Skip to content

ACCA Strategic Professional · Advanced Performance Management · Performance optimisation in specific contexts

A public sports agency receives a $2,000,000 grant to run a youth fitness programme. It budgets 10,000 participant-sessions. Actual spend is $1,900,000 for 9,500 sessions, and independent measurement shows 30% of participants reached the target fitness level against a target of 40%. Which statement correctly assesses the programme?

Cost per session is exactly on budget at $200, so economy and efficiency in unit terms are as planned, but effectiveness is below target because only 30% of participants reached the fitness level against a 40% target. Lower total spend and fewer sessions do not signal inefficiency here.

  1. AEconomy and efficiency are on budget in cost per session, but effectiveness is below targetCorrect
  2. BEfficiency is adverse because total sessions fell below budget
  3. CEffectiveness is favourable because spending was below the grant
  4. DEconomy is adverse because fewer sessions were delivered

Explanation

Budgeted cost per session is $200 ($2,000,000/10,000) and actual is $200 ($1,900,000/9,500), so unit cost and efficiency are as planned. The fitness outcome of 30% against 40% shows effectiveness is below target. Option B wrongly judges efficiency on volume alone rather than the ratio of cost to output.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Performance optimisation in specific contexts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Performance optimisation in specific contexts questions