D2/2017年11月
CIPS 四级：采购与供应文凭（Diploma in procurement and supply）
《采购与供应策略》Business needs in procurement and supply
日期 2017 年 11 月 16 日 星期四
时间 开始 14:00 结束 17:00 历时 3 小时
考生注意事项：Instructions for Candidates：
本试卷由四道必答题组成，每题25分，共100分。
This examination has FOUR compulsory questions worth 25 marks each.
1. 在未得到监考官允许之前，请勿翻阅试卷。
Do not open this question paper until instructed by the invigilator.
2. 请将答案填写在答题纸上。
All answers must be written in the answer booklet provided.
3. 请将草稿也写在答题纸背面，交卷前请将草稿部分作一删除记号。
All rough work and notes should also be written in the answer booklet.
请在考试结束后交回试卷
问题 Questions
建议你每题用45分钟作答。
You are advised to spend 45 minutes on each question.
1.
(a) 举例解释术语"预算"。(5分)
Using an example to illustrate， explain the term ‘budget'.
(b) 描述用于建立采购目标的两种预算方法。(8分)
Describe TWO approaches to budgeting used to establish procurement targets.
(c) 解释为采购部门编制预算的三个目的。(12分)
Explain THREE purposes of preparing a budget for a procurement function.
2
(a)描述规格在采购周期的三个不同阶段中所发挥的作用。(9分)
Describe the role of a specification at THREE different stages within the procurement cycle.
(b)评估为合同起草不良规格可能导致的四种后果。 (16分)
Assess FOUR potential consequences of drafting a poor specification for a contract.
3.阐述在合同中可以使用的五种定价安排。(25 分)
Explain FIVE types of pricing arrangements that may be used in contractual agreements.
4.
(a)描述促进外包发展的四个因素。(16分)
Describe FOUR factors that have contributed to the growth of outsourcing.
(b)描述组织外包非核心业务所面临的三种风险。(9 分)
Outline THREE risks to an organisation of outsourcing a non-core activity.
试卷结束
END OF QUESTION PAPER
英方公布试题答案及评分参考Question:
Q1(a) Using an example to illustrate, explain the term ‘budget’
Q1(b) Describe TWO approaches to budgeting used to establish procurement targets (8 marks)
Q1(c) Explain THREE purposes of preparing a budget for a procurement function (12 marks)
Learning outcome addressed: 1.4
Command word explanation: Describe – give a full account of something
Command word explanation: Explain – give reasons for or account for something
Examples of good content/good approaches in answers:
For part (a), good answers should have given at the least a basic explanation of the term ‘budget’, along the lines of: ‘a plan quantified in monetary terms, prepared and approved prior to a defined period of time’. Further marks were reserved exclusively for the provision of an illustrative example, as required specifically by the wording of the question, so good content would also provide one such example.
Good content in response to part (b) of this question could have included descriptions of any two of these approaches to budgeting: incremental budgets; zero-based budgets; rolling budgets; fixed budgets; or flexible budgets. Any other feasible and relevant approaches to budgeting that could possibly be used to establish procurement targets were also accepted as correct answers.
Finally, good content in response to part (c) of this question included all variations on the theme of the ‘purposes of preparing a budget for a procurement function’, such as expressing objectives as operational targets; use as a control mechanism; to communicate plans and targets to stakeholders; to motivate and reward staff; to identify risks or problems, such as cashflow difficulties or the need to raise additional finance; to evaluate performance; and to control procurement activities.
Examples of content for merit/distinction grade answers:
Clear and comprehensive explanations, definitions, and descriptions for all parts of the question, with a good illustrative example for part (a), and convincing content for parts (b) and (c); that was all wholly applicable and relevant to budgets for procurement functions.
Examples of poorer content/ poorer approaches in answers:
Inaccurate or very short definitions, descriptions, and explanations; no example or a poor/irrelevant example given for part (a); irrelevant discussions of other factors, such as when and how budgets are prepared; giving answers to part (a) that were only relevant to parts (b) and/or (c); giving more than, or fewer than, two approaches to budgeting for part (b) and three purposes of preparing a procurement budget for part (c).
Concluding comment: No parts of this question were answered particularly well, and high marks were rarely gained overall. Part (a) was consistently the best-scoring part of the question, relative to the marks available; but some responses devoted too much content to this relatively low-scoring part of this question; and/or gave too little scoring content in response to the more potentially high-scoring parts (b) and (c). Marks were awarded for all possible relevant content for all parts of the question, and all plausible ‘approaches’ and ‘purposes’ in parts (b) and (c). Candidates should be fully aware that if a question seeks e.g. two elements, then markers will only ever mark the first two elements that are given: all further, surplus, content will not be assessed, and so will always earn no marks.
Question:
Q2(a) Describe the role of a specification at THREE different stages within the procurement cycle
Q2(b) Assess FOUR potential consequences of drafting a poor specification for a contract
Q2(a) Learning outcome addressed: 2.1
Q2(b) Learning outcome addressed: 2.1, 2.2
Q2(a) Command word explanation: Describe – give a full account of something
Q2(b) Command word explanation: Assess – evaluate or judge the importance of something
Examples of good content/good approaches in answers:
Good content for part (a) included, but was not limited to: defining the requirement in a manner that is clear, concise and unambiguous; communicating with key internal stakeholders to ensure necessary contribution and buy-in; communicating with potential suppliers, so that they understand what is required and can produce a credible bid; as a standard against which competing bids are evaluated; measuring whether the supplier is conforming against the agreed specification; providing evidence of good or poor performance by the supplier, including evidence of what was agreed in the event of a dispute with the supplier. All and any other valid roles of a specification at any feasible stage within the procurement cycle were also accepted.
For part (b) of this question, good content included, but was not limited to: not achieving the overall objectives of the organisation if the specification does not reflect actual business needs; the need for additional work, causing additional cost; rejections; downtime; contractual and legal disputes; conflict with internal stakeholders, such as end-users; recalls; lost customer loyalty; lost business reputation; and paying higher prices with no business benefit. All other feasible ‘consequences’ were also accepted.
Examples of content for merit/distinction grade answers:
For part (a), clear, accurate and comprehensive descriptions of precisely three different stages within the procurement cycle, and equally clear, accurate and comprehensive descriptions of the role of a specification at each of those stages.
For part (b), the more demanding command word ‘assess’ required clear, comprehensive, and reasonably detailed explanations and assessments of precisely four potential consequences of drafting a poor specification for a contract, with further marks awarded for relevant and expository examples.
Examples of poorer content/ poorer approaches in answers:
For part (a), overly short responses, sometimes just brief listing of stages and/or merely listing the uses of specifications without any reference to stages of the procurement cycle scored poorer marks. Irrelevant definitions and generic explanations of specifications, such as types of specification; irrelevant explanations of the detailed differences between ’conformance’ and ‘performance’ specifications; giving more than, or fewer than, exactly three ‘uses’; using irrelevant acronyms such as ‘SMART’ and ‘The Five Rights’ as a structure for the answer.
For part (b) of the question, again, overly short responses, lacking in depth and detail; not ‘assessing’ the consequences fully; going far beyond the scope of the question and explaining how specifications should be prepared and drafted; discussing the wider roles of the procurement function in relation to specifications; and, once again, giving more than, or fewer than, precisely four consequences. Poorer answers generally did not reflect the split of marks (9:16) in the amount of content devoted to parts (a) and (b) respectively.
Concluding comment: This was typically the second highest-scoring question for many candidates, and most candidates achieved ‘high teens’ of marks here, or better. Most responses were reasonably well-structured, and were expressed clearly; lower-scoring responses lacked sufficient content, were inaccurate, or were poorly structured. Most responses were well structured, and clearly set out the right number of elements for each part of the question; although still too many responses did not do that. And some responses did not reflect the split of marks (9:16) in the amount of content devoted to part (a) and to part (b) respectively. In fact, some candidates devoted almost too much content to part (a), which was only a nine-mark part of the question; sometimes at the expense of their response to the more demanding ‘assess’ question in part (b), which was worth up to sixteen marks.
Question:
Explain FIVE types of pricing arrangements that may be used in contractual agreements
Learning outcome addressed: 3.3
Command word explanation: Explain – give reasons for or account for something
Examples of good content/good approaches in answers:
Good answers to this question included explanations of pricing arrangements such as: fixed price; lump sum; firm price; the various methods of ‘cost plus’ arrangements; indexation; and any of the various incentivising approaches to pricing, such as gainshare. Wide allowance was made here for differences in terminology used in responses, because the terminology of pricing arrangements may not be consistent across the world, or even across different sectors in the UK. All such variations in responses were accepted and were awarded marks.
Examples of content for merit/distinction grade answers:
For each of five different types of pricing arrangement, a clear, concise, well-structured and comprehensive explanation of that pricing arrangement, demonstrating a good understanding of the types of such arrangements, and when and why they might be used; with an in-depth explanation, also perhaps supplemented with examples of the use of such arrangements, and the commercial and business purposes under which each type might be particularly appropriate.
Examples of poorer content/ poorer approaches in answers:
Overly brief answers; explaining fewer than five separate ‘types’ or arrangement, giving shallow explanations, failing to clearly show understanding of each type of arrangement and how it operates, poorly-structured answers, and inaccurate answers scored fewer marks.
Concluding comment: The standard of responses to this question was very varied, and for a substantial number of candidates this was their lowest-scoring question by a considerable margin (although many of these candidates still achieved a passing mark or better for the paper as a whole). Some responses here did reach ‘distinction’ level; but others seemed to miss the point of the question, and explained other, unrelated, topics, such as supplier's costing models, or marketing approaches. A significant number of candidates did not attempt this question at all; and many responses didn’t give the full five ‘types’ that were sought by the question, running out of steam at two or three only.
Question:
Q4(a) Describe FOUR factors that have contributed to the growth of outsourcing
Q4(b) Outline THREE risks to an organisation of outsourcing a non-core activity
Learning outcome addressed: 4.2
Q4(a) Command word explanation: Describe – give a full account of something
Q4(b) Command word explanation: Outline – give the main features, facts or the general idea of something
Examples of good content/good approaches in answers:
Part (a) of this question sought a clear description of four factors that have contributed to the growth of outsourcing, and all valid ‘factors’ - of which there are many - were awarded marks. Good content here would include: to improve quality standards; to reduce costs; to achieve economies of scale; to create competitive advantage; to focus on core activities; to free up capital; to shed staff (and the consequential costs and responsibilities of employing, supporting, and training staff); to facilitate changes in work processes and structures; to reduce management problems; to exploit the growth of globalisation; to exploit developments in technology, particularly IT. All of these factors, and all other relevant factors, were accepted as correct.
Part (b) of the question sought an outline of three risks to an organisation of outsourcing a non-core activity. Here again there are many possible correct answers, and all valid ‘risks’ were awarded marks. Typical good content included: the organisation failing to distinguish between ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ activities and losing its core competence and unique commercial advantages; choosing a poor-quality service provider; loss of in-house expertise; loss of control of confidential data and/or intellectual property; unrealistic expectations of the outsourcing project; poorly defined key performance indicators or service level agreements; poor management of the supplier; and over-dependence/over-reliance on the supplier. There were a wide range of other possible answers, all of which were accepted wherever feasible.
Examples of content for merit/distinction grade answers:
For part (a), higher marks were awarded for well-structured responses, with deeper and more detailed descriptions of exactly four factors, all clearly differentiated. Also, higher marks were awarded for those descriptions that fully explored the issues involved, and/or for those descriptions which included well-thought-out, relevant, examples of factors that have contributed to the growth of outsourcing, such as the growth of outsourcing of customer interactions to telephone call centres operating across national boundaries, languages, and cultures, utilising globalisation and technological developments.
Similarly, for part (b), higher marks were awarded for well-structured responses, but the ‘lighter’ command word, ‘outline’, used here, meant that less depth was required from responses in order to achieve full marks. Clear outlines of precisely three risks of outsourcing of a non-core activity were sought here, and marks were also awarded for relevant examples of such failures, where these were given in responses but such examples were not a pre-requisite for full marks.
Examples of poorer content/ poorer approaches in answers:
For part (a), poorly structured and shallow descriptions, lacking logical sequence and/or lacking clear gaps/delineations between each of the four factors. General discussions of ‘outsourcing’, and/or the reasons for doing it, and the risks of doing it, rather than discussing actual ‘factors’ relevant to the growth and the development of outsourcing as a phenomenon. Giving fewer than, or more than, four ‘factors’ or describing factors that had no bearing on the development of outsourcing.
For part (b), again, poorly structured and shallow answers, not addressing the risks to an organisation of outsourcing a non-core activity, but instead discussing outsourcing in general terms, or the reasons that organisations might consider doing it. Giving fewer than, or more than, three ‘risks’.
Concluding comment: This was often the highest scoring question for candidates, and totals of over twenty marks were not unusual. Most responses were well-structured, and clearly set out the right number of elements for each part of the question. Most of the responses demonstrated good knowledge of outsourcing, and gave good, relevant, descriptions/outlines, though some responses were still too short or too poorly structured to get high marks.
