← Strategic response to external factors
Proving "business-wide": size, scope and timeframe worked in detail
This is the single most-dropped mark in the whole standard, so it deserves more than a definition — seeing several worked examples makes the pattern automatic.| Response | Size | Scope | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repositioning as a premium brand | Repricing and re-sourcing commits significant capital, requiring a senior-management decision | Marketing, operations (suppliers, quality), and finance (pricing) are all involved | The new positioning is meant to hold for years, not one season |
| Cultural intelligence training for managers | A company-wide training programme requires budget and HR resourcing approved at senior level | Affects every manager across every department that deals with staff or customers | Builds capability that shapes how the business operates for years to come |
| A zero-waste supply chain programme | Requires investment in new processes and partnerships with external environmental groups | Touches procurement, operations, and marketing (communicating the change) | Regulatory and reputational effects build and compound over an extended period |
Notice the pattern: SIZE answers "who has to approve this and why", SCOPE answers "which parts of the business are touched", TIMEFRAME answers "how long do the effects play out".
✕Naming size/scope/timeframe without the business's own specific fact attached
Writing "this has scope because it affects multiple departments" states the definition but proves nothing. A full-credit answer names WHICH departments and HOW each is involved — "marketing rebrands the packaging, operations changes suppliers, and finance reprices the range" is scope actually demonstrated, not just labelled.A fast self-check for the (i) part
- Have I named at least two of size, scope, timeframe explicitly, in those words?
- For each one named, have I attached a specific fact from the resource, not just the definition?