丢掉硬盘里面几十个G的资料吧，知道这些复习资料才会让你事半功倍

The town of Brighttown in Euraria has a mayor (elected every five years by the people in the town) who is responsible for, amongst other things, the transport policy of the town.

A year ago, the mayor (acting as project sponsor) instigated a ‘traffic lite’ project to reduce traffic congestion at traffic lights in the town. Rather than relying on fixed timings, he suggested that a system should be implemented which made the traffic lights sensitive to traffic flow. So, if a queue built up, then the lights would automatically change to green (go). The mayor suggested that this would have a number of benefits. Firstly, it would reduce harmful emissions at the areas near traffic lights and, secondly, it would improve the journey times for all vehicles, leading to drivers ‘being less stressed’. He also cited evidence from cities overseas where predictable journey times had been attractive to flexible companies who could set themselves up anywhere in the country. He felt that the new system would attract such companies to the town.

The Eurarian government has a transport regulation agency called OfRoad. Part of OfRoad’s responsibilities is to monitor transport investments and it was originally critical of the Brighttown ‘traffic lite’ project because the project’s benefits were intangible and lacked credibility. The business case did not include a quantitative cost/benefit analysis. OfRoad has itself published a benefits management process which classifies benefits in the following way.

Financial: A financial benefit can be confidently allocated in advance of the project. Thus if the investment will save $90,000 per year in staff costs then this is a financial benefit.

Quantifiable: A quantifiable benefit is a benefit where there is sufficient credible evidence to suggest, in advance, how much benefit will result from the project. This benefit may be financial or non-financial. For example, energy savings from a new building might be credibly predicted in advance. However, the exact amount of savings cannot be accurately forecast.

Measurable benefit: A measurable benefit is a benefit which can only be confidently assessed post-implementation, and so cannot be reliably predicted in advance. Increase in sales from a particular initiative is an example of a measurable benefit. Measurable benefits may either be financial or non-financial.

Observable benefit: An observable benefit is a benefit which a specific individual or group will decide, using agreed criteria, has been realised or not. Such benefits are usually non-financial. Improved staff morale might be an example of an observable benefit.

One month ago, the mayoral elections saw the election of a new mayor with a completely distinct transport policy with different objectives. She wishes to address traffic congestion by attracting commuters away from their cars and onto public transport. Part of her policy is a traffic light system which gives priority to buses. The town council owns the buses which operate in the town and they have invested heavily in buses which are comfortable and have significantly lower emissions than the conventional cars used by most people in the town. The new mayor wishes to improve the frequency, punctuality and convenience of these buses, so that they tempt people away from using their cars. This will require more buses and more bus crews, a requirement which the mayor presents as ‘being good for the unemployment rate in this town’. It will also help the bus service meet the punctuality service level which it published three years ago, but has never yet met. ‘A reduction in cars and an increase in buses will help us meet our target’, the mayor claims.

The mayor has also suggested a number of initiatives to discourage people from taking their cars into the town. She intends to sell two car parks for housing land (raising $325,000) and this will reduce car park capacity from 1,000 to 800 car spaces per day. She also intends to raise the daily parking fee from $3 to $4. Car park occupancy currently stands at 95% (it is difficult to achieve 100% for technical reasons) and the same occupancy rate is expected when the car park capacity is reduced.

The new mayor believes that her policy signals the fact that Brighttown is serious about its green credentials. ‘This’, she says, ‘will attract green consumers to come and live in our town and green companies to set up here. These companies and consumers will bring great benefit to our community.’ To emphasise this, she has set up a Go Green team to encourage green initiatives in the town.

The ‘traffic lite’ project to tackle congestion proposed by the former mayor is still in the development stage. The new mayor believes that this project can be modified to deliver her vision and still be ready on the date promised by her predecessor.

Required:

(a) A ‘terms of reference’ (project initiation document, project charter) was developed for the ‘traffic lite’ project to reduce traffic congestion.

Discuss what changes will have to be made to this ‘terms of reference’ (project initiation document, project charter) to reflect the new mayor’s vision of the project. (5 marks)

(b) The new mayor wishes to re-define the business case for the project, using the benefits categorisation suggested by OfRoad. Identify costs and benefits for the revised project, classifying each benefit using the guidance provided by OfRoad. (14 marks)

(c) Stakeholder management is the prime responsibility of the project manager.

Discuss the appropriate management of each of the following three stakeholders identified in the revised (modified) project.

(i) The new mayor;

(ii) OfRoad;

(iii) A private motorist in Brighttown who uses his vehicle to commute to his job in the town. (6 marks)

(c) In October 2004, Volcan commenced the development of a site in a valley of ‘outstanding natural beauty’ on

which to build a retail ‘megastore’ and warehouse in late 2005. Local government planning permission for the

development, which was received in April 2005, requires that three 100-year-old trees within the valley be

preserved and the surrounding valley be restored in 2006. Additions to property, plant and equipment during

the year include $4·4 million for the estimated cost of site restoration. This estimate includes a provision of

$0·4 million for the relocation of the 100-year-old trees.

In March 2005 the trees were chopped down to make way for a car park. A fine of $20,000 per tree was paid

to the local government in May 2005. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Volcan for the year ended

31 March 2005.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.

2 Your audit client, Prescott Co, is a national hotel group with substantial cash resources. Its accounting functions are

well managed and the group accounting policies are rigorously applied. The company’s financial year end is

31 December.

Prescott has been seeking to acquire a construction company for some time in order to bring in-house the building

and refurbishment of hotels and related leisure facilities (e.g. swimming pools, squash courts and restaurants).

Prescott’s management has recently identified Robson Construction Co as a potential target and has urgently requested

that you undertake a limited due diligence review lasting two days next week.

Further to their preliminary talks with Robson’s management, Prescott has provided you with the following brief on

Robson Construction Co:

The chief executive, managing director and finance director are all family members and major shareholders. The

company name has an established reputation for quality constructions.

Due to a recession in the building trade the company has been operating at its overdraft limit for the last 18

months and has been close to breaching debt covenants on several occasions.

Robson’s accounting policies are generally less prudent than those of Prescott (e.g. assets are depreciated over

longer estimated useful lives).

Contract revenue is recognised on the percentage of completion method, measured by reference to costs incurred

to date. Provisions are made for loss-making contracts.

The company’s management team includes a qualified and experienced quantity surveyor. His main

responsibilities include:

(1) supervising quarterly physical counts at major construction sites;

(2) comparing costs to date against quarterly rolling budgets; and

(3) determining profits and losses by contract at each financial year end.

Although much of the labour is provided under subcontracts all construction work is supervised by full-time site

managers.

In August 2005, Robson received a claim that a site on which it built a housing development in 2002 was not

properly drained and is now subsiding. Residents are demanding rectification and claiming damages. Robson

has referred the matter to its lawyers and denied all liability, as the site preparation was subcontracted to Sarwar

Services Co. No provisions have been made in respect of the claims, nor has any disclosure been made.

The auditor’s report on Robson’s financial statements for the year to 30 June 2005 was signed, without

modification, in March 2006.

Required:

(a) Identify and explain the specific matters to be clarified in the terms of engagement for this due diligence

review of Robson Construction Co. (6 marks)