ACCA考试评分的主要规则，你必须要知道

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.

正确答案：

正确答案：C
83,600 + 18,000 – 4,500 = 97,100

正确答案：
(a) To: Board of directors
From: Management Accountant
Date: 8 June 2007
The potential benefits of the adoption of a balanced scorecard approach to performance measurement within GER are as
follows:
A broader business perspective
Financial measures invariably have an inward-looking perspective. The balanced scorecard is wider in its scope and
application. It has an external focus and looks at comparisons with competitors in order to establish what constitutes best
practice and ensures that required changes are made in order to achieve it. The use of the balanced scorecard requires a
balance of both financial and non-financial measures and goals.
A greater strategic focus
The use of the balanced scorecard focuses to a much greater extent on the longer term. There is a far greater emphasis on
strategic considerations. It attempts to identify the needs and wants of customers and the new products and markets. Hence
it requires a balance between short term and long term performance measures.
A greater focus on qualitative aspects
The use of the balanced scorecard attempts to overcome the over-emphasis of traditional measures on the quantifiable aspects
of the internal operations of an organisation expressed in purely financial terms. Its use requires a balance between
quantitative and qualitative performance measures. For example, customer satisfaction is a qualitative performance measure
which is given prominence under the balanced scorecard approach.
A greater focus on longer term performance
The use of traditional financial measures is often dominated by financial accounting requirements, for example, the need to
show fixed assets at their historic cost. Also, they are primarily focused on short-term profitability and return on capital
employed in order to gain stakeholder approval of short term financial reports, the longer term or whole life cycle often being
ignored.
The limitations of a balanced scorecard approach to performance measurement may be viewed as follows:
The balanced scorecard attempts to identify the chain of cause and effect relationships which will provide the stimulus for
the future success of an organisation.
Advocates of a balanced scorecard approach to performance measurement suggest that it can constitute a vital component
of the strategic management process.
However, Robert Kaplan and David Norton, the authors of the balanced scorecard concept concede that it may not be suitable
for all firms. Norton suggests that it is most suitable for firms which have a long lead time between management action and
financial benefit and that it will be less suitable for firms with a short-term focus. However, other flaws can be detected in
the balanced scorecard.
The balanced scorecard promises to outline the theory of the firm by clearly linking the driver/outcome measures in a cause
and effect chain, but this will be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
The precise cause and effect relationships between measures for each of the perspectives on the balanced scorecard will be
complex because the driver and outcome measures for the various perspectives are interlinked. For example, customer
satisfaction may be seen to be a function of several drivers, such as employee satisfaction, manufacturing cycle time and
quality. However, employee satisfaction may in turn be partially driven by customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction
may partially drive manufacturing cycle time. A consequence of this non-linearity of the cause and effect chain (i.e., there is
non-linear relationship between an individual driver and a single outcome measure), is that there must be a question mark
as to the accuracy of any calculated correlations between driver and outcome measures. Allied to this point, any calculated
correlations will be historic. This implies that it will only be possible to determine the accuracy of cause and effect linkages
after the event, which could make the use of the balanced scorecard in dynamic industries questionable. If the market is
undergoing rapid evolution, for example, how meaningful are current measures of customer satisfaction or market share?
These criticisms do not necessarily undermine the usefulness of the balanced scorecard in presenting a more comprehensive
picture of organisational performance but they do raise doubts concerning claims that a balanced scorecard can be
constructed which will outline a clear cause and effect chain between driver and outcome measures and the firm’s financial
objectives.