06 09 2015
这次2015 JUN的考试可能计算是个问题，考官发现考生的计算能力严重欠缺，与professional level不相称，所以这次计算肯定会有，至于怎么个难法不一定，但可能是不常算，或者又不能很好解释结果的指标。另外，审题，通过P5审题比写多少内容更重要。
Still emphasis the capability at professional level: focus on the synthesis complex techniques and key topics.
Basic knowledge issues at this diet arose in two ways: 1) it was clear that a number of candidates confused terms used in P5 (performance prism confused with the performance pyramid, lifecycle costing confused with product lifecycle, cashflow confused with profit) and; 2) as in previous diets, basic management accounting calculations were not well understood or performed e.g. an inability to calculate the return on capital employed and simple calculations being done incorrectly through an inability to round answers.
The basis of this examination is analysis and application which then leads to evaluation. The candidate will need a foundation in the techniques of the syllabus but should focus more on evaluation of these techniques and consideration of their usefulness to the given scenario.
This is not difficult to revise as it is a mindset that can easily be encouraged by attempting past papers as an integral part of the revision process. Candidates need to be aware that performance management is an area which, at an advanced level, is dependent upon situation and environment. A good, professional level answer will go beyond the mere repetition of how a technique works and focus on relating it to the entity's specific environment. As in previous diets, it was very clear to the marking team that those candidates that had grasped the need for this went on to pass the paper.
This issue leads directly to the repeated advice to candidates to ‘answer the question asked'. There are several detailed examples in the discussion below where candidates answered a different requirement from the one asked or simply ignored a part of the requirement (and thus the marks on offer). There was also a lack of recognition for the suggestions contained within the scenario. Candidates should remember that the scenario is intended to mimic real life, in so far as is possible in the examination context. Therefore, when the CEO of the company that you are advising in a question suggests that ‘you do not, at this stage, suggest long lists of additional indicators’ then candidates need to realise that they are wasting (valuable) time providing long lists of additional indicators.
预计2015 JUN的考试中，相关模型或概念仍然会要求describe或explain，而计算也会考。计算方面一定不会象F7ratios那样是整个系列的，肯定是各种业绩相关的指标混在一起，比如说break even的计算，还有对计算结果的解释，到底说明了什么。
There were many basic mistakes made. First, many candidates still do not know how to calculate return on capital employed (ROCE) which is an important ratio. Second, some candidates are careless with simple calculations. Here, this was illustrated by a large number of candidates not correctly rounding figures e.g. 14.7% does not round to 14%, it rounds to 15%. Third, many candidates failed to address the second part to the requirement to evaluate the approach to benchmarking. The approach here was an external, competitive benchmarking. Those that did make an attempt often only provided a rote-learned list of steps for carrying out benchmarking without assessing how the presented approach matches that ideal. It must be realised that evaluate means consider the pros/cons of a method and this could have also included discussion of the alternative methods of benchmarking (functional/internal).)
In conclusion, the main messages from this paper for future candidates are:
- Read the questions carefully and answer the question requirement set
- Defining jargon terms does not represent an adequate answer to a question asking for an evaluation or assessment
- Take care in calculation work
- Practice application of your knowledge in scenario contexts