820-427 · Question #23
Your company is launching a new business and leaders are unsure if government regulations will limit growth. You are planning to discuss the business case with a Finance Director. What are two…
The correct answer is A. Mitigating or limiting the impact of risks D. Flexibility to change service level specifications in a contract with clearly identified costs for. When government regulations pose a risk to a new business, a Finance Director needs to understand how that risk can be mitigated (A) and how the solution offers contractual flexibility with clear cost visibility (D) - both directly address the financial uncertainty created by…
Question
Your company is launching a new business and leaders are unsure if government regulations will limit growth. You are planning to discuss the business case with a Finance Director. What are two elements of value that you should focus on? (Choose two.)
Options
- AMitigating or limiting the impact of risks
- BSteady costs with three good options that Finance can use for charging different departments
- CWhether purchasing the solution in pieces will make it easier to recruit highly creative software
- DFlexibility to change service level specifications in a contract with clearly identified costs for
- EWhether leasing the solution is a better way to recruit for the future
How the community answered
(22 responses)- A77% (17)
- B5% (1)
- C14% (3)
- E5% (1)
Explanation
When government regulations pose a risk to a new business, a Finance Director needs to understand how that risk can be mitigated (A) and how the solution offers contractual flexibility with clear cost visibility (D) - both directly address the financial uncertainty created by regulatory exposure.
Why A and D are correct:
- (A) Risk mitigation is a core financial concern; showing you've identified regulatory risks and have plans to limit their impact demonstrates financial prudence and protects ROI projections.
- (D) Flexible service level specifications mean the business can scale up or down as regulations evolve, while clearly identified costs allow Finance to model different regulatory scenarios - exactly what's needed under uncertainty.
Why the distractors are wrong:
- (B) Stable cost structures and internal chargebacks are operational/accounting concerns, not strategic value in a regulatory risk conversation.
- (C) Purchasing strategy linked to recruiting creative software talent is irrelevant to a Finance Director's regulatory concerns.
- (E) Leasing as a recruitment strategy conflates procurement method with talent acquisition - not a financial value element in this context.
Memory tip: Think "Risk + Flexibility" - when regulations are uncertain, Finance cares about protecting against downside (A) and keeping options open (D). Any answer about recruiting talent or internal cost allocation is a distractor designed to test whether you stay focused on the regulatory uncertainty context.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.