Examiners under the microscope

In a world exclusive we decided to turn the tables on the examiners by putting them to the test. LCA’s Michael Mainwaring goes where nobody else has ever dared

A final level paper in strategy started some 12 years ago and will have its third reincarnation in 2007. If I had to describe it in one word it would be disastrous. Decency and good taste prevents me from describing it in two words!

While most of the blame rests with the ACCA, the examiners bear some responsibility. In fairness, however, being an examiner in a strategy paper is an invitation to be shot at. Before accepting the invitation, it is useful to have some sympathy with the target.

Firstly, in accounting and finance papers there is generally a clear technical or theoretical base to the subject. However in strategy and management there is little consensus over how to manage or how to formulate or implement strategy. What consensus does exist is often fleeting - it is fashion driven.

Secondly, the syllabus that the examiner has to contend with is incoherent and excessive. This isn’t a problem if examiners recognise its failings and examine around them. The syllabus is also seriously outdated (and was from the moment it came into effect).

Strategic planning is unfashionable but substituting ‘strategic management’ for ‘strategic planning’ whilst using the old strategic planning frameworks is not a solution. Perhaps someone should explain to the ACCA the meaning of postmodernism, but as the ACCA is struggling to be modernist in this subject, then this might be a little premature.

Even as an exam in strategic planning, it is seriously flawed largely because the frameworks employed have been vulgarised. How many students are aware that Porter acknowledges that combined cost based and differentiation based strategies can be spectacularly successful? Or that far from being the prisoner of the ‘Five Forces’, the firm can influence them? Or that the BCG is a complex set of interlocking frameworks rather than the ‘dog,’ ‘star.’ ‘cow,’ ‘question mark’ that is typically used?

Move into the related field of organisation or change management or ethics - would the ACCA countenance ethical but illegal behaviour? The shortcomings of the syllabus are even more marked.

Thirdly, there are the global aspirations of the ACCA and the problem of setting an English language paper at final level for students whose native language is not English. Think China. A demanding final level strategy paper set in English and marked to uniform standards would result in high failure rates overseas which would jeopardise global expansion.

Fourthly, it is desperately difficult to write good, relatively short case studies which contain enough complexity to challenge the student but not so much as to overwhelm them (and again remember the language factor).

Finally, how does business strategy link with financial strategy? Is it shareholder value or stakeholder interests? Capital budgeting or strategic decision making? Rational decision making processes, logical incrementalism or empire building visionaries?

These problems partly explain the high turnover rate of examiners in strategy/management papers - four in the past 12 years. Only one of these examiners has made a consistently determined effort to produce good exams. Given that strategy is apparently all about two-by-two grids and matrices, let’s analyse how the examiners have performed using a competence/coverage grid and theory practice grid.

The competence/convergence grid (it is necessary to have flash titles in strategy) assesses whether the examiner knows his (they have all been males) and the extent to which the examiner examines what he knows.

Hopefully in the exams that remain, the examiner will either restrict what he examines or becomes competent in what he is examining.


The competence/convergence grid
* Style of second examiner. Knew very little about strategy or management but good on IT and finance which were intensively examined. A viable style.

* Style of current examiner. An emphasis on growth, entrepreneurship and marketing but a relative lack of knowledge on HRM, IT, finance, organisation, TQM. An over-ambitious style.

* Style of previous examiner – good financial information that linked with case information. Explicit decision not to examine IT and HRM to reduce syllabus load. A good style.

* The ideal style providing the syllabus is well designed and provided the examiner is competent in the syllabus areas.



The theory/practice grid

* Style of the first examiner. Total bullshit cases that did not test student knowledge or analytical ability. Even the ACCA were appalled and removed the examiner.

* Style of the current examiner. The compulsory case becomes mostly an exercise in vomiting a restricted range of frameworks with limited use of case information. Tends to result in a ‘learn and churn’ style of answer.

* Style of the second examiner in his best cases and of the third examiner. Emphasis on linking financial information and case information within the context of relevant frameworks. Makes for demanding but fair cases, provided the examiner puts considerable effort into writing them. A good style.

* Probably not appropriate to ACCA. Requires radical redesign of the syllabus and the means of examination. Need to dispense with simplified versions of frameworks, especially ‘potted Porter’ and a single case study exam paper. Unlikely that the ACCA can attract examiners capable of writing such cases or markers capable of marking them,

The theory/practice grid assesses the extent to which the emphasis is on knowing frameworks on using the case information.

The cases written by the current examiner are not the worst cases in this paper - but that isn’t saying much.

The examiner appears convinced that frameworks are important - and he likes some frameworks more than others, though this seems more a personal preference than a rationally grounded decision.

Lecturers teach what the examiners want them to teach - even if it is outdated, oversimplified or incorrect. We are teaching students to pass an exam - though we would like to teach them something relevant, useful and interesting. Sometimes the examiner allows us to do this. My advice to paper 3.5 students is to erase what you have been taught (but wait until you have passed) and then read some decent stuff on the subject.

Will the new scheme be any different? It will depend on the syllabus, the examiner and the mode of examination. Though an optimist by nature, I do not entertain any great hopes.