- This topic has 108 replies, 59 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
Based on past papers which I practiced, this was not the regular form/ style/ structure of the exam. .
I am dissapointed at the examiner for not setting an exam more focused on the models which are stressed as being so relevant to paper P5.
Also, why emphasise that students should learn all these models and how to apply them etc. and the entire Q1 then comes on CSF’s and PI’s. (for 50 marks)?Question 1 can be considered as the easiest among the other three. Lots of KPIs and commenting and forming evaluation staying in time and format. Just hope to get a good 30 + then can expect to Pass.
Last part i calculated as taking the profits as calculated in first part and bringing to future value of 2 years once with 4 % and 15 %. Then calculating the gap as the difference and stating tht second plan is closer and strategies can be applied to close the GapSecond question was also okay with a easy structured model Performance Pyramid could write enough to gain good marks. and with explaining the three terms and relating to scenario which was clearly given. Although in myopio and gaming, i think i have switched the scenario stories.
Third Question was worst with i dont know what i have written in each part just trying to relate my knowledge with scenario and forming some answers.
a) Going through scenario stated problems and resolutions with some management acc terms.
b) Stated what lean accounting is and then evaluated (goods and bads) whether this RFID would result in leaner or not.
Tried putting rewards, budgeting, consultationg general points in last part of this question.Question 4 on the first sight didnt like it (didnt do this one)
While I found the P5 questions reasonably difficult, Q2 was tricky. It was not asking for evaluating the performance using the Pyramid, but it was asking to evaluate the evaluation system used by the business. I made the mistake and started writing about evaluation of the business, but then half way through read the question again and realised that it was the system that needed evaluating, not the performance! I failed this exam for 4 marks last time, so I hope I will pass this time.
Yes, I took the approach of Building Blocks as it seemed to relate. But I did not realise the matter about suitability of strategy you have mentioned. I thought it was about culture, so I wrote about that.
For Q1 the last portion, asking whether there will be a planning gap, I found it very tricky. The target $135m was net operating profit, but our calculations would depend on contributions and not on profit, becasue we have to remove the fixed costs. For option 1, my answer was that the target will be met, but for option 2 the target will not be met. Having said this, I am not hoping to get any marks for this part any way. I find we are told to think before we write, but there is simply no time to think. We are expected to know the answer as soon as we finish reading the question. If we stop to think, we run out of time.
Q1 part (1) did not require commentary, just calculations. Commentary was in part (2)
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 5
- ☆
I did Q1, 2 & 3. Time spent more on Q1 and i think the examiner was not fair with us about the number of questions to answer and considering the 3hrs and the examiner was not opened so much about lean enterprise. Not written much on Q3 because of time pressure. I wish pass because this was my 6th sitting. Oh God help me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.