The most professional approach balances stakeholder engagement with workshop facilitation. Option 1 is dismissive and may damage rapport. Option 3 lacks control and lets the workshop drift. Option 4 abdicates the BA’s key facilitation responsibility. Option 2 uses a standard BA technique (the parking lot) to validate the input without losing focus, maintaining a collaborative atmosphere while effectively managing the session’s objectives.

The core purpose of requirements is to act as a communication and translation bridge. They are not a fixed contract (option 1 is incorrect), as business needs evolve. While they inform development (option 2), that is a secondary outcome of clear communication. They are not merely a bureaucratic hurdle (option 4). The BAP syllabus emphasises requirements as a means to establish a common understanding, making option 3 the correct, principle-based answer.

The scenario describes a symptom (many approvals) and a cultural norm (“how we’ve always done it”). To move beyond the symptom to the underlying cause, you need to engage the people who do the work in structured analysis. Option 1 and 2 provide useful background but won’t directly reveal the ‘why’. Option 4 is useful for designing the future state but doesn’t diagnose the current problem. Option 3, a collaborative root cause analysis workshop, is the most direct and effective BA technique for uncovering the underlying reasons for the process design.

This tests knowledge of key BA artefacts and their purpose. The Business Case is developed early to justify the initiative (the ‘why’). The Requirements Document is developed later to specify the capabilities needed to deliver the benefits promised in the Business Case (the ‘what’). Option 1 has the sequence wrong. Option 2 confuses the purpose of the requirements document. Option 4 is factually incorrect. Option 3 accurately captures the distinct but connected roles of these two critical documents.

This tests stakeholder management and professional conduct. Option 1 is confrontational and dismissive of a senior stakeholder. Option 3 passes the buck and undermines your role as the BA facilitating the solution. Option 4 is inappropriate and puts an unreasonable burden on the stakeholder. Option 2 is the correct, professional response: it shows respect for the input, commits to due diligence (a core BA activity), and maintains control of the process by proposing a structured next step.

This tests precise requirements categorisation. The need to “capture an additional piece of customer data” is a specific behaviour or function the solution must perform. It is a clear functional requirement (option 2). While driven by legislation (a constraint), the requirement itself is functional. Option 1 describes the source, not the requirement type. Option 3 is for qualities like ‘performance’ or ‘security’, not specific data fields. Option 4 is for needs related to moving from old to new state, not a core capability.

This tests understanding of the value and risks of requirements elicitation. The core risk of bypassing detailed analysis is building the wrong thing. Option 2 correctly identifies the profound business consequence: wasted investment and a solution that fails to deliver value. Option 3 is a parochial concern about the BA’s role, not the business outcome. Option 4 is a procedural risk, but the sponsor may override governance. Option 1 is not a risk at all. Option 2 captures the fundamental, value-destroying risk of poor requirements.

This tests knowledge of a specific BA technique. A RACI chart is a responsibility assignment matrix. Its primary purpose is clarity on who does what for specific tasks or deliverables (option 2). Option 1 is a contact list, not a RACI. Option 3 describes a reporting structure, which is related but not the direct purpose of a RACI. Option 4 is too narrow; a RACI might show who is accountable for budget approval, but that’s just one of many activities it covers.

This tests facilitation and validation skills in real-time. Validation workshops are precisely for finding and fixing such issues. Option 1 and 4 delay resolution and lose the benefit of having the right people in the room. Option 3 is an arbitrary and unprofessional way to resolve a business analysis issue. Option 2 is the correct, proactive approach: it leverages the collaborative forum, shows respect for the contributor, and works towards a shared resolution immediately, which is the most efficient path to a consistent set of requirements.

The most professional approach balances stakeholder engagement with workshop facilitation. Option 1 is dismissive and may damage rapport. Option 3 lacks control and lets the workshop drift. Option 4 abdicates the BA’s key facilitation responsibility. Option 2 uses a standard BA technique (the parking lot) to validate the input without losing focus, maintaining a collaborative atmosphere while effectively managing the session’s objectives.0