山东省2020年ACCA国际会计师报考指南——新手报考必看

正确答案：

 

正确答案：
(b) In many ways Six Sigma started out as a quality control methodology. It focused on measurement and the minimisation of
faults through pursuing Six Sigma as a statistical measure of some aspects of organisational performance. However, Six Sigma
has developed into something much more than a process control technique. It includes a problem-solving process called
DMAIC and a comprehensive toolkit ranging from brainstorming to balanced scorecards and process dashboards. It also has
defined team roles for managers and employees, often with martial arts names such as Black Belt, Green Belt and Master
Black Belt.
Six Sigma was first used in organisations in the early 1990s. However, it was its adoption and promotion by Jack Welch, the
CEO of GE that brought Six Sigma wider publicity. He announced that ‘Six Sigma is the most important initiative GE has ever
undertaken’. As Paul Harmon comments, ‘Welch’s popularity with the business press, and his dynamic style, guaranteed that
Six Sigma would become one of the hot management techniques of the late 1990s’.
Six Sigma uses an approach called DMAIC in its problem solving process. This stands for Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve
and Control. Three aspects of this are considered below in the context of how they would address the problems at UPC.
Defining the problem
Part of defining the problem is the identification of the customer. It is important to understand what customers really want
and value and one of the main themes of Six Sigma is its focus on the customer. Six Sigma explicitly recognises the ‘voice of
the customer’ (VOC) in its approach. In the UPC situation quality requirements are currently defined by the physical condition
of the goods and by the alignment of the image. However, this may be a limiting view of quality because there is no evidence

of any systematic investigation of the requirements of the customer. Solving these problems may not lead to any significant
long-term gain; they may be quickly replaced by other ‘quality issues’. Furthermore, the customer is also perceived in a limited
way. These quality requirements are in the eye of the gift shop owner who is interested in saleable products. The end customer
– the consumer – who buys and uses the product may have other requirements which can also be addressed at this time.
By considering the VOC the problem and scope of the project becomes re-defined and the solution of the problems potentially
more valuable.
Measurement
Measurement is fundamental to Six Sigma. This includes the gathering of data to validate and quantify the problem. The
creation of the inspection team was based on initial evidence about an increase in breakages. This needs to be quantified.
The inaccurate printing of the image had been quantified as 500 units per month, out of the 250,000 shipped out of the
company. This equates to a failure rate of 0·2%, so that 99·8% of items are shipped with a correctly aligned image. This
sounds quite reasonable but it still raises issues and complaints that have to be dealt with, as well as creating wastage costs
of $10,000 per month. The problem is that even a relatively low percentage of defects can lead to a lot of unhappy customers.
Aiming for Six Sigma would reduce defects down to about one faulty item per month, reducing the wastage cost to $20.
Analysis
Analysis is concerned with understanding the process to find the root cause. Six Sigma focuses on processes and their
analysis. Analysis concerns methods, machines, materials, measures, Mother Nature and people. The alignment problem
needs investigation to find out what causes the imaging machine to irregularly produce misaligned images. Management
currently appear to blame the machine but it may be due to the way that certain people load the machine. The analysis of
the breakages is particularly important. It is unclear at present where these breakages occur (for example, are some of the
items broken before they leave UPC’s despatch facility) or are they all broken in transit? Neither is it understood why the
breakages occur. Management appear to blame the packers for packing incorrectly and not following the correct method.
However, it may be that the material is just not strong enough to withstand heavy handling by couriers who are outside the
control of UPC. Additionally, the breakages may be due to some manufacturing problem or raw material imperfection in the
items that break. Six Sigma stresses understanding the problem before solving it.
Although DMAIC has been selected as the framework for the sample answer, focusing on other aspects of Six Sigma would
be acceptable – as long as they are presented in the context of the UPC scenario.

正确答案：
3 Poppy Co
(a) Balances held at fair value are frequently recognised as material items in the statement of financial position. Sometimes it is
required by the financial reporting framework that the measurement of an asset or liability is at fair value, e.g. certain
categories of financial instruments, whereas it is sometimes the entity’s choice to measure an item using a fair value model
rather than a cost model, e.g. properties. It is certainly the case that many of these balances will be material, meaning that
the auditor must obtain sufficient appropriate evidence that the fair value measurement is in accordance with the
requirements of financial reporting standards. ISA 540 (Revised and Redrafted) Auditing Accounting Estimates Including Fair
Value Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures and ISA 545 Auditing Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures
contain guidance in this area.
As part of the understanding of the entity and its environment, the auditor should gain an insight into balances that are stated
at fair value, and then assess the impact of this on the audit strategy. This will include an evaluation of the risk associated
with the balance(s) recognised at fair value.
Audit risk comprises three elements; each is discussed below in the context of whether material balances shown at fair value
will lead to increased risk for the auditor.
Inherent risk
Many measurements based on estimates, including fair value measurements, are inherently imprecise and subjective in
nature. The fair value assessment is likely to involve significant judgments, e.g. regarding market conditions, the timing of
cash flows, or the future intentions of the entity. In addition, there may be a deliberate attempt by management to manipulate
the fair value to achieve a desired aim within the financial statements, in other words to attempt some kind of window
dressing.
Many fair value estimation models are complicated, e.g. discounted cash flow techniques, or the actuarial calculations used
to determine the value of a pension fund. Any complicated calculations are relatively high risk, as difficult valuation techniques
are simply more likely to contain errors than simple valuation techniques. However, there will be some items shown at fair
value which have a low inherent risk, because the measurement of fair value may be relatively straightforward, e.g. assets
that are regularly bought and sold on open markets that provide readily available and reliable information on the market prices
at which actual exchanges occur.
In addition to the complexities discussed above, some fair value measurement techniques will contain significant
assumptions, e.g. the most appropriate discount factor to use, or judgments over the future use of an asset. Management
may not always have sufficient experience and knowledge in making these judgments.
Thus the auditor should approach some balances recognised at fair value as having a relatively high inherent risk, as their
subjective and complex nature means that the balance is prone to contain an error. However, the auditor should not just
assume that all fair value items contain high inherent risk – each balance recognised at fair value should be assessed for its
individual level of risk.
Control risk
The risk that the entity’s internal monitoring system fails to prevent and detect valuation errors needs to be assessed as part
of overall audit risk assessment. One problem is that the fair value assessment is likely to be performed once a year, outside
the normal accounting and management systems, especially where the valuation is performed by an external specialist.
Therefore, as a non-routine event, the assessment of fair value is likely not to have the same level of monitoring or controls
as a day-to-day business transaction.
However, due to the material impact of fair values on the statement of financial position, and in some circumstances on profit,
management may have made great effort to ensure that the assessment is highly monitored and controlled. It therefore could
be the case that there is extremely low control risk associated with the recognition of fair values.
Detection risk
The auditor should minimise detection risk via thorough planning and execution of audit procedures. The audit team may
lack experience in dealing with the fair value in question, and so would be unlikely to detect errors in the valuation techniques
used. Over-reliance on an external specialist could also lead to errors not being found.
Conclusion
It is true that the increasing recognition of items measured at fair value will in many cases cause the auditor to assess the
audit risk associated with the balance as high. However, it should not be assumed that every fair value item will be likely to
contain a material misstatement. The auditor must be careful to identify and respond to the level of risk for fair value items
on an individual basis to ensure that sufficient and appropriate evidence is gathered, thus reducing the audit risk to an
acceptable level.

正确答案：
(c) Examiner’s Note:
The topic of managerial motivation and budgeting has been a subject of discussion for a number of years. There are links
here to the topics of performance measurement and responsibility accounting. Discussion should be focused on the area of
budgets and the budgeting process, as specified in the question.
Setting targets for financial performance
It has been reasonably established that managers respond better in motivation and performance terms to a clearly defined,
quantitative target than to the absence of such targets. However, budget targets must be accepted by the responsible
managers if they are to have any motivational effect. Acceptance of budget targets will depend on several factors, including
the personality of an individual manager and the quality of communication in the budgeting process.
The level of difficulty of the budget target will also influence the level of motivation and performance. Budget targets that are
seen as average or above average will increase motivation and performance up to the point where such targets are seen as
impossible to achieve. Beyond this point, personal desire to achieve a particular level of performance falls off sharply. Careful
thought must therefore go into establishing budget targets, since the best results in motivation and performance terms will
arise from the most difficult goals that individual managers are prepared to accept4.
While budget targets that are seen as too difficult will fail to motivate managers to improve their performance, the same is
true of budget targets that are seen as being too easy. When budget targets are easy, managers are likely to outperform. the
budget but will fail to reach the level of performance that might be expected in the absence of a budget.
One consequence of the need for demanding or difficult budget targets is the frequent reporting of adverse variances. It is
important that these are not used to lay blame in the budgetary control process, since they have a motivational (or planning)
origin rather than an operational origin. Managerial reward systems may need to reward almost achieving, rather than
achieving, budget targets if managers are to be encouraged by receiving financial incentives.
Participation in the budget-setting process
A ‘top-down’ approach to budget setting leads to budgets that are imposed on managers. Where managers within an
organisation are believed to behave in a way that is consistent with McGregor’s Theory X perspective, imposed budgets may
improve performance, since accepting the budget is consistent with reduced responsibility and avoiding work.
It is also possible that acceptance of imposed budgets by managers who are responsible for their implementation and
achievement is diminished because they feel they have not been able to influence budget targets. Such a view is consistent
with McGregor’s Theory Y perspective, which holds that managers naturally seek responsibility and do not need to be tightly
controlled. According to this view, managers respond well to participation in the budget-setting process, since being able to
influence the budget targets for which they will be responsible encourages their acceptance. A participative approach to
budget-setting is also referred to as a ‘bottom-up’ approach.
In practice, many organisations adopt a budget-setting process that contains elements of both approaches, with senior
management providing strategic leadership of the budget-setting process and other management tiers providing input in terms
of identifying what is practical and offering detailed knowledge of their area of the organisation.