Pass the BCS Business Analysis PC-BA-FBA-20 Questions and answers with CertsForce

The concern of consumers about unnecessary packaging is an external factor that influences the organisation. The appropriate technique for systematically analysing these external macro-environmental factors is PESTLE analysis. PESTLE stands for Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Legal, and Environmental factors. The increasing consumer concern about packaging falls clearly under the Sociological or Environmental categories of the PESTLE framework. This technique helps the business analyst identify trends and issues arising from outside the organisation that may create a business need or risk, which then drives strategic change. The other options are incorrect: a Power/Interest grid is for stakeholder management; Boston Box (BCG Matrix) is for product portfolio management; and a Resource Audit is for internal analysis of resources.

(Reference: BCS Foundation Certificate in Business Analysis / BCS Business Analysis Practice – Strategic Analysis, External Environment Analysis)

The Waterfall methodology is a linear approach where requirements are defined upfront, and changes are difficult to accommodate once the project begins. Agile methodology , on the other hand, emphasizes flexibility and adaptability to changing requirements.

Key Considerations:

Inherent Uncertainty in Cost: While cost uncertainty exists in both methodologies, Agile does not specifically address this drawback of Waterfall.

Inflexibility to Changing Requirements: Waterfall's rigid structure makes it difficult to incorporate changes once the project starts. Agile addresses this by allowing iterative development and continuous feedback.

Capturing All Requirements Upfront: Agile does not aim to capture all requirements upfront; instead, it embraces evolving requirements throughout the project.

Stakeholder Agreement on Scope Before Work Begins: Agile encourages ongoing collaboration with stakeholders rather than requiring scope agreement upfront.

Evaluation of Each Option:

A. The agile methodology addresses the inherent uncertainty in cost associated with waterfall:Agile does not specifically address cost uncertainty.Conclusion: This is not correct .

B. Agile development addresses the inflexibility of waterfall as it pertains to changing requirements:This is the primary drawback of Waterfall that Agile addresses through its iterative and flexible approach.Conclusion: This is correct .

C. The agile methodology captures all requirements at the start of a project to reduce risks typically experienced in waterfall:Agile does not capture all requirements upfront; it embraces evolving requirements.Conclusion: This is not correct .

D. Agile development requires stakeholders to agree to the scope of the project before the work begins, reducing uncertainty in the design:Agile does not require upfront scope agreement; it promotes adaptive planning.Conclusion: This is not correct .

Final Recommendation:

The drawback of Waterfall addressed in Agile is:

B. Agile development addresses the inflexibility of waterfall as it pertains to changing requirements.

A change strategy outlines how an organization will move from its current state to its desired future state. Its purpose is to ensure a structured and effective transition.

Key Considerations:

Ensuring the simplest way for transition: While simplicity is desirable, it is not the primary purpose of a change strategy.

Ensuring the quickest way for transition: Speed is not the main focus; effectiveness and alignment with goals are more important.

Achieving the transition between current state and future state: This accurately describes the purpose of a change strategy, which is to bridge the gap between where the organization is now and where it wants to be.

Mapping the alternative options: While mapping options may be part of the planning process, it is not the ultimate purpose of the change strategy.

Evaluation of Each Option:

A. Ensuring the simplest way for transition:Simplicity is a consideration but not the primary purpose of a change strategy.Conclusion: This is not correct .

B. Ensuring the quickest way for transition:Speed is secondary to achieving an effective and sustainable transition.Conclusion: This is not correct .

C. Achieving the transition between current state and future state:This is the core purpose of a change strategy, ensuring the organization moves effectively toward its goals.Conclusion: This is correct .

D. Mapping the alternative options:Mapping options is part of the analysis phase, not the overarching purpose of the strategy.Conclusion: This is not correct .

Final Recommendation:

The best description of the purpose of a change strategy is:

C. Achieving the transition between current state and future state.

 A mission statement defines the organization's purpose and primary objectives, often focusing on what the organization does and how it operates in the present. In contrast, a vision statement outlines the long-term aspirations of the organization—what it aims to become in the future. The mission provided—"To meet or undercut all our competitors' prices"—is focused on price competitiveness, which is a tactical approach rather than a strategic aspiration.

Let’s analyze each option:

A. To offer the best value office fitting service: While this aligns somewhat with the mission, it is more of a value proposition or operational goal rather than a visionary statement. It lacks the aspirational and long-term focus that defines a vision.

B. To reduce the cost of office fitting by 5%: This is a specific, measurable objective, but it is too narrow and tactical to qualify as a vision. Visions are broader and not tied to specific metrics.

C. To increase the company's market share: Increasing market share is a strategic goal, but it is still an intermediate step toward achieving something greater. It does not capture the overarching ambition of the company.

D. To be the premier office fitting company: This option reflects a long-term aspiration and aligns with the characteristics of a vision statement. It expresses the desire to achieve leadership and excellence in the industry, which is consistent with the mission of being competitive on price while aiming for a higher status.

According to the BCS Business Analysis Framework , a vision statement should inspire and guide the organization toward its ultimate goal. Therefore, D is the most appropriate choice.

A formal Requirements Validation Review (or walkthrough/inspection) is conducted to ensure the requirements are correct, complete, and meet the business need before sign-off. The review group typically includes the Business Owner (A) to ensure correctness, the Solution Architect (C) and Developers to check technical feasibility, and the Tester (D) to ensure testability. The Project Manager (B) is usually the facilitator or organiser of the review process and is responsible for project delivery, but they are NOT usually a technical reviewer of the document content itself, as their direct involvement could compromise the impartiality of the review, which is focused on quality assurance, not project schedule.

(Reference: BCS Requirements Engineering – Requirements Validation Techniques)

Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Business Scorecard is a strategic framework that evaluates organizational performance across four key perspectives: Financial, Customer, Internal Business Processes, and Learning and Growth . To determine which area has not been considered, we need to map the provided KPIs to these perspectives.

Mapping the KPIs:

The time to deliver orders for products:This relates to operational efficiency and falls under the Internal Business Process perspective.

Consumer satisfaction with products:This directly measures customer experience and falls under the Customer perspective.

Wastage in product production:This also relates to operational efficiency and falls under the Internal Business Process perspective.

The qualifications of production employees:This measures employee capabilities and development, falling under the Learning and Growth perspective.

Evaluating Each Perspective:

Financial:None of the provided KPIs address financial performance, such as revenue, profitability, or cost management.Conclusion: This perspective has not been considered .

Customer:Consumer satisfaction with products is a clear indicator of the Customer perspective.Conclusion: This perspective has been considered.

Internal Business Process:Both "time to deliver orders" and "wastage in production" relate to internal processes.Conclusion: This perspective has been considered.

Learning and Growth:The qualifications of production employees indicate employee development, which aligns with this perspective.Conclusion: This perspective has been considered.

Final Recommendation:

The Financial perspective has not been considered in the company’s KPIs.

The Business Analysis Service Framework (BASF) identifies core and auxiliary services that support business analysis activities. Auxiliary services supplement the core services and are essential for delivering value.

Key Considerations:

Strategic Analysis: Focuses on high-level organizational goals and strategies but is not an auxiliary service.

Stakeholder Engagement: Involves identifying, analyzing, and collaborating with stakeholders, which supports all aspects of business analysis.

Project Management: While important, project management is a separate discipline and not part of the BASF.

External Environment Analysis: Examines external factors (e.g., market trends) but is not an auxiliary service.

Evaluation of Each Option:

A. Strategic analysis:Strategic analysis is a core service, not an auxiliary service.Conclusion: This is not correct .

B. Stakeholder engagement:Stakeholder engagement is an auxiliary service that supports all business analysis activities by ensuring stakeholder needs are understood and addressed.Conclusion: This is correct .

C. Project management:Project management is outside the scope of the BASF.Conclusion: This is not correct .

D. External environment analysis:External environment analysis is a core service, not an auxiliary service.Conclusion: This is not correct .

To determine the position of the head of IT services on the power-interest grid , we need to evaluate their level of power/influence and interest in the project.

Key Considerations:

Power/Influence: The head of IT services holds a senior leadership role, which implies they have significant authority and influence over IT-related decisions and resources. This places them in the "high power" category.

Interest: Despite their authority, the head of IT services has not been actively involved in the project beyond the initial start-up interviews and has not attended any project meetings. This indicates a lack of ongoing engagement or interest in the project's progress.

Evaluation of Each Option:

A. High power or influence but low interest:The head of IT services has significant authority (high power) but is disengaged from the project (low interest).Conclusion: This is the correct answer .

B. Some power and influence and some interest:This option suggests moderate levels of both power and interest, which does not align with the head of IT services' senior role and lack of involvement.Conclusion: This is not correct .

C. High power or influence and high interest:While the head of IT services has high power, their lack of attendance at project meetings indicates low interest.Conclusion: This is not correct .

D. Low power and influence but high interest:The head of IT services clearly has high power due to their senior leadership role, so this option is incorrect.Conclusion: This is not correct .

Final Recommendation:

The head of IT services occupies the position of high power or influence but low interest on the power-interest grid.

The Iterative (or Agile) lifecycle model is specifically designed to deal with changing requirements and a rapid pace of change. Unlike linear models like Waterfall or the V model, which expect requirements to be fixed early, the iterative model delivers the solution in a series of repeated cycles (iterations/sprints). This approach embraces the reality that requirements will change as stakeholders learn more about the evolving product and the business environment shifts. It explicitly incorporates frequent feedback loops and allows for the adaptation of requirements throughout the project, making it the most flexible and suitable model for unstable or complex environments.

(Reference: BCS Requirements Engineering – Lifecycle Models, Agile/Iterative)

To identify the stakeholder groups represented in the scenario, we need to analyze the relationships and roles described:

Stakeholder Groups in the Scenario:

Owner:The two founders of AlpineTrails, who each own 50% of the business, are clearly stakeholders as owners. They have a vested interest in the success of the business and its partnerships.

Partner:WalkNation is described as a partner organization that collaborates with AlpineTrails to offer special holidays for its members. This partnership involves shared responsibilities (marketing and booking by WalkNation, holiday organization by AlpineTrails).

Supplier:AlpineTrails books hotels, transport, and equipment to create bespoke holidays. These entities (hotels, transport providers, equipment suppliers) are suppliers to AlpineTrails and play a critical role in delivering the holidays.

Manager:While managers may exist within AlpineTrails, they are not explicitly mentioned in the scenario. Therefore, this group is not represented.

Competitor:Competitors are not mentioned or implied in the scenario, so this group is not represented.

Evaluation of Each Option:

A. Owner:The two founders of AlpineTrails are explicitly described as owners.Conclusion: This is a relevant stakeholder group .

B. Partner:WalkNation is explicitly described as a partner.Conclusion: This is a relevant stakeholder group .

C. Supplier:Hotels, transport, and equipment providers are implicitly described as suppliers.Conclusion: This is a relevant stakeholder group .

D. Manager:Managers are not explicitly mentioned in the scenario.Conclusion: This is not a relevant stakeholder group .

E. Competitor:Competitors are not mentioned or implied in the scenario.Conclusion: This is not a relevant stakeholder group .