ChloeGee wrote: »
I hope we both pass :thumbup1::001_smile::001_tongue::001_tt2:
Ozzy wrote: »
Doesnt Rolling Budgets mean just taking forward your results into the next Quarter/Period......? and adjusting eqivalently>?
E.g 2008 Budget to 2009 Adjusting for any economic factors e.g growth in sales or demand? oh dear?:crying:
rebeccas wrote: »
It sounds as though you had the same idea as me...thanks to the lack of clarity in the additional data I deduced from these statements"There is no restriction on closing stocks" and "storage space is not an issue" (or something along those lines) that during Q2 and Q3 when there was loads of idle time that would be best used to produce more stock for the next quarter (due to there being no restriction on closing stock or lack of storage) and thus reducing the burden on Q4 - thereby reducing the amount of agency staff required in Q4 from about 30-odd to about 3(?). However using this approach lead to a whole raft of extra calculations which the AAT doesnt normally ask for! Anyhow I based my report on this so hopefully the marker should see the logic of what I am getting at?!! After all why would you have your staff sitting around for half of Q2 & 3 doing nothing when they could be preparing for times ahead?!
However, my friend had a totally different perspective to me based on the assumptions that she had made on those two quotes and her answer seems just as valid to me - albeit completely different!!
I also had trouble understanding EXACTLY what they wanted out of the report - and English IS my first language!
Really disappointed with this paper as I really thought I had this one sown up :thumbdown:
LANETTE DARNBROUGH wrote: »
pcr What A Sham This Paper Turned Out To Be. Section 1, What Was All That About, I Found This Paper Very Confusing And Had No Idea What Was Been Asked, Also With The Feeling Half The Information Needed To Calculate Was Missing.
Am I The Only One. ??
LANETTE DARNBROUGH wrote: »
PCR what a sham this paper turned out to be. Section 1, what was all that about, i found this paper very confusing and had no idea what was been asked, also with the feeling half the information needed to calculate was missing.
Am i the only one. ??
Sonny_L wrote: »
1) with the first labour cost statement, before the additional info. Did everyone else deduce the regular staffs overtime from total require hours less normal time available less 7200 agency staff hours?
carjon wrote: »
I totally agree with what you say, it's all down to the examiner, we have all worked hard for this, maybe he he/she hasn't even taken note of what is actually in the past papers that we have all revised on like mad.
dawn wrote: »
Does anyone know if you get full marks on 1.1 and 2.1 and 2.2 .... but nothing on the rest, can you still pass???
smoggi wrote: »
Thought PCR section 1 was terrible. Lack of information. Were regular employees guarenteed 480hrs per quarter if so where was the idletime charged to. I personally went back over this twice. In the end i added a note at the bottom of the calculations saying that i assumed that idle time was paid for as the question didnt state anything to the contrary and charged all costs to direct labour.
In the revised labour budget i got 16 temps in Q1 and 3 in Q4.