CIPS L5M6 Category Management Exam Practice Test

The United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPC) provides a universal taxonomy for classifying goods and services. Some organisations adopt UNSPC as a standard way of grouping categories for procurement, while others create their own frameworks tailored to business needs. Unlike tools such as the Kraljic Matrix, which is used to assess risk and value, UNSPC is a classification system designed for spend categorisation and reporting. Using standardised codes ensures better data consistency, benchmarking, and spend visibility across organisations, especially in global supply chains. By adopting UNSPC, procurement teams can reduce ambiguity in spend analysis and ensure categories are aligned with recognised frameworks.

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.

The three key enablers are People, Tools, and Technology. Each plays a distinct but interconnected role in making category management effective:

People: Skilled category managers and cross-functional teams provide the expertise, negotiation skills, and stakeholder engagement needed for success. Without trained professionals, strategies cannot be executed effectively.

Tools: Analytical frameworks like Kraljic’s Matrix, spend analysis, TCO, and risk assessment tools enable informed decision-making. These provide structure and evidence for procurement strategies.

Technology: Digital platforms such as e-procurement systems, data analytics software, and supplier relationship management [SRM] tools support efficiency, transparency, and scalability.

By contrast, options such as “Place” and “Environment” are not formal enablers within CIPS’s framework. While environmental and cultural context matter, they are not listed as the three foundational enablers.

The study guide emphasises that category management can only be effective when these three enablers work together—skilled people using appropriate tools and supported by the right technology.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.6 – Enablers of Category Management]

Cialdini’s 7 Principles of Persuasion are key behavioural insights relevant to procurement negotiations and stakeholder management. They are:

Reciprocity

Commitment/consistency

Social proof/consent

Authority

Liking

Scarcity

Unity

Options social proof, commitment, and liking are directly part of this framework. These principles are used to influence supplier behaviour, build stakeholder alignment, and negotiate effectively. For example, demonstrating that other organisations have adopted a strategy (social proof) can increase acceptance, while establishing rapport (liking) improves cooperation. Procurement professionals who understand these principles can navigate complex stakeholder environments more effectively.

Goodwill is found under Non-current assets in a balance sheet. Goodwill arises when one company acquires another for a value greater than its tangible assets, reflecting intangible benefits such as brand reputation, customer loyalty, patents, or strong supplier relationships.

For example, if a company is valued at £10 million based on tangible assets but is purchased for £15 million, the £5 million difference is recorded as goodwill. This asset remains on the balance sheet until impaired [e.g., if the acquired brand loses value].

It is not a current asset because it cannot be quickly liquidated within one year. Nor is it a liability [current or non-current] since it represents value, not debt.

For procurement and category managers, goodwill can signal a supplier’s market position, brand strength, and long-term stability. It highlights how intangible assets, though harder to measure, play a role in supplier evaluation and business acquisitions.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.183 – Financial terms and balance sheet analysis]

Total Cost of Ownership [TCO] refers to the full cost of acquiring, operating, and maintaining an item over its entire lifecycle—not just the purchase price. For Steve, the relevant elements are:

Purchase Price [A]: The initial acquisition cost.

Maintenance and Downtime [D]: Costs of repairs, spare parts, and losses during equipment downtime.

Training [E]: Expenses incurred in training staff to use new systems or equipment.

By contrast, Location and Supplier Relationship are important considerations but cannot be quantified as direct financial costs in the same way.

The TCO model is often illustrated as the Cost Iceberg, where the purchase price is only the visible tip, while hidden costs [e.g., energy use, repairs, obsolescence, disposal] represent the bulk. Understanding TCO enables procurement to make more informed decisions, ensuring long-term value rather than focusing narrowly on upfront cost.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.9 – TCO and the Cost Iceberg]

The correct answer is Yes – business commitment and top management endorsement is essential. Category management is a strategic approach that requires cross-functional collaboration and long-term alignment with business objectives. Without commitment from senior leadership, procurement lacks the authority, resources, and stakeholder engagement necessary to implement effective category strategies.

Option B is incorrect because category management is strategic, not merely tactical. Options C and D underestimate the interdependence of categories and the need for broad business support. Even low-spend categories can carry risks or opportunities requiring strategic oversight.

CIPS emphasises that full endorsement by senior management ensures stakeholder buy-in, smooth adoption of new processes, and maximisation of category benefits. Lack of support often results in fragmented efforts, limited compliance, and failure to achieve intended value.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.46 – Importance of stakeholder commitment]

When many suppliers exist, buyers have multiple options, increasing their bargaining power. Suppliers must compete for contracts, shifting power toward the buyer.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.112 – Porter’s Five Forces: Buyer Power]

Reeves, Moose and Venema (2014) established that products move through the four quadrants of the BCG matrix more quickly in the modern business environment compared to the past. This is a reflection of faster innovation cycles, market saturation, and increased competition. The other three statements are the opposite of what their research proved.

The correct term is Cost Out, a proactive cost management approach where the buyer collaborates with the supplier during the design phase to eliminate unnecessary costs before they arise. This ensures efficiency and value creation throughout the product lifecycle. For example, designing packaging to minimise waste or using standardised components to avoid expensive customisation.

This differs from:

Cost acceptance, where the buyer accepts the supplier’s price without analysis.

Cost engineering, a broader process of optimising costs through design and process evaluation.

Cost down, which typically involves reducing costs after production by analysing processes, renegotiating contracts, or improving efficiency.

Cost Out is especially relevant for strategic or high-value categories where innovation and collaboration with suppliers can generate long-term savings. It is consistent with category management’s emphasis on strategic supplier partnerships.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.80 – Cost Out vs Cost Down strategies]

Survival of the fittest in supplier management means driving competition by focusing heavily on price reduction, with minimal emphasis on building long-term relationships. This approach treats suppliers as interchangeable, encouraging them to compete aggressively for contracts.

It can yield short-term cost savings but risks damaging supplier collaboration, innovation, and resilience. It is suitable for commodities or non-strategic items where price is the dominant factor.

Other approaches differ:

Trust-based or partnership models balance price with collaboration.

No-cost modelling focuses on process transparency.

Strategic alliances prioritise innovation and value creation.

Category Managers must carefully choose when to apply “survival of the fittest” as it may undermine long-term supplier stability if used indiscriminately.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.160 – Supplier relationship models]

This situation represents a Threat within SWOT analysis. SWOT distinguishes between internal and external factors. Strengths and weaknesses are internal to the organisation, while opportunities and threats are external.

Here, the short-term spike in demand is external to Callie’s business. It is also potentially harmful because increased competition for raw materials [rubber, metal, etc.] can lead to higher prices, longer lead times, and supply shortages. Therefore, this is categorised as a threat.

It cannot be an opportunity, as the increase in demand benefits suppliers rather than Callie’s firm. Nor is it a strength or weakness, as those describe factors within the company such as production capabilities or financial resources.

Using SWOT in category management allows managers to anticipate and mitigate external risks while leveraging internal strengths. Recognising this threat means Callie may develop strategies such as dual sourcing, supplier collaboration, or forward buying to reduce exposure.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.122 – SWOT analysis 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)

Kearney’s 7 Step Strategic Sourcing Model provides a structured, step-by-step approach for managing sourcing activities. The steps include profiling the category, assessing the supply market, developing sourcing strategies, and implementing them. This model ensures that sourcing is systematic, evidence-based, and aligned with strategic objectives. Unlike tools such as the Kraljic Matrix, which classifies items by risk and impact, Kearney’s model provides an end-to-end process framework for sourcing execution. Similarly, Pareto and Porter’s 5 Forces are useful analytical tools but not procedural sourcing frameworks. For category managers, the Kearney Model is valuable because it emphasises cross-functional collaboration, data-driven decision-making, and continuous improvement. Its structured approach reduces risks of ad-hoc decision-making and ensures alignment with organisational goals. This is why it is a central feature of L5M6 study material and often tested in exams.

In deciding the correct Sourcing Business Model, stakeholders must clarify two fundamental issues:

The most appropriate contractual relationship [C]: This could be transactional [short-term, cost-focused], relational [long-term collaboration], or investment-based [joint ventures, alliances]. The choice defines how risks and rewards are shared with suppliers.

The most appropriate economic model [D]: This determines the pricing and performance framework, e.g., transactional [pay-per-unit], output-based, or outcome-based [pay-for-results].

Options A and B are important but secondary considerations. Risk appetite and TCO factors are inputs to decision-making, but the contractual and economic models define the overall sourcing structure.

This reflects the study guide’s emphasis that sourcing models should be tailored to category complexity and business objectives. Using the wrong model can undermine supplier relationships and value delivery.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.32 – Key questions in Sourcing Business Models]

The International Association for ContractCommercial Management [IACCM], now known as WorldCC, provides frameworks to help organisations select the most suitable sourcing and contracting models. For category managers, this is particularly valuable when deciding whether a transactional, relational, or investment-based model best fits the organisation’s needs.

It does not directly choose suppliers or perform market analysis; rather, it guides decision-makers on the structural relationship with suppliers. For example, IACCM provides tools to decide whether to adopt outcome-based contracts, performance partnerships, or traditional transactional agreements.

Benchmarking may be a separate exercise, but sourcing models determine the governance and risk-sharing approach that underpins supplier relationships.

CIPS encourages procurement professionals to be familiar with IACCM’s role, as it reinforces the need for strategic selection of sourcing models rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.31 – IACCM and sourcing model selection]

Category Management is a strategic approach to procurement. According to CIPS, it is defined as “a rigorous fact-based, end-to-end process for proactively collaborating with stakeholders to develop and implement sourcing strategies that deliver significant value from an organisation’s external spend.”

Unlike tactical or reactive procurement, which focuses on immediate needs or firefighting, category management emphasises long-term planning, data analysis, supplier relationships, and alignment with business objectives. It goes beyond simply planning purchases in advance [which could apply to “planned procurement”] by integrating market intelligence, risk assessment, and value optimisation.

Being strategic means that category management seeks not only cost savings but also innovation, sustainability, and resilience. It requires cross-functional collaboration and the use of analytical tools like Kraljic matrices, total cost of ownership, and supplier segmentation.

Therefore, the most accurate categorisation is strategic procurement, not merely tactical or planned.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.2 – Category Management as a strategic approach]

Contract leakage refers to the difference between the benefits forecasted before awarding a contract and the actual benefits realised during its execution. For example, savings predicted during tendering may not materialise due to supplier underperformance, scope creep, or poor contract management. This phenomenon highlights the importance of post-contract management and continuous monitoring of supplier performance. Category managers must ensure that expectations set during procurement are followed through by tracking delivery, compliance with terms, and value creation. Tools such as KPIs, SLAs, and audits help minimise leakage by ensuring accountability. Ultimately, failure to address leakage can lead to financial loss, reduced trust, and missed opportunities for improvement. By focusing on contract outcomes as well as initial savings, procurement ensures that strategic objectives are consistently met.

A bull industry is one that is experiencing sustained growth, driven by technological innovation, consumer demand, or favourable market conditions. The opposite is a bear industry, which is in decline. The terms are borrowed from stock market language but are also used in category management to describe the overall trajectory of an industry. For ABC Ltd, operating in a bull industry means it must prepare for higher demand, increased competition, and potential supplier shortages. This requires a proactive category strategy that focuses on securing long-term supplier relationships, investing in innovation, and managing risks associated with rapid growth. Recognising industry cycles ensures that procurement strategies are forward-looking and aligned with long-term organisational objectives. Misclassifying an industry’s trajectory could lead to missed investment opportunities or poor resource allocation.

Cross-Functional Teams (CFTs) are essential in category management, as they bring together expertise from different areas of the organisation. Their success depends on having a clear, articulated purpose and endorsement from leadership to ensure authority and resource allocation. It is not necessary to have exactly four functions (the guidance suggests three or more), nor for all members to have technical expertise—CFTs should balance technical, procurement, legal, and operational knowledge. Strong leadership support ensures the team’s recommendations are implemented, while a clear purpose ensures alignment and focus. Without these, CFTs risk becoming unfocused discussion groups with limited impact.

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.

Peak pricing is another term for dynamic pricing, where the cost of a product or service changes in response to fluctuations in demand and market conditions. A common example is airline ticket pricing, where fares increase during peak travel periods and drop during off-peak times.

Dynamic pricing relies on market data, technology, and sometimes artificial intelligence to adjust prices in real-time. It maximises revenue by capturing higher margins during periods of strong demand while stimulating sales when demand weakens.

Other options are different strategies:

Penetration pricing involves initially low prices to gain market entry.

Limit pricing aims to deter new entrants by setting prices low enough to discourage competition.

Price skimming involves launching at a high price, then gradually lowering it as demand declines.

In category management, understanding pricing models like dynamic pricing helps procurement anticipate supplier pricing strategies and develop negotiation tactics.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.180–182 – Pricing models and procurement]

The Pareto Principle, also known as the 80/20 Rule, states that around 80% of outcomes are generated by 20% of inputs. In category management, this means that a small number of categories often account for the majority of total spend. Identifying these high-impact categories allows procurement professionals to focus resources where they deliver the most value. For example, managing a few strategic or high-spend categories rigorously may yield more savings and risk reduction than spreading efforts across all categories equally. The principle reinforces the need for prioritisation and focus in procurement strategies. While Six Sigma and Porter’s Five Forces are useful tools in other contexts, they are unrelated to spend distribution. Applying Pareto effectively helps organisations achieve better results with limited resources by focusing on what matters most.

The first stage of Kearney’s 7 Step Model is profiling the category, where data is gathered about spend, suppliers, and demand. This profiling provides the foundation for preparing future projections and budgets. It ensures that procurement understands not only how much is currently being spent, but also the likely future requirements of the organisation. While finding alternative suppliers and benchmarking may emerge later in the process, the primary outcome of category profiling is reliable information for budgeting and strategic decision-making. This stage links procurement with financial planning and helps build business cases for category strategies. Without accurate data profiling, subsequent sourcing strategies may be flawed.

Line item details provide specific transactional information about a purchased product, such as the quantity ordered and the price paid. This information is critical for category managers who rely on spend data to analyse patterns, negotiate supplier agreements, and benchmark costs.

Other details such as functionality or components are not typically captured in line item data. These relate more to specifications and technical design documents rather than financial records.

By analysing line item data across multiple purchases, category managers can identify trends such as bulk-buying opportunities, price fluctuations, and supplier performance. It also assists in spend analysis, which is a fundamental step in category management for mapping categories and identifying cost-saving opportunities.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.134 – Line item detail in spend analysis]

In category management, forecasting is a critical tool for anticipating future requirements and managing supply markets. The three types of recognised forecasting are: demand forecasting (predicting organisational needs), supply forecasting (assessing availability and supplier capabilities), and price forecasting (estimating future price movements based on trends and market conditions). “Quantity forecasting” is not recognised as a distinct type, because quantity requirements are inherently part of demand forecasting. By separating demand, supply, and price forecasts, procurement professionals gain a holistic view of market conditions, ensuring they can secure the right goods at the right time and price. Effective forecasting also reduces risk by ensuring that category strategies account for volatility, seasonality, and inflation. Organisations that fail to forecast accurately may face supply shortages, overstocking, or missed opportunities for cost savings.

The correct response is No – rivalry between existing suppliers is high. Exit barriers refer to the difficulty suppliers face when attempting to leave a market or industry. These barriers may include high investment in specialised assets, contractual obligations, redundancy costs, or reputational damage. When suppliers are unable or unwilling to exit, they remain within the industry regardless of declining profitability. This forces them to compete aggressively to retain market share, which increases rivalry among existing firms.

Options A and B are incorrect because the question relates to rivalry, not directly to buyer or supplier power. Option D is also incorrect because exit barriers do not influence new suppliers entering; they affect current suppliers trying to leave.

A practical example is the oil and energy industry, where huge capital investments make it very costly to exit. Companies stay even during downturns, resulting in fierce rivalry.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.114 – Porter’s Five Forces: Exit Barriers and Rivalry]