Foundation Diploma in
Purchasing and Supply
Effective Negotiation in
P&S
LEVEL 4
L4-01
Senior Assessor’s Report
November 2007
INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES
The senior assessor’s report is written in order to provide candidates with feedback
relating to the examination. It is designed as a tool for candidates – both those who have
sat the examination and those who wish to use as part of their revision for future
examinations.
Candidates are advised to refer to the Examination Techniques Guide (see the following
link http://www.cips.org/documents/ExaminationtechniquesguideFeb07.pdf) as well as
this senior assessor’s report.
The senior assessor’s report aims to provide the following information:
•
An indication of how to approach the examination question
•
An indication of the points the answer should include and how marks are
allocated
•
An indication of candidate performance for the examination question
APPENDIX
A syllabus matrix for the examination is included as an appendix. It highlights the
learning objectives of the syllabus unit content that each question is testing.
The unit content guides are available to download at the following link:
http://www.cips.org/studyqualify/cipsqualifications/syllabuses/
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The Supply Management magazine is a useful source of information and candidates are
advised to include it in their reading during their study. Please see the following link to
the Supply Management website http://www.supplymanagement.com/
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
2
SECTION A
Q1 (a)
Q1 (b)
Identify and explain the main methods of persuasion preferred (12 marks)
by Vinod and Daisy
Discuss how the tactics used by Vinod might be incorporated (13 marks)
into a negotiation
Analysis of the Question
Part (a) of this question requires candidates to identify the persuasion styles
demonstrated by both the buyer and the seller, central characters of the Section A case
study. The candidate is instructed to identify main methods and explain them. This part
of the question carries 12 marks.
Part (b) of the question requires candidates to discuss a number of negotiation tactics,
opposed to persuasion methods which were asked for in part (a). Description of FOUR
already identified within the case study are required. This part of the question carries 13
marks.
Both parts of the question link directly to learning objective 3.4 of the CIPS syllabus.
Analysis of the Answer
Both parts of the question were looking for understanding in relation to negotiation
theory, and in particular the ability to distinguish between persuasion style and
negotiation tactics together with an explanation of their meaning. Bargaining and Logic
were preferred by Vinod whilst Threat and Emotion were preferred by Daisy, all of
which were clearly signposted within the case study:
Vinod - “He has build a thriving business and is well k known for his excellent bargaining skills
and use of logic during a negotiation”
Daisy – “She intends to threaten Vinod with contract termination” and “she realises that maybe an
emotional approach might be more suitable”
The majority of candidates were able to correctly identify the persuasion methods,
however, often their explanations were poor. Weaker responses incorrectly selected the
tactics contained within the case study and explained these instead, which off course was
the answer to part (b).
Part (b) related to negotiation tactics and was a simple task of describing the FOUR
already stated within the case study. Answers were variable. Where this had been taught
well, candidates gained full marks, however, where candidates had relied solely on the
course guide then interpretation of the Russian Front and the Building Block technique
were muddled or absent. Both are common tactics and can be found in the
recommended L4-01 reading literature and are taught on the CIPS open basic
negotiation course.
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
3
Exam Question Summary
This first question (both parts (a) and (b)) was very similar to the one in the May 07
paper, and sadly there seemed to be little improvement in the answers. It was very
obvious that where study centres had reviewed this subject, then the majority of the
cohort received a good pass. Candidates appeared weak on the actual application of both
the persuasion methods and tactics within the context of a negotiation; perhaps more
practical examples could be used within teaching sessions to consolidate the learning.
Q2 (a)
Q2 (b)
Explain how Daisy might improve her forecasting by using (15 marks)
financial techniques
Discuss how Daisy could negotiate with Moglipur in order to (10 marks)
improve the current situation
Analysis of the Question
Part (a) of this question is seeking to bring out candidates knowledge of financial analysis
tools that could be used to help Daisy improve her forecasting. This part of the question
carries 15 marks.
Part (b) focuses on negotiation variables and asks the candidate to discuss ways that
Daisy could improve her current situation. This part of the question carries 10 marks.
Part (a) refers to learning outcome 2.0 and part (b) refers to learning outcome 3.5.
Analysis of the Answer
The first part of the question was aimed at the financial analysis section of the syllabus.
To answer part (a) candidates could have selected from a wide range of techniques
(learning outcomes 2.1 – 2.5) in order to explain how improvements could be made by
Daisy. These could have included any of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Budgeting
Supply and demand analysis
Costs of goods sold
Identification of the various types of budgets
Breakeven
Understanding fixed and variable costs
Understanding direct and indirect costs
There were many tools that candidates could have discussed and marks were awarded
provided they were in the right context and from the correct perspective. On the whole
candidates received good marks for this question.
Part (b) was a simple question that gave the candidates the opportunity to show how
Daisy could improve her situation through identifying a range of potential negotiation
variables/leverage. Unfortunately, there was too much theory dump, rather than
application to the case study. Definitions of Integrative/Distributive/BATNA/ZOPA
etc were provided. The examiner knows these and this was not what the question asked
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
4
for. Finally, this question carried less marks than part (a), however, many candidates
wrote more content on this section!
Exam Question Summary
Part (a) allowed the candidate to select from a range of financial analysis tools and
therefore proved a relatively easy question to answer. Part (b) was evidently more
challenging, perhaps due to the element of application.
SECTION B
Q3
Describe FIVE characteristics of a good negotiator and discuss (25 marks)
how they might be exhibited in a negotiation
Analysis of the Quest
This question is instructing candidates to look at what characterises a good negotiator
and then to discuss how these might be exhibited within the context of a negotiation.
This question carried 25 marks.
This question links directly to learning objective 4.2 of the CIPS syllabus.
Analysis of the Answer
This was one of the most popular questions from the electives, and in the main the
majority who attempted it tended to gain at least a pass. There was much theory that
could have been used as the basis for the answer such as:
• Tough but fair
• Ability to create alternatives
• Understands body language
• Summarises throughout negotiation
• Problem solving
• Ability to develop rapport
• Emotional Intelligence
• Communication skills
Identifying 5 characteristics and explaining them seemed to be a fairly simple task,
however, the second part of the question was often not as well answered and tended to
be quite thin in terms of content.
Exam Question Summary
On the whole this question was answered well; however, application in some cases was
missing. This may be due to the lack of experience/seniority of the candidate at this
level, and once again, perhaps more examples could be used in order to consolidate the
learning.
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
5
The poorer answers were mainly in bullet point form with little articulation to support
them. This is insufficient to gain a pass, especially when 25 marks are at stake. Content
is required in order to support the answer.
Q4 (a)
Q4 (b)
Describe FOUR ways of dealing with internal customers
(12 marks)
Discuss how personal effectiveness in a negotiation with (13 marks)
internal customers may be evaluated
Analysis of the Question
Part (a) is a straight forward description question in relation to approaches to internal
customers. Candidates are asked to describe FOUR. This question carries 12 marks.
Part (b) seeks to draw out candidates knowledge of measuring and assessing personal
effectiveness set in the context of internal customer negotiations. This question carries
13 marks.
This question links directly to learning objective 4.0 of the CIPS syllabus. Part (a) refers
to 4.6 and part (b) to 4.7.
Analysis of the Answer
In part (a) Candidates could have selected from a wide variety of approaches such as
stakeholder mapping, building rapport (mirror and match, body language), relationship
building, creating a sense of ownership, demonstrating cost/benefits and the use of
authority. Better answers also incorporated Cialdini, Borg and French and Raven etc, to
support their answers.
Part (b) focused on improving personal effectiveness, and whilst more targeted,
candidates could have chosen from the following;
• Personal feedback
• One to ones
• Customer satisfaction questionnaires
• Mentoring
• 360 from peers
• Number of future meetings proposed
• Understanding of the level of engagement i.e. surface level or deeper
• Invitations to join future projects
Those candidates that attempted this question were able to list a number of options;
however, the main difficulty appeared to be in terms of correct contextualisation. Once
again, in some instances bullet points without explanation were provided by some
candidates. This was insufficient to gain a pass.
Exam Question Summary
This was not a popular question amongst candidates. This may be because questions 3
and 6 more generally more popular topics. However, those that selected it, in the main
achieved a passed. Poorer answers lacked content to mark.
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
6
Good answers were able to coherently discuss the subject matter and apply in equal
parts. Those responses that were well structured and easy to follow made it easier to
award marks.
Q5 (a)
Q5 (b)
Q5 (c)
Explain what is meant by ‘fixed’ and ‘variable’ costs, and (13 marks)
support your answer with an appropriate diagram.
A supplier’s margin on all products is 25%. Calculate the (6 marks)
supplier’s mark-up percentage.
If the same supplier’s total sales for the year amounts to (6 marks)
£1,000,000, calculate its total costs and total profit expressed in
£s.
Analysis of the Question
Part (a) asks candidates to carry out two tasks: explanation and support through
illustration of an appropriate diagram. This part of the question carries 13 marks.
Part (b) instructs candidates to perform a calculation. This part of the question carries 6
marks.
Part (c) instructs candidates to perform a calculation. This part of the question carries 6
marks.
All parts of the question link directly to learning objective 2.0 of the CIPS syllabus –
financial tools for negotiation. Part (a) refers to 2.1 and parts (b) and (c) to 2.3.
Analysis of the Answer
For candidates who knew this aspect of the CIPS syllabus, these questions proved
straight forward, with higher marks available to those who could perform the calculations
correctly in parts (b) and (c).
Part (a) was either done very well or very badly. It was obvious that where financial
analysis had been taught, cohort responses were good. Where an appropriate diagram
together with correct labelling had been used to support the answer then often
candidates were able to score full marks. Weaker candidates confused fixed and variable
costs with direct and indirect costs and the accompanying diagram became an amalgam
of both.
Part (b) on the whole was answered well where candidates knew which theory to apply.
Again, some candidates confused fixed and variable costs with indirect and direct costs,
and some confused mark up and margin, which affect the ensuing calculations.
The answer was a 33% mark up.
Part (c) was also answered well where candidates were able to apply the correct theory.
Candidates who were unable to answer part (b) also tended to fail part (c). The answers
were £250,000 (total profit) and £750,000 (total costs).
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
7
Exam Question Summary
Question 5 was popular with candidates, which is a direct contrast to the May
examination series where the financial question was largely avoided. Many appeared to
find the calculations relatively easy and high marks were often awarded. However, where
candidates confused theory, then the question often resulted in few points.
Q6 (a)
Q6 (b)
Discuss why preparation prior to a negotiation is important
(15 marks)
Explain how to carry out a SWOT analysis, and how it might (10 marks)
impact upon a negotiation strategy
Analysis of the Question
Part (a) asks the candidate to articulate the impact of prior preparation on a negotiation.
Candidates need to have a good understanding of section 1.0 of the syllabus in order to
make a response. This part of the question carried 15 marks.
Part (b) is a straight forward question that instructs the candidate to provide an
explanation of an analysis tool in the context of supporting a negotiation strategy. This
part of the question carries 10 marks.
Both parts of the question link directly to learning objective 1.0 of the CIPS syllabus.
Analysis of the Answer
This was probably the most popular question on the exam paper, and many candidates
scored highly. In part (a), provided that candidates were able to discuss the relevant
theory surrounding preparation prior to a negotiation in a structured and coherent
manner then good marks were awarded. It was obvious where candidates had not
revised this section, as responses tended to be of a general rambling nature with
comments such as ‘women don’t prepare as well as men’ as they are not as a logical’.
Unfortunately, a similar set of answers were received from one cohort!.
Part (b) was probably the easiest question of the entire exam paper, however, rather
disappointingly, answers tended to be theoretical in nature, without application. Most
were able to explain what a SWOT was, however, how to carry it out and how it might
impact a negotiation strategy were often missing, therefore marks tended to reflect this.
Unbelievably, some candidates managed to incorrectly label the SWOT. Better answers
were able to discuss a SWOT’s relevance in relation to negotiation strategy together with
providing accompanying examples.
Exam Question Summary
This was a very popular question where many students fell short due to lack of
application in relation to negotiation. SWOT is clearly a well known and understood tool,
but relating the theory into the correct context proved a problem for many.
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
8
General Comments
•
Section A was answered well by some co-horts and poorly by others. It was
evident where the topics and had been taught well.
•
Q3 was a very popular question, and most who attempted it managed to gain a
pass. However, where were solely bullet points, this often resulted in a fail due to
a lack of content to mark.
•
Both Section A and Section B had financial analysis elements, which meant that
this part of the syllabus could not be avoided as has been the trend with past
papers.
•
Those that had covered the relevant theory in order to answer Q5 often scored
high/full marks.
•
The most popular electives were questions 3 and 6.
•
Q4 was the least popular question.
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
9
APPENDIX:
Syllabus matrix indicating the learning objectives of the syllabus unit content that
each question is testing
SECTION A
Question
No.
Learning
Objective
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
1
a
SECTION B
3
2
b
a
b
4
a
5
b
a
6
b
c
a
b
Preparing for negotiations in different settings
x
x
Financial tools for negotiations
x
x
x
x
The negotiation process
x
x
x
Effective behaviour for negotiation
L4-01/SA Report/Nov 2007
x
x
x
10