· Guides

AP Subject A 38 — Management and strategy mixed diagnostic: KPI, procurement, EVM, risk, and investment

The final AP Subject A management and strategy diagnostic: five original case questions on KPI, procurement, EVM, ALE, NPV, and staged decisions.

応用情報技術者試験科目A総合診断マネジメント系ストラテジ系

AP Subject A · Installment 38 · An independent study resource for the 2026 exam and Syllabus Ver.7.2. It is not affiliated with IPA and does not guarantee a pass. Open the series hub

This independent study guide follows the 2026 IPA Applied Information Technology Engineer Examination (AP) Subject A Syllabus Ver.7.2; the official materials were checked directly on 2026-10-22. Motitory is not affiliated with or endorsed or reviewed by IPA. All five questions below are unofficial Motitory originals; no IPA past question was used, translated, or adapted. The numbers and organization are synthetic learning examples.

Learning index

  1. How to use this diagnostic and its limits
  2. Scope map and untested areas
  3. Shared case and decision principles
  4. Q1 KGI and KPI funnel
  5. Q2 Procurement score and internal control
  6. Q3 EVM, change, and release
  7. Q4 ALE and residual risk
  8. Q5 NPV and staged validation
  9. Error patterns across questions
  10. Self-check and review plan
  11. Official sources, question provenance, and revision history
  12. AP1–38 review sequence and end point
  13. AP1–38 closing record

1. How to use this diagnostic and its limits

This article does not repeat the summaries in AP24–29. It practices connected decisions in one synthetic business: management goal → procurement → project execution → service change → risk and audit → investment decision. When a concept is weak, follow the prior-installment link attached to each incorrect option.

Five questions cannot predict a pass, examination readiness, or mastery or exhaustive coverage of Syllabus Ver.7.2. A perfect result does not mean preparation is complete, and a miss count is not a failure probability. Use this small sample only to prioritize review.

Recommended sequence:

  1. Hide the solution and write each formula, unit, and assumption.
  2. Mark not only the answer but also who executes, approves, owns risk, and audits.
  3. Explain why each of the three unselected options is wrong.
  4. Rework the linked example for every wrong option.

2. Scope map and untested areas

Question Ver.7.2 area checked Connected installments
Q1 business-strategy goals and evaluation, CSF/KGI/KPI, BSC AP28
Q2 system planning and procurement, proposal evaluation, internal control and segregation of duties AP27, AP26
Q3 project time, cost, and integration; service change and release AP24, AP25
Q4 information-security-management risk assessment, treatment, and residual risk; system-audit independence AP26
Q5 accounting and financial economic calculation; PoV and PoB in technology strategy AP29, AP28

This map lists items the questions touch, not a complete checklist for those middle categories. In particular, this article does not test:

  • all project subject groups, service budgeting/capacity/continuity, the full audit procedure, EA and BPR details, all marketing methods, or the whole of production, logistics, organization theory, law, and standardization within the management and strategy areas;
  • algorithms, hardware, operating systems, databases, networks, security technologies, or the full system-development and testing scope in the technology and development areas;
  • actual examination time pressure, question distribution, or difficulty.

It therefore does not claim that AP1–38 verified every Ver.7.2 detail or that no syllabus area remains.

3. Shared case and decision principles

The synthetic company Northstar Works plans a subscription service that helps small and medium manufacturers inspect equipment. No personal data or real-company data is used. Unless stated otherwise, money is in millions of yen, and each rate applies only to the period specified in its question.

Management defines paid sites as the KGI. Procurement evaluates two suppliers with weights fixed in advance. The implementation project uses EVM, while production changes follow change and release controls. A risk owner evaluates a security control and residual risk. The final proposal combines discounted cash flow with customer-value and business-viability validation.

Three principles apply:

  • Separate the role of each number. A KPI, supplier score, SPI/CPI, ALE, and NPV answer different questions.
  • Separate calculation from decision. The highest score or a positive NPV does not replace approval, due diligence, or risk acceptance.
  • Separate responsibilities. The operating team, approver, risk owner, and auditor are not the same role.

The Japanese terms used on the examination map to the English terms in this article as follows.

Japanese exam term English Used in
重要目標達成指標（KGI）／重要業績評価指標（KPI） key goal indicator / key performance indicator Q1
提案依頼書（RFP）／職務分掌 request for proposal / segregation of duties Q2
出来高（EV）／ベースライン／変更管理 earned value / baseline / change management Q3
年間予想損失額（ALE）／残留リスク／リスク受容 annualized loss expectancy / residual risk / risk acceptance Q4
正味現在価値（NPV）／価値実証（PoV）／事業性実証（PoB） net present value / proof of value / proof of business Q5

4. Q1 KGI and KPI funnel

Northstar’s annual KGI is 240 paid sites. Assume 40% of inquiries proceed to a trial and 30% of trials become paid. Both rates remain constant for this exercise, and each stage counts distinct subjects once. Which required trial and inquiry counts, together with their interpretation, are correct?

A. 720 trials and 1,800 inquiries. Calculate 240 × 3 and 720 ÷ 0.40; meeting both KPIs proves that the campaign caused revenue.

B. 800 trials and 2,000 inquiries. 240 ÷ 0.30 = 800 and 800 ÷ 0.40 = 2,000; these are planning values conditional on unchanged rates, not proof of causation or guaranteed attainment.

C. 72 trials and 28.8 inquiries. Multiply the KGI by each conversion rate in turn: 240 × 0.30 = 72 and 72 × 0.40 = 28.8.

D. 800 inquiries are sufficient. Because inquiry-to-trial is a leading KPI, exclude it when back-solving.

Solution

  1. Work backward from the outcome: paid 240 ÷ 0.30 = 800 trials.
  2. Trials 800 ÷ 0.40 = 2,000 inquiries.
  3. Check forward: 2,000 × 0.40 × 0.30 = 240.
  4. Trials and inquiries can be leading KPIs; paid sites are the KGI. The rates are planning assumptions, so actual measurement and causal analysis remain necessary.

Answer: B

  • A: Incorrect. Exact back-solving through 30% uses 1/0.30, not 3, and KPI attainment is not the same as causal proof. Review AP28 on CSF, KGI, KPI, and funnels.
  • B: Correct. It back-solves both stages and states the assumption and causal limit.
  • C: Incorrect. Multiply when forecasting forward; divide by the conversion rate when finding the required input from a target outcome. Review AP28’s funnel back-solving.
  • D: Incorrect. Only 40% of inquiries become trials, so inquiry count must exceed trial count. “Leading KPI” does not mean omitting that stage from the formula. Review AP28’s KPI/KGI distinction.

5. Q2 Procurement score and internal control

Before issuing the RFP, the team fixes weights at requirements fit 40%, operations and support 25%, risk controls 20%, and cost 15%. Each score is out of 100 and a weighted sum is used.

Supplier Requirements Operations Risk Cost
A 88 76 60 90
B 78 84 90 70

Which decision is most appropriate?

A. Contract with A because its cost score of 90 beats B’s 70; the predeclared weights are only advisory.

B. A=80.70 and B=79.70, so select A and let the evaluator also register the supplier, approve the contract, and perform acceptance.

C. B=80.70, so sign with B immediately. A higher weighted score removes the need for due diligence, negotiation, conflict checks, and acceptance criteria.

D. A=35.20+19.00+12.00+13.50=79.70; B=31.20+21.00+18.00+10.50=80.70. Make B the preferred bidder, subject to risk and contract due diligence and acceptance criteria, while separating conflicting duties across evaluation, approval, supplier registration, payment, and review.

Answer: D

6. Q3 EVM, change, and release

At a project checkpoint, planned value is PV=750, earned value is EV=600, and actual cost is AC=500, all in the same budget-value unit. A customer then requests a production-service scope increase. Which statement is most appropriate?

A. SPI=1.25 and CPI=0.83, so schedule is ahead and cost is poor. Because the customer requested it, deploy the change immediately.

B. SV=+150 and CV=-100. A CPI above 1 automatically means low change risk, so testing and rollback can be skipped.

C. SPI=600/750=0.80, CPI=600/500=1.20, SV=-150, and CV=+100. Schedule is behind the baseline while current cost efficiency is favorable. EVM does not explain the cause or justify new scope, so analyze impact, use the defined approval/CCB path, update an approved baseline, then evaluate and approve the service change, build, test, prepare rollback, release, and monitor.

D. The average of SPI and CPI is 1.00, so the project is exactly on plan. Change the baseline retroactively to match actual results.

Answer: C

7. Q4 ALE and residual risk

Estimate single loss expectancy (SLE) at 6.00 and current annualized rate of occurrence (ARO) at 0.20. An annual 0.35 control is assumed to reduce ARO to 0.05. Money is in millions of yen, and loss magnitude is held constant for this simplified model. Which decision is correct?

A. Existing ALE is 6.00+0.20=6.20 and residual ALE is 6.00+0.05=6.05, so the benefit is 0.15.

B. Existing ALE=6.00×0.20=1.20; residual ALE=6.00×0.05=0.30; gross reduction=0.90; net annual benefit=0.90-0.35=0.55. Economics are favorable, but legal, safety, reputation, and assumption quality still require review; an authorized risk owner must accept residual risk. The auditor does not operate that decision.

C. A positive net benefit makes residual risk zero, so management approval and reassessment are unnecessary.

D. Independence is strongest when the auditor operates the control and then audits their own result.

Answer: B

  • A: Incorrect. ALE multiplies SLE by ARO; it does not add them. Review AP26’s ALE calculation and risk treatment.
  • B: Correct. All four figures are reproducible, and economics, nonfinancial factors, residual-risk acceptance, and auditor independence remain separate.
  • C: Incorrect. Residual ALE of 0.30 remains, and one quantitative estimate does not remove legal duties or uncertainty. Review AP26 on residual risk and the risk register.
  • D: Incorrect. Operating and then auditing the same control creates a self-review threat to independence and objectivity. Review AP26 on system-audit independence.

8. Q5 NPV and staged validation

A full investment costs 9.00 now at t=0 and is expected to return after-tax cash inflows of 5.30 at the end of years 1 and 2. The annual discount rate is 10%; assume no residual value, additional tax effect, or working-capital change. Technical PoC is complete, but customer-value PoV and business-viability PoB are not. Which decision is most appropriate?

A. Undiscounted inflows of 10.60 minus 9.00 make NPV exactly +1.60, so launch fully now.

B. Discount only year 1: -9+5.30/1.10+5.30=+1.118...; year 2 is already a future value and needs no additional discount.

C. A successful PoC implies successful PoV and PoB. Technical operation alone proves customer value and business viability regardless of NPV.

D. PV1=5.30/1.10=4.81818..., PV2=5.30/1.10²=4.38017..., and NPV=-9+4.81818...+4.38017...=+0.19835.... NPV is positive under these assumptions, but the margin is small and input-sensitive; validate customer value through PoV and price, acquisition cost, and operations through PoB, review sensitivity, risk, and alternatives, then let the authorized body decide staged investment.

Answer: D

Answer key: Q1 B / Q2 D / Q3 C / Q4 B / Q5 D

9. Error patterns across questions

Error pattern Seen in Corrective habit Review
multiplying when back-solving a target Q1 A/C divide by each stage rate when moving from outcome to input, then check forward AP28
omitting a funnel stage Q1 D list every stage from target back to input, divide by each stage rate, then check forward AP28
treating a score as a contract or control Q2 A/B/C list weighted sum, due diligence, approval, contract, acceptance, and role separation in order AP27, AP26
reversing or averaging performance measures Q3 A/B/D write EV/PV, EV/AC, EV-PV, and EV-AC with units AP24
interpreting net benefit as zero risk Q4 A/C/D separate current/residual ALE, control cost, acceptance authority, and audit independence AP26
expanding positive NPV or PoC into launch approval Q5 A/B/C discount by period, then separately check sensitivity, PoV, PoB, and approval AP29, AP28

10. Self-check and review plan

This checklist is not a score or pass prediction.

  • I can explain Q1 both forward (2,000×0.40×0.30=240) and backward.
  • I can recompute every weighted term for A=79.70 and B=80.70 and state what follows the score.
  • I can obtain SPI=0.80, CPI=1.20, SV=-150, and CV=+100 and explain why the ratios cannot be averaged.
  • I can identify what 1.20, 0.30, 0.90, and 0.55 mean in Q4, including units.
  • I can reproduce both present values and NPV +0.19835 without intermediate rounding and distinguish PoC, PoV, and PoB.

On the same day, revisit the installment linked to each wrong option. One day later, change only the numbers and recalculate. Three days later, label executor, approver, risk owner, and auditor. Seven days later, answer all five without the explanations.

11. Official sources, question provenance, and revision history

  • IPA examination outline and syllabuses — directly checked 2026-10-22; updated 2026-07-10 and publishing Applied Information Technology Engineer Examination (Level 3) Syllabus Ver.7.2.
  • Official IPA AP Syllabus Ver.7.2 PDF — 141 pages, SHA-256 d5c5f921d56dc73c4be79a1a78369111213ccfde96600410eef1495b45005059. Cross-checked project management PDF 83–89/printed 79–85; service management 90–97/86–93; system audit 98–102/94–98; system strategy, planning, and procurement 103–112/99–108; business and technology strategy 113–119/109–115; and enterprise activities/accounting 126–132/122–128. Checked 2026-10-22. Q4’s ALE and residual-risk calculation also touches the information-security-management item in the technology area (PDF 56/printed 52); that page follows the cross-check recorded in AP26 and was not reopened for this installment.
  • IPA 2026 examination information — Reiwa 8 administration information directly checked 2026-10-22. The syllabus above, not this administration page, defines the scope.

Question provenance: Q1–Q5 are Motitory originals. Because no IPA past question is used, year/season/examination/original session/question number=N/A, translation or modification=N/A, and official-answer comparison=N/A.

Revision history:

  • 2026-10-22: Pre-publication draft written; official sources checked, calculations replayed, and KO/EN/JA equivalence reviewed.
  • 2026-10-27: Recovery finalization; authoring and planned publication date corrected to 2026-10-27, the finite AP1–38 review sequence finalized, and three-language parity corrected. The official sources were not reopened, so their check dates above remain 2026-10-22.
  • 2026-10-28: In the section 9 cross-question error-pattern table, Q1 D was moved out of “multiplying when back-solving a target” and reclassified as “omitting a funnel stage”. Q1’s question, options, answer (B) and per-option rationales are unchanged.

12. AP1–38 review sequence and end point

This table is a reading and review order built only from the existing AP1–37 and this AP38. Installment numbers reflect authoring order; this table is a study order and is unrelated to any publication schedule or cadence. Links point to localized article paths only; the existence of an article file does not by itself prove live publication.

Stage Installments to review Group
1 AP1, AP2, AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6, AP30 basic theory, algorithms, statistics, AI evaluation
2 AP7, AP8, AP9, AP10, AP11, AP12, AP33 computer architecture, system configuration, OS, hardware, UI, language processing
3 AP13, AP14, AP15, AP35 → diagnostic AP32 databases
4 AP16, AP17, AP18, AP34, AP19, AP20, AP21 networks and security
5 AP22, AP23 → diagnostic AP37 development techniques; technology mixed diagnostic
6 AP24, AP25, AP36, AP26 project, service, and facility management; audit
7 AP27, AP28, AP29, AP31 → diagnostic AP38 (this article) system strategy, business strategy, accounting, law; management and strategy mixed diagnostic

End point: The sequence ends when you finish this article’s five questions and the Section 10 self-check in Stage 7. Later review returns to the weak groups within these 38 installments; it neither assumes nor requires AP39 or any additional article. Completing the sequence does not mean a pass or mastery of the full Ver.7.2 scope (see Sections 1 and 2).

13. AP1–38 closing record

AP38 is the final installment in the fixed plan. It does not announce AP39 or another article. The SHA-256 values of the final reviewed bytes published for AP37 are:

  • KO: b33a8b0306b2c7dacaafa0afbae1a6ddc78bb6e83940d5b55cd88e93d10d11a9
  • EN: 8fc9cccc126e0d21e77b7a684b4e6d1b578f2676a85cb86a034b7b4c28d311b3
  • JA: 1a9a788758263596b7379840dadb141ed5043d9c3d83c522598a2de01af7debc

These values identify the published exact bytes of AP37. AP38 hashes are calculated from its actual final files after independent review; they are not invented in this article. The series hub generates the localized AP1–38 learning index. Closure is not inferred merely from file existence: the operational record must compare the three Git blobs, live bodies, canonical and hreflang metadata, hub, and queue after publication.

Back to the blog