Acp5efm13 J Combined

ACP5EFM13(J) MOCK 1 Questions
ACCA
Paper P5
Advanced Performance
Management
Final Mock
Question Paper
Time allowed
3 hours
15 minutes reading and planning time
This paper is divided into two sections
Section A This question is compulsory and MUST be attempted
Section B TWO questions ONLY to be attempted

Instructions:
Take a few moments to review the notes on the inside of this page titled, Get into good exam habits now! before
attempting this exam.
DO NOT OPEN THIS PAPER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO START UNDER
EXAMINATION CONDITIONS

2 ACP5EFM13(J) MOCK 1 Questions
Get into good exam habits now!
Take a moment to focus on the right approach for this exam.
Effective time management
Watch the clock, allow 1.8 minutes per mark. Work out how long you can spend on each question
and do not exceed that time.
Take a few moments to think what the requirements are asking for and how you are going to
answer them.
Effective planning
This paper is in exactly the same format as the real exam. You should read through the paper and
plan the order in which you will tackle the questions. Always start with the one you feel most
confident about and take time to choose the questions you will answer in sections with a choice.
Read the requirements carefully: focus on mark allocation, question words and potential overlap
between requirements.
Identify and make sure you pick up the easy marks available in each question.
Effective layout
Present your numerical solutions using the standard layouts you have seen. Show and reference
your workings clearly.
With written elements try and make a number of distinct points using headings and short
paragraphs. You should aim to make a separate point for each mark.
Ensure that you explain the points you are making ie why is the point a strength, criticism or
opportunity?
Give yourself plenty of space to add extra lines as necessary, it will also make it easier for the
examiner to mark.
Common terminology
Identify List relevant points
Discuss Explain the opposing arguments
Describe Present the characteristics of
Summarise State briefly the essential points
Recommend Present information to enable the recipient to take action
Analyse Determine and explain the constituent parts of
Explain Set out in detail the meaning of
Illustrate Use an example to explain something
Appraise/assess/
evaluate Judge the importance or value of

ACP5EFM13(J) MOCK 1 Questions 3
SECTION A
This question is compulsory and must be attempted
1 Crown Oak Construction
Crown Oak Construction (COC) is a quoted company which has for many years specialised in the
construction of timber framed buildings such as barns, garages, car ports etc. You are the newly
appointed and recently qualified accountant at COC.
You are given the following information
1 The summarised budgeted and actual income statements for the twelve month period ending 31
March 20X3 for COC.
Budget Actual
$m $m
Revenue 452 439
Cost of sales 272 275
Gross profit 180 164
Less: Staff costs 23 23
Depreciation 18 27
General expenses 22 28
Sub-contractor costs 34 52
Operating profit 83 34
Interest 8 11
Profit before tax 75 23
Income tax 18 7
Profit for the year 57 16
2 The following additional budgeted and actual information about COC:
Budget Actual

Shareholders funds $424m $413m
Number of ordinary shares 200m shares 200 m shares
Long term loans $80 m $120 m
Average number of employees 2,000 2,400
Total annual dividend $30m $30m
3 The budgeted figure for revenue is based upon the following budgeted sales mix and average
price:
% $
Barns 17 18,000
Garages 41 12,000
Car ports 26 8,000
Other 16 6,000
The budgeted total volume of sales was 41,000 units.

4 Cost of sales comprises the cost of direct materials and direct labour. The budgeted materials
cost and labour hours for each type of product are as follows:
Materials
costs
Labour
hours
$ Hours
Barns 6,660 480
Garages 4,680 280
Car ports 2,480 240
Other 2,280 170
The average labour rate was budgeted at $9 per hour.
5 The actual sales volumes for the period were 22% lower than budgeted for barns but 8% higher
than budget for garages and 5% higher for car ports. Other types of unit were 15% below budget.
Selling prices were as budgeted.
6 Production follows sales orders therefore the production volume figures were the same as those
for sales. However the actual labour rate per direct labour hour was increased to $10.
7 The chief accountant has some concerns about the performance of COC during the year to 31
March 20X3 and has also provided you with summarised actual figures for a direct competitor
Henderson Construction (HC), which is unquoted and has the same accounting period as COC.
$m
Revenue 550
Cost of sales 331
Gross profit 219
Less: Staff costs 27
Depreciation 23
General expenses 23
Sub-contractor costs 39
Operating profit 107
Interest 2
Profit before tax 105
Income tax 27
Profit for the year 78

Shareholders funds $444m
Number of ordinary shares 250m
Long term loans $20 m
Average number of employees 2,500
Total annual dividend $15 m
8 The chief accountant has two further concerns that he would like you to address in your report.
He thinks that the poor actual performance compared to budget may be attributable to the
difference between the budgeted and actual sales mix of products during the year.
He is concerned about an increase in the number of jobs for customers where the company is
having to carry out remedial work after the initial construction has been completed. He thinks
that the cost of remedial work could be excessive, but the current performance reporting
system does not provide information about this.

Required:
(a) Using the information provided, prepare a report to the chief accountant which evaluates and
compares the financial performance of COC and HC for the year ended 31 March 20X3. As part
of your report you should:
(i) produce an appendix showing the workings for budgeted revenue and cost of sales and
actual revenue and cost of sales
(ii) provide an analysis of the sales mix and its effect on profitability
(iii) suggest how performance reports might be produced which would provide valuable
management information about costs of remedial work.
(32 marks)
(including 4 professional marks for the presentation and quality of the report)

Having received your report, the Chief Accountant has asked for a meeting with you. On arrival at the
meeting the Chief Accountant provides you with a summary of the strategies of both Crown Oak
Construction and Henderson Construction, as follows:
Crown Oak Construction
In order to boost market share, which has fallen over the past three years, the directors decided, during
the year ended 31 March 20X3, to move into the building of pre-assembled wooden structure houses
imported from Scandinavia, believing that a need for cheaper products would exist as interest rates were
forecasted to rise and there were fears of recession. This has involved considerable investment in new
non-current assets and additional direct labour being employed. However, as this is a growing market,
the directors believe that in the longer term this will be a profitable new area of market share for the
company.
Henderson Construction
As in previous years, the directors of Henderson Construction have concentrated on maintaining current
market share with no view to growth by acquisition or new markets. However the company continues to
monitor its costs constantly, and reduces these wherever possible, in a bid to increase profitability by
improving operating efficiency.
Required:
(b) Evaluate the extent to which these stated strategies explain the relative performance of the two
companies. (8 marks)
(c) Explain the conflicts that the management of a company like COC has, regarding short and long-
run performance. (6 marks)
(d) Discuss the likely reaction of the shareholders and market to the results of COC to for the year
ended 31 March 20X3. (4 marks)
(Total = 50 marks)

SECTION B
TWO questions only to be attempted
2 Glenn Associates
Glenn Associates (GA) is a security firm which provides installation and service contracts for security
systems for private and business clients. In the last few years the amount of business generated has
started to slow and the directors realise that, in order to maintain their success, the business must grow.
The strategy of the business is to increase their customer base. This is particularly important for
installations as, once a system is installed by GA, the service business should follow automatically. A
further strategic concern of the directors is that business will only be retained if the quality of the service
provided by GA is of the highest standard. A further aspect of the strategy of the business is that costs
must be controlled in order to encourage sales without increasing prices.
In the past the Managing Director of GA has only assessed performance of the company on the basis of
financial performance indicators. However, having recently attended a course which touched on the
subject of the importance of non-financial performance indicators, he is now considering whether to
incorporate relevant indicators into the management accounting reporting system.
You are the accountant for Glenn Associates, and the Managing Director has provided you with the
following data about the companys performance for the year ended 31 March 20X3.
Selected statistics for the year ended 31 March 20X3
Revenue $11,840,000

Net profit $947,600

Total client enquiries
New business 4,230
Repeat business 1,840

Enquiries turned into contracts
New business 3,005
Repeat business 1,510

Number of service call outs 14,320

Number of engineers employed:
Installations 34
Service 95

Total engineer hours
Installations 68,300
Service 213,750

Numbers of customer complaints
Installation 934
Service 1,250

Time to reach client when called out 3.2 hours (average)

Chargeable time of engineers:
Installations 62,830 hrs
Service 166,790 hrs

Time between initial enquiry
and installation 5 days (average)

Number of service contracts
20X2 15,890
20X3 18,890

Number of installations
20X2 8,120
20X3 9,635
Required:
(a) Explain the growing emphasis on non-financial performance indicators for a business such as GA.
(4 marks)
(b) Using only the information provided produce a range of non-financial performance indicators
under each of the following headings:
(i) Competitiveness
(ii) Resource utilisation
(iii) Quality
Explain the importance to GA of each indicator of performance you produce and assess GAs
performance as a result.
(16 marks)
(c) Comment critically on the value of using non-financial performance measures (such as
competitiveness, resource utilisation and quality) within an integrated system of performance
measurement, such as the performance pyramid or Fitzgerald and Moons building blocks model.
(5 marks)
(Total = 25 marks)

3 Edwards Incorporated
Edwards Incorporated (EI) is a multi-national diversified business which operates on a divisionalised
basis. The manager of each division of EI is responsible for capital investment choices within a capital
budget set by the Board of EI and is paid an annual bonus related to the return on investment of the
division for each accounting year. EI has a weighted average cost of capital of 10%.
TT is a division of EI, which provides equipment to the building trade. The manager of TT is currently
assessing a project to open a new superstore to sell equipment. The project has an initial cost of $1
million, will last for four years, has no residual value and has a positive net present value of $0.35 million.
The profitability of the project in the first year will be:
$000
Revenue 800
Cost of sales (380)
Gross profit 420
Expenses:
Wages 120
Advertising costs 40
Depreciation 140
Profit before tax 120
Tax 30
Net profit 90
TT currently has a return on investment of 15.8% based on average investment. It is estimated that, at
the end of the first year of trading, the replacement cost of the net assets of the investment will be $1
million.
The managing director of TT Division is looking for investments to stabilise the financial performance of
the division, which has been variable in recent years due to changing economic conditions and fluctuating
sales demand.
Required:
(a) (i) Calculate both the return on investment and residual income for the first year of trading of
this investment. Explain whether the manager of TT is likely to invest in this project and
whether the board of EI would agree with this decision.
(ii) Calculate the economic value added of this investment for the first year of trading and
comment on the investment opportunity from the viewpoint of both the group and the
manager concerned. Assume that economic depreciation is the same as depreciation
charged against income. (12 marks)
(b) Discuss FOUR reasons why a divisions performance should be measured separately from that of
a divisional managers performance. (4 marks)
(c) EI has divisions operating in several different countries. Explain the problems that may be
encountered in comparing the performance of divisions in different countries. (4 marks)
(d) Discuss the view that divisional measures such as residual income and economic value added fail
to take account of liquidity and gearing as key aspects of performance, and suggest how liquidity
and gearing could be monitored at divisional level within a company such as EI.
(5 marks)
(Total = 25 marks)

4 Gibson & Chew
Gibson & Chew (G&C) are a certified accountancy practice specialising in medium-sized company audits,
venture finance and taxation planning. G&C comprise six partners, eight managers, three other qualified
staff, 15 accounting technicians and trainees and 20 office support staff. The senior and founding
partners are David Gibson and Charles Chew. Gibson manages the audit part of the practice while Chew
manages the special finance and taxation part. The workloads in the two areas are broadly equal.
G&C has a good professional reputation and the practice has, over the 10 years since its formation,
grown steadily. G&C prides itself on being a good employer. It pays staff market salary rates or above,
provides a pleasant office working environment and supports its junior staff by paying their fees for
professional training.
Two years ago the two senior partners designed and implemented a staff appraisal scheme to assist in
the process of staff development and staff performance reviews. The system has been based around an
annual appraisal interview conducted by either David Gibson or Charles Chew. All staff have since been
appraised once, the last few employees having just been appraised by the partners. The time delay in
seeing all staff has posed some problems as the senior partners had also intended to use the appraisal
interview as the basis to agree the annual bonus.
Partners, managers and support staff views on the appraisal scheme have been very mixed. Some
informal comments have been so negative as to cause the two senior partners to question whether the
scheme should be abandoned altogether. Charles Chew and David Gibson have decided to list their
feelings about the scheme and its operation.
'The appraisal scheme has taken up far more of our time than we first thought.'
'Appraisal interviews have been very difficult to fit into our busy schedule.'
'We have had to see staff at random, as and when the appraisal interview could be organised.'
'Some staff seem to see the interview as an opportunity to complain or ask for things. If we make
criticisms, some individuals get upset and ask us what more we expect them to do.'
'Some staff just sit there and do not contribute anything to the interview.'
'It is difficult to think of having to start again with the second round of interviews so soon after finishing the
first.'
'We know for a fact that some of the problems in performance that we pointed out to staff during their
appraisal interview have been totally ignored.'
'We have doubts whether the scheme has improved partnership performance in terms of client service,
productivity and overall fee income.'

Required:
(a) Explain the function, operation and potential benefits of staff appraisal schemes. (8 marks)
(b) Comment on the apparent appraisal problems experienced at Gibson & Chew and suggest how a
successful appraisal scheme could be organised and operated so as to address these problems.
(12 marks)
(c) Recommend performance measures that may help the senior partners to assess client service,
productivity and overall fee income, and comment on the merits and limitations of each of the
measures you have recommended.
(5 marks)
(Total = 25 marks)


Maths tables


Student self-assessment
Having completed this paper take a few minutes to consider what you did well and what you found difficult. Use
this as a basis to focus your future study on effectively improving your performance.
Common problems Future emphasis if you answer Yes
Timing and planning
Did you finish too early? Y/N Focus your planning time on generating more ideas.
Use models to help develop width to your thinking.
Did you overrun? Y/N Focus on allocating your time better.
Practise questions under strict timed conditions.
If you get behind leave space and move on.
Did you waffle? Y/N Focus your planning time on developing a logical structure to
your answer.
Layout
Was your answer difficult to follow? Y/N Use headings and subheadings.
Use numbering sequences when identifying points.
Leave space between each point.
Did you fail to explain each point? Y/N Show why the point identified answers the question set.
Were some of your workings unclear? Y/N Give yourself time and space to make the marker's job easy.
Content
Did you struggle with:
Interpreting the questions? Y/N Learn the meaning of question words (inside front cover).
Learn subject jargon (See the Key Terms in your Study Text).
Read questions carefully noting all the parts.
Practise as many questions as possible.
Understanding the subject? Y/N Review your notes/Text.
Work through easier examples first.
Contact a tutor for help.
Remembering the notes/Text? Y/N Quiz yourself constantly as you study. You need to develop your
memory as well as your understanding of a subject.


BPP House, Aldine Place, London W12 8AA
Tel: 0845 0751 100 (for orders within the UK)
Tel: +44 (0)20 8740 2211
Fax: +44 (0)20 8740 1184
www.bpp.com/learningmedia

ACP5EFM13(J) MOCK 1 Suggested solutions
ACCA
Paper P5
Advanced Performance
Management

Final Mock
Commentary, Marking scheme and
Suggested solutions

2 ACP5EFM13(J) MOCK 1 Suggested solutions
ACP5EFM13(J) MOCK 1 Suggested solutions 3
Commentary
Tutor guidance on improving performance on the exam paper
The key to success in P5 is application of wide and varied syllabus knowledge, both flexibly and in enough depth
in the time allowed. This mock examination is a realistic test of your ability towards the final stages of your
preparation for the real event.
Section A
Q1 Crown Oak Construction (COC)
Part (a) of this question provides a budgeted and actual income statement for a quoted company,
together with selected balance sheet information and the actual figures for an unquoted competitor (HC).
Using a variety of ratios you are then required to compare the performance of COC against budget and
against HC, and prove certain numbers in the statements from operating data provided.
You are also required to assess the effect of sales mix on performance within your report and comment
on whether the concerns of the chief accountant appear well-founded, and also to make suggestions
about reporting on costs of remedial work.
In part (b) you are then provided further information about the strategies of COC and HC and are then
required to determine how these stated strategies help assess performance. Part (c) requires a
discussion of the problem of short-run results and long-run results and finally part (d) requires you to
consider the likely reaction of shareholders to the results that you have been working on.
Section B
Q2 Glenn Associates (GA)
This question considers non-financial performance indicators. In part (a) you need to consider why there
is growing emphasis on NFPIs for service businesses such as GA. You are also provided with data which
you must use in part (b) to create NFPIs. Explanation of usefulness and levels of performance must
relate to the critical success factors and strategies of GA. Part (c) asks you to relate non-financial
performance measures to an integrated organisation-wide system of performance reporting: answers to
this question can vary considerably.
Q3 Edwards Incorporated (EI)
This question concerns decision-making in divisions, and the opportunity for dysfunctional behaviour. Part
(a) requires some simple calculations to illustrate the problems of ROI and RI and EVA. Part (b) requires
four reasons to separate the assessment of a divisional manager from assessment of the division itself.
Part (c) considers the problems of comparing the performance of divisions in different countries and
requires little application to GA to score well. Part (d) asks about the relevance of liquidity and gearing
measures to divisional performance measurement.
Q4 Gibson & Chew
This question covers staff appraisals and requires a practical application to the scenario to score high
marks. Part (c) requires suggestions about how a firm of professional accountants may use performance
measures to assess aspects of performance such as client service and productivity.
SECTION A
1 Crown Oak Construction
Marking scheme

Marks

(a)
1 mark for each proof of budgeted and actual figures 4
Calculation (1 mark to max 7) and discussion (1 mark) of ratios
Max

14

Analysis of actual sales mix and comparison with budget: Max 5
Conclusion in report on sales mix 2
Report on remedial costs: depending on extent and depth of
discussion
3
Professional marks 4
Max 32
(b) For relevant comments about the extent to which the strategies
explain the performance of COC

Up to 5

For relevant comments about the extent to which the strategies
explain the performance of HC

Up to 4

Max 8
(c) General comments regarding short v long term 3
Application to COC 3
6
(d) Importance of information available 1
Importance of dividend signal 2
Belief in long term growth 1
4
50
Suggested solution
(a) REPORT
To: Chief accountant
From: Accountant
Date: June 20X3
Subject: Financial performance of COC in the year to 31 March 20X3
Introduction
This report deals mainly with an assessment of the financial performance of COC by comparison
with our direct competitor HC.
This comparison has been based on the summarised budgeted and actual income statements of
COC for the year ended 31 March 20X3 together with some additional information and the same
information provided for HC.
The report also considers two further issues:
The effect of the sales mix on profitability in the year to 31 March 20X3
The use of performance measures to monitor costs of remedial work.
Revenue and profitability
The analysis which follows is based on the information in Appendix A.
COCs revenue is slightly less (2.8%) less than budget, but 25% less than HC, despite the fact
that HC has a smaller capital base. The budgeted gross profit margin for COC was similar to that
of HC but the actual gross profit margin of COC is considerably lower, indicating significantly
higher direct costs. The position is even worse when the operating profit margin is considered.
COCs operating profit margin is only 7.7% compared to 19.5% for HC.
If the costs are examined by category, depreciation is much higher than was either budgeted for
or charged by HC. This, together with the increased loan capital, indicates that there has been
considerable investment by COC in additional non-current assets during the year. The staff costs
are exactly as budgeted, which would indicate that these are fixed costs of support staff.
General expenses to sales are not only higher than budgeted but also a greater percentage of
sales than charged by HC indicating that COC may have a problem with the control of its other
expenses. However, the main reason for the large fall in operating profitability below budget and
below that achieved by HC is the large amount of costs incurred in sub-contracting work. This is
over 50% more than the amount that was budgeted for and considerably higher as a percentage
of sales than those sub-contracting costs incurred by HC.
This reduction in profitability is a large part of the cause of a return on capital employed of only
6.4% compared to a budgeted figure of 16.5% and the return achieved by HC of 23.0%. However
the other reason for the low level of return on capital employed is that the asset turnover, is lower
than the budgeted figure, and both the budgeted and actual asset turnovers are much lower than
that of HC. This indicates that HC is using its capital more intensively and effectively than COC.
However, part of the reason for the lower asset turnover is that investments in new non-current
assets in COC may not have been fully utilised for the whole of the accounting period.
Finally in terms of profitability there is a worrying concern about the number of employees in COC.
The budgeted figure was for 2,000 employees which would have resulted in a budgeted profit per
employee of $28,500. However as there has been a large reduction in profitability in COC as well
as a 20% increase in employees above those budgeted for then the profitability per employee has
fallen to a miserable $6,667 compared to $31,200 achieved by HC. If this is a long term trend for
COC then there must be serious concerns about the management of the business.
Other financial indicators
The gearing level of COC has increased from 18.7% to 29.1% as an additional $40 million of loan
capital has been taken out, reducing the interest cover from 10.4 times as budgeted to 3.1 times.
It is a concern that something as important as additional loan capital at this level had not been
budgeted for. However it should be noted that either the interest rate for the new loans is lower
than the budgeted amount of 10% per annum of that the loans were only taken out part way
through the year.
By comparison HC has almost insignificant gearing (20/444 = 4.5%), which may indicate the
difficulties of raising finance for an unquoted company or the lack of desire for debt by the
business.
The dividend of $30 million is as budgeted despite profits of only $16 million. This dividend was
partly paid out of previously retained profits. In a quoted company dividends are considered to be
very significant and a reduction over what is expected may have a detrimental effect on share
price. This is why the dividend was maintained at prior period levels despite the lack of profits to
support it. The policy of HC, however, is clearly very different as with a much higher profit level of
$78 million after tax only $15 million was paid out as dividend with the remainder retained in the
company. As an unquoted company, HC may have other reasons for making not making
distributions: the objectives of shareholders, the lack of debt capacity or possibly the tax position
of directors or shareholders.
Comparison of performance with HC: Conclusion
From the information available there should be some concern about the financial and operating
performance and management of COC. Although budgeted gross profit margin is similar to that of
HC, thereby indicating a similar performance level, all other budgeted figures are lower. This
suggests that the management of COC has lower expectations of their effective and efficient use
of the resources available to them. The actual results of COC are considerably worse than
budgeted.
Sales mix and profitability
An analysis of sales mix in the year to 31 March 20X3 indicates that the actual sales mix was only
slightly less profitable than the budgeted sales mix. The actual sales mix contained a larger
proportion of sales of barns and garages and a smaller proportion of sales of car ports and other
items. The overall effect was a reduction in gross profit of about $1 million.
Although the performance of COC was disappointing, the variation in sales mix from budget was
therefore not a significant contributory factor.
Figures to support this conclusion are given in Appendix B.
Cost of remedial work
Information about costs of remedial work would have little value unless it helps management to
control the costs. It would be possible to introduce a costing system that records the time spent on
remedial work and materials used for remedial work. This information would indicate the size or
scale of these costs and so their effect on profitability.
Measures to reduce costs of remedial work would involve:
Preventative measures, such as better training for staff
Inspection costs at the end of a job, to check that the work has been done to the required
standard.
Costs of remedial work may be reduced through preventative measures and better inspection, but
the overall costs of quality should be measured.
My recommendation would therefore be to experiment with performance reporting system that
provides information about all the costs associated with quality: costs of skills training, costs of
inspection as well as the costs of remedial work (labour and materials).
Appendix A: Budgeted and actual revenue and cost of sales
Budgeted revenue

Budgeted volume

Price

Revenue

Units

$

$m

Barns (41,000 x 17%)

6,970

18,000

125.46

Garages (41,000 x 41%)

16,810

12,000

201.72

Car ports (41,000 x 26%)

10,660

8,000

85.28

Other (41,000 x 16%)

6,560

6,000

39.36

451.82

Actual revenue

Actual volume

Price

Revenue

Units

$

$m

Barns (6,970 x 78%)

5,437

18,000

97.87

Garages (16,810 x 1.08)

18,155

12,000

217.86

Car ports (10,660 x 1.05)

11,193

8,000

89.54

Other (6,560 x 85%)

5,576

6,000

33.46

438.73

Budgeted cost of sales

Budgeted

units

Materials
cost

Labour
cost

Cost

of sales

$m

$m

$m

Barns

6,970

46.42

30.11

76.53

Garages

16,810

78.67

42.36

121.03

Car ports

10,660

26.44

23.03

49.47

Other

6,560

14.96

10.04

25.00

272.03

Actual cost of sales

Actual

units

Materials
cost

Labour
cost

Cost

of sales

$m

$m

$m

Barns

5,437

36.21

26.10

62.31

Garages

18,155

84.97

50.83

135.80

Car ports

11,193

27.76

26.86

54.62

Other

5,576

12.71

9.48

22.19

274.92

Workings Financial performance indicators
Note: Not all of these figures are required to answer this question. A selection of suitable ratios should be
included in the answer. A full schedule of ratios is included here for completeness.
COC
Budget
COC
Actual
HC
Gross profit margin
180/452 x 100 39.8%
164/439 x 100 37.4%
219/550 x 100 39.8%

Operating profit margin
83/452 x 100 18.3%
34/439 x 100 7.7%
107/550 x 100 19.5%

General expenses : sales
22/452 x 100 4.9%
28/439 x 100 6.4%
23/550 x 100 4.2%

Subcontractor costs : sales
34/452 x 100 7.5%
52/439 x 100 11.8%
39/550 x 100 7.1%

Return on capital employed
83/(424 + 80) 16.5%
34/(413 + 120) 6.4%
107/(444 + 20) 23.0%

Asset turnover
452/(424 + 80) 0.90
439/(413 + 120) 0.82
550/(444 + 20) 1.19

Profit per employee
$57m/2,000 $28,500
$16m/2,400 $6,667
$78m/2,500 $31,200

Interest cover
83/8 10.4
34/11 3.1
107/2 53.5

Dividend cover
57/30 1.9
16/30 0.5
78/15 5.2

Earnings per share
$57/200 28.5 c
$16/200 8.0 c
$78/250 31.2 c

Gearing (Loans/Shareholders Funds)
80/424 18.9%
120/413 29.1%
20/444 4.5%
Appendix B: Budgeted and actual sales mix
The figures in this appendix are based on labour costs of $10 per hour, on the assumption that this was
an unavoidable increase in cost above budget. However, the overall conclusion would be the same if an
hourly rate of $9 per hour were to be used.

Sales price Materials
(budget)
Labour Gross profit Gross
profit/Sales
$ $ $ $
Barns 18,000 6,660 4,800 6,540 36.3%
Garages 12,000 4,680 2,800 4,520 37.7%
Car ports 8,000 2,480 2,400 3,120 39.0%
Other 6,000 2,280 1,700 2,020 33.7%

Gross margins are approximately the same on all products, but it is higher for car ports and garages, less
for barns and least for other items.

Actual
revenue
Actual
sales
mix
Budgeted
sales mix
Actual
revenue in
budgeted
mix
Gross
profit/Sales
Gross profit if
sales in
budgeted mix
$ % % $ million $ million
Barns 97,870,000 22.3 17.0 74.6 36.3% 27.1
Garages 217,860,000 49.7 41.0 179.9 37.7% 67.8
Car ports 89,540,000 20.4 26.0 114.0 39.0% 44.5
Other 33,460,000 7.6 16.0 70.2 33.7% 23.6
Total 438,730,000 100.0 100.0 438.7 163.0

The actual gross profit on actual sales was $164 million. The figures above suggest that the change in
sales mix, compared with budget, had a relatively small effect ($1 million) on gross profit.

(b) Crown Oak Construction
COC has changed its strategic direction, moving into a different product; building houses from
pre-assembled imported parts. This product development will help to explain the performance of
COC.
Revenue of this new product line should be included in other revenue. Revenue here is below
budget, which indicates that this new line may be taking time to gain market acceptance and that
other product sales are also deviating significantly from budget. If sales are suffering from
recession this could indicate that COC is wise to look for cheaper product lines.
For this new line of business there has been significant investment in new non-current assets
which could explain the increased gearing level and the increased depreciation charge over the
amount budgeted. However, unless this was a very late decision on the part of the management
of COC, one would have expected these figures to have been included within the budget,
particularly the additional loan capital. It is possible that this strategy emerged during the year
when results were seen to be diverting from budget.
The pre-assembled parts for the houses are imported from Sweden which may partially account
for the increased direct costs and lower gross profit margin. This new line of business may also
have required additional employees which were not envisaged when the budget was set.
A worrying feature of COCs income statement is the large amount of sub-contractors costs which
were very much higher than those budgeted for. It is entirely possible that the management of
COC underestimated the amount of additional work that the house assembly would require and
this has resulted in the increased number of employees and increased sub-contracting costs.
There is probably a large learning curve for the company in carrying out such new work.
Finally, the lower average rate of interest this indicates that the loans and capital investment took
place part way through the year and therefore this new line of business may not have been fully
operational for the entire year. This will have affected profits which may well revert to more
healthy figures once the business is fully established and COC has more experience in this area.
If COC can control its costs in the way that HC clearly does, and works through the learning curve
of its new line of business, then it is possible that results may improve in future periods.
Henderson Construction
HC has a completely different strategy to COC which centres upon increasing profitability by
constant monitoring of costs in the current line of business but doesnt seek growth by new market
or new product development. Pressure to remove non-value added costs and activities will be a
key part of this strategy and would appear to be the reason why all levels of costs for HC are
lower than those budgeted for COC and profit levels higher. HCs shareholders may be risk
averse, especially if they are also the directors of the business and may be more focussed on
internal control than on strategic planning initiatives.
HC also has a lower asset base than COC. This accounts, in part, for improved ROCE figures.
One way to reduce costs, including depreciation, and harvest stronger results from business is to
maintain older assets which are held at lower net book values. If this is the case, then HCs higher
ROCE and earnings may not be maintained indefinitely as assets reach the end of their useful
lives and have to be replaced.
(c) It could be argued that, in general terms, the directors of a company have a short-term interest in
their company, in terms of their employment and remuneration, whereas the equity investors have
a longer-term interest as they have made an investment in the shares in order to secure a return
over time. It can also be argued that the directors of a company need to produce results in the
short-term in order satisfy the requirements of the investors in terms of earnings per share each
year. At only 8.0 cents per share for COC, compared to a budgeted figure of 27 cents, the COC
shareholders may well have reasons to be concerned over short-term performance. The level of
dividend has only been maintained by payment from retained profits of prior years. However, as
COC is quoted, shareholders always have the opportunity to liquidate their investment if they are
not happy with the returns they are receiving from their investment, although the price they realise
for the shares may well have fallen from previous levels.
Therefore there is likely to have been much debate at COC over the investment in the new house
assembly business. The budgeted figures for COC show that, although it does not attempt to
control costs as strictly as HC, the expectations of management were that profitability would not
be too far behind that of HC. This should have satisfied shareholders in the short-term and the
directors themselves who would have continued to run a profitable and stable company.
However, the decision was taken to turn to a relatively new product with initial capital costs and
other learning factors. Inevitably this has led to depressed short-term results, although the
directors firmly believe that the long term prospects are good especially given the likely future
economic conditions. Therefore the decision to invest for the longer-term growth of the company
rather than short-term continuation of profits was a brave one.
(d) The likely reaction of the shareholders in COC will depend upon the amount of information that is
available to them. Clearly there has been a downturn in results and their earnings per share is
lower than budgeted and probably than previous years. It is also considerably lower than that of a
direct competitor in the form of HC.
However the directors of COC have taken the decision to keep the dividend in total and dividend
per share at the same amount as that which was budgeted, despite the reduced profitability. This
should indicate to the shareholders that the directors of COC have confidence in the long term
future of the company despite the short-term downturn in results.
It is often advisable for the chief executive of a company to meet with key shareholders,
particularly institutional shareholders on a regular basis, in order to keep them informed of major
developments such as this move into a new line of business.
If the shareholders are informed of what is going on in COC, and believe the directors assertions
of future levels of profitability, backed up by the dividend payment, then there should be little effect
on the share price of COC. However, if the shareholders are not informed or do not believe in the
return to profitability levels then these results may lead to a fall in the share price of COC.

Section B
2 Glenn Associates
Marking scheme

Marks

(a) Weakness of traditional measures 1
Widen managers focus 1
Importance of other areas of performance 1
Application to service industry 1
4
(b) 3 marks per NFPI
Produce an indicator i.e. measure
Explain the importance to GA, i.e. why chosen
Assess GAs performance i.e. improving/worsening
Max per indicator
For each of
(i) Competitiveness
(ii) Resource utilisation
(iii) Quality

1
1
1
3

Max 6
Max 6
Max 6

Max 16
(c) Integrated system puts non-financial measures into context in
relation to organisational objectives
2
Discuss competitiveness, resource utilisation and quality in the
context of the performance pyramid, the building bock model or any
other relevant model: up to 2 marks per model discussed
Max 4
Max 5
25
Suggested solution
(a) It is now fairly widely recognised that concentration on financial performance indicators alone is
too narrow a focus for businesses and means that important goals and factors may be ignored.
Financial performance measures are historic, often out of date when reported and short term in
nature.
Further, managers are more likely to narrow their thinking if only financial performance indicators
are considered. Non-financial performance indicators will tend to make managers consider
external factors, such as customers and competitors. This in turn can result in managers thinking
more strategically about the business and making decisions to improve service rather than
increase short run profit or profitability
In the current business environment, factors such as quality, delivery, reliability, after sales service
and customer satisfaction are vital to continued success of any business. Such elements of a
business cannot be quantified and reported using the traditional financial performance indicators
such as profit margins and return on capital employed.
This is particularly true of service industries such as that of GA, where the quality and flexibility of
service that they provide to their customers is of extreme importance in a competitive market.
GAs reputation relies upon not only the reliability of the product that it supplies, the security
system, but also the service that it provides in terms of the speed and quality of installation and
emergency response, and its reliability in terms of servicing the security systems.
(b) Competitiveness
Percentage of enquiries turned into contracts:
New business (3,005/4,230) 71.0%
Repeat business (1,510/1,840) 82.1%
This indicates how competitive GA is at winning new contracts from both new business customers
and existing customers. In particular, the percentage of new business is a useful indicator due to
strategic objective of increasing the customer base.
Increase in number of contracts:
Service (18,890 15,890)/15,890 18.9%
Installations (9,635 8,120)/8,120 18.7%
This gives an indication of growth in the business rather than simply considering growth in
turnover. The break down between service and installation contracts provides management with
information about which section of the business is more competitive. It is surprising that service
business has increased at a greater rate than installations as it is expected that new installations
lead to an increase in service contracts thereafter. GA should see the service percentage rise in
future periods or may be incorrect in believing that service business automatically follows from an
installation.
Resource utilisation
Number of service call outs per engineer
(14,320/95) 150.7 per engineer
This indicates the productivity of the service engineers. Productivity is an important aspect of cost
control as the salaries of the engineers will be fixed costs of the business. The more service call-
outs made by each engineer will reduce the salary costs per call out and increase profit per call
out.
Percentage of chargeable hours to total hours
Installations (62,830/68,300) 92.0%
Service (166,790/213,750) 78.0%
Again this indicates the productivity of each type of engineer. As above, the greater the
productivity of the engineers the lower will be the cost per installation and cost per service. GA
has a strategic objective to control costs in order to encourage sales without increasing prices. It
is not possible to assess this completely, as no comparisons are available, other than to suggest
that control seems to be more tightly enforced on installations than on service. Given the need for
emergency cover and to maintain flexibility, GA will need to accept some spare capacity and this
may be greater in the service part of the business. Care must be taken when setting standards in
this area to ensure that over- efficiency does not impact quality.
Quality
Customer complaints as percentage of contracts
Installations (934/9,635) 9.7%
Service contracts (1,250/18,890) 6.6%
This shows the level of customer satisfaction with the work carried out, and indicates the quality of
the work of the engineers. In a service industry such as this, quality of both the product and the
service provided is of vital importance in retaining and attracting customers, and the directors of
GA recognise this as part of their overall strategy.
These measures can also be linked to repeat business and growth, as measured in (i) above.
Installations have slightly lower growth, higher productivity and higher complaints than service.
The directors may need to prioritise these objectives as they appear to be in conflict.
Time to reach client 3.2 hours on average
Time between enquiry and installation 5 days on average
Both of these indicators are important factors as customers will assess GA not only on the quality
of their product and of their engineers but also on the speed of dealing with problems and getting
a new installation in place. Again as above this ties in with the strategic objective of providing the
highest quality of service. These indicators may also suffer if too much pressure is applied to
resource utilisation.
(c) It may be assumed that the overall objective of a commercial organisation is to achieve a suitable
financial return for its owners. If so, financial measures of performance may be considered directly
relevant to this objective. Non-financial measures of performance, such as quality measures, are
not so clearly relevant to an organisations objectives. An integrated system of performance
measurements helps to set non-financial performance in the context of achieving the
organisations overall objectives.
The performance pyramid is an integrated system that links the strategic aspects of performance
through the hierarchies of management down to the work centre level, and combines financial and
non-financial measures within its framework. Quality is an external non-financial aspect of
performance at the work centre level; productivity (resource utilisation) is an internal measure at
the business operating system level; and competitiveness may be seen as an aspect of customer
satisfaction at the business operating system level or market position at the business level of the
pyramid. The three different aspects of performance considered in the answer to (b) are therefore
brought within a system of performance measurement that puts each of them into context.
The same applies to Fitzgerald and Moons building block model, which was developed for
businesses in service industries. Competitive performance is considered a major aspect of
performance, together with financial performance, and determinants of competitive performance
are resource utilisation and quality of service. Although the two models are different, each
includes non-financial aspects of performance within the overall framework.
3 Edwards Incorporated

Marking scheme

Marks

(a) ROI 2
RI 2
Explanation of managers reaction 2
Board reaction 2
EVA calculation 3
EVA commentary 1
12
(b) 1 mark per reason 4

(c) 1 mark per valid issue Max 4

(d) 1 mark per valid issue up to a maximum of 3: 0.5 marks per
suggested performance measure for liquidity and gearing up to a
maximum of 2

5
25
Suggested solution
(a) (i) Return on investment =
investment capital Average
tax and interest before Profit
x 100
Opening capital investment = $1,000,000
Closing capital investment (1,000,000 x ) = $750,000
Average capital investment = ($1,000,000 + 750,000)/2
= $875,000
Return on investment =
$875,000
$120,000

= 13.7%
Residual income
Profit before interest and tax $120,000
Interest cost on average investment $875,000 x 10% $87,500
Residual income $32,500
The return on investment of the project in the first year is only 13.7% which is lower than
the current return on investment for TT of 15.8%. Therefore the manager of TT is unlikely
to invest in this project as it will reduce his divisions return on investment in the short term
and therefore affect the amount of bonus which he will be paid for this year.
However the project has an overall positive net present value of $0.35 million and has a
positive residual income in this first year of $32,500. Both of these measures mean that
the investment would be suitable for the company overall and therefore the Board of
directors of EI would want TT to invest in this project.
(iii) Economic value added
EVA = Net operating profit after tax capital charge
Capital charge = Weighted average cost of capital x economic value of net assets
Net operating profit after tax
$000
Profit after tax per question 90
Add back advertising cost 40
NOPAT 130
Value of net assets at start of period 1,000
At 10% charge (100)
EVA 30
As the economic value added of the investment is positive the manager of TT should
conclude that the investment will add to the wealth of the shareholders and therefore
should be undertaken. The board should concur, given the net present value (as above).
(b) The performance of a division must be assessed separately from that of a manger for the
following reasons:
An astute manager may have been put in charge of a poorly performing division. He may
have improved the divisions performance due to his own ability but if the division is still
performing poorly then divisional measurements will not reflect the performance of the
manager.
Many strategic decisions take time to affect results. A manager should be assessed on the
value added to a division rather than on reported profits. Strategic decisions may not
always be available if capital budgets are set by head office.
Managers have skills and attributes that cannot be assessed by considering divisional
returns. Managerial ability will require separate measurement.
Managers may not have control over all costs. The manager of a division should only be
held accountable for costs over which he has some influence. However it is not always
easy to determine controllable and non-controllable costs in practice. Some costs may be
under the control of a senior manager but not a junior manager. Some costs may be under
joint control of two or more managers.
In a divisionalised business such as EI, some costs are controlled by a manager in another
division. Costs and revenues may be created by a system of transfer prices, which may
have been determined by higher levels of management rather than the manager being
assessed.
Many divisions are also charged with costs from head office. These may be apportioned to
divisions irrespective of use, in a manner that the divisional manger cannot control.
(Note: Only FOUR reasons required. Additional reasons are provided here for tutorial purposes.)
(c) The problems of comparing divisional performance when divisions are in different countries
include:
Market conditions
The economic climate in different countries will affect the reported performance of divisions within
those countries. Economic factors may include different inflation rates, changing exchange rates,
the state of the economic cycle in the country, interest rates and local taxation policy.
Political climate
Political factors that may affect performance include the attitude of the local government to that
particular industry, incentives or grants which may be allowed, effects on competition or
regulations and controls in that particular industry.
Funding
The availability of funds for investment from country to country may differ and this is likely to affect
the ability to invest and also the cost of investment if the funds are available.
Legal factors
Different countries may have different laws and regulations in areas such as health and safety,
minimum wages, consumer protection, pollution control and waste disposal. All of these are likely
to affect the performance of a division.

(d) Residual income and economic value added are both measures of financial position. Both can be
used to assess the value created by an organisation during a period, and can be used to measure
historical performance or to budget or forecast future performance. Similarly, both are measures
of the success of the organisation in achieving the overall financial objectives of the organisation,
which are generally related to profits and return.
Liquidity and gearing are measures of financial condition. Sufficient liquidity and an appropriate
level of financial gearing are necessary conditions for survival and financial security, but they do
not contribute directly to overall financial objectives.
Although liquidity and gearing can be measured retrospectively using historical data, they are
more useful as forward-looking measures. An organisation needs to be satisfied that it will have
adequate liquidity and suitable gearing in the future.
There are several ways of measuring liquidity. Historically, liquidity can be measured by a quick
ratio, current ratio and cash cycle. Looking forward, liquidity is perhaps best measured by free
cash or by means of a cash budget or cash flow forecast.
Operational gearing can be measured by the contribution/sales ratio, which indicates the rate of
change in contribution or gross profit as a result of a given change in sales revenue. TT Division
has volatile annual sales revenue, and operational gearing is therefore significant as a measure of
change in profitability resulting from a change in revenue.
Financial gearing is not a useful measure of financial condition at divisional level unless specific
amounts of long-term debt are attributable to the division. Financial gearing measures changes in
after-tax profit in response to a change in operating profit, but is usually measured at the level of
the organisation as a whole.

4 Gibson & Chew
Marking scheme
Marks
(a) Nature of the appraisal process to 1
Formal and informal appraisal to 1
Objectives/benefits of staff appraisal systems to 3
Typical process of a staff appraisal system to 3
Role of the appraisal interview to 1
Measurement in appraisal systems to 1
Integration of appraisal into total performance assessment to 1
(to maximum of 8 marks)
(b) Need for expertise to 1
Need for clear scheme objectives to 2
Limits to appraisees and the cascade approach to 2
Checklist of successful scheme attributes:
Seven points Up to 10
(points should be related to case example to earn higher marks)
Problems in evaluation of scheme benefits to 1
(to a maximum of 12 marks)
(c) Suggestions for performance measures, discussion of merits and limitations:
Maximum of 2 marks each for client service, productivity and total fee income
(to a maximum of 5 marks)
(Total: 25 marks)

Suggested solution
(a) Staff appraisals generally comprise a report prepared periodically (eg annually) which assesses
the past performance and development of an employee and identifies the employee's potential for
improving performance. Appraisal:
(i) Enables a picture to be drawn up of the strengths and weaknesses of the human
'resources' of an organisation.
(ii) May identify training needs, and once training has taken place, performance appraisal
enables some evaluation of training effectiveness.
(iii) Allows managers and subordinates to plan personnel and job objectives in the light of
performance.
(iv) May be used to assess the level of reward payable for an individual's efforts, eg, in merit
payment systems.
(v) Enables the communication of goals and expectations.
(vi) Permits career and succession planning by assessing potential.
It is, however, important if the appraisal is to fulfil the last point that it is regular, systematic,
based on objective criteria, and permits a two way flow of communication in a reasonably
trusting atmosphere.
The formal procedure often utilises standard documents. There is then an interview which allows
an exchange of views about the result of the assessment, targets for improvement and solutions
to problems. A summary or combined form is produced with an outline of the action plans to
achieve improvements and the changes agreed. The follow up monitors the action plan and
provides feedback to the next appraisal session.
Successful schemes: characteristics
(i) Clear objectives that are understood.
(ii) Criteria for measurement which are, as far as possible: standardised; quantifiable; specific;
relevant; attainable; and agreed.
(iii) Discussion orientated towards results rather than personalities.
(iv) Participation by both parties in performance assessment and setting goals.
(v) Action plans to achieve the improvements and changes agreed.
(vi) Mutual trust and openness between managers and subordinates.
(vii) Feedback at appropriate intervals to allow correction for deviations.
The outcome of the appraisal could be the satisfaction of identified training needs, coaching or
even changes to the job description. This is then used as the basis of monitoring the performance
of the appraisee and part of criteria for discussion in the next round of appraisals.
To get the best out of appraisals, firms should align their appraisal schemes with their overall
business objectives. This can be achieved in a number of ways.
(i) The management by objectives approach where a set of key objectives are drawn up
along with agreed performance standards. Resources are allocated to ensure the
objectives are met and these become the group manager's objectives for the review
period.
(ii) Competences can be expressed in behavioural terms reflecting knowledge, skills and
attitudes which must be demonstrated to an agreed standard and must contribute to the
overall objectives of the organisation.
(b) G&C's current staff appraisal scheme is not operating successfully. The problems seems to begin
at the outset with the design and implementation of the formal scheme. Because the partners
lack the expertise in scheme design, the model that they are using is likely to be difficult to work
with. Had they employed an experienced agency they could have tailored the system to suit
themselves but the basic structure would have been sound.
(i) Problems
Too many conflicting purposes. Although the partners refer to the scheme as an
appraisal scheme, it is used for staff development, performance assessment and
reward (annual bonus). If the staff are unclear about the purpose of the appraisal, this
may explain why they either do not contribute anything to the interviews, or else see them
as an opportunity to complain.
(1) Performance vs development
If an individual is assessed on past performance, the assessment will not show
whether the individual will be capable of handling a more senior job with a
demand for different skills. Appraisal for promotion should therefore be based on
a person's potential skills - those required by the new post.
There is an inherent conflict in the appraisal process between judgement about
past performance and development in relation to future performance.
(2) Performance vs reward
There is also a problem in linking past performance with future reward, or a bonus
in this case. Unless the connection between performance and reward is a real one,
it is damaging.
(ii) Too little time. There are too many employees for Gibson and Chew to appraise without
help. They will need to involve other partners and managers in the process. 360 degrees
appraisal is when people at all levels contribute to the appraisal.
(iii) Poor identification of criteria for assessment, meaning that staff will not be clear about
how they are being assessed or what aspects of their performance are most important.
(iv) A disregard for action plans to achieve improvements and changes agreed.
All of these shortcomings mean that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the partners to evaluate
the benefits of the present system.
Good appraisal schemes
A successful appraisal scheme could be operated by the firm if they follow certain guidelines.
(i) Everyone should understand the purpose and objectives of the appraisal scheme, the
uses that will be made of it and the method of operation.
(ii) The scheme should have full support at all management levels. As wide a range of staff as
possible should be involved in the formulation of the scheme.
(iii) It should be objective and constructive, helping the appraisee to improve performance.
Destructive appraisals have been shown to lead to resentment and a worsening of
relations.
(iv) It should be systematic in that all the relevant personnel should be appraised using the
same criteria.
(v) Training of appraisers is vital, as is the constant monitoring of their performance, so that
standards are maintained.
(vi) All aspects of the appraisal should be made known to the job holder, who is then given full
feedback of has every opportunity to contribute to the process.
(vii) The system should be simple to operate with the minimum of form filling but ensuring the
facts are recorded.
(viii) Follow up action plans should be agreed and there must be a willingness to monitor
progress.
(c) Client service
Client service might be assessed in relation to the increase (or decrease) in total fee income from
individual clients, and the average rate of growth (or decline) in fee income per client. This would
have to be adjusted for any changes in hourly fee rates charged.
This might be a suitable measure on the basis that clients will only ask an accountancy firm to do
more work if they are satisfied with the work that the firm has done so far.
However, there may be reasons why fee income per client rises for some clients that are not
connected to client service and client satisfaction. For example, if a client is successful and its
business grows in size, the annual audit may involve more work and so generate more income for
Gibson & Chew.
Productivity
Employee costs are likely to be a significant cost in a professional firm of accountants, and
measures of productivity should therefore be concerned mainly with labour productivity.
A suitable measure of performance may be chargeable hours worked per professional employee,
or chargeable hours as a proportion of total hours worked, in the case of accounting technicians.
This assumes that an individual is productive only when directly earning income for the firm.
There are several problems with this performance measure. Individuals may be productive when
they are not doing chargeable hours of work. In addition, using this measure for control purposes
can bring unnecessary pressure to bear on employees, who may feel that they are under-
performing if they are not continually working long hours on income-earning work.
Total fee income
Total fee income is more easily measured. Total income should be analysed between different
types of work done by the firm: audit, taxation, venture finance work and other work. The
advantage of this measure is that in a business where most costs are fixed, total revenue is a
critical aspect of performance. The only problem is to ensure that responsibilities for earning fee
income should be attributable to particular partners within the firm. Unfortunately, responsibilities
for increasing fee income are not necessarily clearly defined.
If the firm introduces a performance measurement system, this should be based on
responsibilities and accountabilities of individuals for each aspect of performance.


BPP House, Aldine Place, London W12 8AA
Tel: 0845 0751 100 (for orders within the UK)
Tel: +44 (0)20 8740 2211
Fax: +44 (0)20 8740 1184
www.bpp.com/learningmedia

Acp5efm13 J Combined

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Acp5efm13 J Combined

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ACP5EFM13(J) MOCK 1 Questions

Você também pode gostar