2010年12月ACCA考試考官報(bào)告(P3)(1)

　　總體評(píng)價(jià)：這次考試成績(jī)沒(méi)有之前的P3考試那么好。它暴露了考生的一些薄弱知識(shí)點(diǎn)?；旧峡忌紱](méi)有時(shí)間方面的問(wèn)題，而且大多數(shù)的答卷卷面整潔，字跡也很清楚。

General Comments
This examination paper was not quite as well answered as previous paper P3 examinations.It appears to have exposed certain areas of weakness,where perhaps candidates have elected to not learn or revise specific objectives in the Study Guide.The areas of weakness relate to

•Explaining three corporate rationales for adding value–portfolio managers,synergy managers and parental developers.This is learning objective B1e (in original Study Guide) and this was specifically examined in question 1c.
•Exploring (through Mintzberg’s organisational configurations) the design of structure,processes and relationships.This was specifically examined in question 3b.It relates directly to learning objective C1e in the original Study Guide.

Question 4b,concerned the need to establish a business case as part of project initiation (learning objective G1d),to monitor benefits (learning objective G3a) and to undertake benefits realisation (learning objective G3d) was also poorly answered.

In contrast,question 1a(on portfolio analysis) and question 4a(on costs and benefits) were answered very well.Question 2,the most popular optional question,on e-marketing was also answered very well by most candidates.Question 3a(on organisational culture) was reasonably well answered by candidates who used the cultural web(or a similar framework) in structuring their answer.Question 1b,on the context and implementation of strategic change,proved to be a difficult question for many candidates.However,those who used appropriate frameworks; such as Balogun and Hope Hailey,the cultural web,the structured turnaround process and Lewin’s unfreeze–transition–freeze approach scored reasonably well.There was a lot of material in the case study to support this part of the question.

There was little evidence of time management problems and most of the scripts were well presented and well written,although some markers again commented on poor handwriting of some scripts.Candidates must remember that what cannot be read,cannot be marked.However,the main problem appears to have been lack of knowledge of certain areas of the syllabus.