Printer-friendly version
It was not expected to repeat Sep paper in Nov, but gone well overall.
I did-
1. Change managment
2. Rebuild stores
3. Electricity
4. Balanced scorecard
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
- Our locations
- Jobs
- FM Magazine
- CIMAsphere community
- CGMA
T4 exam - how did everyone it?
How did everyone find todays paper? I didn't think it was too actually.
I'm curious to know how people prioritised the issues
I did:-
1. Change managment
2. Balanced scorecard
3. Rebuild stores
4. Electricity
I thought it was a fair exam...
Posted by Matthew Dyson on Thursday 24 November 2011 15:37
I did:-
1. Change Management
2. Rebuild stores
3. Balanced Scorecard
4. Electricity
Did a SWOT, Mendelow and Lewins Ice Cube for Apps.
Didnt quite get on to the graph, but did a few bullets for Part B. Fingers crossed eh
Same as August
Posted by Becki on Thursday 24 November 2011 15:46Almost exactly the same as the August exam - maybe even slightly easier!! Or it may be that I just revised August after failing it, so knew what to do with this one!
Mine were:
1. Change Management
2. Proposal to re-build stores
3. Proposal to reduce electricity
4. Proposal to introduce balanced scorecard
Ethics:
1. Arif Karp possibly inflating figures to achieve lower carbon emission targets
2. Should Papy pass on carbon emissions to supplier through change of packaging.
I really think I've done enough this time.... puurleeease!!
T4 Review
Posted by Gavin on Thursday 24 November 2011 15:58I started slow but managed to catch up.
I ordered as follows
Change Management
Reduced Electric (Changed my mind after writing but ra with it, in hindsight should of had 2 and three the other way around)
Proposal to close stores
Balance scorecard
Ethics was good - Went with Packaging and Arif dysfunctional behaviour.
Never managed to analyse Balance scorecard but managed to get good depth on all the others and had a good go at Part B
Overal i think it went well and hopefully should pass, missing fourth issue meant i could ensure good depth.
Good Luck All
ETHICS????
Posted by Nidarsha on Thursday 24 November 2011 16:181. Change managment
2. Rebuild stores
3. Electricity
4. Balanced scorecard
5. Ethics - Packaging and improper working conditions (lighting) in factories.
I didn't write about Arif's behavious since that was a conversation that was overheard and it is wrong to state that in a professional report without any evidence....
Sounds like the usual pattern
Posted by Jamie on Thursday 24 November 2011 16:29Tough first sitting; more straightforward second sitting. Still bitter about wasting my time with the March paper ;)
Seriously though, the pass rates back it up, and it's not just the students have more time to prepare. My advice to anyone new to T4 would be skip the first opportunity unless you're a masochist.
@Jamie
Posted by Becki on Thursday 24 November 2011 16:31I'm the same Jamie... sat the March paper thinking T4 would be a walk in the park. That was a suprise!
Kicking myself for failing the May Paper. It was there for the taking and I stupidly recommended BZCS did not perform the safety checks (what was I thinking??!!)
Struggled again on August, panicked on the numbers and ran out of time.
So I'm finally hoping 4th time lucky!
Just a thought on Balance Scorecard issue...
Posted by Matthew Dyson on Thursday 24 November 2011 16:34...a few people seem to have put this at option 4. I felt it was a fairly strategic issue and was due to be implemented at the beginning of 2012 (i.e. in 1 months time).
Whereas the eletricity issue was more operational and not due until 2013, hence my reasoning for putting it in 4th and BS in 3rd.
Getting in to the numbers...did anyone have a figure of around 97m kg's of carbon for the total reductions via eletricity?
Balance scorecard
Posted by Vaishali Patel on Thursday 24 November 2011 16:45...a few people seem to have put this at option 4. I felt it was a fairly strategic issue and was due to be implemented at the beginning of 2012 (i.e. in 1 months time).
Whereas the eletricity issue was more operational and not due until 2013, hence my reasoning for putting it in 4th and BS in 3rd.
Getting in to the numbers...did anyone have a figure of around 97m kg's of carbon for the total reductions via eletricity?
Yes I got the same number as you.
I agree with you, I ranked it second because of it's urgency. Looking back at it now, should of gone with making it 3rd!
T4 Issues
Posted by Katie_lou on Thursday 24 November 2011 17:45My issues were as follows
1. Change management
2.Balanced scorecard - due to date and the fact that targets were unlikely to be achieved without the implementation
3. Store re-build - I believe this required the most investment and yielded the greatest reduction in emissions. 3rd due to plan to reopen by end of 2012. The plan had yet to be formally approved by the goverment.
4. Electricity - Lower investment and lower reduction in carbon emissions.
I know that some people put the reduction options higher in their prioritisation but I felt that as the scorecard was going to be introduced at the start of 2012 that it needed a quicker resolution although I also agree that in order to get the palnned reduction in emissions work would need to be initiated on the rebuild/elec asap. Hard to prioritise I thought.
I know that the overriding success factor is to complete the report and that prioritisation is not meant to be the be all and end all so good luck to all.
Third time lucky for me.........I hope!!!!!
Where to put Balance Scorecard
Posted by Becki on Thursday 24 November 2011 17:51I also quibbled whether to put the Balanced Scorecard higher, in the end I chose number 4. Simply because the re-building of the stores were due to start in 2012 with the aim of opening at the start of 2013.
We were also told that Lucas Meyer expected emissions to be down by 2013, therefore I felt the urgency here was to decide what measures to take to ensure they were brought down.
The Balanced Scorecard was a long term strategic option for Papy, so although urgent, I didn't think it ranked above the other two.
However, I think wherever you put it in your top 4, if you discussed and recommended rationally you should be ok.
@Katie
Posted by Becki on Thursday 24 November 2011 17:51
The Government had approved the proposal to re-build the new stores.
T4 Issues
Posted by GK on Thursday 24 November 2011 17:59Hi all,
I agree with Becki, BSC - is it really gonna help reducing carbon emissions? Its a tools to assess financial and non financial parameters when deciding the incentives to the employees (in Papy's case). So i rated it as my last priority and i was told that impact over rules urgency in ranking the prioritoes. I may be wrong.
Rest part went ok, except that i discussed and gave recommendations for only 3 issues which makes me worried :(.
Balance Scorecard
Posted by Matthew Dyson on Thursday 24 November 2011 18:17Hi all,
I agree with Becki, BSC - is it really gonna help reducing carbon emissions? Its a tools to assess financial and non financial parameters when deciding the incentives to the employees (in Papy's case).
Hi..yes good point, but Papys CSR agenda isnt just about reducing emissions, its also about treating suppliers and employees fairly and giving customers a say in their plan, so perhaps the BS did deserve to be higher?
I only put it at 3rd myself, maybe it should've gone up to second?
Im fairly happy that I placed eletricity in 4th as I accept it had a fair impact but over a year to be implemented. As well as this it was a much more operational issue. Papy could easily find other ways to reduce carbon than just reducing eletricity.
Anyone actually complete the graph?
Graph
Posted by GK on Thursday 24 November 2011 18:24Hi Mat,
Part B is one of areas which was well done by me. I did a line chart made a mistake thank god i noticed and rectified it.
If BSC is in top two then my prediction of marginal fail is to be degraded to clear fail.
Rebuilding Stores
Posted by GK on Thursday 24 November 2011 18:31
Was there a mention about the life of rebuilding project? How did you guys calculate the capital cost per kg reduction in carbon emission for this proposal?
The numbers
Posted by Herman Futcher on Thursday 24 November 2011 18:37Hi all,
What was everyone revised carbon emissions per kg after both the proposals was implemented? Mine was in between 400 and 500 somewhere? Really hope I've got this right as it was a substantial approved above Lucas target of 700 which made my answer look odd to me.
Also forgot to bring in the depreciation into my calcs due to timing constraint.
Went with BS as priority number 3!
Think it was a fair question paper only problem is just TIME!!!
The numbers
Posted by GK on Thursday 24 November 2011 18:45Hi all,
What was everyone revised carbon emissions per kg after both the proposals was implemented? Mine was in between 400 and 500 somewhere? Really hope I've got this right as it was a substantial approved above Lucas target of 700 which made my answer look odd to me.
Also forgot to bring in the depreciation into my calcs due to timing constraint.
Went with BS as priority number 3!
Think it was a fair question paper only problem is just TIME!!!
Prioritisation
Posted by Richard Johnson on Thursday 24 November 2011 18:50Seems as if though I missed missed a key issue as had change management at number 4 (decided from a rationale of no deadline and urgency of others... think i rushed in without really thinking!)
However, I did manage to right a fair bit on each issue and make 4 recommendations.
I had just under 700 kg per sq m if supermarkets are rebuilt and 627 if electricity is reduced as well. So I said that electricity reduction can be delayed 1 year until 2014 to help meet 2014 targets.
Also managed to complete a graph so hoping that my useless prioritisation doesn't mean a fail!!!!
Prioritisation
Posted by Kwong Wai-Sze on Thursday 24 November 2011 18:58Oh my god, looking at all your comment, I am going to fail my exam as my prioritisation was:
1. Change mgt, carbon target and the introduction of balanced score card
2. Re-build store due to higher capital investment & higher reduction in CO2
3 electricity
4 Packaging
My ethics were Arif Karp's behaviour in regard to the sales forecast & higher depreciation to stores (staff bonus is related to the profit, hence conflict of interest)........ now thinking about it, I was wrong :(
calculation
Posted by Kwong Wai-Sze on Thursday 24 November 2011 19:14I didn't do any NPV at all & didn't use the depreciation over14 years given, was it a requirement?
Diversity
Posted by Gary on Thursday 24 November 2011 19:32
Did any manage to get any good diversity marks?
I was struggling after my introduction. I went for tescos steering wheel for the bsc and rambled something about plan a for the electricity reduction
Re Calculation
Posted by Tina on Thursday 24 November 2011 19:32Neither did i, worried i missed something vital there. Pleased to see i proritised the same as the majority tho!
Calcs & prioritisation
Posted by bathcima on Thursday 24 November 2011 19:41Complete balls up on the prioritisation - I put BSC at the top. Loking at other marking grids, hopefully thats only a few marks dropped for that as long as my waffle counted as ok Logic should be possible to get marks for a well written discussion?
As for NPV - wouldnt worry - there was no requirement to do it. All the ques asked was for the capital cost per kg saved and IIRC data to support kg/m2. NPV would prob only have scored a couple of technical marks if anything. This was highlighted in teh CIMA article posted above and in previous PEG's.
However Im no marker and thats just me reading some marking grids for crumbs of comfort.
Prioritising
Posted by Ummer Yousaf on Thursday 24 November 2011 19:49Hi,
I went with:
rebuild of stores
Change mngt
electricity proposal
BSC
Ethics: arif karps bonus and conv!!
from all the revision courses all i was repeatedly told was not too beat yourself up over prioritisation. i can see all the above posts have the main issues, at least no one missed an issue all together!!
As long as you've put your justification in you wont be penalised too much!!
Good luck all!! now the fantastic wait until results :-)
Too much to do
Posted by JaneKL on Thursday 24 November 2011 19:501. Change Management
2. Rebuild of supermarkets
3. Balanced Scorecard
4. Electricity reduction
Ethics - Employees working in the dark, misleading CO2 reductions when only pushing them onto suppliers, Arif selecting change of packaging that contributes to his bonus.
There seemed to be so many bits of information that I'm worried I didn't do something with them all. I only used the 14 years depreciation to reduce the operating profits.
I didn't recommend the rebuild due to the cost being 288m for 181kg/m2 when the electricity reduction got 177kg/m2 for only 44.5m.
bsc??
Posted by Ummer Yousaf on Thursday 24 November 2011 19:50
surely analysing the contradictory aspects of the BSC would count for a mark within the technical aspect?
Too many numbers
Posted by Student_50 on Thursday 24 November 2011 19:581. Change Management
2. Rebuild
3. Electricity
4. Balanced Scorecard
Ethics - employees working in the dark and overstated revenues/profits.
There is just not enough time to complete this paper so I ended up leaving the graph out : (
Diversity
Posted by JaneKL on Thursday 24 November 2011 20:02I included
M&S Plan A (in the introduction)
Tesco Steering Wheel
Tesco's zero carbon stores
Sainsbury's flagship store uses insulating earth banks and natural light to reduce electricity usage
Co-op differenter as a sustainable brand and being awarded 'green retailer 2011'
I did a SWOT in the appendicies and used Mendelow's stakeholder matrix, Druckers management by objectives and SAF in the discussion.
Word Count
Posted by Ron Burgandy on Thursday 24 November 2011 20:41Really worried about my word count.
Priorities as above
1. Change Management
2. 12 Stores Rebuild
3. Balanced Scorecard
4. Leccy reductions
Ethics - Arif & Paulo conversation (not the conversation itself but the fact that they were being shifty with it) & passing the CE problem to suppliers through use of plastic & linked to Arif's bonus etc.
Reduction to circa 630 Kg per Sq metre for combined proposals, breakevenish on the Leccy proposal.
Diversity including Tesco Cambridge (0 carbon store) & 1m extra transactions for Big Price Drop, etc
BUT - 2,300 words including TofR and Introduction is nowhere near enough!
What word counts did you get?