| Course | AC505 Advanced Managerial/Cost Accounting |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Balanced scorecard design |
| Length | About 580 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC505 Unit 7
What Would a Manager Do to Move It? A Unit 7 Balanced Scorecard Design for a Nut Butter Division
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC505: Advanced Managerial/Cost Accounting
Unit 7 Balanced Scorecard Design
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Harrow Creek Nut Company and every target are composite; the articles and textbook cited are real.
Strategy
Win and keep shelf space at regional grocery chains with a complete allergen-safe range delivered on time. Every measure below should tell the division whether it is doing that (Kaplan & Norton, 1996).
The Scorecard
Each row gives the measure, its definition, baseline and target, the behavior a manager would adopt to move it, the harmful version of that behavior, and the paired measure that checks it.
Financial 1: Contribution per filling-line hour. Contribution divided by line hours. Baseline $96, target $105. To move it, a manager lengthens runs and favors high-margin products. The harmful version is skipping sunflower seed runs because their washdowns cost line time. Paired with Customer 1.
Financial 2: Cost of unused roasting capacity. Idle practical hours times the practical rate. Baseline $480,000, target $360,000. A manager fills spring hours with work. The harmful version is roasting for inventory nobody has ordered. Paired with Process 2, days of finished goods.
Customer 1: Allergen-free range availability. Share of chain stores with every sunflower seed SKU in stock. Baseline 88 percent, target 96 percent. A manager schedules sunflower runs often. The harmful version is short, costly runs that raise washdown hours. Paired with Financial 1.
Customer 2: On-time, in-full delivery. Orders shipped complete by the promised date. Baseline 91 percent, target 97 percent. A manager keeps extra finished goods. The harmful version is building inventory. Paired with Process 2.
Process 1: Allergen washdown first-pass rate. Washdowns passing the lab swab test the first time. Baseline 94 percent, target 99 percent. A manager trains crews and standardizes checklists. The harmful version is pressuring the lab to pass marginal swabs. Paired with Learning 2, the lab's independent audit score.
Process 2: Days of finished goods. Finished inventory divided by average daily shipments. Baseline 21 days, target 16. A manager tightens production to orders. The harmful version is stockouts. Paired with Customer 2.
Learning 1: Cross-trained line operators. Share of operators certified on both lines and washdown. Baseline 40 percent, target 75 percent. A manager funds training time. The harmful version is certifying without competence. Paired with Process 1.
Learning 2: Lab independent audit score. Score from an outside food safety auditor. Baseline 87, target 93. A manager invests in the lab. The harmful version is preparing for the audit rather than improving practice. Paired with Process 1.
Every measure invites some behavior, so the design asks for each one what a manager would actually do to move it and pairs it with a measure that the harmful version of that behavior would damage.
Measures Considered and Rejected
Gross margin percentage was rejected because it rewards dropping the sunflower line, the product the strategy depends on. Labor hours per case was rejected because it would encourage skipping washdowns. Customer complaints per million jars was rejected for now because complaints are too rare to show monthly change; it will be reviewed annually instead.
How It Will Be Used
Targets are reviewed quarterly, and no bonus depends on a single measure. Research on performance measurement warns that what gets rewarded alone gets gamed (Kerr, 1975), so each pair is reported together on the same page (Datar & Rajan, 2021).
References
Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. V. (2021). Horngren's cost accounting: A managerial emphasis (17th ed.). Pearson.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.5465/255378
The Purdue Global AC505 Unit 7 instructions
The seventh AC505 unit asks you to design a balanced scorecard for an organization or division. Start with a one-sentence strategy the scorecard must serve. Spread the measures across all four of the scorecard's perspectives, usually two apiece. For each measure, give its definition, baseline and target, the behavior a manager would adopt to move it, the harmful version of that behavior, and a paired measure that the harmful behavior would damage. Explain measures you considered and rejected and why. Describe how the scorecard will be reviewed and used, including its link to rewards. Write so that a manager could use the scorecard tomorrow. Cite the original balanced scorecard source, research on rewards and behavior, and a cost text in APA 7.
How this AC505 Unit 7 example is built
The sample's strategy is to win shelf space with a complete allergen-safe range delivered on time. Eight rows follow, each with six columns: contribution per line hour paired with allergen-free availability, unused roasting cost paired with days of finished goods, on-time-in-full delivery, washdown first-pass rate paired with the lab's audit score, and cross-trained operators. Each row names the intended behavior and its harmful version, such as pressuring the lab to pass marginal swabs. The highlighted sentence states the design rule. A section rejects gross margin percentage, labor hours per case and complaints per million jars. The closing section explains why pairs are reported together, drawing on Kerr's classic article on reward systems.
Reading the AC505 Unit 7 grading rubric
Scorecard designs in AC505 earn points for measures linked to strategy and for explicit attention to the behavior each measure produces. Graders check that every measure is defined precisely with a baseline and target, and that perspectives are covered. The rubric gives significant weight to predicting how managers would game each measure and pairing it with a check. Rejected measures, explained, show judgment. A plan for review and for linking rewards to pairs rather than single measures earns further credit. Designs that list popular measures without tying them to the strategy, or that ignore gaming, lose substantial credit. A usable format and APA 7 references to the scorecard literature complete the work.
AC505 Unit 7 help from the desk
Common Unit 7 weaknesses start with measures copied from a textbook list that do not fit the company's strategy. Targets and baselines are missing. Students never ask what a manager would do to move each number, so measures that reward shortcuts go unnoticed. Pairs are absent or chosen without logic. Every perspective has five measures, diluting attention. Rewards are tied to a single headline number. Rejected measures are not discussed. If your section's organization is a hospital, a service firm or a nonprofit, a writer can design the scorecard around its strategy and the behaviors its measures would invite.
Get an AC505 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
A scorecard needs a strategy to test, so start with the one your Unit 7 prompt gives the division, or describe it, and add any existing measures and the rubric. Each measure returns paired with the behavior it would produce and a check on gaming, targets bracketed, within 24-48h; the opening sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More AC505 papers and MS in Accounting samples
- AC505 Unit 1: Cost Behavior Discussion
- AC505 Unit 2: Activity-Based Costing Problem
- AC505 Unit 3: Service Department Cost Allocation
- AC505 Unit 4: Sell or Process Further Analysis
- AC505 Unit 5: Transfer Pricing Problem
- AC505 Unit 6: Capacity Cost Analysis Worksheet
- AC505 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC505 Unit 9: Capital Investment Analysis
- AC505 Unit 10: Performance Evaluation Report
- AC504 Unit 7: Whistleblowing Case Study
- AC503 Unit 7: Analytical Procedures Exercise
- AC502 Unit 7: Professional Entity Comparison Memo
- AC501 Unit 7: Revenue Arrangement Analysis
AC505 Unit 7 questions, answered
How many measures should a balanced scorecard contain?
Enough to cover the strategy and no more, often two to four per perspective. More measures dilute attention and make pairing harder to manage. If your prompt fixes a number, meet it; otherwise defend the count by showing every measure tests part of the strategy and that removing any one would leave a behavior unwatched.
What does it mean to predict the behavior a measure produces?
Ask what a sensible manager whose bonus depends on the number would do next month, including shortcuts the designer would not want. Write both the intended response and the cheapest way to move the figure. If the cheapest way harms the business, the measure needs a tighter definition, a paired counterweight, or removal from the scorecard.
Is a strategy map required?
Many sections expect one, since it shows the cause-and-effect logic linking the perspectives. Others accept a clear strategy statement with measures tied to it. If you include a map, keep it to the few links you can defend, and make sure the behavior analysis still appears, because a map shows intended causation while the behavior column shows what could go wrong.
Where can I find a free AC505 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page holds a full AC505 Unit 7 balanced scorecard design for the consumer division of Harrow Creek Nut Company with eight paired measures, rejected measures and APA 7 references.
Why was gross margin percentage rejected?
Because it rewards dropping the allergen-free sunflower seed line, the product the division's strategy depends on to win shelf space. A measure that pushes managers against the strategy does not belong on the scorecard.