Description
To write a summative assessment which involves a comprehensive analysis of the financial and non-financial performance of an international organisation (of my choice: Toyota Motor Corporation) and its closest competitor (Honda Motor Co Ltd.) It is required to select an international organisation (Toyota Motor Corporation), identify its closest competitor (Honda Motor Co Ltd), and analyse its financial performance using ratio analysis. It is also required to summarise and critique the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) literature and develop a balanced scorecard performance evaluation of the organisation (Toyota Motor Corporation) and its critical success factors. There is also a need to provide a critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of adopting Integrated Reporting for my selected organisation (Toyota Motor Corporation).The written work should be spell-checked, and a contents page should be included. Only using Black ink, Arial, size 11, 1.5 lines spaced is recommended and use DIN A4 format and page margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
RBP020L062H FPM Assessment Brief 2023/24
ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Academic year and term:
2023/2024
Module title:
Financial Performance Management
Module Convener:
Dr. Tri Tri Nguyen
Type of assessment:
Summative assessment – Individual Report 3,500 words (100% weighting)
Formative assessment – Report overview (0% weighting)
Assessment deadline:
Summative assessment: deadline 02/01/2024 before 2359hrs SG Time
Instructions for assessment
Summative assessment
There will be one summative assessment which involves a comprehensive analysis of the financial
and non-financial performance of an international organization (of your choice) and its closest
competitor. You are required to select an international organization (company A), identify its closest
competitor (company B), and analyze their financial performance using ratio analysis. You are then
required to summarize and critique the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) literature and develop a balanced
scorecard performance evaluation of the organization (company A) and its critical success factors.
Finally, you need to provide a critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of adopting Integrated
Reporting for your selected organization (company A).
This is an individual report and should be 3,500 words (10% tolerance) excluding references, tables,
figures, and appendix. See the sections below “Structure and presentation” and “Rubric” for more details.
Components of summative
assessment
Individual or
group
submission
Word count
Weighting
Must
Attempt
Y/N
Must Pass
Y/N
Subcomponents
Report (Case study analysis)
Individual
max.
3,500
words
100%
Yes
Yes
n/a
Note that above table does not include the formative assessments and that formative assessments are not marked.
Formative assessment
During the module, you are asked to submit a “Report overview” by the set deadline. It represents an
opportunity to start working towards the assessment and receive feedback early in the module.
Detailed instructions on the Formative Assessment will be available on Moodle.
There will also be regular opportunities for Q&A on your summative work while it is under construction.
Note that we will not provide any written or marks indicative feedback on drafts for summative
assessment at any time. Should you perceive any formative feedback such way, then please note that
it is not binding for your marking. Markers can also always change and you have no entitlement to be
marked by the module convener or tutors.
Structure and presentation (Summative Assessment)
The assignment should address the following questions:
Question 1 (30%). Select an international organisation (of your choice – company A) and identify its
closest competitor (company B). Present the two organisations and the criteria used for the identification of
the competitor. Use ratio analysis technique to evaluate the financial performance of the two organizations;
draw a comparative evaluation and critically discuss the findings. You need to access the annual financial
statements of the last two years and provide details of the ratio calculations.
It is recommended to use graphs and tables to present your analysis, and cite academic literature.
Question 2 (30%). With reference to relevant literature, critically evaluate Kaplan and Norton’s
Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Develop a proposed Balanced Scorecard to
include critical success factors (CSF’s) for your selected organisation (company A).
Question 3 (30%). Provide a critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of adopting Integrated
Reporting (IR) for your selected organization (company A). Use academic literature and refer to the
International Integrated Reporting framework to support your discussion.
Presentation (10%). Mark awarded for presentation refers to overall structure and presentation,
academic style of writing, use of Harvard style for references and in text citations. You need to use a
comprehensive range of relevant (academic and professional) sources; use of online sources should
be limited and the reliability of the source should be verified. All sources need to be acknowledged and
referenced properly to ensure the originality of the work. The report needs to follow the below structure
and address the three questions. The word limit for this assignment is 3,500 words (10% tolerance)
excluding references, tables, figures, and appendix.
Important note: Please refrain from selecting companies that have been shown for demonstration
purposes during the sessions (this includes, for example, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Axa, Philip Morris,
Monnalisa, Impahla Clothing, Viasat, Dellas).
Any written work should be spell-checked and a contents page should be included. Do not use various
font sizes and colours; Black ink, Arial, size 11, 1.5 lines spaced is recommended. Use DIN A4 format
and page margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch.
Proposed structure of the Report:
1. Introduction
Introduce the scope and focus of the report (approx. 250 words)
2. Financial Performance using Ratio Analysis
Question 1 (approx. 1,000 words)
3. Balanced Scorecard
Question 2 (approx. 1,000 words)
4. Integrated Reporting
Question 3 (approx. 1,000 words)
5. Conclusions
Provide an overall conclusion based on the reflection from the report (approx. 250 words)
References
Appendix – Provide details on the calculations presented in Question 1.
The proposed structure above intends to provide a recommendation on the structure of the
coursework. This can be enriched with more sections/subsections as you consider appropriate
(example abstract, executive summary, table of contents, appendices, etc.).
Full reading list
There will be weekly guided readings and you will be expected to undertake your own review of
relevant literature, both academic and professional. Refer to Moodle for guidance on weekly readings.
Essential Readings
Atrill, P., McLaney, E.J. (2018). Management Accounting for Decision Makers. Pearson.
Berk, J., DeMarzo, P. (2017). Corporate Finance (3rd ed.), Chapter 2. Pearson.
Busco, C., Malafronte, I., Pereira, J., Starita, M. (2019). The Determinants of Companies’ Levels of
Integration: Does One Size Fit All? The British Accounting Review, 51(3), 277-298.
IIRC (2013). International Integrated Reporting Council. (2013). International framework. Available
at http://integratedreporting.org
Malafronte, I., Pereira, J., Busco, C. (2020). The role of corporate culture in the choice of integrated
reporting. CIMA Research Executive Summary, 16(2). Available at https://www.cimaglobal.com
Kaplan, R.S. (2010). Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. Working Paper 10-074.
Further Readings (more readings will be provided on Moodle)
Barth, M. E., Cahan, S. F., Chen, L., Venter, E. R. (2017). The economic consequences associated
with integrated report quality: Capital market and real effects. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
62, 43-64.
Busco, C., Quattrone, P. (2015). Exploring how the balanced scorecard engages and unfolds:
Articulating the visual power of accounting inscriptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3),
1236-1262.
Busco, C., Frigo, M.L., Quattrone, P., Riccaboni, A. (2013). Integrated Reporting: Concepts and
Cases that Redefine Corporate Accountability. Springer.
Busco, C., Frigo, M. L., Quattrone, P., Riccaboni, A. (2013). Redefining corporate accountability
through integrated reporting. Strategic Finance, 8, 33-41.
Busco, C., Granà, F., Quattrone, P. (2017). Integrated thinking. CIMA Research Executive Summary,
13(3), 1-26.
Cardinaels, E., van Veen-Dirks, P. (2010). Financial versus non-financial information: the impact of
information organization and presentation in a balanced scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 10(6), 568–578.
De Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L., Unerman, J. (2014). Integrated Reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda
for future research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1042-1067.
Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., Demartini, P. (2016). Integrated reporting: A structured
literature review. Accounting Forum, 40(3), 166-185.
Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Raimo, N. Vitolla, F. (2020). CEO power and integrated reporting. Meditari
Accountancy Research.
Greatbanks, R. Tapp, D. (2007). The impact of BSC in a public sector environment: Empirical
evidence from Dunedin City Council New Zealand. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 27(8), 846–873.
Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and
opportunities for future research. British Accounting Review, 46(1) pp. 33–59.
Malafronte, I., Pereira, J. (2020). Integrated thinking: measuring the unobservable.
Accountancy Research.
Meditari
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (2007). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management System.
Harvard Business Review. July/August.
Nørreklit, H., Mitchell, F. (2014). Contemporary issues on the balance scorecard. Journal of
Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(4).
Salterio, S.E. (2012). Balancing the scorecard through academic accounting research: opportunity
lost? Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(4), 458–476.
How will your work be assessed?
Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking criteria provided in the
section “Instructions for assessment” and the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix for this module.
When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can
use it to improve future assignments.
Referencing and submission
You must use the Harvard System.
The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via
Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must not
include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further
general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information at Student Portal and Moodle.
Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work
or attend your presentation
The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: Mitigating
Circumstances Policy
Marking and feedback process
Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there
are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive
marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.
•
Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how
feedback will be provided.
•
Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.
•
Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking
team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback.
•
Step Four – Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm
that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair.
•
Stop Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.
Additional instructions for Re-sit
The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit.
Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your
Roehampton email account on a regular basis. The school is not obliged to check whether you
have noticed re-sit deadlines.
You are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective
commentary in the form of a 400-700 words Essay. You must resubmit your work using the specific resit Turnitin link on Moodle. This additional word count can be added on top of the original word count
of the assignment, if you used the full word count.
The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid in Appendix) except that the 10%
weighting for presentation will be awarded instead to your additional Reflective Essay section. That is
a statement demonstrating how you learnt from the feedback and what you did differently the second
time. Also reflect how the module contents could be beneficial as knowledge of best practices for a
future management, public administration or advisory career.
If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, in
such case, your Reflection Essay section should reflect upon a) how the module’s concepts are
informing the professions and open up areas of future empirical research and b) how the module
contents could be beneficial as knowledge of best practices for your future management, public
administration or advisory career.
If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece
as this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.
The Reflective Essay is marked based on the criteria of Criticality and Evidence-based Logic of arguments.
It is an independent writing task and no supervision will be provided for conducting the essay.
Appendix: Marking rubric for Summative assessment
Rubric category
(range)
Assigned mark >>
________________
Marking criteria
Outstanding
Excellent
(80-89)
85
Very Good
(70-79)
75
Good
(60-69)
65
Adequate
(50-59)
55
Marginal Fail
(40-49)
45
Fail
(30-39)
35
Fail
(20-29)
25
Not done
0
Question 1
Outstanding and
flawless.
Ratio analysis is
presented,
articulated and
discussed in an
excellent way.
Excellent
presentation of the
two companies.
Excellent
comparative
evaluation. The
arguments are
systematic and
supported by a
wide range of
relevant tables,
graphics, and
literature. The
calculations are
correct.
Very good effort at
presenting,
articulating and
discussing
financial ratio
analysis. Very
good presentation
of the two
companies. Very
good comparative
evaluation. The
arguments are
supported by a
range of relevant
tables, graphics,
and literature. The
calculations are
generally correct.
Good effort at
presenting,
articulating and
discussing
financial ratio
analysis. Good
presentation of
the two
companies. Good
comparative
evaluation. The
arguments are
supported by
relevant tables
and literature. The
calculations are
overall correct and
may include minor
mistakes or
omissions.
Generally adequate
effort at presenting,
articulating and
discussing financial
ratio analysis.
Adequate
presentation of the
two companies.
Adequate comparative
evaluation. The
arguments are
supported by a few
tables (or no tables)
and some literature.
The calculations
include minor
mistakes.
Some effort at
presenting,
articulating and
discussing
financial ratio
analysis.
Inadequate
presentation of
the two
companies.
Insufficient
comparative
evaluation. The
arguments are not
supported by
tables or
literature. The
calculations have
mistakes.
Weak effort at
presenting,
articulating and
discussing
financial ratio
analysis. No
presentation of
the two
companies. Very
limited or no
comparative
evaluation. The
arguments are not
supported by
tables or
literature. The
calculations have
mistakes.
Insufficient effort
at presenting,
articulating and
discussing
financial ratio
analysis. No
presentation of
the two
companies. No
comparative
evaluation. Very
few relevant
points. The
arguments are not
supported by
tables or
literature. The
calculations have
mistakes.
Missing.
Wholly
incorrect or
not
attempted.
Outstanding and
flawless.
Material selected
from appropriate,
authoritative
sources.
Comprehensive,
systematic, and
critical analysis of
relevant literature.
Demonstrates a
sophisticated
approach to the
application of
theory to practice.
Excellent
discussion and
analysis.
Appropriate
conclusions
accurately drawn
from materials and
data selected.
Material mostly
selected from
appropriate,
authoritative
sources. Very
good critical
review and
synthesis of ideas.
Considerable
evidence of solid
research into the
subject. Extensive
use of theory.
Very good
discussion and
analysis with
logical
conclusions,
accurately drawn
from materials
and data selected
Material mainly
selected from
appropriate,
authoritative
sources. Good
analysis of the
literature, quite
critical and welldeveloped.
Good use of
theory.
Good discussion
and analysis.
Good conclusions
mostly accurately
drawn from
materials and data
selected, however
can be expanded.
Some analysis
shows promise
Material selected from
a mix of sources,
many that are not
appropriate and/or
authoritative.
Ideas organised into a
coherent argument
with limited critical
discussion.
Reasonable use and
application of theory
to support analysis.
Generally adequate
discussion and
analysis. Statements
can be better
supported with
materials and data.
Some analysis shows
promise and depth of
thought.
Very few sources
regarded as
appropriate and
authoritative.
Relatively poor
organisation and
analysis of ideas.
Absence of
cogency and
structure to
review, with
almost no critical
discussion.
Subject not
properly
investigated using
appropriate
sources.
Analysis is not
very well
explained and
Poor quality of
sources regarded
as appropriate
and authoritative.
Very poor
organisation and
analysis of ideas.
Absence of
cogency and
structure to
review, with no
critical discussion.
Little or no
explanation of the
appropriate
concepts and
discussion of
literature.
Analysis is not
well explained or
not appropriate;
Very poor quality
of sources
regarded as
appropriate and
authoritative.
Ideas organised
randomly or not
organised at all.
Absence of
cogency and
structure to
review, with no
critical discussion.
Very limited
sources selected.
Analysis is not at
all explained or
not appropriate;
very limited
discussion. Very
limited analysis.
Missing.
Wholly
incorrect or
not
attempted.
100
30%
Question 2
30%
Question 3
10%
(Criteria does
not apply to Resit).
and depth of
thought.
Outstanding and
flawless.
Material selected
from appropriate,
authoritative
sources.
Comprehensive,
systematic, and
critical analysis of
relevant literature.
Excellent critical
analysis of the
benefits and
challenges.
Material mostly
selected from
appropriate,
authoritative
sources. Very
good critical
review and
synthesis of ideas.
Considerable
evidence of solid
research into the
subject. Very
good critical
analysis of the
benefits and
challenges.
Material mainly
selected from
appropriate,
authoritative
sources. Good
analysis of the
literature, quite
critical and welldeveloped. Good
analysis of the
benefits and
challenges.
Material selected from
a mix of sources,
many that are not
appropriate and/or
authoritative.
Ideas organised into a
coherent argument
with limited critical
discussion. Adequate
analysis of the
benefits and
challenges.
Outstanding and
flawless.
Clear, concise,
and effectively
argued within the
length allowed;
skilled use of
academic
conventions;
accurate proofreading.
All works cited and
referenced
appropriately
according to
Harvard format.
Very good control
of length; skilled
use of academic
conventions;
nearly all errors
eliminated in
proof-reading.
Almost all works
cited and
referenced
appropriately
according to
Harvard format.
Competent control
of length; good
use of academic
conventions;
accurate spelling,
grammar, etc.;
careful proofreading.
Almost all works
cited and
referenced
appropriately
according to
Harvard format.
Length requirements
observed; appropriate
use of academic
conventions; minor
errors in spelling,
grammar etc.; quite
careful proof-reading.
Some errors in
citations and
references.
30%
Presentation
and very well
incorporated.
discussion is
insufficient.
Materials and data
selected are
poorly related to
the discussion.
Very few sources
regarded as
appropriate and
authoritative.
Relatively poor
organisation and
analysis of ideas.
Absence of
cogency and
structure to
review, with
almost no critical
discussion.
Inadequate
analysis of the
benefits and
challenges.
limited discussion
following from the
data and the
analysis.
Poor quality of
sources regarded
as appropriate
and authoritative.
Very poor
organisation and
analysis of ideas.
Absence of
cogency and
structure to
review, with no
critical discussion.
Poor critical
analysis of the
benefits and
challenges.
Very poor quality
of sources
regarded as
appropriate and
authoritative.
Ideas organised
randomly or not
organised at all.
Absence of
cogency and
structure to
review, with no
critical discussion.
Very poor critical
analysis of the
benefits and
challenges.
Missing.
Wholly
incorrect or
not
attempted.
Presentation is
either too long or
too short in
relation to content;
some errors in
application of
academic
conventions;
some errors in
spelling, grammar
etc.; some
indication of proofreading.
Significant errors
in citations and
references.
Poorly presented
work; presentation
is either too short
or too long
(waffling); missing
several elements
or parts; major
errors in spelling,
grammar etc.; little
indication of proofreading.
Major errors in
citations and
references.
Very poorly
presented work;
presentation is
inadequate,
unfocused, and
not at all clear;
missing several
and key elements
or parts; spelling,
grammar etc. are
very scarce; no
indication of proofreading.
Citations and
references are not
appropriate.
Missing.
Wholly
incorrect or
not
attempted.
RBP020L062H FPM LTAF 2023/24 final
MODULE BRIEF (LTAF)
Module
Title:
Financial Performance
Management
Module
Code:
RBP020L062H
Module
Convener:
Dr. Tri Tri Nguyen
Module summary
This module provides you with a critical understanding of the sources and uses of finance for organisations operating in a domestic or international context
and focuses on the management of financial and other resources to optimise organisational performance. You will explore the use of accounting, budgetary
and other information systems in managerial planning, decision-making and control. You will learn to apply appropriate analytical tools and techniques, such
as the balanced scorecard, key performance indicators, cost-volume-profit analysis and budget variance analysis. Through the lectures, relevant reading and
seminar activities you will be introduced to the theory and practice of performance management and control. The role of budgets and budgetary control are
critically evaluated and alternatives beyond budgeting are explored to ensure the organisation’s strategic goals are achieved. Through the learning and
assessment strategy, you will incorporate the thinking behind integrated reporting, which acknowledges non-financial forms of capital such as human,
intellectual, social and natural capital, as well as financial capital into your construction of a balanced scorecard.
Learning objectives
1. Knowledge outcomes – You will be able to demonstrate an understanding of the sources, uses and management of finance, and use accounting
and other information for a range of managerial applications, including performance measurement scorecards.
2. Cognitive skills outcomes – You will be able to manipulate financial and non-financial data to analyse organizational performance, including costvolume-profit analysis, budget variance analysis and balanced scorecards as well as enhancing your problem solving and decision making skills and
using information and knowledge effectively.
University of Roehampton Business School
1/6
RBP020L062H FPM LTAF 2022/23 final
Outline of contents
DISCOVER
EXPLORE
SHARE AND APPLY
Week
Topic
Topic Overview
Essential reading
Directed study
Seminar
Checklist
1
Introduction to
the module
(and to the
assessment)
Objectives:
● To understand the role
of accounting in
reporting business
performance to a range
of stakeholders.
● To introduce the main
financial statements
that a company
prepares.
● To explore the balance
of financial and nonfinancial information in
a company’s report.
● Atrill, P. and
McLaney, E. (latest
edition).
Management
Accounting for
Decision Makers.
Pearson. Chapter 1.
● Berk, J. & DeMarzo,
P. (2013). Corporate
Finance. (3rd ed.)
Chapter 2.
Read the annual
integrated report of the
company Gecina and
answer the questions
(company’s report and
questions are available
on Moodle).
Briefing on the
module structure,
content, and the
assessment.
Read the module prereadings available on
Moodle (a book
chapter and few
articles on the role of
management
accounting).
Introduction to
Financial
Statement
Analysis
Read the LTAF and
Assessment Brief
documents on Moodle
– it is important to start
familiarising with the
module content and
assessment.
Using the
information provided
in the financial
reports of Coca
Cola, complete the
financial statement
analysis exercise.
In preparation for the
assignment – select
an international
organization (of your
choice), identify the
annual report and the
financial statements
over the last 2 years.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
2
Ratio Analysis
to evaluate the
performance
of an
organisation
Objectives:
● Evaluate the financial
performance of a real
company using ratio
analysis.
● Understand the
importance of ratio
analysis for internal
and external
stakeholders.
● Atrill, P. and
McLaney, E. (latest
edition.Management
Accounting for
Decision Makers.
Pearson. Chapter 1.
● Berk, J. & DeMarzo,
P. (2013). Corporate
Finance. (3rd ed.)
Chapter 2.
Download the ratio
analysis template
provided on Moodle,
familiarise with the
information required to
conduct ratio analysis.
Practical exercise to
apply the ratio
analysis to the
balance sheet and
income statement of
real companies.
Read the book chapter
on financial statement
analysis (link to e-book
available on Moodle).
Review of the
answers and
discussion.
University of Roehampton Business School
In preparation for the
assignment, for the
company identified in
Week 1: 1) Start
planning the financial
ratio analysis, and 2)
Identify the closest
competitor.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
2/6
RBP020L062H FPM LTAF 2022/23 final
● Appreciate the need to
balance financial and
non-financial measures
to evaluate the
performance of an
organization.
3
4
The evolution
of corporate
reporting:
Integrated
reporting
Cost-VolumeProfit (CVP)
analysis and
Cost
Allocation
Objectives:
● To describe the
evolution of corporate
reporting.
● To appreciate the
characteristics and
purposes of the
integrated reporting
framework.
● To analyse recent
examples of integrated
reporting practices.
● IIRC (2013)
Integrated Reporting
Framework.
● ESG Reporting Guide
(2018), London Stock
Exchange Group.
● IMA (2016).
Integrated reporting.
● EY (2014). Integrated
reporting.
Read the academic
articles on integrated
reporting and
sustainability reporting
that are provided on
Moodle.
Practical exercise to
apply the ratio
analysis to the
balance sheet and
income statement of
real companies.
Read the book chapters
on financial statement
and ratio analysis (link
to e-book available on
Moodle).
Assessment clinic,
an opportunity to
discuss and answer
questions about the
summative
assessment.
Objectives:
● To appreciate the
difference between
fixed and variable
costs, direct and
indirect costs.
● To understand the role
of cost-volume-profit
analysis in short-term
decision making.
● To understand the
difference between
traditional costing and
activity-based costing.
● Atrill, P. and
McLaney, E. (latest
edition).
Management
Accounting for
Decision Makers.
Pearson. Chapter 23-4.
● IMA (2014)
Implementing ActivityBased Costing.
Read the ACCA article
on fixed and variable
costs provided on
Moodle.
Practical
exercise/case on the
relevance of costing
decisions for an
organisation.
Review the numerical
exercises and
solutions provided on
CVP analysis and
cost allocation.
Review of answers
and discussion.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
Read the ACCA
technical article on
relevant costing
and opportunity costs.
Read the CIMA
technical briefing on
Activity-Based
Costing.
University of Roehampton Business School
In preparation for the
assignment, for the
company identified in
Week 1, try to find
news, initiatives,
events related to the
topic of sustainability.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
Assessment clinic,
focus on the
formative
assessment.
3/6
RBP020L062H FPM LTAF 2022/23 final
5
Performance
Measurement
and
Management:
Balanced
Scorecard
Objectives:
● To appreciate the
difference between
financial and nonfinancial performance
indicators.
● To introduce the four
dimensions of Balanced
Scorecard.
● To appreciate the
strength and
weaknesses of the
balanced scorecard for
an organization.
●
● Atrill, P. and
McLaney, E. (latest
edition). Management
Accounting for
Decision Makers.
Pearson. Chapter 10.
● Kaplan, R.S. (2010).
Conceptual
foundations of the
balanced scorecard.
Working Paper 10074.
Read the Monnalisa
case study in advance
of the seminar, it will be
used for the seminar
activity.
Read the ACCA
technical article on
performance analysis
for non profit
organizations.
Monnalisa case
study: read the
article case
presented, review
the preparation of
the balanced
scorecard,
contribute to the
discussion.
Start thinking about
how to apply the four
dimensions of the
balanced scorecard to
your selected
organisation for the
assignment.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
Formative Assessment:
Continue planning your work towards your assessment. Submit the formative assessment before the set deadline.
6
7
Budgeting and
Variance
analysis
Extra session
on Ratio
Analysis
Objectives:
● To identify types and
components of a
master budget.
● To explain benefits and
limitations of budgetary
control systems.
● To be able to prepare a
budget for an existing
company.
● Atrill, P. and
McLaney, E. (latest
edition).
Management
Accounting for
Decision Makers.
Pearson. Chapter 6.
This week’s objectives:
● Recap on Ratio
Analysis and discuss
assignment
requirements.
● Berk, J. & DeMarzo,
P. (2013). Corporate
Finance. (3rd ed.) Ch.
2.
Read the documents
provided on Zero-based
budgeting (a
professional article from
ACCA, and a report
from Deloitte).
Read the Unilever case
on implementing ZeroBased Budgeting.
Review the readings
from the previous
weeks (particularly
Week 1, 2, 3).
University of Roehampton Business School
Practical
example/case
discussion on this
week topic.
Guest speaker
joining the session
this week (TBC).
Review the numerical
exercises/MCQs and
solutions provided
budgeting and
variance analysis.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
Submit formative
assessment by the
end of this week.
Review the ratio
analysis conducted
in previous weeks
on Coca-Cola and
Pepsi-co. Join the
Ensure by now you
have started working
on the assignment,
identified an
organization (of your
4/6
RBP020L062H FPM LTAF 2022/23 final
8
9
A practical
approach to
Balanced
Scorecard
Analysis
Capital
Investment
Decisions
● Provide feedback on
formative assessment
through peer learning
and group discussion.
● Evaluate the financial
performance of a
company through ratio
analysis.
● Goel, S. (2016)
Financial ratios. First
edn. New York.
● Samonas, M. (2015).
Financial Forecasting,
Analysis, and
Modelling. John Wiley
& Sons. Chapter 2.
Objectives:
● To discuss implications
of the balanced
scorecard analysis.
● To measure divisional
performance.
● To evaluate the use of
balanced scorecard in
recent research.
● Atrill, P. and
McLaney, E. (latest
edition). Management
Accounting for
Decision Makers.
Pearson. Chapter 10.
discussion with your
peers.
Assessment clinic,
Q&A on the
assessment.
In advance of the
session, read the article
on balanced scorecard
by Busco and
Quattrone (2015).
A practical approach
to the Balanced
Scorecard analysis:
presentation and
discussion of the
application of the
balanced scorecard.
Assessment clinic,
feedback on the
formative
assessment.
Objectives:
●
● To understand the
importance of capital
investment decisions.
● To appreciate the
existence of different
capital investment
techniques.
● To apply ARR, PP,
NPV, and IRR methods
to evaluate alternative
investments.
Atrill, P. and
McLaney, E. (latest
edition).
Management
Accounting for
Decision Makers.
Pearson. Chapter 8.
Read the CIMA report
on how to evaluate
capital expenditures
and other long-term
investments.
University of Roehampton Business School
Practical
exercises/cases on
evaluating
alternative
investment decisions
by capital budgeting
techniques.
choice) and its closest
competitor, accessed
the annual reports to
apply ratio analysis.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
Ensure by now you
have started planning
how to apply the four
dimensions of the
balanced scorecard to
your selected
organisation for the
assignment.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
Solve exercises
uploaded on Moodle.
Compare your work
with the answers
provided.
Complete the weekly
checklist.
Review of answers
and discussion.
5/6
RBP020L062H FPM LTAF 2022/23 final
10
Assignment
revision
This week focuses on
revision for the written
exam. We will review the
Assessment Brief and
have Q&A
