded solely based on the disadvantages. Therefore candidates needed to
provide a reasonable number of disadvantages in sufficient depth to demonstrate scepticism
and earn the professional marks.

In Task 3 (b) candidates were required to produce two slides and accompanying notes for
presentation to the board. Therefore, professional communication skills required the answer
produced to use an appropriate tone aimed at the needs of the target audience, the NCTech
board. The pre-seen described the NCTech board structure as comprising a disparate range
of specialisms and experiences, so the presentation needed to be based on the assumption
that some directors have limited or no knowledge of Integrated Reporting. This is a good
example of how context drawn from the pre-seen assists candidates when constructing good
answers to tasks set in the exam.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 8

Specific comments
Task 1

The chair of the risk committee has undertaken an investigation into a recent data
breach at NCTech and emailed his preliminary findings to the chief executive officer
(CEO). The CEO is concerned that the resultant bad publicity could significantly harm
NCTech’s relationship with its client base and may have a detrimental effect on its
business performance going forward.

The CEO has provided you with a copy of the email and asked for your assistance.

(a) Write a memo to the CEO which evaluates the information from the chair of
the risk committee, the possible impact on NCTech’s reputation and
recommends actions that NCTech should take. (14 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for commercial acumen by demonstrating

awareness of how the data breach could damage NCTech’s reputation.
(4 marks)

The recent security breach has forced the board to consider enhancements to the
current IT security arrangements at NCTech.

You have been provided with the relevant extracts from NCTech’s current IT security
manual and have been asked to evaluate it and recommend any further measures
that will help to strengthen these existing controls and reduce the risk of a future data
breach.

(b) Draft a briefing paper to the board that evaluates the four security layers in
NCTech's IT security manual and recommends any further security controls
that should be put in place to minimise the risk of a future data
breach. (14 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for analysis by considering the current IT
security manual and any additional security controls that could minimise the risk of a
future data breach. (4 marks)

Task 1 (a)

The majority of responses produced some quite credible answers, with many candidates
covering a reasonably wide range of points and suggested appropriate actions. Most
candidates achieved a pass mark on this part of the task, largely because there was plenty
for them to write about. The better answers were logical and well-structured, covering each

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 9

of the element of the requirement in turn and fully explaining and justifying why the security
breach would have a negative reputational impact for NCTech.
However, there was a lot of repetition and some candidates made very superficial points,
with a lot of text copied straight from Exhibit 1. Some responses were disappointing,
especially since there was substantial detail in the supporting appendix for full and detailed
strategic answers. Weaker answers tended to be very general as although the word
“reputation” was repeatedly mentioned, supporting detail was lacking. The obvious
reputational responses were threats to integrity, trust, etc. The weaker candidates failed to
provide sufficient development of why reputation would be damaged but just kept repeating
how it would.
Some answers offered a more operational rather than strategic perspectives when
evaluating the risk committee chair’s comments, and in particular the possible impact on
NCT’s reputation and the related actions NCT should take. Answers like this tended to point
to actions around making improvements to the firewall and associated safeguards, which
although important do not address specifically issues of trust and reputation with existing
customers, potential customers and regulatory bodies. Candidates who had read the
technical article: Cyber security and the strategic business leader published on the ACCA
website would have been better placed to understand the strategic perspective when
answering this task. Far too many candidates discussed minor issues at length, notably staff
disciplinary procedures and the apparent failings of the risk committee. This was quite
frustrating since these points tended to be made instead of more relevant suggestions such
as informing customers, improving controls, staff training, etc.
The impression given was that the question, which required a more strategic response, was
not really understood and addressed in that context. To help improve future candidate
performance, tutors could use a one or two-page scenario and ask their students to identify
what actions needed to be addressed to maintain trust and reputation. Tutors could then use
students’ answers to explain to them the difference in operational as opposed to strategic
issues based on concerns relating to business trust and reputation. This will help students to
focus on strategic business concerns rather not operational issues, even if operational
changes might arise from strategic actions.

Recommendations were often quite weak lacking commercial justification, such as issuing a
press release without first considering discussions with the affected clients.

There were two presentation issues. Many asked questions within the narrative of their
answers, which is never appropriate. Also some answers were presented in dialogue boxes,
which is not the way memos are constructed.

The main weaknesses to answers to Task 1 (a) were:

▪ Copying and pasting text straight from Exhibit 1 then explaining the apparent relevance
or significance of these statements either badly or not at all.

▪ Failure to carefully read the task requirement, thereby not addressing the entire
requirement and producing a complete answer.

▪ Not framing the answer with respect to NCTech’s commercial considerations, which is
where an understanding of the current business context from the pre-seen would have
been invaluable.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 10

Professional marks
Professional marks for Task 1 (a) were awarded for demonstrating commercial acumen in
showing various ways the data breach could damage NCTech’s reputation.
Those candidates that did make a good attempt used a reasonable amount of the
information in Exhibit 1 to generate points and structure of the answer tended also to be able
to demonstrate commercial awareness in how the different aspects of the data breach could
have potentially damaging effects on NCTech’s reputation. However, those candidates that
merely copied and pasted points from the exhibit with little or no attempt to consider their
relevance to NCTech and its current strategic position showed only superficial commercial
awareness so did not attain a pass mark on professional skills.

Task 1 (b)
This task was quite poorly answered generally, as most answers failed to evaluate and/or
analyse the significant amount information provided in the exhibit. Many candidates simply
copied and pasted large chunks of Exhibit 2 into the answers with little or no attempt to
evaluate of the actions required in each layer of NCTech’s IT manual. However, many
candidates did present a viable range of well applied improvements to the layers and credit
was gained here. However, the poor analysis severely impacted on the professional skills
mark. It would have been helpful for candidates to have read the article: Cyber security and
the strategic business leader, as its content complemented the information contained in
Exhibit 2 would have helped to answer this task.

Candidates apparent lack of knowledge in this area was more pronounced, they didn't seem
to take on board that they should be evaluating the four security layers, and so just
described them using information from Exhibit 2.

There was a polarisation of responses to this task with the quality of answers produced
varying considerably. Many fully addressed the four security layers and earned good marks.
Some responses suggested that the candidate did not know the four layers individually and
presented a general description of the four based on the exhibit. Far too many answers were
simply vague at best, and irrelevant at worst, some giving the impression that all that was
required was to change the current IT systems.

A worrying number of candidates were not able to evaluate the existing controls and there
was a lot of repetition of the question material or just confirmation that the controls were
good or bad. Some candidates were able to suggest further controls such as 2-part
authentication, data encryption, regular reviews, etc., although they were not as accurate
pairing the controls to the right layer.

The main weaknesses in answers to Task 1 (b) task were:

▪ Limited knowledge of the IT security layers, even though it forms part of the SBL
syllabus and has it been referred in a published article on the ACCA website.

▪ Failing to undertake any analysis of the NCTech IT Security Manual, despite being
explicitly required within the professional marks for this task.

▪ Brief, undeveloped, and sometimes superficial answers.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 11

Professional marks
To score high professional marks, candidates needed to demonstrate good analysis skills by
both considering the current NCTech IT Manual as comprehensively covered in Exhibit 2
and then suggesting further controls to minimise the risk of future data breaches. Those
candidates who scored high professional marks tended to structure their answer around the
four security layers, and in doing so also scored high technical marks as the two elements of
the answer are closely aligned.

Task 2

The current NCTech board structure and membership has stayed unaltered since the
company listed on the Farland stock exchange five years ago, however two board
members are due to retire in the next year. The chair of the nominations committee
believes that consideration should be given to more diversity on the board as part of
NCTech’s succession planning.

He has asked you to advise him on issues related to board diversity.

(a) Write a briefing paper to the chair of the nominations committee which
explains how NCTech could benefit from a more diverse board of directors.
(10 marks)

The human resources (HR) director has recently read an article on talent
management and believes that the introduction of a talent management programme
at NCTech may help recruit new board members and improve workforce planning. As
talent management is a new concept to NCTech, you have been asked to report
back to the HR director about the relative merits of introducing a talent management
programme at NCTech.

(b) Write an email to the HR director which evaluates the advantages and
disadvantages to NCTech of formally adopting a talent management
programme. (16 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for scepticism by probing into the issues
relating to introducing a talent management programme at NCTech.
(4 marks)

Both parts of the task were reasonably straightforward for an SBL exam, closely drawing on
aspects of the pre-seen and Exhibit 3 where appropriate. A well-prepared candidate should
have performed well if they had read and clearly understood the requirements. Most
candidates tended to do better in Task 2 (b) where there were more marks available and

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 12

where there was more material that they could potentially have drawn upon. Therefore,
many candidates who performed reasonably well in Task 2 (b) tended to pass this task
overall.

Task 2 (a)
Those candidates who performed well tended to provide good introductions and summaries,
and whilst usually not earning any marks these features helped add to the professionalism of
their answers. Most candidates split their answer with sub-headings, which helped with the
logic and flow of the various points made. Whereas answers which comprised just a few long
paragraphs tended to be rambling and lack coherence - and tended to earn fewer marks.

Most answers were able to come with sufficient points that generated 5 or more marks with a
few able to gain the full 10 marks. There is an: Diversifying the board - a step towards better
governance on the ACCA website that candidates should have been familiar with and helped
them in this task. The minority of candidates that had read this article easily scored
maximum marks. This has been a typical question from previous SBL exams so again
should not have been a surprise.

The main problem was the term 'diverse' which was misunderstood by a worrying number of
candidates - some took it to mean a bigger board of directors, with others believing it to
mean an increase in the number of NEDs only (which often resulted in an answer
expounding the benefits of NEDs). A number of candidates took diverse to simply mean that
the directors would come from different functional backgrounds and provided detail of how
various types of functional experience would benefit the company. There was a limit to the
number of marks that can be awarded for such a narrow discussion. Some candidates even
answered in terms of "diversification" which didn't help them.

The weaker candidates either made generic points about describing what diversity was, or
how diversity brings benefits without specifying them, or they just mentioned who needed to
be recruited in functional terms without relating it to the benefits of diversity. Some
candidates just explained where things needed improving without linking that to how
diversity would help NCTech achieve those advances.

Some answers focussed on the makeup of the various committees, the problems with their
current membership, and how they needed to be more diverse. It was interesting how many
candidates advised that more financial experience needed to be recruited to enable better
financial results despite there being a finance director and three NEDs on the audit
committee with a financial background. However, some credit was given for identifying
points around independent NEDs and how a greater diversity can help to provide more
independent scrutiny of the NCTech board’s performance.

Generally, the better candidates gave the standard benefits of diversity around introducing a
wider pool of talent, bringing new fresh ideas, additional skills and expertise to help
specialise in key areas. They also mentioned this leading to better performance, and a
stronger reputation with shareholders and the wider public. These candidates were given
additional credit for specifying the need for diversity in terms of allowing greater
specialisation, bringing in specific expertise to better manage risk, to have more robust
internal audit and controls and for helping NCTech to develop the new cloud services
needed to grow the business and make it more competitive.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 13

The main weaknesses in answers to Task 2 (a) were:
▪ Answering the question they wanted to be asked.

▪ Not answering the question, but instead providing recommendations and wasting time
adding disadvantages as well as advantages.

▪ Discussing general corporate governance requirements of separate CEO chair and 50%
NEDS, etc. Identifying the needs of for example an IT director and the advantages that
would have – however appointing an IT director does not necessarily mean a diverse
board.

▪ Focusing only on elements of diversity such as age and gender.

Professional marks
There were no professional marks awarded for Task 2 (a).

Task 2 (b)

This should have been a reasonably straightforward question as there were a lot of relevant
points within Exhibit 3, supplemented by pre-seen information, that could have been
expanded to produce good discussion points, and many candidates did do this well.

This part was worth 67% of the total marks for Task 2, including 4 marks for scepticism as a
professional skill, which meant that candidates who performed badly in this part tended to
fail the overall task. However, most candidates made a satisfactory attempt at the question
mainly structuring it into two sections: advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately, there
tended to be quite a lot of repetition of points around improving employee and company
performance and providing better service to customers.

It was evident that some candidates did not really understand what a talent management
programme (TMP) was, despite it being in the syllabus, covered in Exhibit 3 and tested in
past SBL exams. However, there were obviously some candidates who seemed to have
never encountered the topic in their studies, and a number of candidates who incorrectly
understood the TMP to be applicable only to the board, which limited the number of marks
they could be awarded.

Regurgitation of the exhibit, without adding any extra value, was an approach adopted by
some candidates. In particular, the various positives included in Exhibit 3 were merely
reworked as the advantages. A large number believed that the three problems with the TMP
detailed in the exhibit definitely applied to NCTech, as they incorrectly assumed the article
was written about NCTech. Ironically some candidates even attempted to argue that these
problems were not disadvantages for NCTech - again because they assumed the article was
about NCTech.

Many candidates wrote questions as their answers, particularly when discussing

disadvantages. It is possible that these candidates may have been told that scepticism
involves questioning and hence rather than state that a TMP would be expensive, they
asked 'Do you not think that a TMP might be expensive?'. This approach would not be
expected in a professional email from a consultant to NCTech’s HR director.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 14

Once again there were a number of scripts that just did a ‘cut and paste’ of the points made
in Exhibit 3 and really didn’t tell the HR Director anything he hadn’t already read in the article
itself.

The main areas candidates struggled with were:

▪ Again not answering the question, such as providing recommendations rather than
disadvantages.

▪ Simply copying out what was said in the article with absolutely no changes.

▪ Applying the talent management programme to directors only, or assuming it was

already in operation at NCTech, which made it very difficult to develop a full and
complete answer.

▪ Explaining in detail what a talent management programme is, wasting time and gaining
no marks.

Professional marks
Most candidates earned some professional marks as their answers demonstrated at least a
small level of scepticism through their discussion of the disadvantages. Unfortunately, the
majority of answers were skewed toward discussing the advantages of the TMP, thus
leaving little room for earning higher professional marks.

Unfortunately, some candidates were sceptical about the wrong things, for example being
sceptical about the content of the article in the exhibit, around whether the benefits in that
article would be realised, without identifying the potential problems of implementing it
successfully or otherwise.

As expected, higher professional marks were invariably correlated with higher technical
marks. However, few candidates were able to gain more than 2.66 for the professional
marks on offer as there was insufficient scepticism applied in the answers.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 15

Task 3

The marketing department has recently undertaken a client survey to assist

with future strategic planning, but the results are inconclusive. This survey
was discussed at the latest board meeting, where it was generally agreed
that stakeholders need to be consulted, and their conflicting demands need
to be considered, when devising NCTech’s next strategic plan.

Following the board meeting, the commercial director discussed the matter
with you and asked you to consider this further and report back to him.

(a) Prepare a report for the commercial director which evaluates the
various stakeholders who may influence strategic planning at NCTech
and considers how they may have conflicting demands on NCTech.

(14 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for evaluation by appraising the

influence stakeholders have over strategic planning.

(4 marks)

At the same board meeting, the CEO proposed that one way to reconcile
the varied demands of stakeholders was for NCTech to adopt the Integrated
Reporting <IR> framework.

The marketing director agreed to present his recommendations on <IR> at

the next board meeting. As he needs to convince several board members of
the merits of <IR>, he has asked for your assistance preparing the
presentation.

(b) Prepare TWO slides, with accompanying notes, for presentation to

the board that:

▪ explain the main capitals that should be included in an Integrated

Report for use by NCTech's stakeholders; and

▪ advise on the business benefits to NCTech of adopting Integrated

Reporting (12 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for communication by clarifying and

simplifying Integrated Reporting using an appropriate professional tone that
is easily understood by the NCTech board.
Task 3 (a)
(4 marks)
Many candidates seemed to find Task 3 (a) rather challenging although it was generally
satisfactorily answered and candidates could, on the whole, just about generate enough

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 16

marks to pass. Of course, as always, there were also some excellent answers and some
very poor ones. However, most candidates were able to answer this question, identifying key
stakeholder groups and their interests but many answers faltered in how they could influence
NCTech’s strategic planning.

The article, All about stakeholders - part 1 on the ACCA website would have helped
candidates to generate points and develop suitable answers. Candidates are urged to read
all of the SBL technical articles on the ACCA website.

One main problem with answers to this question was that candidates did not really do what
they were asked and instead simply applied Mendelow’s matrix – pretty much for every
stakeholder they could think of, even those that really would not be a key factor in
influencing the strategy of NCTech. This typically meant an assessment of power and then
interest (which generally earned marks) followed by lengthy explanations of how they would
be managed by the company (that earned no marks), without outlining conflicting
stakeholder demands, so not really answering the question. Some candidates did not assess
NCTech’s individual stakeholders; instead discussing the conflict between the three
executive directors detailed in Exhibit 4. Although this approach gained some marks,
however, as they generally did not fully answer the question set and did not score highly.

The other weakness was that some candidates did not clearly evaluate those NCTech
stakeholders who may influence strategic planning and then consider the impact of their
conflicting demands on NCTech. Some of the answers were too brief and not developed
enough to attract many marks, which may have possibly been due to time pressure towards
the end of the exam.

Some candidates did not make clear distinctions between institutional shareholders and the
founding shareholders and tended to mix up their responses to the question. A significant
number of candidates added stakeholders who were not included in the exam such as
government and regulatory authorities, internet service providers, banks and financial
institutions, and competitors. Whilst some candidates made convincing answers for these
stakeholders, the inclusion of these external stakeholders was unnecessary and not asked
for.

The main weaknesses in answers to Task 3 (a) were:

▪ Insufficiently developed answers, with far too few points made and superficially
developed. This was possibly due to poor time management as this was the final task in
the exam.

▪ Writing rather generic answers on business stakeholders that fail to answer the specific
question set.

▪ Failing to produce an answer for the commercial director, and thereby failing to consider
the influences of stakeholders from a strategic perspective.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 17

Professional marks
Candidates who made a good attempt at appraising the influence of NCTech’s specific
stakeholders on its strategic planning process scored high professional marks. Evaluation
tends to be the professional skill that scores best in the SBL exam, as many questions set
require some form of evaluation. It was common for 2.66 marks, and occasionally all 4
marks, to be awarded.

Task 3 (b)
On the whole, this part of the question was answered reasonably well, and it was clear that
many of the candidates understood the Capitals referred to in Exhibit 4 and the business
benefits of Integrated Reporting <IR>. There were some exceptionally good answers to this
part of the question where candidates applied their SBL syllabus knowledge properly and
earned all of the technical and professional marks.

There were, however, quite a lot of generic answers to this question with virtually no
application to NCTech. The candidates who were able to pass this requirement, tended not
to do so by a significant amount, and as a result did not score well in terms of professional
marks.

In the first slide and supporting notes, some candidates tried to actually report on the
Capitals as if they were writing an Integrated Report. Most candidates demonstrated some
knowledge of the six Capitals, but once identified they did not go on to explain why they are
included in an Integrated Report. Also, there was a general tendency to repeat the same
points under different capitals, just phrase them slightly differently and thereby limiting the
number of marks available.

There were a minority of candidates who clearly did not know what the <IR> capitals were
and so just made things up, with a focus on environmental and CSR in these answers.
Marks were awarded where possible, but such answers did not score well.

In the second slide and supporting notes, most candidates were able to list some benefits of
<IR>, though the answers again tended to be very generic. The better candidates applied
their knowledge to NCTech using an understanding of the business from the pre-seen and
were able to earn full marks for Task 3 (b), both in terms of technical and professional
marks.

Around 25% of candidates either did not attempt the slide presentation or made a very short
or unfinished attempt, presumably because they simply ran out time. Candidates must
carefully manage their time throughout the exam so that they have the same proportion of
time per mark to answer Task 3 as they had for Task 1.

Candidates that did present a full answer mostly gave an accurate list of the 6 capitals or
selected what they believed were the most relevant and scored well.

The main weaknesses in answers to Task 3 (b) were:

▪ Strong evidence of poor time management.

▪ Lacking relevant syllabus knowledge.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 18

 ▪ Detailing the six capitals of <IR> to structure the answer on the slide, but adding
minimal additional content for the supporting notes, limiting its value to aid
understanding for the NCTech board.

Professional marks
Communication professional skills were disappointing as candidates do not appear to plan
the bullet points on the slides. Some candidates did not develop a clear link to NCTech but
wrote a generic response, that would not have helped the board’s understanding of both the
main <IR> capitals and the specific business benefits of integrated reporting to NCTech.

A significant minority chose not to use the slide and additional answer tabs in the exam
software, instead answering everything in the first tab, which limited the professional marks
available.

Examiner’s report – SBL December 2023 19