Free CIPS L5M6 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

The correct answer is ignoring stakeholders’ feelings may result in rework or a poor result. In category management, implementing change—whether new sourcing strategies, supplier consolidation, or digital tools—affects multiple stakeholders. People often resist change, either passively or actively. CIPS highlights a model where typically 20% embrace change, 60% accept it cautiously, and 20% actively oppose it.

If stakeholders’ concerns are ignored, resistance can derail projects, leading to delays, poor adoption, or the need for costly rework. For example, if end-users are not engaged in developing specifications, the final product may not meet needs, requiring adjustments later.

Options A and B overstate the issue; not everyone resists change, but enough stakeholders may to cause disruption. Option D is incorrect because change can also bring risks and negative consequences if poorly managed.

Effective change management in procurement requires communication, stakeholder engagement, and addressing emotional as well as technical challenges.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.68 – Managing the human side of change]

For strategic items, Kraljic recommends further analysis through a 3x3 supply positioning matrix, which compares buyer strength against market strength. This creates three possible strategies: exploit, balance, diversify.

Category Management delivers multiple benefits for organisations, including:

Fewer supplier contracts, achieved by consolidating spend and reducing fragmentation.

Improved supplier relations, as suppliers are engaged strategically rather than transactionally, enabling stronger collaboration.

Increased innovation, which arises when procurement works closely with suppliers to develop new solutions and efficiencies.

Other benefits highlighted by CIPS include better pricing, improved terms and conditions, stakeholder satisfaction, enhanced risk management, and improved spend visibility. The incorrect options—“less staff required” and “better use of IT systems”—may result indirectly from streamlined procurement, but they are not primary benefits recognised in the category management framework. The true value of category management lies in shifting procurement from a transactional function to a strategic enabler of value. By grouping spend into categories and applying tailored strategies, organisations achieve economies of scale, better market intelligence, and stronger alignment with business objectives.

Break-even pricing is a method where a supplier sets a price to cover fixed and variable costs, ensuring they do not operate at a loss. However, this approach does not account for price elasticity (how sensitive demand is to price changes) or competitors’ pricing strategies. This can be a weakness because while break-even ensures financial sustainability, it may not ensure competitiveness or profitability in dynamic markets. For procurement professionals, understanding suppliers’ pricing models helps in negotiation and cost management. If a supplier relies only on break-even pricing, they may either set prices too low (risking financial instability) or too high (losing market share). Category managers must consider broader market forces, cost drivers, and customer behaviours to anticipate supplier pricing strategies. By understanding these limitations, buyers can push for more favourable terms and ensure that suppliers align with market expectations.

Supplier 1 → Price Acceptance + Bottleneck

Supplier 1 is the sole supplier of a critical item, and XYZ has confirmed through market research that there are no substitutes available. This places Supplier 1 in the Bottleneck quadrant of the Kraljic Matrix, which is defined by high supply risk but low profit impact (or limited ability to influence price). In bottleneck situations, buyers have limited leverage, making them price takers rather than price setters. That’s why the appropriate cost approach here is Price Acceptance—XYZ must accept the price dictated by the supplier because of the absence of alternatives. Procurement’s role becomes risk mitigation, ensuring continuity of supply rather than focusing on negotiation power. The recommended strategies include maintaining strong supplier relationships, holding safety stock, and monitoring supply risks. Price cannot be influenced significantly, so procurement must accept the terms, reflecting a bottleneck scenario.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.80–83, 97–100 – Cost ApproachesKraljic Matrix)

Supplier 2 → Cost Down + Leverage

Supplier 2 provides items that, while not purchased in large volumes, have a high impact on profit and carry a low supply risk. These characteristics fit into the Leverage quadrant of the Kraljic Matrix: high profit impact, low risk. In such cases, buyers hold strong bargaining power and can use competition or collaborative cost reduction measures to secure better value. The chosen cost approach here is Cost Down, which involves working with suppliers to systematically reduce costs without reducing value. XYZ’s long-term relationship with Supplier 2, combined with a focus on identifying where costs could be lowered, matches the cost-down philosophy. Examples might include value engineering, supplier process improvements, or volume consolidation. Leverage items are ideal for competitive sourcing, e-auctions, and bulk negotiation. By applying a cost-down approach, XYZ can ensure sustained profitability while keeping supply risk under control.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.80–81, 97–100 – Cost ManagementLeverage items)

Supplier 3 → Price Management + Non-Critical

Supplier 3 provides indirect goods such as stationery, which have little impact on company profits and are purchased regularly in small quantities. These fit into the Non-Critical quadrant of the Kraljic Matrix, which is characterised by low profit impact and low supply risk. In these cases, procurement’s focus should be on administrative efficiency and price management, rather than extensive strategic negotiations. The chosen cost approach here is Price Management, since XYZ meets with the supplier regularly to discuss pricing and bulk discounts. This approach ensures that, although the spend is low-value, the company avoids unnecessary waste or inflated costs. Tools such as catalogues, e-procurement systems, or framework agreements are commonly used in this quadrant to manage spend efficiently. Price management helps free up procurement resources for more strategic categories while still ensuring best value in non-critical areas.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.80–82, 97 – Non-critical items and price management)

Supplier 4 → Cost Out + Strategic

Supplier 4 is supplying a one-off capital expenditure item. XYZ has engaged in months of negotiations regarding specifications, and both parties are collaborating to reduce costs before manufacturing begins. This aligns perfectly with the Strategic quadrant of the Kraljic Matrix, where items have high profit impact and high supply risk. Strategic items require strong, long-term partnerships and close supplier collaboration. The appropriate cost approach here is Cost Out, which focuses on eliminating unnecessary costs during the design and specification stages, before production. This proactive approach ensures that efficiency and value are embedded in the product from the outset. Cost-out strategies often involve redesign, engineering collaboration, and innovation to reduce total cost of ownership. In such relationships, trust and partnership are critical, since both buyer and supplier must work together to achieve shared value and risk reduction.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.80, 97–99 – Strategic items and Cost-Out approach)

Direct costs are those directly attributable to the production of goods or services. For BikeFace, raw materials such as rubber (used in tyres) and labour (workers assembling bicycles) are direct costs because they contribute directly to finished products. By contrast, advertising spend and IT systems are indirect costs as they support operations but do not directly form part of the bicycle. Category managers must distinguish between direct and indirect costs to design effective sourcing strategies. Direct categories often warrant closer supplier collaboration and longer-term contracts due to their critical role in production.

A Bill of Materials [BoM] lists the components, raw materials, and parts required to produce a product. These represent direct costs as they directly contribute to the finished item. While labour and overheads may also be direct costs, they are not usually in the BoM.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.83 – Direct vs Indirect Costs]

Category Manager 1 → Competency: Functional Expert | Persuasion: Logic

This manager has a PhD, 15 years’ experience and is confident developing specifications. That profile maps directly to Functional Expert—deep technical knowledge, standards, and specification ownership. In persuasion terms, the description “strong product knowledge, facts and science” signals a Logic style: arguments are evidence-led (data, benchmarks, test results, TCO calculations). In supplier negotiations, this type will frame proposals around measurable outcomes and compliance to technical requirements, using structured evaluations and objective criteria. The benefit is credibility and clarity; the risk is over-focusing on technical detail at the expense of relationship nuance. In category work, this style suits complex, specification-driven buys (e.g., engineered components, regulated goods) where accuracy and verification matter most.

Category Manager 2 → Competency: Results Seeker | Persuasion: Confidence

“Meets deadlines, identifies actions, achieves goals; assertive, self-assured, articulate” are classic Results Seeker cues—task focus, milestone discipline, outcome accountability. The persuasion tone is Confidence: clear asks, firm positions, and decisive proposals. In supplier meetings, this manager will set SMART targets (cost down %, on-time delivery, lead-time reduction), drive cadence (QBRs, action logs), and hold parties to commitments. The upside is momentum and delivery; the watch-out is risking supplier defensiveness if assertiveness isn’t balanced with listening. This pairing works well for leverage or non-critical categories where execution speed, price movement and service levels are the primary value drivers.

Category Manager 3 → Competency: Influencer | Persuasion: Inspire

“Strong soft-skills… builds effective relationships… motivates others by being passionate and creating a shared sense of purpose” signals Influencer—credible relationship builder who aligns stakeholders and suppliers. Their persuasion style is Inspire: appeal to shared goals (innovation, sustainability, growth), energise cross-functional teams, and co-create solutions. In supplier negotiations, they’ll use vision statements, win-win framing, and recognition to unlock discretionary effort (e.g., co-development, cost-out workshops, service transformation). Strengths include engagement, change adoption and long-term partnership value; risks include under-weighting hard trade-offs if not supported by clear commercial guardrails. This pairing excels in strategic or transformation initiatives where collaboration is the multiplier.

Category Manager 4 → Competency: Innovator | Persuasion: Empathy

“Creative thinker… anticipates rapid changes… produces solutions quickly… sees problems from multiple points of view” matches Innovator—future-oriented, options-generating, comfortable with ambiguity. The persuasion fit is Empathy: actively understanding counterpart drivers (capacity, risk, margin pressures), connecting dots between perspectives, and shaping proposals that address mutual needs. In practice, this manager will run design-thinking workshops, scenario planning, and pilot trials, using supplier insights to re-frame requirements (e.g., modular specs, alternative materials, new service models). The advantage is differentiated value and resilience; the risk is scope drift if ideas aren’t prioritised rigorously. This pairing is powerful in volatile markets and for categories needing redesign, sustainability shifts or new tech adoption.

A Technology Roadmap is a planning tool used to align technological investments with business strategy. It enables organisations to evaluate current capabilities, identify emerging challenges, and plan for future technology adoption. The purpose is not just to decide between existing options but to forecast which innovations will be most valuable over time.

For instance, a company may use a roadmap to determine whether to invest in automation, artificial intelligence, or renewable energy solutions, based on expected business growth and industry trends. This ensures resources are allocated to technologies that offer long-term competitiveness.

Other options are less accurate:

Option A oversimplifies; technology roadmaps are not for one-off decisions.

Option B is incorrect as tenders require specifications, not long-term roadmaps.

Option D relates to risk management, not strategic technology planning.

Therefore, the roadmap helps businesses stay adaptive and forward-thinking, ensuring that investments made today remain relevant tomorrow.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.126–127 – Technology Roadmaps in category management]

Output image

Supplier 1 → Star Category + Profitability Concern

Supplier 1 holds a large market share in a growing market, which places it in the Star category of the BCG Matrix. Stars are typically leaders in expanding markets and require continuous investment to maintain their dominance. The concern here is not competitive weakness but profitability. Although revenue potential is strong, Supplier 1’s costs have increased by 36% due to rising raw material prices. This erodes margins and threatens profitability despite growth. Stars often generate high cash inflows, but if costs spiral out of control, their ability to sustain investment weakens. Profitability management (e.g., through cost reduction, supplier negotiations, or efficiency gains) is critical to ensuring Supplier 1 continues its growth trajectory and avoids slipping into the “Cash Cow” or “Dog” quadrants in the future.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.117 – BCG Matrix application)

Supplier 2 → Question Mark Category + Gearing Concern

Supplier 2 operates in a fast-growing market but has only a small share, making it a Question Mark in the BCG Matrix. Question Marks are high-risk: they may grow into Stars or fail and become Dogs, depending on how they perform and whether investment supports expansion. The major financial concern here is gearing—Supplier 2 has taken out significant loans and a large mortgage, meaning it is heavily leveraged. High gearing increases financial risk, as debt repayments must be met regardless of market conditions. In rapidly growing markets, high gearing can restrict reinvestment and leave firms vulnerable to interest rate fluctuations or downturns. For Trydo, this means Supplier 2 could face difficulties sustaining its growth, posing supply chain risk. Monitoring debt levels and financial stability is essential before committing to long-term contracts.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.117–118 – Question Marks and financial analysis)

Supplier 3 → Cash Cow Category + Liquidity Concern

Supplier 3 operates in a small, stable market but commands a strong market share. This places it firmly as a Cash Cow—a business that generates consistent revenue without requiring major investment. Cash Cows fund other areas of a portfolio but face limited growth prospects. The concern here is liquidity. An Acid Test reveals that Supplier 3’s current liabilities are four times greater than its assets, suggesting it lacks sufficient short-term liquidity to meet obligations. This imbalance can result in cash flow problems, even if long-term profitability remains sound. For Trydo, the risk is that Supplier 3 may fail to pay debts or manage day-to-day operations, creating supply disruption. Procurement managers must ensure financial health checks are conducted regularly and consider diversification strategies if reliance on Supplier 3 is high.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.117 – Cash Cows and liquidity issues)

Supplier 4 → Dog Category + Efficiency Concern

Supplier 4 operates in a shrinking market and already holds a low market share, placing it in the Dog category of the BCG Matrix. Dogs are generally unattractive, offering little growth and limited returns. The key concern here is efficiency. Supplier 4 is struggling with capital management issues, such as poor stock turnover and prolonged debtor days. These inefficiencies damage competitiveness and further weaken financial stability. For Trydo, relying on Supplier 4 poses significant risk because inefficiency can lead to delays, reduced quality, and increased total cost of ownership. Unless Supplier 4 improves performance, it may eventually exit the market, leaving Trydo vulnerable. In procurement terms, buyers should avoid long-term commitments with such suppliers and instead focus on exit strategies or alternatives.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.117–118 – Dogs and efficiency management)