ACCA考试P1-P3模拟题及解析8

　　以下是高顿网校小编为学员整理的：ACCA P1-P3模拟题及解析。
 

　　The EA Group has a portfolio of companies that currently specialise in alternative energy supply and associated products and services. It grew out of Power of the Sun (POTS) Co, one of the pioneers of solar heating, which still remains an autonomous company in the Group. The profits generated by POTS funded the initial development of the Group, which now comprises 12 companies. Only four of these companies are considered in this scenario.

　　Power of the Sun (POTS) Co POTS Co was one of the first companies to realise the potential of solar powered energy solutions and it pioneered the use of the technology, particularly in government and city council (public sector) buildings. From 1995 to 2005 its net profit regularly exceeded 15%. Recent results for the company are shown in Figure 1. The approximate size of the overall market is also given (sector turnover).

　　All figures in     $m 2011    2010   2009    2008

　　Sector turnover     357·00 357·00 356·00 355·00

　　POTS sales revenue  107·10 100·00 96·10 88·80

　　Gross profit        22·50   21·00 22·10 22·20

　　Net profit            7·50 7·00 8·70 9·80

　　Figure 1: Selected data for POTS Co Although POTS was the main source of the profits which drove the expansion of the EA Group, many employees within POTS feel that it is now relatively neglected. Consumer surveys suggest that the brand is not as well recognized as it was and respondents who did recognise it saw it as a tired and traditional brand. Many of its most gifted managers have been promoted into the EA Group headquarters or other companies within the Group. It was expected

　　that their expertise, gained with POTS, would help improve the performance of acquired companies. However, despite this loss of valuable resources, POTS still has recognised expertise and many valuable contacts and contracts in the public sector which the EA Group has been able to exploit. These contracts, particularly with city councils, have allowed the company to retain a significant presence in the solar powered energy market at a time when competitors have withdrawn from, or scaled down, their operations.

　　Neach Glass

　　The EA Group acquired Neach Glass in 2005. Neach Glass was founded by Kevin Neach to provide high quality glass products. These were used in the original solar panels developed by POTS and a close relationship was built up between Kevin Neach and the managing director of POTS, Ken Nyg. Ken later became chief executive officer (CEO) of the EA Group. The glass panels continue to be used in POTS products. In 2005, Kevin Neach informed Ken Nyg that Neach Glass was on the brink of going into administration. As a result, the EA Group acquired the company to help secure the supply of a vital component in the POTS product. Since that time, financial and management resources have been invested in Neach Glass in an attempt to improve market share and profitability. Some of POTS’s best managers have been transferred to the company. Data for Neach Glass is shown in Figure 2. Again, the estimated size of the total market is shown as sector turnover.

　　All figures in $m 2011 2010 2009 2008

　　Sector turnover 88·20 89·00 89·50 90·00

　　Neach turnover  7·94 7·12 7·16 6·30

　　Gross profit     1·45 1·28 1·22 1·07

　　Net profit       0·72 0·57 0·57 0·45

　　Figure 2:    Selected data for Neach Glass

　　ENCOS

　　In 2007, Ken Nyg recognised that other alternative energy sources other than solar power were becoming increasingly important. Council managers were increasingly requesting a combination of power sources with control systems that could be used to switch the power source to reflect the most economic combination of sources. As a result of this,the EA Group acquired ENergy COntrol Systems (ENCOS), a company with innovative control systems for monitoring power use and matching it to the most suitable and cheapest source of supply. ENCOS was acknowledged as a technical leader, but had little marketing expertise and few contracts in the public sector. ENCOS’s control systems

　　have sophisticated mathematical algorithms which are now used in many private sector applications. It has an excellent record in profitable delivery, with each contract carefully estimated and a detailed analysis of gross profit reported per contract. Financial data for ENCOS is shown in Figure 3. The market sector turnover is again given.

　　All figures in   $m 2011    2010   2009  2008

　　Sector turnover    81·00 76·00 71·50 70·00

　　ENCOS turnover     21·00 17·00 14·30 13·30

　　Gross profit        5·00 4·00 2·75 2·55

　　Net profit          3·35 3·00 1·85 1·65

　　Figure 3: Selected data for ENCOS

　　Steeltown Information Technology

　　Steeltown City Council is the second largest city council in the country. Two years ago, responding to government initiatives to outsource non-core activities, it decided to outsource its information technology department to the private sector. The department developed and implemented bespoke in-house systems to support the departments of the council (housing, education, social services etc). Trade unions in the council mounted a vigorous campaign against the plan and employees were overwhelmingly against it. Many of the employees had worked for the council for many years and had experienced a stable work environment. However, this opposition hardened the council’s resolve and they forced through the plan, citing the union’s restricted working practices as a major problem. The council invited private sector companies to tender for the work and resources of the department.

　　The EA Group were keen to broaden their technological services to the public sector and saw this as an opportunity to acquire an organisation that could spearhead its growth. As Ken Nyg said ‘we must avoid being too narrow in focus.

　　We started out in solar energy, before broadening out into other energy sources and services. We now wish to broaden again into information technology services in general and the acquisition of the Steeltown City Council’s information technology department is a perfect vehicle for this. We see clear technology synergies with ENCOS who are technical leaders in control software design and development.’

　　Steeltown Information Technology, as the company is now called, has entered into a ten year exclusive contract with Steeltown City Council to supply information technology services. The contract price is based on current costs, plus inflation, plus a 5% gross profit margin. The contract will be renegotiated after five years, when it is expected that savings made by the company can be passed on to the council.

　　The IT director and his deputy, who both vigorously opposed privatisation, have not been transferred to the new company. They both took voluntary redundancy from the council. Other managers are philosophical, glad that the uncertainty of the last two years was behind them. One manager commented that although ‘he was against outsourcing in principle, now the sale has been agreed, let’s get on with it’. Very few new systems have been developed in the last two years whilst the future of the department was being discussed. There is now a backlog of applications to develop for a number of council departments. Users in these departments usually find it very difficult to specify system requirements in advance and there have been very few successfully implemented IT solutions.

　　Although the Steeltown City Council contract is on a cost plus basis, managers who have always been budget and service-driven will be expected to profitably deliver solutions to other potential customers in the public sector.

　　As part of preparing for strategic change at Steeltown Information Technology, the EA Group wishes to benchmark its performance. They have been provided with the information given in Figure 4.

　　2011    2010   2009   2008

　　User satisfaction (1)               48%   46%     45%    44%

　　Faults reported (2)                 200   250     375    425

　　User satisfaction (nationwide) (3)  45%   44%     44%    43%

　　Figure 4: Data for Steeltown City Council information technology department

　　(1) measured by internally constructed and analysed user surveys at Steeltown City Council

　　(2) measured by reported faults in software at Steeltown City Council

　　(3) reported by city councils throughout the country

　　As another part of their preparation for strategic change at Steeltown Information Technology, the EA Group also wish to understand the contextual factors that will affect such change. They want to explore these factors before they firm up their proposed strategy for the newly acquired company.
 

　　(a) Analyse the performance of each of the four companies described in the scenario and assess each company’s potential future contribution to the EA Group portfolio of businesses. (24 marks)

　　Professional marks will be awarded in part (a) for the clarity and structure of the answer. (4 marks)

　　(b) Time, scope, capability and readiness for change are four contextual factors that affect strategic change. Evaluate the potential influence of these four factors at Steeltown Information Technology on any strategic change proposed by the EA Group. (12 marks)

　　(c) Discuss the principles, together with the advantages and the disadvantages, of benchmarking in the context of Steeltown Information Technology. (10 marks) (50 marks)
 

　　It provided the funding for such acquisitions as ENCOS and Neach Glass. Since 2005, the company has become steadily less profitable. Gross profit has fallen in each of the last four reported periods (from 25% to 21%). Net profit has fallen in line (from 11·04% to 7·00%) and is now less than half that of the company’s heyday. Market growth has slowed considerably as alternative forms of energy have become available. However, POTS market share remains high as many of its competitors have either ceased business or scaled down their operations. In the last two years, when the market has grown by only 0·5%,the company has increased its market share from 25% to 30%. In Boston Box terms, POTS is probably a cash cow, with its high market share and presence meaning that it should be able to maintain unit costs below that of it competitors. However,

　　there is concern within the Group that the company is being neglected and this is being reflected in its profitability. The best managers have been taken out of the company to work in new acquisitions and this has had a demoralising effect within the company. There is also evidence that the brand has grown tired and is not well recognised or respected. This is probably one of the problems with the cash cow. How can managers in the company be motivated when they see their hard-earned profits invested elsewhere in the Group? If EA is still committed to solar energy as an important energy source, then it would probably be beneficial for it to revisit the brand, review its operation and publically reaffirm its commitment to it.

　　Neach Glass

　　Neach Glass was an important supplier of POTS Co in the latter’s formative years. The managing director, Kevin Neach,became a close personal friend of Ken Nyg, the managing director of POTS (and later the CEO of EA Group). When Neach was on the brink of going into administration it was purchased by EA to preserve the supply of high quality glass. It also allowed Ken Nyg to help out a personal friend. However, in the past five years substantial financial investment and the transfer of some of POTS’ best managers have failed to improve performance. Although market share has increased in the last four years (from 7% to 9%), Neach remains a relatively small player in a declining market (reduced by 2% in the last year). Gross and net profit margins are improving (gross profit from 16·98% to 18·26%; net profit from 7·14% to 9·07%) but, in terms of performance within the Group, they remain stubbornly low. Despite using some of the Group’s best managers, net profit has risen less than 2% since acquisition. In Boston Box terms the company is probably a dog. It seems to have inherent problems which the EA Group cannot solve. It was understandable that EA bought the company to preserve the supply line.

　　But, in retrospect, this should have been a short-term response whilst POTS found a new supplier and the company should have then been sold. There are no obvious similarities between energy management and glass manufacture. Divesting this company from the portfolio remains the most appropriate response.

　　ENCOS

　　Acquiring ENCOS appeared to make sense. It was clear that other renewable alternatives to solar energy were becoming more common and that a more rounded approach to alternative energy management was required. ENCOS had expertise in energy control systems, but had little marketing expertise and lacked contacts with the large public sector organisations that were seeking to install such systems. EA could bring this knowledge to the company, together with more experienced managers

　　and a higher profile. The acquisition appears to have been successful. It has an increasing market share (19% to 25·93%) in a growing market (15·71% growth in the four years under consideration). Furthermore, the growth of the company is outstripping the growth of the market. Gross and net profit margins are both growing (net profit margin up from 12·41% to 15·95% in the four years under consideration, gross profit up from 19·17% to 23·81%). In absolute terms, these returns

　　are the highest of the companies considered here and net profitability continues to grow disproportionately, suggesting that operating costs appear to be falling. In Boston Box terms the company is a potential star, although further information would be required to confirm this. It has clear synergy with POTS and EA appear to have brought significant competencies to bear.

　　It could be argued that it is performing much better under EA’s guidance than it would have as an independent company.

　　Steeltown Information Technology

　　If the industry Steeltown Information Technology is competing in is defined as ’public sector technology’, then it seems reasonable to suggest that the potential market growth is relatively high. The present government is committed to privatizing non-core services, so it can be expected that many councils will follow the example of Steeltown City Council and outsource information technology. It could be argued that Steeltown Information Technology enjoys a very high market share in this new sector, so again potentially qualifying (in Boston Box terms) as a star. No conventional financial figures are available and although the cost plus contract agreed with the council does mean that profits will be reported for, at least, the last five years,these will be relatively modest. The real question with this acquisition is whether it makes sense. EA does have experience of gaining contracts within the public sector, but in energy and control technology, not information technology and systems.

　　It has no experience of acquiring a public sector organisation and creating the degree of change required to move its culture to a profit-driven private sector company. Overall, EA is trying to broaden its product base, and the acquisition of Steeltown

　　Information Technology is its vehicle for pursuing this strategy. Acquisition is an acknowledged way of entering a new market,but usually the acquired company is established in that market, which is not the case with the newly formed Steeltown Information Technology. Whether the perceived synergies with ENCOS will emerge is debateable. The two companies work in different markets. ENCOS is focused on technical control systems in the energy sector. In comparison, Steeltown Information Technology develops commercial information processing systems in a public sector environment. The drivers are quite different. ENCOS is focused on complex mathematical algorithms with little user intervention. Steeltown Information Technology deals with developing systems for end users who have difficulty in both defining and implementing the systems they commission.
 

　　(b) The issues explored in this question are four of the eight contextual factors, identified by Balogun and Hope-Hailey, which significantly influence strategic change.

　　Time refers to the amount of time available for EA to implement the changes at Steeltown Information Technology. In some circumstances, time is a very critical factor, because the perilous financial nature of the organisation requires action to be taken quickly to arrest a decline in turnover or profitability, or indeed just to ensure its short-term financial viability. This was the situation at Neach Glass when it was acquired by EA. However, at Steeltown Information Technology the ten year contract with the city council, only reviewed after five years, means that there is no obvious need for the speedy implementation of change. Sufficient profitability is guaranteed for the next five years to maintain present levels of resources at Steeltown

　　Information Technology and this, potentially, gives EA a long elapsed period to implement the changes that they envisage.

　　The Scope of change can be considered as either largely realignment, or largely transformational. Realignment can usually be accommodated within the current culture of the organisation, whilst transformational change requires a significant cultural shift. It seems reasonable to suggest that the change at Steeltown Information Technology will be transformational. Current work is inwardly focused, budget rather than profit-driven, run by managers with little experience of the private sector. There will have to be a fundamental change in the core assumptions of the organisation. Fortunately, there is no need to quickly implement these changes and so an incremental approach to change can be adopted. In the Balogun and Hope Hailey model(adapted by Johnson, Scholes and Whittington) this suggests an evolutionary approach to change, where paradigm change is required, but over a relatively long time period.

　　Capability refers to what experience there is of managing change in the organisation. Does the organisation have managers who have successively managed change in the past? Is the workforce used to change and have they readily accepted changes in their work practices? In the context of Steeltown Information Technology, evidence suggests that employees have little experience of change. In fact, established work practices written into trade union agreements have tended to restrict change and this is one of the reasons why the city council decided that they wanted to separate off the information technology department. Employees have been very concerned and anxious throughout the whole process of outsourcing, from the initial decision, through tender evaluation, to agreeing the sale of the organisation to EA. On the other hand, EA does have experience of implementing change in the organisations that they have acquired. This is probably one of the competencies it perceives that it is bringing to Steeltown Information Technology. However, it has to be recognised that this capability has not appeared to be successful at Neach Glass and so some concern might be expressed about the validity of such a claim.

　　Readiness for change concerns the organisation’s attitude towards change. Is it likely to embrace it or is there widespread opposition to change within the organisation or, indeed, do significant pockets of resistance exist? There is little doubt that,

　　initially, there is evidence that there was considerable opposition to change. However, once the proposal was agreed and the sale made to EA, there appears to have been a greater acceptance of the need for change. Perhaps it is best illustrated by the manager who stated that ‘he was against outsourcing in principle, but now the sale has been agreed, let’s get on with it’. The resignation of the IT director and his deputy has removed a significant pocket of resistance to change and it should make EA’s task easier.
 

　　(c) Benchmarking is an attempt to assess the relative performance of an organisation. It is understandable that EA wants to benchmark Steeltown Information Technology. Although the contract with the city council is guaranteed for at least the first five years, it is important for EA to understand the performance of the organisation it has bought and the opportunity for driving out improvements and, hence, profitability.

　　There has been a tendency for organisations to increasingly attempt to benchmark themselves against the industry or sector they compete in, rather than against their historical performance. However, such historical benchmarking was traditionally used when Steeltown Information Technology was part of the City Council. Examples given in the scenario are the reliability of software as measured by reported faults and the satisfaction of users as measured by internally developed and analysed

　　questionnaires. This evidence suggests that the software produced by the organisation is becoming more reliable.

　　However,this may reflect the fact that fewer new systems were developed in the past two years as the council arranged for the technology department’s transition to the private sector. Established software tends to have fewer faults than recently released software. Furthermore, the measure is an absolute one, not a relative one. The apparent improvements in user satisfaction

　　may also reflect the hiatus associated with the transition from public to private sector. Furthermore, the overall figures do not seem very high even though the questions were set, collected and analysed by the technology department. In general,externally measured satisfaction surveys are to be preferred.

　　Benchmarking against competitors is problematic in the context of Steeltown Information Technology because of choosing what sector to compare it with. It is possible to make comparisons, using published government statistics, with other public sector organisations and indeed it seems to compare relatively well, reporting greater user satisfaction and software reliability.

　　However, again these figures have to be treated with care. Did the user satisfaction surveys in the other councils use the same assessment criteria? Now that it has been privatised, the uniqueness of the Steeltown Information Technology experiment makes it almost impossible to find IT companies providing exclusive services to a public sector client against which it might be benchmarked. EA has suggested benchmarking it against the performance of ENCOS. However, the technology it provides and the nature of the client it serves make such comparisons very tenuous. The focus of development has been quite different.

　　ENCOS reports on profit per contract, but Steeltown Information Technology currently only has one contract and is unlikely to have any relevant data, as profitability was not an objective of the organisation. In any case, a major concern with such industry comparisons is that the whole industry might be performing badly and, in some circumstances, losing out to industries or technologies that can satisfy customers’ needs in a different way. For example, poor performing companies providing bespoke software solutions may lose out to an organisation providing a standard ff-the-shelf software package solution.

　　The shortcomings of industry norm comparisons have encouraged organisations to seek best practice wherever it can be found. Johnson, Scholes and Whittington comment that ‘the real power of this approach is ... shaking managers out of the mindset that improvements in performance will be gradual as a result of incremental changes in resources or competencies’.

　　They give an example of a police force studying a call centre as a way of improving their response to emergency telephone calls. However, software development is quite specific and it will be difficult to think of any appropriate, innovative comparisons.

　　Finally, benchmarking has been criticised on a number of accounts. Firstly, it can lead to a situation where you get what you measure, which may not have been the intended strategic outcome. If the strategy is flawed, then the benchmarking will encourage the organisation to continue, perhaps even accelerate, in the wrong direction. For example, a focus on measuring the certification of staff is only valid if there is a proven causal link between certification and software quality.

　　Secondly, since benchmarking compares inputs, outputs or outcomes, it does not, itself, identify the reasons for good or poor performance. The benchmark does not directly compare competencies. As mentioned earlier, improvements may be due to external environmental factors, not directly linked to what the organisation is striving to achieve.

　　Although benchmarking seems superficially attractive, it appears quite difficult to use effectively at Steeltown Information Technology. EA might be better focused, in the short term, on successfully implementing change and improving employee motivation and processes rather than trying to establish and measure sensible benchmarks.
 

　　高顿网校小编寄语：希望大家继续努力！打赢ACCA这场仗！

 　　　　　　

　　扫一扫微信，*9时间获取2014年ACCA考试报名时间和考试时间提醒

　　高顿网校特别提醒：已经报名2014年ACCA考试的考生可按照复习计划有效进行！另外，高顿网校2014年ACCA考试辅导高清课程已经开通，通过针对性地讲解、训练、答疑、模考，对学习过程进行全程跟踪、分析、指导，可以帮助考生全面提升备考效果。
　　
　　报考指南：2014年ACCA考试备考指南
　　免费题库：2014年ACCA考试免费题库
　　考前冲刺：ACCA备考秘籍
　　高清网课：ACCA考试网络课程