Part (b) for 14 marks required a report to management which identified and explained four deficiencies, implications and recommendations for the purchasing system of Greystone Co. A covering letter was required and there were 2 presentation marks available.

This part of the question was answered well by the vast majority of candidates with some scoring full marks. The scenario was quite detailed and hence there were many possible deficiencies which could gain credit.

Where candidates did not score well this was mainly due to a failure to explain the deficiency and/or the implication in sufficient detail. Some candidates simply listed the information from the scenario such as “purchase invoices are manually matched to GRNs” and then failed to explain the implication of this for Greystone Co.

A significant minority also failed to score marks because they provided deficiencies which were unrelated to the purchasing system, such as “internal audit’s only role is to perform inventory counts.” This was outside the scope of the question requirement and hence did not gain credit. Candidates are once again reminded that they must read the question requirements carefully.

Many candidates failed to score the full 2 marks available for presentation as they did not produce a covering letter. A significant minority just gave the deficiencies, implications and recommendations without any letter at all; this may be due to a failure to read the question properly.

Also even when a letter was produced this was often not completed. Candidates would provide the letterhead and introductory paragraph, the detail of the deficiencies, implications and recommendations, but then they would fail to include a concluding paragraph and letter sign off which would have earned a further 1 mark.

In addition some candidates produced a memo rather than a letter. In general, where candidates adopted a columnar approach to their answer they tended to score well.

The question asked for four deficiencies, implications and recommendations, however many candidates provided much more than the required four points. It was not uncommon to see answers which had six or seven points.

Whilst it is understandable that candidates wish to ensure that they gain credit for four relevant points, this approach can lead to time pressure and subsequent questions can suffer.