Business Case Practice

The most appropriate action is to escalate the conflicting priorities to the Project Board and facilitate a decision on the primary business objective, then update the project product description to reflect the agreed strategic direction.

This is correct because:

1. Governance and Authority: In PRINCE2 7, the Project Board is responsible for making key strategic decisions about the project. When there are conflicting business objectives between senior stakeholders (CEO and Finance Director), this represents a fundamental strategic issue that must be resolved at the Board level, not by the Project Manager independently.

2. Starting up a Project Context: During the 'Starting up a Project' process, the focus is on establishing a solid foundation before the project is formally authorized. Conflicting strategic objectives represent a critical issue that must be resolved before proceeding to initiation.

3. Business Case Alignment: The business case must have clear, agreed-upon objectives. Having conflicting priorities from different executives creates ambiguity that will undermine the entire project if not resolved early.

4. Product-Based Planning Foundation: The project product description is a key foundation document that drives all subsequent product planning. It must accurately reflect the agreed business objectives to ensure all products and acceptance criteria are properly aligned.

5. Continued Business Justification: One of PRINCE2's core principles is Continued Business Justification. This cannot be properly maintained if there's no agreement on what business benefits the project should deliver.

The other approaches are inappropriate because:

Continuing with the original focus while adding secondary benefits ignores the CEO's changed priorities and doesn't resolve the fundamental conflict. This creates a situation where the project may deliver outputs that don't align with current strategic needs.

Revising the product description to treat both objectives as equally important without Board agreement assumes authority the Project Manager doesn't have and may result in a compromised solution that doesn't fully satisfy either objective or optimal business value.

Requesting a benefits management approach and sequencing outputs is premature when the fundamental strategic direction hasn't been agreed upon. This attempts to work around the conflict rather than resolving it, and the Project Manager cannot make this strategic decision independently.

In PRINCE2 7, a dis-benefit is defined as an outcome perceived as negative by one or more stakeholders that is a consequence of achieving project benefits. This is precisely what we have in this scenario.

The correct approach is to record this as a dis-benefit in the Business Case because:

1. The increased administrative workload is a direct, measurable consequence of implementing the new digital system that will deliver the primary benefit (60% reduction in retrieval time)

2. It is perceived negatively by stakeholders (clinical managers and administrative staff)

3. It should be quantified (25% productivity reduction during transition) so that decision-makers can make an informed judgment

4. The Executive must explicitly confirm acceptance of this dis-benefit, weighing it against the benefits to determine if the project remains viable and desirable

5. This is a temporary dis-benefit during the transition period, which is important context for the decision

Why the other answers are incorrect:

Treating this as a risk is inappropriate because it is not uncertain - it is a known, measurable consequence of the project. Risks are uncertain events that may or may not occur, whereas this productivity impact will definitely happen during implementation.

Recommending deferral and additional funding assumes the dis-benefit is unacceptable without allowing the Executive and stakeholders to make that judgment. The Business Case should present the facts (benefits and dis-benefits) and let the appropriate authority decide if the project justifies proceeding. The increased workload doesn't necessarily make objectives unachievable - retrieval time improvements can still be realized while data entry takes longer.

Proposing to revise the primary business objective downward is premature and unjustified. The 60% retrieval time improvement may still be fully achievable despite increased data entry time - these are separate metrics. Changing strategic objectives to accommodate implementation challenges undermines the business justification and should only occur if the original objectives are proven unattainable, not merely because there are implementation dis-benefits.

The correct answer focuses on the three fundamental criteria that PRINCE2 7 uses to evaluate business justification: desirable, viable, and achievable.

In PRINCE2 7, business justification is assessed at each key decision point using these three essential dimensions:

• Desirable: Does the project still align with organizational strategy and objectives?
• Viable: Do the benefits still justify the costs and risks?
• Achievable: Can the project still be delivered successfully given current circumstances?

This answer correctly identifies that the evaluation must be based on 'current circumstances and forecasts' rather than historical data, which is crucial for effective decision-making at each stage gate.

The other answers, while containing elements of truth, have limitations:

One answer introduces 'stakeholder support levels' as a primary evaluation criterion, which, while important, is not one of the three core dimensions of business justification assessment in PRINCE2 7.

Another answer emphasizes 'original strategic alignment' and 'accumulated benefits exceed invested costs,' which focuses too much on historical comparison rather than forward-looking assessment based on current and forecasted conditions.

The final answer mentions 'feasibility' and 'anticipated benefits measured against updated expenditure,' which partially captures the concept but doesn't comprehensively cover all three critical dimensions (desirable, viable, and achievable) that PRINCE2 7 prescribes for business justification evaluation.

The primary function of business justification at decision points is to provide a comprehensive, forward-looking assessment across all three dimensions to support informed go/no-go decisions.