[Out]

I felt like I did OK. On Q1:

i. Struggled to understand the revision until I realized it needed to be flexed, as the variance analysis was otherwise useless.
ii. Rolled the budget and hoped for the best. I used Q1 actual’s ratio of distribution to sales to calculate Q2’s initial distribution, then dropped it by 5%.
iii. As the poster above — I did ABC for Basic (it’s a cost-conscious division — they should analyze cost drivers and stop riding off management’s ancient cost control attempts), rolling for Kids, and ZBB for PD. I kept rolling for Healthy.
iv. Tried to use the BPP flashcard on the evils of budgeting here (adds slack, all that good stuff), but also blamed corporate HQ for not enforcing more of a value culture and letting the divisions manage the numbers instead of manage the business.
v. Fortunately, I had a big flashcard on this topic and was able to elaborate a lot. It seems like the new CEO was right on board with this hybrid accountant stuff; easy references to the company.

On Q3:

a. I hope this was the easy mark question. It simply asked if the WIS is supporting reduction of waste/meeting their goals right now, and the answer is obviously, resoundingly, NO, with examples of how they’re failing their basic mission to be responsive as a supplier.

b. I used the WITDOOM wastes (waiting, inspection, transfer, defects, overprocessing, overproduction, movement/NVAs) to structure this. As follows:

i. Close down additional warehouse — yes, provided they’re ready to implement the other suggestions
ii. Put high volume items near dispatch point — hell yes, great idea
iii. Can’t remember

c. As follows:

i. Manager’s 1-10 tidiness rating — I said it’s an OK quantitative surrogate, but needs other measures, since it solely dependson the manager and his/her idea of tidiness may not actually correspond to performance improvement. Links to sanitization, but I referenced all the other Ses except self-discipline too.
ii. Alphabetization — Referenced systemization but argued against this as it’s stupid. Items should be grouped by demand or likeness (soccer vs. baseball etc.)
iii. Number of failures — yes, but it does’nt really hit operational 5 Ses. I referenced self-discipline as, provided the other Ses are taken care of, they WILL see fewer failures and this is the point of the entire change.

Q4 messed with my mind because it was obvious that LORE had made a mistake in acquiring CF, which was radically different from LORE’s culture and values. As follows:

i. Talked about performance measures and renumeration helping motivate and retain staff, especially in CF’s low-wage economy. I then went on a diatribe about how CF was in danger of incentivizing short-termism and unethical behavior, using examples, as the huge bonuses provided too much incentive to flip properties without due care that LORE would otherwise provide.
ii. PEST for employees — the contrast between cultures helped me here. Politically, CF poses a huge reputational risk to LORE, which could lead to an economic risk too. Socially, CF is much less a multiple-stakholder beast, as a further contrast. For technology, I completely forgot what I said, other than that the two might offer amenities to tenants or something like that.
iii. KPIs were:

Shared values — assumed this meant LORE’s social interaction — “number of volunteer initiatives undertaken”
Strategy — assumed this meant for CF to transition to LORE’s way of doing things — “% revenue from tenant leases over 1 year term”, since CF is flipping properties and needs to hold
Structure — wasn’t completely sure; forgot the KPI.
Style — really unsure here. Went with something like, CF’s style is run and gun, managers close deals, while LORE’s is very slow-burning with multiple levels of review. So I went with “% of acquisitions that have gone through one level of review”, saying LORE must choose the reviewer for CF’s acquisitions in the future.

Question 4 is really where I feel I may have lost marks. It was just so jarring — why would LORE acquire CF in the first place? Seemed totally misguided, and I kept hammering that point.

[Out]

Where did benefits mapping even come up in the BPP study text? Did any of you find it in any other curriculum? If I’d known it’s the “benefits dependency network” I would have easily gotten those marks.

I just opened the last P3 technical article on benefits realization and there’s no reference to benefits mapping either. I’m not entirely sure how we were supposed to know this one.

[Author]

Posts