ACCA APM: Why Listing the Building Block Model Isn't Enough

Fitzgerald and Moon's Building Block model is introduced at Performance Management (PM) level as a framework for measuring performance in service businesses, built around three linked components: dimensions (the six areas of performance that matter — financial performance, competitiveness, quality, innovation, flexibility, and resource utilisation), standards (the targets set against those dimensions, which should be fair, achievable, and owned by those being measured), and rewards (how performance against those standards is linked to recognition or remuneration, which should be clear, motivating, and controllable by the people being assessed). At Advanced Performance Management (APM), the model resurfaces at a strategic level — and the ACCA examining team has been specific and repeated in criticising how candidates handle it.

What APM examiner reports have actually said

ACCA's APM examiner reporting has repeatedly flagged that candidates default to listing the six dimensions of the model as though naming them constitutes analysis. A recent APM examiner's report, discussing a scenario built around a case organisation, was explicit that answers scored poorly when they simply listed the dimensions rather than evaluating whether the organisation's existing performance measures actually covered each one adequately. Candidates who identified that a company's reporting was, for example, "unbalanced with a focus on financial performance" — meaning the existing measures were heavily weighted toward one dimension while others (quality, innovation, flexibility) were barely addressed — scored well, because this is a genuine application of the model to the specific facts rather than a recitation of its structure.

The two-step process APM actually rewards

A strong Building Block answer at APM works in two stages. First, it maps the organisation's existing performance measures against each of the six dimensions, identifying which dimensions are well covered and which are missing, under-measured, or measured in a way that doesn't reflect what actually matters to that specific organisation. Second, and only where a genuine gap has been identified, it proposes a new measure — and the proposal needs to be justified by the specific gap found, not offered as a generic addition. Suggesting new measures without first establishing that a gap exists is treated the same way as simply listing the dimensions: it demonstrates familiarity with the model's vocabulary without demonstrating the evaluative judgement APM is designed to test.

Standards and rewards are just as examinable as dimensions

Candidates frequently spend the bulk of their answer on the six dimensions and treat standards and rewards as an afterthought, but both are equally part of the model and equally examinable. A standard that isn't perceived as fair or achievable by the people being measured, or a reward structure that isn't within the controllable influence of those being assessed, can undermine an otherwise well-designed set of dimension-based measures — a scenario describing demotivated staff or gaming of performance figures is often pointing specifically at a standards or rewards problem, not a dimensions problem, and an answer that only discusses dimensions will miss what the scenario is actually testing.

How this compares to the balanced scorecard

APM scenarios sometimes present a choice between frameworks, and the Building Block model's specific advantage in service-sector contexts is that its six dimensions were designed with service businesses in mind — competitiveness, quality, innovation, flexibility and resource utilisation map more naturally onto a service organisation's actual value drivers than the balanced scorecard's four broader perspectives (financial, customer, internal process, learning and growth) sometimes do. This doesn't make the Building Block model superior in every scenario; it makes the choice between frameworks itself a piece of scenario-specific judgement APM expects candidates to exercise, rather than defaulting to whichever framework happens to be more familiar.

Frequently asked questions

What are the three components of Fitzgerald and Moon's Building Block model?

Dimensions (the six areas of performance measured: financial performance, competitiveness, quality, innovation, flexibility, and resource utilisation), standards (the targets set, which should be fair, achievable, and owned by those measured), and rewards (how performance is linked to recognition or remuneration, which should be clear and controllable).

Why do candidates lose marks for listing the six dimensions in APM?

Because APM examiner reports have specifically criticised this approach — the marks are for evaluating whether an organisation's existing measures adequately cover each dimension and identifying genuine gaps, not for reciting the dimensions themselves.

Are standards and rewards tested as heavily as the six dimensions in APM?

Yes — a scenario describing demotivated staff or manipulated performance figures is often testing whether candidates can identify a standards or rewards problem specifically, rather than only discussing which dimensions are measured.

The Building Block model rewards evaluation over recitation at APM level — naming the six dimensions demonstrates recall, but assessing whether an organisation's actual measures cover them, and whether its standards and rewards are functioning as intended, is what the mark scheme is built around. Our guide to the balanced scorecard covers the alternative framework in more depth, and Learnsignal's ACCA APM course covers strategic performance measurement across the full range of frameworks tested.