APMG BBC Foundation common mistakes
APMG BBC Foundation · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Describes the 'outcomes' of a proposal by listing the things it will buy or build (a new IT platform, a refurbished depot, a training programme) and then calls those same items the benefits.
Everyday project language uses 'outcome', 'output' and 'benefit' interchangeably, so candidates answer from habit rather than from the model's strict definitions and lose marks on definitional questions.
What to do instead
Apply the model's tests explicitly before answering: an output is what is produced; an outcome is the changed state or impact that follows; a benefit is a measurable improvement, ideally valued in cash or a quantified unit, accruing to a named beneficiary; an enabler is a capability that must exist for benefits to land; a critical success factor is something that must go right for the case to hold.
Treats the five cases as a fixed document set produced once, and cannot say what question each stage (SOC, OBC, FBC) is answering or what an approval at that stage permits.
Revision focuses on memorising templates and headings rather than the decision logic of the approval gates, so stage-purpose questions look like trivia instead of being answered from purpose.
What to do instead
Learn each stage as a question: the SOC asks whether there is a compelling case for change and a credible shortlist; the OBC asks whether the preferred option is value for money, commercially deliverable, affordable and manageable; the FBC asks whether commitments can be made. Know that the cases are revisited iteratively, that not every case is developed to equal depth at every stage, and that an approval releases development funding, not the whole scheme.
Uses 'do nothing' and 'do minimum' as synonyms, or drops the do-minimum option because 'we are going to do something anyway'.
Both sound like the status quo, and the do-minimum option is easy to see as artificial, so the distinction is learned as wording rather than as a baseline for comparison.
What to do instead
Fix the definitions: do nothing means no new intervention and accepting the consequences; do minimum means the least intervention necessary to meet statutory, regulatory or contractual obligations, which usually still carries cost and risk. Both are legitimate reference options, and the appraisal compares the preferred option against them, so the baseline chosen changes the incremental costs, benefits and value-for-money conclusion.
Builds the economic appraisal from the organisation's own cash flows only, omitting wider social and economic costs and benefits, non-monetised impacts, and any recognised appraisal technique.
Candidates carry over accounting or budgeting habits, and the financial case feels familiar, so the economic case is answered as a second financial case.
What to do instead
Start from the question the economic case answers: whether the proposal is worthwhile to society and delivers optimum value for money. Identify all costs and benefits regardless of who bears them, apply deadweight, displacement and substitution adjustments, monetise where robust, and handle non-monetised impacts through cost-effectiveness analysis, multi-criteria analysis or explicit description. Present net present value, benefit-cost ratio and, where relevant, distributional analysis.
Answers commercial-case questions by naming a procurement route (open tender, framework, competitive dialogue) and stops there, with no deal structure, payment mechanism, risk allocation, contract management or exit arrangement.
Procurement is the most visible commercial activity and the route options are easy to memorise, so the rest of the case is assumed to follow automatically.
What to do instead
Build the answer round the full commercial lifecycle: sourcing strategy and market analysis, deal structure and pricing or charging basis, allocation and pricing of risk, contractual and performance incentives, contract and supplier management, contingency for supplier failure, and exit or transition. Connect it back to the economic and financial cases: risks transferred must be priced, and payment mechanisms must reward the outcomes the strategic case wants.
Recommends the lowest-priced bid as the best commercial deal and treats competition as proof of value for money.
Price is the one comparable number available and public-sector buying habits push toward lowest cost, so deliverability, total cost of ownership and risk are treated as secondary.
What to do instead
Assess bids against the strategic objectives, the required outcomes, total cost of ownership over the contract life, supplier capacity and financial standing, and the credibility of assumed risk transfer. Note that competition tests the market but does not guarantee value, that a bid that cannot deliver is not value for money at any price, and that commercial, economic and financial conclusions must be consistent with one another.
Uses 'affordability', 'funding' and 'budget' as if they were the same test, and answers financial-case questions with a cost estimate plus a note that money will be found.
In ordinary speech all three mean 'can we pay for it', so candidates do not separate the three questions the financial case must answer.
What to do instead
Keep them distinct: affordability is whether the whole-life cost fits within the available expenditure envelope over the years concerned; funding is the identified source of money, with confirmation and timing; budget is the approved allocation held by the accountable body. State the answer to each separately, show the funding profile by year, and flag any gap, timing mismatch or dependence on future settlements.
Presents a single-point capital cost as the financial case, with no whole-life costs, optimism bias or contingency, no treatment of inflation, and no statement of capital versus revenue or balance-sheet treatment.
Capital cost is the figure most readily available from estates or finance, and optimism bias adjustments feel like adding arbitrary padding.
What to do instead
Cost the full life cycle from development through operation to disposal; separate capital and revenue; state and justify the optimism bias or contingency uplift; keep prices and discount rates on a consistent real or nominal basis; note tax and inflation assumptions; identify accounting treatment and any balance-sheet implications; and show sensitivity of the affordability position to key variables.
Summarises the management case as a project plan with a timetable and milestones, leaving out benefits realisation, the risk register, assurance arrangements, stakeholder and change management, and post-implementation review.
The management case feels like generic project management and the timetable is the easiest artefact to recall, so the deliverability and accountability content is skipped.
What to do instead
Cover what the management case is for: prove the proposal can be delivered and the benefits realised. Include governance and roles, the delivery plan and key dependencies, risk and issue management with owners, the benefits realisation plan with baselines, measures, owners and review points, assurance and approval activity, stakeholder and change management, and the arrangements for post-implementation evaluation.
Confuses governance with assurance, describing assurance as an audit carried out after delivery, or assuming governance bodies certify the accuracy of the case.
Both words sit with oversight and both sound like 'checking', so the two are merged and the roles of the senior responsible owner, board and reviewers blur.
What to do instead
Separate the two: governance is the decision-making and accountability structure, with defined delegated authority and approval gates; assurance is the independent scrutiny and challenge that gives decision-makers confidence, applied throughout, not once at the end. Be ready to say who approves, who advises, who reviews, and what readiness criteria must be met before each commitment point.