Management Accounting

Management Accounting Order Description The assignment is in two parts, (a) and (b), weighted 70:30 respectively. Part (a): Write a summary of François-Régis Puyou’s research findings on the manipulation of financial performance reporting (Puyou 2014). Puyou, F-R. (2014) Ordering collective performance manipulation practices: how do leaders manipulate financial reporting figures in conglomerates? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 25 pp469-488. Part (b): Use the research findings of Puyou (2014) to comment critically on the Toshiba scandal as reported in The Economist, 25th July 2015, pp 54-55. Part (a): Write a summary of François-RégisPuyou’s research findings on the manipulation of financial performance reporting (Puyou 2014). Puyou, F-R. (2014) Ordering collective performance manipulation practices: how do leaders manipulate financial reporting figures in conglomerates? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 25 pp469-488. You can access the article via “Reading Lists” on the module page on Blackboard. Your summary must not exceed 1,000 words (excluding the title).  You may reproduce diagrams/figures and you may use headings but you should avoid over-use of bullet points.  Words in diagrams are included in the word count.I will apply the University’s policy on marking where there is a mandatory word limit: “a student should not benefit from submitting a piece of work which exceeds the specified length: a marker should not be obliged to read beyond the word limit and a mark based on the work up to the word limit should normally be awarded.”http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/exams/17-eaph-coursework.pdf Part (b): Use the research findings of Puyou (2014) to comment critically on the Toshiba scandal as reported in The Economist, 25th July 2015, pp 54-55. This part of the assignment should not exceed 500 words. Marking criteria: see below Criteria    EXCEPTIONAL    SKILLED    PROFICIENT    DEVELOPING    INADEQUATE The summary of Puyou (2014). Demonstration of knowledge and understanding. (35%)    •    All the key concepts are identified •    Demonstrates an ability to extract and synthesise sufficient information to support the key concept or point.    •    Most of the key concepts are identified •    Supporting information is summarised but may be either too detailed or inadequate.    •    Some key concepts are identified •    Supporting information demonstrates a limited understanding of the key concept or point.    •    Very limited identification of the key concepts •    Supporting information may not be included and/or demonstrates a poor understanding of the key concept or point.     •    Little evidence to show that the key concepts/points have been identified or understood. Quality of written communication. (35%)    •    Excellent sequence and logical organisation of material. •    Writing is fluent, succinct and clear. •    Effective use of quotations.    •    Good organisation. •    Writing is mainly succinct and clear •    Good use of quotations in general but some quotations could have been expressed just as well in your own words.    •    Sequence of paragraphs may not always be logical. •    Writing is sufficiently clear to convey meaning •    Too many quotations are used and/or some quotations are extensive.  Much more should be in your own words.     •    Acceptable structure. •    Meaning is often difficult to extract because the writing is poor •    Far too many quotations are used.  Much more should be in your own words.     •    Difficult to discern a logical structure •    Poorly written throughout or may consist of little more than a list of quotations. •    Fails to identify quotations as such. Application of Puyou (2014) to Toshiba. Application of theory (Puyou’s research) to the Toshiba case study (as reported in The Economist). (20%)    •    Excellent interpretation of the article through the lens of Puyou’s work    •    Strong evidence that Puyou’s contribution has been understood and applied to the Toshiba case. •    Few omissions •    Understanding may lack depth in places.    •    Good use of the Puyou article to show understanding of the Toshiba case. •    There may be some omissions or errors of understanding.    •    Some evidence that Puyou’s article has been used to interpret the Toshiba case. •    There may be evidence that Puyou’s work has been misunderstood and/or that it has been inappropriately applied to the Toshiba case.    •    Poor.  Little evidence that any attempt has been made to read the Toshiba case in light of the Puyou article. Critical insight, reasoned reflection and/or reasoned questioning of assumptions. (10%)    •    Strong evidence supporting interesting and critical comments.    •    Evidence of probing and questioning. •    Most critical comments or observations are supported by reasoned argument or other evidence.    •    Some reasonable criticismbut comments may not be supported by reasoned argument or sufficient evidence in all cases.    •    Evidence may be weak and/or comment may be limited. •    Some attempt to recognise underlying assumptions and to question their validity.    •    No evidence of questioning. •    Fails to recognise any assumptions.