ACCA考试P1-P3模拟题及解析21

　　2014年12月ACCA备考已经开始了，以下是高顿网校小编为学员整理的：ACCA P1-P3模拟题及解析，供学员参考。
 

　　The country of Mahem is in a long and deep economic recession with unemployment at its highest since the country became an independent nation. In an attempt to stimulate the economy the government has launched a Private/Public investment policy where the government invests in capital projects with the aim of stimulating the involvement of private sector firms. The building of a new community centre in the industrial city of Tillo is an example of such an initiative. Community centres are central to the culture of Mahem. They are designed as places where people can meet socially, local organisations can hold conferences and meetings and farmers can sell their produce to the local community. The centres are seen as contributing to a vibrant community life. The community centre in Tillo is in a sprawling old building rented (at $12,000 per month) from a local landowner. The current community centre is also relatively energy inefficient.

　　In 2010 a business case was put forward to build a new centre on local authority owned land on the outskirts of Tillo.

　　The costs and benefits of the business case are shown in Figure 1. As required by the Private/Public investment policy the project showed payback during year four of the investment.

　　All figures in                       $ Year 1   Year 2    Year 3   Year 4    Year 5

　　Costs: Initial                        600,000

　　Costs: Recurring                      60,000    60,000    60,000   60,000     60,000

　　Benefits: Rental savings             144,000   144,000   144,000  144,000    144,000

　　Benefits: Energy savings              30,000    30,000    30,000   30,000     30,000

　　Benefits: Increased income            20,000    20,000     70,000  90,000     90,000

　　Benefits: Better staff morale         25,000    25,000     25,000  25,000     25,000

　　Cumulative net benefits (441,000) (282,000) (73,000) 156,000 385,000

　　Figure 1: Costs and benefits of the business case for the community centre at Tillo

　　New buildings built under the Private/Public investment policy must attain energy level targets and this is the basis for the estimation, above, of the energy savings. It is expected that the new centre will attract more customers who will pay for the centre’s use as well as increasing the use of facilities such as the cafeteria, shop and business centre.

　　These benefits are estimated, above, under increased income. Finally, it is felt that staff will be happier in the new building and their motivation and morale will increase. The centre currently employs 20 staff, 16 of whom have been with the centre for more than five years. All employees were transferred from the old to the new centre. These benefits are shown as better staff morale in Figure 1.

　　Construction of the centre 2010–2011

　　In October 2010 the centre was commissioned with a planned delivery date of June 2011 at a cost of $600,000 (as per Figure 1). Building the centre went relatively smoothly. Progress was monitored and issues resolved in monthly meetings between the company constructing the centre and representatives of the local authority. These meetings focused on the building of the centre, monitoring progress and resolving issues. Most of these issues were relatively minor because requirements were well specified in standard architectural drawings originally agreed between the project sponsor and the company constructing the centre. Unfortunately, the original project sponsor (an employee of the local authority) who had been heavily involved in the initial design, suffered ill health and died in April 2011. The new project sponsor (again an employee of the local authority) was less enthusiastic about the project and began to raise a number of objections. Her first concern was that the construction company had used sub-contracted labour and had sourced less than 80% of timber used in the building from sustainable resources. She pointed out the contractual terms of supply for the Private/Public policy investment initiatives mandated that sub-contracting was not allowed without the local authority’s permission and that at least 80% of the timber used must come from sustainable forests. The company said that this had not been brought to their attention at the start of the project. However, they would try to comply with these requirements for the rest of the contract. The new sponsor also refused to sign off acceptance of the centre because of the poor quality of the internal paintwork. The construction company explained that this was the intended finish quality of the centre and had been agreed with the previous sponsor. They produced a letter to verify this. However, the letter was not counter-signed by the sponsor and so its validity was questioned. In the end, the construction company agreed to improve the internal painting at their own cost. The new sponsor felt that she had delivered ‘value for money’ by challenging the construction company. Despite this problem with the internal painting, the centre was finished in May 2011 at a cost of $600,000. The centre also included disability access built at the initiative of the construction company. It had found it difficult to find local authority staff willing and able to discuss disability access and so it was therefore left alone to interpret relevant legal requirements.

　　Fortunately, their interpretation was correct and the new centre was deemed, by an independent assessor, to meet accessibility requirements.

　　Unfortunately, the new centre was not as successful as had been predicted, with income in the first year well below expectations. The project sponsor began to be increasingly critical of the builders of the centre and questioned the whole value of the project. She was openly sceptical of the project to her fellow local authority employees. She suggested that the project to build a cost-effective centre had failed and called for an inquiry into the performance of the project manager of the construction company who was responsible for building the centre. ‘We need him to explain to us why the centre is not delivering the benefits we expected’, she explained.
 

　　(a) The local authority has commissioned the independent Project Audit Agency (PAA) to look into how the project had been commissioned and managed. The PAA believes that a formal ‘terms of reference’ or ‘project initiation document’ would have resolved or clarified some of the problems and issues encountered in the project. It also feels that there are important lessons to be learnt by both the local authority and the construction company.

　　Analyse how a formal ‘terms of reference’ (project initiation document) would have helped address problems encountered in the project to construct the community centre and lead to improved project management in future projects. (13 marks)

　　(b) The PAA also believes that the four sets of benefits identified in the original business case (rental savings, energy savings, increased income and better staff morale) should have been justified more explicitly.

　　Draft an analysis for the PAA that formally categorises and critically evaluates each of the four sets of proposed benefits defined in the original business case. (12 marks)

　　(25 marks)
 

　　(a) Meetings were held throughout the design and construction of the centre. These meetings focused on the building of the centre, monitoring progress and resolving minor issues that arose during construction. The successful completion of the centre on budget and ahead of schedule suggests that these meetings were effective. However, the absence of a wider project initiation document or terms of reference created problems that could have been resolved or better understood. An analysis of how a standard document could have helped address some of the issues that affected the construction and subsequent evaluation of the centre is given below.

　　There was confusion about the objectives of the project. The local authority is unable to recognise the distinction between project objectives and business objectives. The business objective of the project was to deliver payback in four years as required by the Private/Public investment policy. In contrast, the project objective was to build the centre by June 2011 for $600,000. By their very nature, the business objectives are not within the control of the project manager from the construction company responsible for building the centre. The achievement of the business objectives will involve much more than just delivering a building. They will concern marketing, sales and the successful operation of the centre. Evidence seems to suggest that the project manager was not (as the second project sponsor claimed) a failure. He delivered the building within budget and ahead of schedule. The problem was the failure of the local authority to distinguish between the project objectives(constructing the building) and the wider business objectives which the building was to help satisfy. It appears that nobody was either aware of, or willing to take responsibility for these wider objectives. It is recommended that future projects should clearly distinguish between project and business objectives and assign responsibilities to each.

　　The scope of the project was well-defined by the standard architectural drawings agreed between the construction company and the project sponsor. The only significant problem concerned the quality of the internal painting. There is no way (post project) of reconciling this misunderstanding. The construction company felt that it had come to an arrangement about this with the initial sponsor, but no documentation could be found to irrevocably support this. The letter confirming the intended finish produced by the construction company was not counter-signed by the project sponsor. This is an important lesson for the construction company in future projects. Changes or clarifications to the specification must be counter-signed by both parties. This is also appropriate to the local authority’s project management methods, continuing to demand that all changes must be counter-signed by both parties.

　　The constraints of the project were relatively well-defined in terms of time and cost, as these were defined in the original business case. However, tension was caused within the project when it became clear that certain labour and sourcing requirements of the Private/Public policy were not being adhered to. Specifically, these concerned the use of sub-contracted labour (not to be used without the commissioning agency’s permission) and sourcing at least 80% of timber on the project from sustainable forests. The generic terms of the Private/Public investment policy were not made available to the construction company. It is suggested that the local authority should, in future, integrate such objectives explicitly into the project terms of reference.

　　The authority of the project is the sponsor responsible for making decisions about the project, providing resources, considering and agreeing changes. They should also promote the project within the local authority and accept the project once it has been completed. The original sponsor on the local authority was very supportive of the centre’s design but their successor seemed unsure of her responsibilities and focused on obtaining concessions from the suppliers under the pretext of ‘value for money’rather than considering the wider issues, such as defining who had responsibility for delivering the business objectives. She also failed to promote the project to her fellow employees and tried to blame the builders for the failure. The role of the project sponsor should be formally defined within the local authority. Their responsibilities should be clear and failure to adhere to those responsibilities should be addressed.

　　The resources available to the project were relatively well defined, although the lack of local authority staff able and willing to discuss disability access meant that the contractors had to use their own initiative in this area. Fortunately for them, they interpreted legal requirements correctly and the delivered centre was deemed to be compliant with legislation. However, this is a risky approach and is not recommended for the future. Local authority resources and support required by projects should be specifically defined in advance. If they are unavailable during the project then substitutes must be provided.
 

　　(b) This part of the question evaluates the four sets of benefits identified in the payback calculation. It requires the categorization and critical evaluation of each benefit.

　　Ward and Daniel use the term ‘observable benefits’ to describe the least explicit benefits such as increased staff morale in the case of the community centre. They suggest that such benefits should be assessed against clear criteria by someone who is qualified to make such an assessment. So, for example, current staff morale and motivation might be assessed in an independent survey and compared to results from a similar survey conducted once the centre has been built and occupied.

　　In the context of the centre it might seem reasonable to assume that improved staff morale and motivation will have a positive effect on the success of the centre. For example, it may lead to better customer service, which may, in turn, lead to customers returning more often or using more facilities whilst they are there. It may also lead to reduced staff turnover, so decreasing costs associated with recruitment, induction and training.

　　However, from a benefits perspective, two issues have to be specifically addressed.

　　Firstly, the relatively significant estimated benefits attributed to improved staff morale in the original payback calculation must be questioned. In terms of increased benefits it is difficult to disentangle benefits due to this from other factors which might lead to increased customer use. In terms of reduced recruitment costs, there is little to suggest that staff turnover is high at the moment. 80% of the staff has been with the centre for over five years and there is an economic recession in the country,with unprecedented unemployment.

　　Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, the whole basis of the benefit needs further consideration. It is unclear why moving to the new centre would necessarily improve staff morale and motivation in the first place. There may be some intellectual support for the view that a pleasant working environment contributes towards motivation, but, in the initial stages the centre is likely to have temporary teething problems leading to (at least in the short term) a more stressful work environment. Similarly, even if a survey found that morale and motivation had increased it would be hazardous to attribute this to the investment in the centre as it may be largely due to external factors affecting each individual.

　　A measurable benefit is one where an aspect of performance is currently being measured or could be measured. However,it is not possible to estimate with any certainty, in advance, how much performance will improve when the changes are completed. In the context of the centre, increased income seems a reasonable measurable benefit. It seems reasonable to expect that current income is measured and that similar measures may be collected in the future.

　　The estimates on the payback calculation need further scrutiny, particularly the large increases predicted for years three and four. It should be acknowledged that few benefits are instantaneous and that use will only increase as the reputation of the centre grows. However, this growth in customer use is not associated with any increased costs which would seem unlikely.

　　Hence, the basis of these benefits requires further investigation.

　　A quantifiable benefit is one where there is sufficient evidence to forecast how much improvement or benefit should result from the proposed changes. In such circumstances the level of performance prior to the change is known and the improvement can be specifically attributed to the investment, rather than to other changes. Energy savings appears to fit into this category. Energy use could be established for the current building. The Private/Public investment policy requires buildings constructed under this arrangement to meet specified target energy levels. The construction methods and design of the building should reflect the need to meet this target. Thus there is a good basis for predicting energy savings, although, of course, the actual savings will not be known until after implementation.

　　Finally, a financial benefit is one where a financial value can be obtained by applying a cost, price or any other valid financial formula to a quantifiable benefit. Thus we might re-classify the quantifiable benefit of energy savings as a financial benefit,assuming that the new building meets the minimum level required by the initiative. There are still important assumptions

　　20 here, and the real performance can only be assessed after the building has been used for a while. There is still an element of estimation, and indeed the new building may surpass the minimum levels assumed in the cost/benefit analysis. In contrast rental savings on the current properties are both definite and immediate and are correctly recorded in the payback calculation.

　　In summary, the benefits in the payback calculation should probably have been initially restricted to financial and quantifiable benefits. The other benefits are important and should have been documented in the business case, but it seems inappropriate to artificially quantify these benefits to satisfy the need to achieve a payback target. However, if the measurable benefits are included in the business case, their underlying assumptions and probability should be communicated to the decision-maker.

　　Furthermore, efforts might also be made to better estimate the likely benefits, perhaps through looking at performance in similar centres, and using this as a benchmark to elevate the benefits to being, at least, quantifiable.
 

　　高顿网校小编寄语：生活充满了选择，而生活的态度就是一切。

 　　　　　　

　　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