The P1 question for june 2008 is already out. To say that P1 does not need to show how to run or manage an organization is too general and is such a sweeping statement.
For example, Q. 1(e) asks students to describe the difficulties of maintaining internal controls while working with sub-contractors. This implies the difficulties of managing and running organizations while work is being sub-contracted. It has to be remembered that the ultimate aims of internal controls according to my P1 lecturer is to ensure that the strategic objectives of the organization is met. By that, it means that the mission, vision, goals, objectives and strategies can be met. Hence it does touches on running and managing an organization.
Sub-contracting will also affect how organizations are managed and run. Sub-contracting is also emphasized in management papers like P3.
It is also wrong to say that P1 answers are not flexible. The same can be said for some areas in P3. Once again, you have made sweeping statements. In all subjects, there will be some questions that have a fixed answer and others that may have a more broader scope of answer, based on your elaborations.
To give an example, in the December 2007 P1 Q. 2(b), there was the question that asked how risk awareness could be embedded in the culture of the organization. Would there be a specific answer to this question since you say that P1 is not flexible. The truth is there can be more than one answer for this question. A student who has learnt P3 can apply the work of Johnson, Scholes and Whittington’s cultural web to explain how risk awareness can be embedded in the organization. There may also be other ways to explain the answer. This shows that the answers in P1 can also be flexible and not specific as you have mentioned earlier.
In the same token, one can also say that P1 can also goreng as what you have mentioned for P3. However, a student who has taken P3 knows to goreng requires sound knowledge of P3. Good goreng comes from good knowledge.
It is also not true that P1 does not require business models. Models like Mandelow’s power-interest matrix, risk response models are examples that P1 also needs models.
In addition, issues on internal controls are not only found in audit papers. IT security and controls in paper 2.1 for example, had also covered on controls (depending on who taught you paper 2.1). Also risk management is covered in paper P3 under project management. Coincidentally, the June 2008 Q. 1(b) touched on project risks with regards to the development of the Dam project. Some knowledge of project management and even the work of Mc Farlan’s Implementation risk matrix can be used (remember, a diagram was needed). Was it covered in paper 3.1?
Finally, it must be remembered that CG, ethics and CSR are also covered in P3.
In conclusion, it is important not to make sweeping statements and realize not only audit lecturers should teach P1 but also management lecturers. Rhys Johnson, the person in charge of ACCA in this part of the region has mentioned just before the P1 December 2007 exams (the first exam for P1), that the ideal person to teach P1 should be a paper 3.5 lecturer. I assure you that this is what he has said.
Ayoh, I don't know why you want to spend your time to argue this thing.
At my reply, I already mentioned P3 knowledge call help us in P1. Why you want to waste your time to write out so much thing?
If you think P1 can goreng, then go ahead.
If you think just with 3.5 mgmt lecturer is suitable for teach this paper, then go ahead. But from what I'm know was the most famous lecturer to teach P1 in KL was Sheila and Philip Woo, both also have audit background(Teaching 2.6 and 3.1). The lecturer dun have audit background like Parmindar and Vikness dun have too much student as compare to Sheila and Philip Woo.
Young man, this is only small issue. Don't spend time to argue already, OK?
Jun 10 2008, 09:58 PM
Quote
Planning to take this Dec sitting.
0.0468sec
0.56
7 queries
GZIP Disabled