| Course | AC550 Accounting Information Systems |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | System selection matrix |
| 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 AC550 Unit 5
One Package Matched February to the Cent: A Unit 5 System Selection Matrix Weighted Before Any Demonstration
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC550: Accounting Information Systems
Unit 5 System Selection Matrix
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Halvorsen Welding Supply, the candidate packages and every score are composite; the textbooks and attestation standard cited are real.
How the Matrix Was Built
Rows are the 29 requirements from Unit 4, grouped in their four families. Each is weighted by tier: three points for tier 1, two for tier 2 and one for tier 3. Weights were fixed and signed by the controller before any vendor demonstrated, so that a polished demonstration could not change what mattered. Each candidate scores each requirement 0 for not supported, 1 for supported with custom work, 2 for supported by configuration and 3 for supported as delivered. The weighted score is the sum of weight times score (Romney et al., 2021).
The Candidates
Candidate A: a mid-market enterprise resource planning package installed by a reseller, with a partner's cylinder-tracking module.
Candidate B: a vendor-hosted industry package written for gas and welding distributors.
Candidate C: the current billing system kept and joined to a hosted cylinder-tracking service through a nightly interface.
The February Test
Before scoring, each candidate was given the same data: serial-level holdings for forty accounts, chosen to include the hardest cases, such as customer-owned cylinders, mid-month swaps and a site transfer, and asked to compute February rent. The billing clerk computed the same bills by hand. Candidate B matched all forty to the cent. Candidate A missed six, all involving customer-owned cylinders, because its module stores ownership in a field the rent routine did not read. Candidate C missed eleven, because its nightly interface again sends totals rather than serials, recreating the overwrite problem.
Scores
Sixteen requirements are tier 1, eight tier 2 and five tier 3, so the weights total 69 and the maximum weighted score is 207. Candidate B scored 171, A scored 148 and C scored 119. B scored 3 on every holdings requirement, A scored 2 on most, and C scored 1 on most because its serial records sit outside billing.
Reading the SOC 1 Reports
Two candidates, B and C's tracking service, are hosted by the vendor. Halvorsen will rely on the vendor's controls for the accuracy of rent billing, so before awarding any points in the control family, the team read each vendor's SOC 1 Type 2 report, which describes the controls at the service organization and reports an auditor's tests of their operating effectiveness over a period (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2016). B's report covered twelve months with no exceptions in change management or access. C's tracking service had a Type 1 report only, which describes design at a point in time without testing operation. C received no points on the two requirements that depend on vendor change control. Both reports listed complementary user entity controls, controls Halvorsen itself must operate, such as reviewing user access quarterly, and these were added to the implementation plan.
Fixing the weights before the demonstrations and running real February data through each package kept the selection about Halvorsen's problem, so the vendor with the best presentation could not win unless its software also produced the right bills.
Recommendation
Select Candidate B, subject to contract terms requiring an annual SOC 1 Type 2 report and data export in a standard format if Halvorsen leaves (Hall, 2019).
References
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2016). Reporting on an examination of controls at a service organization relevant to user entities' internal control over financial reporting (Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 18). AICPA.
Hall, J. A. (2019). Accounting information systems (10th ed.). Cengage.
Romney, M. B., Steinbart, P. J., Summers, S. L., & Wood, D. A. (2021). Accounting information systems (15th ed.). Pearson.
AC550 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
The fifth AC550 unit asks you to compare candidate systems and recommend one. Use the requirements from your analysis as rows, weighted by priority, and fix the weights before any demonstration so presentations cannot change what matters. Define a scoring scale and apply it consistently. Describe each candidate by type rather than brand. Where possible, test each candidate on your own data, including hard cases, and record the results. For hosted candidates, read the service organization's SOC 1 report, distinguish Type 1 from Type 2, and note complementary user entity controls your organization must operate. Compute weighted scores, explain the main differences and recommend a candidate with contract conditions that protect the organization. Support the method with accounting information systems texts and the attestation standard for service organization reports in APA 7.
How the AC 550 Unit 5 example is put together
The sample explains its weights, three, two and one points by tier, fixed and signed before demonstrations, and a scoring scale from 0 for unsupported to 3 for delivered. Three candidates are described by type. The February test section reports forty test accounts: the industry package matched all, the enterprise package missed six on customer-owned cylinders and the hybrid missed eleven because its interface sends totals. Scores of 171, 148 and 119 follow. The SOC 1 section credits a clean twelve-month Type 2 report, denies points to a Type 1 report and lists complementary controls for the implementation plan. The highlighted sentence explains the selection discipline, and the recommendation sets contract terms.
AC550 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
Selection matrices in AC550 earn points for weights fixed in advance, consistent scoring and evidence beyond vendor claims. Graders check that weights come from the requirements analysis, that the scale is defined and that scores add correctly. The rubric gives significant weight to testing candidates on the organization's own data and to reading service organization reports properly, including whether a report tested operation over a period and the complementary user controls they list. A recommendation with contract protections shows judgment. Matrices that score from demonstrations alone, change weights after seeing products, or ignore hosted vendors' controls lose credit. A clear table and APA 7 references to the texts and attestation standard complete the work.
Common AC550 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Common Unit 5 problems begin with weights set after demonstrations, which lets the most impressive presentation win. Scores are assigned without a defined scale. Candidates are judged on vendor sample data that avoids the organization's hard cases. Students treat any SOC report as assurance without checking whether it is a SOC 1, whether it tested operating effectiveness, or what controls it expects the customer to perform. The recommendation lacks contract terms such as data export and annual reports. If your section's case compares different systems or requirements, a writer can build the matrix and test plan from your requirements list.
Get an AC550 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Two candidates or five, the matrix is scored against your own requirements. Forward the Unit 5 prompt, your earlier requirements, any vendor material the case offers, and the rubric. Scoring anchors, evidence codes and cost set beside the totals come back within 24-48h, and there is no fee for a first custom sample. 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 AC550 papers and MS in Accounting samples
- AC550 Unit 1: Data Capture Discussion
- AC550 Unit 2: Business Process Narrative
- AC550 Unit 3: Accounting System Flowchart
- AC550 Unit 4: System Requirements Analysis
- AC550 Unit 6: Data Governance Brief
- AC550 Unit 7: Implementation Plan
- AC550 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC550 Unit 9: Control Gap Assessment
- AC550 Unit 10: Systems Evaluation Report
- AC507 Unit 5: Stock Redemption Analysis
- AC505 Unit 5: Transfer Pricing Problem
- AC504 Unit 5: Nonprofit Ethics Case Analysis
- AC503 Unit 5: Monetary Unit Sampling Plan
AC550 Unit 5 questions, answered
Why read a SOC 1 report rather than a SOC 2?
A SOC 1 report covers a service organization's controls that bear on its customers' financial statements, which is exactly the ground rent calculation and billing occupy. SOC 2 reports address the trust services criteria, such as security and availability, and suit data protection questions. The matrix reads Type 2 reports, which test operating effectiveness over a period rather than design at a single date.
What are complementary user entity controls?
Controls a service organization assumes its customers will perform, listed in its SOC report, such as reviewing user access or reconciling what the system returns. The vendor's controls achieve their objectives only in combination with them. The sample assigns every such control to a Halvorsen role and counts any that nobody at the company could perform against the package.
Why test candidates on the company's own data?
Because a demonstration on vendor sample data shows a product at its best and avoids the awkward cases. The forty Halvorsen accounts were chosen to include customer-owned cylinders, rent waivers and late swap sheets, the conditions behind most disputes. A package that bills those correctly has shown something no brochure can, and the matrix scores it accordingly.
Where can I find a free AC550 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds a full AC550 Unit 5 system selection matrix for Halvorsen Welding Supply with tier weights fixed in advance, a forty-account billing test, SOC 1 review and APA 7 references.
Why did one candidate lose control points despite having a SOC 1 report?
Its report was Type 1, describing control design on a single date. Without testing of how the controls worked across months, Halvorsen had no evidence it could rely on the vendor's change management, so those requirements scored zero.