Which action should you take when you analyze financial and non-financial factors for a business case?

Question

Options

• ARemain objective, using facts where possible and assumptions where needed.
• BUse assumptions for financial items more heavily, but leave nonfinancial items more general.
• CAsk the customer business executive to sign off on nonfinancial factors because the IT
• DLimit communications to only a few nonfinancial factors because they are of little impact on a

• A
  73% (33)
• B
  4% (2)
• C
  16% (7)
• D
  7% (3)

Explanation

Objectivity is the foundation of a credible business case. When analyzing both financial and non-financial factors, you must remain objective - using verified facts wherever available and clearly labeled assumptions only when facts aren't obtainable. This ensures stakeholders can trust the analysis and make informed decisions, regardless of whether the data is quantitative or qualitative.

• B is wrong because assumptions shouldn't be applied more heavily to financial items; financial data often has more verifiable sources (budgets, quotes, historical data) than non-financial factors, and all assumptions - financial or not - must be explicitly identified.
• C is wrong because it incorrectly assigns sign-off responsibility based on factor type; business executives and IT professionals should collaborate on both financial and non-financial factors, not be siloed.
• D is wrong because non-financial factors (risk, reputation, regulatory compliance, employee morale) can be decisive in a business case - dismissing them as low-impact undermines the entire analysis.

Memory tip: Think of a business case as a court argument - a good lawyer uses facts when they have them and clearly flags when they're making inferences. Bias or selective omission destroys credibility. "Facts first, assumptions labeled, nothing ignored."

No community discussion yet for this question.