| Course | GB519 Measurement and Decision Making |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Balanced scorecard |
| Length | About 890 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB519 Unit 9
Twelve Measures for a Custom Fabrication Lab: A Unit 9 Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Map
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB519: Measurement and Decision Making
Unit 9 Balanced Scorecard
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The lab and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Exhibit 1: The Strategy Map
The map has four bands. From the bottom:
Learning and growth: build modeling skill on the fabrication floor and learn from every fitting.
Internal process: fit right the first time and ship faster.
Customer: earn clinicians' confidence so that clinics reorder and stay.
Financial: raise contribution per device and grow the hospital channel.
Arrows run upward. Cross-training technicians in digital modeling and holding regular fit-outcome reviews point to a lower remake rate and fewer delays. A lower remake rate and faster turnaround point to higher clinician fit ratings and reorders. Reorders and retention point to contribution per device, because a retained clinic orders steadily and needs less sales effort. Kaplan and Norton (2004) describe the strategy map as the hypothesis the scorecard tests, and this one rests on a finding from the activity costing work: remakes are among the lab's costliest activities, at about $330 each.
Exhibit 2: The Scorecard
Financial perspective
Contribution per device (lag): $104 now; target $110; initiative, new spinal brace pricing for clinic contracts.
Overhead per technician hour (lag): $50 now; target $47; initiative, remake reduction program.
Hospital systems' share of revenue (lag): 30 percent now; target 34 percent; initiative, pediatric clinic contract and one further hospital bid.
Customer perspective
Clinic account retention (lag): 88 percent of accounts active a year later; target 93 percent; initiative, twice-yearly account reviews.
Clinician fit rating (lag): 4.1 of 5 on a quarterly survey; target 4.5; initiative, a fitting checklist sent with every device.
Clinics reordering within 90 days (lead): 71 percent; target 78 percent; initiative, a turnaround guarantee for repeat clinics.
Internal process perspective
Remake rate (lead): 4.3 percent of devices; target 2.8 percent; initiative, the fitting checklist and a corrected scan alignment step.
Days from scan to shipment (lead): 6.8 days; target 5.0; initiative, same-day modeling for every scan received before noon.
On-time shipment (lead): 91 percent of devices shipped by the promised date; target 97 percent; initiative, a Saturday shift trigger tied to backlog.
Learning and growth perspective
Technicians cross-trained in digital modeling (lead): 4 of 22; target 10; initiative, a twelve-week training rotation.
Fit-outcome review hours per technician each quarter (lead): none now; target 3; initiative, a monthly review of remade devices with the modelers.
Scan problems resolved within one business day (lead): 62 percent; target 90 percent; initiative, a named contact for clinics' scanning questions.
Cutting the remake rate from 4.3 to 2.8 percent would avoid about 315 remakes a year, worth roughly $104,000 of rework, which is how the bottom of the map reaches the top.
Why Three per Perspective
Twelve measures fit on one page, which is the scorecard's discipline. Each added measure needs someone to collect it and pulls attention from the others. Kaplan and Norton (1996) recommend a small set chosen for the strategy over a long list of everything that can be counted. Measures that did not make the list, such as mill utilization, remain on the operations report but are not scorecard measures.
Lead and Lag Together
Every perspective pairs measures that move early with measures that confirm results later. The remake rate and turnaround days should move within a quarter of the training and checklist starting; the fit rating and retention follow over two or three quarters; contribution per device follows last. If the leads improve and the lags do not, the map's causal bet is wrong, and the owner learns that from the scorecard rather than from a bad year.
Targets and Owners
Targets reflect one year of realistic improvement, not the best a competitor claims. Each measure has one owner: the production supervisor for remakes and turnaround, the sales manager for retention and reorders, the engineering supervisor for cross-training and scan support, and the controller for the financial measures. The management team reviews the scorecard monthly and the strategy map once a year.
Risks
Measures can be gamed. On-time shipment could be met by shipping devices that fit poorly, which the remake rate would then catch; that is one reason the two sit side by side. Survey ratings depend on who answers, so the sales manager should survey the same clinicians each quarter. Tying pay to a few measures invites people to manage the measures rather than the work (Merchant & Van der Stede, 2017), so the lab should use the scorecard for review and learning for at least a year before linking any of it to bonuses.
Limits
The scorecard does not show everything that matters. A sudden change in insurance coverage for custom orthoses, a competitor's price cut or the loss of a key engineer would not appear in any of the twelve measures until its effects reached the lag rows. The owner should therefore read the scorecard alongside the variance memo and the cash budget, which watch price, cost and timing. The causal links are also untested at Fernhill. If cross-training rises to ten technicians and remakes do not fall, the map should be redrawn, perhaps with the fitting checklist rather than modeling skill as the driver that matters.
References
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business School Press.
Merchant, K. A., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2017). Management control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation and incentives (4th ed.). Pearson.
GB519 Unit 9 instructions, in plain terms
In GB519 Unit 9 you build a balanced scorecard for an organization. Begin with a strategy map in four perspectives, showing objectives and the causal links between them. Then present a scorecard table with a small number of measures per perspective, each labeled lead or lag, with its current value, a target and an initiative. Explain why you chose that number of measures, how lead and lag measures pair, who owns each measure and how often the scorecard is reviewed. Discuss risks such as gaming and the scorecard's limits. Expect about four pages with the map and table as exhibits, citing balanced scorecard and control sources in APA 7.
How this GB519 Unit 9 example is built
Exhibit 1 describes four bands and the arrows linking cross-training and fit reviews to remakes, turnaround, clinician ratings and contribution, citing Kaplan and Norton on strategy maps and the activity costing work's $330 remake cost. Exhibit 2 lists twelve rows, from contribution per device at $104 and clinic retention at 88 percent to a remake rate of 4.3 percent and 4 of 22 technicians cross-trained. The highlighted sentence prices the remake target at about $104,000. Sections explain the twelve-measure limit, citing Kaplan and Norton's 1996 book, lead and lag timing, owners and monthly review. Risks cite Merchant and Van der Stede on pay links, and limits note what the measures cannot show.
Where the points sit in the GB519 Unit 9 rubric
GB519 instructors look for a scorecard whose measures test a causal story. A strategy map with clear links between perspectives earns early credit. Each measure should be labeled lead or lag and carry a current value, target and initiative. Defending the number of measures shows discipline. Pairing lead and lag measures so the map can be tested carries significant weight. Owners and a review rhythm show practical sense. Discussing gaming and limits shows judgment. Kaplan and Norton's two books, on the scorecard and on strategy maps, together with Merchant and Van der Stede on incentives, make up the APA 7 list.
Common GB519 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB519 Unit 9 scorecards list twenty measures under four headings with no links between them. Others label every measure a lag, leaving nothing that predicts results. A common gap is the causal story: each lower measure should be a bet on a higher one, and the scorecard should be able to show when the bet is wrong. Some writers set targets with no initiative behind them. Draw the map first, choose a few measures per perspective, label lead and lag, set targets with initiatives, assign owners and name the risks. Pricing at least one causal link, as this sample does for remakes, gives a skeptical owner a reason to fund the initiatives. Without that figure the scorecard can look like extra reporting rather than a test of the strategy.
Get a GB519 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Share the Unit 9 prompt, the rubric and the organization or course project company the scorecard should serve, with its strategy if one is stated. The map, measures, targets and initiatives are built to that strategy and linked to your project's findings where relevant. It is free as a first custom sample and typically arrives within 24-48h. 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 GB519 papers and MBA samples
- GB519 Unit 1: Cost Terms Exercise
- GB519 Unit 2: Cost Behavior Analysis
- GB519 Unit 3: Break-Even Analysis
- GB519 Unit 4: Job Costing Problem
- GB519 Unit 5: Activity-Based Costing Comparison
- GB519 Unit 6: Master Budget and Cash Plan
- GB519 Unit 7: Variance Analysis Memo
- GB519 Unit 8: Make-or-Buy Decision Memo
- GB519 Unit 10: Capital Budgeting Decision Package
- GB518 Unit 9: Financial Ratio Analysis
- GB513 Unit 9: Multiple Regression Model
- GB512 Unit 9: Business Presentation Deck
- GB500 Unit 9: Professional Development Plan
GB519 Unit 9 questions, answered
How many measures should a balanced scorecard include?
Most course scorecards use three to five per perspective, twelve to twenty in all. The number matters less than the reasoning: each measure should test a link in the strategy map, and each outcome should have a driver beneath it. The sample uses twelve and explains the choice, which graders tend to reward over a longer list that nobody could review monthly.
Can the scorecard be built for a nonprofit or public agency?
Yes. The perspectives are often reordered so that mission sits at the top instead of financial results, with funding and cost stewardship becoming a supporting perspective. A county health department or a food bank would still need a causal map, measures it can collect and targets with dates. The sample adapts the framework to whatever organization the instructions name.
Where can I find a free GB519 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB519 Unit 9 balanced scorecard for an orthotics lab, with a strategy map, twelve measures with targets and initiatives, owners, risks and APA 7 references.
Which measures lead and which lag?
The remake rate, turnaround days, on-time shipment, reorders and the learning measures move early and predict results. Retention, the fit rating and the financial measures confirm results later, so they lag.
How does the scorecard guard against gaming?
It pairs measures that check each other. On-time shipment could be met by shipping poor fits, but the remake rate beside it would rise, so a gain on one measure at the other's expense shows up.