BCS Updated BAPv5 Exam Questions and Answers by taha

The business analysis guidance notes that reviewing a company website can reveal useful inferences about the organisation’s branding, values, priorities, and strategic positioning, including how it balances cost versus perceived quality. In particular, the guidance contrasts “populist” signals (primary colours, flashing icons, exclamation marks, “Bargain!” language) with a quieter, more restrained design, which tends to imply a more premium / quality-focused positioning.

The described site is muted (greys/whites), uses “lots of white space,” and includes only a few carefully chosen images. Those choices align strongly with conclusion D: the company is positioning its offering as high quality rather than “cheap and cheerful.” The seamless movement through information and concise, well-structured sections also indicate attention to usability and information architecture—signals consistent with high technical and design standards (conclusion C).

However, nothing in the description proves the firm is “well established” (A), “market leading” (B), or “very profitable” (E). Those claims require external evidence (market share, history, financial performance), whereas the website evidence supports positioning and quality/technical execution, not market status or profitability.

The business case guidance states that risk assessment should identify principal risks and—critically—define countermeasures: what can be done to reduce the likelihood of the risk occurring or lessen its impact. It notes that some risks can be transferred (e.g., via insurance), but the key is choosing countermeasures that actually address the cause.

Here, the risk is behavioural: managers may struggle to adopt a new management style required by the change. The book explicitly recognises that business change often requires changes to working practices and sometimes management style, especially where roles and authority shift. The most direct countermeasure is to build capability and readiness in the affected managers—through training, education, coaching, and support—so they understand the new behaviours, can practise them, and can be reinforced through agreed expectations. This reduces both the probability of failure (managers not changing) and the impact (inconsistent adoption harming productivity).

Option A (insurance) does not address behavioural adoption; it might transfer financial impact in some scenarios but won’t make managers change. Option C explicitly avoids change and therefore cannot mitigate the stated risk. Option B could work in extreme cases, but replacing the entire management team is a far more disruptive and costly response than necessary and is not the “most likely” effective countermeasure when the risk is capability/behaviour adoption. Therefore, training and educating the managers is the most appropriate countermeasure.

Gap analysis is a process of identifying and assessing the differences between the current state and desired state of an organisation or project. It helps to determine what needs to be done to achieve business objectives or solve business problems. Gap analysis typically involves three main steps: understand the existing situation, compare the desired situation and existing situation, and consider possible actions to address the gaps. Therefore, options A, B and C are correct answers, as they cover these steps in gap analysis. Option D is not a correct answer, as defining solutions to close gaps is not part of gap analysis itself, but rather a subsequent step that follows gap analysis. Gap analysis helps to identify what needs to be done, but not how it should be done. Option E is not a correct answer, as delivering solutions to close gaps is not part of gap analysis itself, but rather a final step that follows defining solutions. Gap analysis helps to identify what needs to be done, but not how it should be done or implemented.

The Double Diamond model uses two “diamonds” to show repeated cycles of divergent and convergent thinking: first to explore and narrow the problem, then to explore and narrow the solution. The Design Council (originator/populariser of the model) explains that the diamonds represent exploring an issue more widely or deeply (divergent thinking) and then taking focused action (convergent thinking). The four phases typically described are Discover and Define (problem space), followed by Develop and Deliver (solution space).

Looking at the answer options, timeboxes are not what the diamonds represent; the model is about the pattern of exploration and focus, not scheduling. Similarly, “identify one perspective” is not the purpose: the framework is intended to broaden understanding and then converge on a clear problem definition and a workable solution.

Therefore, among the provided options, the best match is D: Deliver the solution, because the second diamond culminates in “Deliver,” where solutions are tested, refined, and implemented.