Internal assessment SL, sample A

Assessment criteria Marks awarded Marks available

Criterion A 4 4
Criterion B 5 5
Criterion C 5 5
Criterion D 3 3
Criterion E 4 4
Criterion F 2 2
Criterion G 2 2
Total 25 25

Examiner comments

Criterion A Supporting documents

The 5 supporting documents (clearly identified in the beginning) are relevant and sufficient in depth.
They provide a range of views and ideas. The student uses various types of documents (balance sheet,
reliable news website, companys official website, specialised website article). It is good to see that, in
the supporting documents, the key passages are highlighted, as required by the task.

Criterion B Choice and application of tools, techniques and theories

The candidate chooses and applies a wide range of appropriate business management tools, techniques
and theories (stakeholders map, SWOT) and uses appropriate terminology all along (working capital,
liquidity ratios etc). The applications are skilful: the student clearly understands the models (SWOT,
stakeholders map).

Criterion C Use and analysis of data and integration of ideas

The candidate uses the data from the supporting documents very well. The commentary is coherent,
with a solid integration of the ideas presented.

Criterion D Conclusions

The conclusion is clear (Apple should initiate its dividend and share buyback programme) answering
the commentary question, based on the evidence provided.

Criterion E Evaluation

There is thorough evidence of evaluation all along, as illustrated by comments such as the main
problem of the programs is the way that... (page 5) or this would be good if... (page 6). The
judgements are substantiated and backed up by evidence (especially through footnotes).

Criterion F Structure

The commentary is well organized and structured; the argumentation flows clearly and logically.

Criterion G Presentation

The overall presentation is very good, from the sub-headings to the footnotes and from the table of
contents to the supporting documents that are properly labelled and easily identifiable.
Internal assessment SL, sample B
Assessment criteria Marks awarded Marks available
Criterion A 4 4
Criterion B 5 5
Criterion C 4 5
Criterion D 3 3
Criterion E 4 4
Criterion F 2 2
Criterion G 2 2
Total 24 25

Examiner comments

Criterion A Supporting documents

The 5 supporting documents (clearly identified in the table of contents and all duly labelled and
included at the end of the IA) are relevant and sufficient in depth. They provide a range of views and
ideas. The candidate uses various types of documents (e.g. extract from the annual report of the
organisation for financial statements, extract from a government report, extract from a consumer
website).

Criterion B Choice and application of tools, techniques and theories

The candidate chooses and applies a range of business management tools, techniques and theories, on
three topics: finance (e.g. ratios), marketing strategy (e.g. Porters generic strategies), globalization
(e.g. references to international strategic alliances). The selection is broad and appropriate and the
application is skilful.

Criterion C Use and analysis of data and integration of ideas

The candidate uses the data from the supporting documents very well, with appropriate analysis,
especially about the financial ratios. There is some integration of ideas: however, the discussion of the
three broad themes of finance, marketing strategy and globalisation, means that it was not possible,
within the word limit, to analyse them in much depth and to integrate all the ideas optimally (which is
why the candidate cannot score even higher for criterion C).

Criterion D Conclusions

The conclusion is logically based on the evidence provided on the previous pages. The very last
sentence of the conclusion (ultimately, USC should increase overseas marketing) shows that the
commentary answers the question sharply and unambiguously.

Criterion E Evaluation

There is thorough evidence of evaluation all along, as illustrated by comments such as remains one of
the smallest... (page 1), USCs low level of gearing suggests that... (page 2) or therefore, this
marketing strategy is especially applicable to... (page 4). Judgments are substantiated with
justifications, as much as can be expected within the word limit.
Criterion F Structure

The commentary is well organized and structured.

Criterion G Presentation

The overall presentation is very clear. It was particularly good to see how/where/when the supporting
documents were used in the commentary (e.g. page 4: In supporting document 4, it is stated that...,
page 4: As is evident in supporting document 1...)

Internal assessment SL, sample C

Assessment criteria Marks awarded Marks available
Criterion A 3 4
Criterion B 4 5
Criterion C 4 5
Criterion D 2 3
Criterion E 3 4
Criterion F 2 2
Criterion G 2 2
Total 20 25

Examiner comments

Criterion A Supporting documents

The 3 supporting documents are relevant and sufficient in depth: however, they do not provide the
range of views needed to score 4 marks (as is often the case when SL candidates choose only 3
documents, as that minimum quantity makes it more difficult, although not impossible, to score full
marks).

Criterion B Choice and application of tools, techniques and theories

There is an appropriate selection of business management tools, techniques and theories, such as the
eight Ps and SWOT analysis. They are suitably applied, though as the candidate covers so much (e.g.
Starbucks mission statement and its ethos) the models are not always applied with enough depth (e.g.
in the SWOT analysis on page 5, the one opportunity and the one threat are vague and generic).

Criterion C Use and analysis of data and integration of ideas

There is an appropriate selection of data from the supporting documents with good analysis. Data from
the three documents is well integrated in the commentary. For an even higher mark, the candidate
should have better selected which data is useful and important, or not: for example, on page 3, is the
historical background really needed to answer the commentary question?

Criterion D Conclusions

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented; however, they do not fully answer the
commentary question (as the question is how have they... and the candidate only concludes yes,
they have...) Given that in terms of word count, the candidate could still write 150 more words, the
conclusions could have been more developed, closing the loop on the commentary question and
scoring 1 more mark.
Criterion E Evaluation

There is evidence of evaluation, judgements are substantiated (see footnotes for sources and
references), yet not thoroughly and systematically.

Criterion F Structure

The commentary is well organized and structured. The use of bold and italics adds to the clarity of the
commentary.

Criterion G Presentation

The commentary is very well presented in all respects (especially the list of appendices and the
appendices themselves).

Internal assessment SL, sample D

Assessment criteria Marks awarded Marks available
Criterion A 3 4
Criterion B 4 5
Criterion C 4 5
Criterion D 3 3
Criterion E 2 4
Criterion F 2 2
Criterion G 1 2
Total 19 25

Examiner comments

Criterion A Supporting documents

The 4 supporting documents are relevant and sufficient in depth. They are from different sources (e.g.
one from the Nokia website and two from the Guardian newspaper), however a wider range of views
and ideas could have been provided for an even higher mark. It would also be good to have the key
passages of the supporting documents used in the commentary highlighted.

Criterion B Choice and application of tools, techniques and theories

There is an appropriate selection of business management tools, techniques and theories, especially on
marketing (not only using key elements of the marketing mix, such as Promotion, but also using correct
subject terminology all along, for example on market analysis). The models are suitably applied (see
SWOT in appendix) though minor aspects could be better for an even higher mark (some of the
opportunities in the SWOT analysis are internal rather than external).

Criterion C Use and analysis of data and integration of ideas

There is an appropriate selection of data from the supporting documents with appropriate analysis. For
an even higher mark, a sharper focus on the commentary question (about the strategic alliance) would
be necessary (rather than just Nokia itself); the different points made (e.g. about the different Ps) are
only partly integrated.

Criterion D Conclusions
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented and explicitly answer the commentary
question about the strategic alliance of Microsoft and Nokia.

Criterion E Evaluation

There is evidence of evaluation, for example of the strengths and weaknesses of Nokia: however, not
all judgments are substantiated. More references to sources, for example through footnotes, would have
helped.

Criterion F Structure

The commentary is well organized and structured; the argumentation flows clearly and logically.

Criterion G Presentation

Because of several minor flaws (e.g. the page numbers in the table of contents are not correct; the exact
source of Supporting Document 1 is not clear; the bibliography does not distinguish between the
Supporting Documents and other references; the bibliography should be before the appendices), the
commentary can only score 1 (although, at first sight, it seems rather well presented).

Internal assessment HL, sample E

Assessment criteria Marks awarded Marks available
Criterion A 3 3
Criterion B 3 3
Criterion C 2 3
Criterion D 6 6
Criterion E 1 2
Criterion F 2 2
Criterion G 2 2
Criterion H 2 2
Criterion I 1 2
Total 22 25

Examiner comments

Criterion A Research proposal

A focused and forward looking research question is provided. There is a rationale for the study. Key
areas of the syllabus are noted, the methodology is explained; anticipated difficulties are evident
together with a detailed action plan.

Criterion B Sources used and data collected

Three different primary sources are used. An interview with the Scrap Therapy owner was carried out;
a survey was conducted as well as focus group discussions were noted. The information obtained from
these primary sources is appropriate and sufficient.

Criterion C Use of tools, techniques and theories

There is some evidence of understanding and application of relevant business management tools,
techniques and theories including SWOT analysis and Ansoff matrix. However, there was still more
room for an in-depth application of these.

Criterion D Analysis and evaluation

There is consistently very good evidence of evaluation that is well substantiated. Analysis of the
findings is appropriate and to a large extent in-depth.

Criterion E Conclusions

Conclusions provided are consistent with the evidence presented in the main body of the report.
However, the conclusions needed more substantiation. Areas for further study have not been identified.

Criterion F Recommendations

The recommendations are well substantiated, consistent with the conclusions and answer the research
question.

Criterion G Structure

A well written report with ideas well-structured and an argument that is easy to follow.

Criterion H Presentation

The report includes all the required components in the correct order and format.

Criterion I Reflective thinking

Some reflective thinking noted in the Analysis and discussion section. However, limitations lacking.

Internal assessment HL, sample F

Assessment criteria Marks awarded Marks available
Criterion A 3 3
Criterion B 3 3
Criterion C 2 3
Criterion D 5 6
Criterion E 1 2
Criterion F 2 2
Criterion G 2 2
Criterion H 2 2
Criterion I 2 2
Total 22 25

Examiner comments

Criterion A Research proposal

A clear and forward looking research question is provided. There is a rationale for the study. Key areas
of the syllabus are noted under the theoretical framework, the methodology is explained; anticipated
difficulties are evident together with a detailed action plan.

Criterion B Sources used and data collected

Two interviews were conducted, one with the Managing Director of Rexel and the other with the
Logistics Manager who is in charge of Impel. A survey was also conducted to ask customers on what
they would like to see improved by Rexel. The information obtained from these primary sources is
appropriate and sufficient as seen in the Appendices on pages 20-22.

Criterion C Use of tools, techniques and theories

There is some evidence of understanding and application of relevant business management tools,
techniques and theories including SWOT analysis, force field analysis, Ansoff matrix and decision
trees. However, there is still more room for an in-depth application of these.

Criterion D Analysis and evaluation

The analysis of the findings is appropriate with consistent evidence of substantiated evaluation. There
is a coherent integration of ideas from the data collected and business management theories used.

Criterion E Conclusions

Conclusions provided are consistent with the evidence presented in the main body of the report.
However, the conclusions need more substantiation to score a higher mark.

Criterion F Recommendations

The recommendations are well substantiated, consistent with the conclusions and answer the research
question.

Criterion G Structure

A well written report with ideas well-structured and an argument that is easy to follow.

Criterion H Presentation

The report includes all the required components in the correct order and format.

Criterion I Reflective thinking

There is evidence of appropriate reflective thinking in the report with critical thinking noted. This is
seen in the Methodology, Analysis and discussion and Recommendations sections.

Internal assessment HL, sample G

Assessment criteria Marks awarded Marks available
Criterion A 3 3
Criterion B 2 3
Criterion C 3 3
Criterion D 5 6
Criterion E 2 2
Criterion F 1 2
Criterion G 2 2
Criterion H 2 2
Criterion I 1 2
Total 21 25

Examiner comments

Criterion A Research proposal

A focused and forward looking research question is provided. There is a well-explained rationale for
the study. Key areas of the syllabus noted, methodology is explained, anticipated difficulties and
possible solutions are evident together with a detailed action plan.

Criterion B Sources used and data collected

One interview was conducted with the Head of Human resources at the company and an electronic
questionnaire was distributed to staff members. However, the primary sources could have been more
varied to score higher marks.

Criterion C Use of tools, techniques and theories

There was adequate evidence of an in-depth understanding and application of relevant business
management tools, techniques and theories including Hofstedes cultural dimensions model, Charles
Handys theory as well as Motivation and Leadership and Management theories among others.

Criterion D Analysis and evaluation

There is a coherent integration of ideas noted with appropriate analysis of the findings. There is some
evidence of substantiated evaluation.

Criterion E Conclusions

Conclusions provided are consistent with the evidence presented in the main body of the report and are
substantiated. There is an attempt at proposing an area for further study.

Criterion F Recommendations

Recommendations are provided, which answer the research question. However, these are lacking in
substantiation and could be further explored.

Criterion G Structure

A well-written report with ideas well-structured and an argument that is easy to follow.

Criterion H Presentation

The report includes all the required components in the correct order and format.

Criterion I Reflective thinking

Some reflective thinking and limitations noted in the Procedure and methodology section and some
also noted in the Analysis and discussion section. However, these limitations lacking in adequacy.

Internal assessment HL, sample H

Assessment criteria Marks awarded Marks available
Criterion A 3 3
Criterion B 3 3
Criterion C 2 3
Criterion D 4 6
Criterion E 2 2
Criterion F 2 2
Criterion G 2 2
Criterion H 1 2
Criterion I 1 2
Total 20 25

Examiner comments

Criterion A Research proposal

A forward looking research question is provided. There is a well-explained rationale for the study. Key
areas of the syllabus are noted, the methodology is explained; anticipated difficulties and possible
solutions are evident together with a detailed action plan.

Criterion B Sources used and data collected

Two interviews were conducted, one with the owner of Hoang Ha Pte Ltd and the other with the Head
of Marketing in the same company. A survey and field observation was also conducted to research on
the market demand, competitors and opportunities for growth in the market. The information obtained
from these primary sources is appropriate and sufficient.

Criterion C Use of tools, techniques and theories

There is some evidence of understanding and application of relevant business management tools,
techniques and theories including payback period, breakeven analysis, product position maps and
Lewins force field analysis. However, there was still more room for an in-depth application of these.

Criterion D Analysis and evaluation

The analysis of the findings is appropriate. Generally a coherent integration of ideas. There is some
evidence of evaluation, however it is limited.

Criterion E Conclusions

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented and address the research question on whether
Hoang Ha Pte Ltd should set up a new outlet in Hanoi. However, areas for further study could have
been provided. A best fit mark awarded.

Criterion F Recommendations
Good recommendations are provided that are consistent with the conclusions and answer the research
question.

Criterion G Structure

A well-written report with ideas well-structured and an argument that is easy to follow.

Criterion H Presentation

Most components of the report are in the correct order and format except for Main results and findings
which should have been separated from Analysis and discussion. The research question should also
have followed immediately after the introduction. The research proposal should also be placed at the
beginning of the research project page.

Criterion I Reflective thinking

Some evidence of reflective thinking noted in the report with limitations.