Prioritisation in the Case Study (T4B)

CAUTION - THIS POST RELATES TO THE CIMA 2010 SYLLABUS, SO IS NO LONGER VALID


Summit wrote:

Hi David,

We identify & prioritise from the unseen and then start evaluating the issues and so on.

My question is the issues would be Financial/Non Financials, regarding Financials we would be able to prioritise them only once we have calculated the NPV and other relevant calculation . So do we do the calculations first and then prioritise the main issues or do we prioritise based on the unseen information and then do the calculations to be used in judgement/discussion?

Thanks
Summit

The main ways of prioritising issues are, according to CIMA, urgency (timescale) and impact.  Quite often there are clear indications of the urgency of an issue in the unseen, such as 'this project begins in 6 weeks', or 'we have a meeting next week'.

You are correct in your assumption that, in order to determine the financial impact of an issue, it may be necessary to perform a calculation. For other issues, it may simply be a matter of identifying a figure from the unseen.

I would therefore suggest that any calculations relating to the issues (rather than the options to resolve those issues) should be performed before deciding on prioritisation.