IB Business Management SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is clear, specific to one bank, and bounded by a defined time frame. That focus makes the investigation manageable and gives the analysis a concrete target, which is exactly what a strong line of inquiry should do.

This wording blurs the investigation’s focus because it shifts from the Equity Mobile App to Equity’s wider digital strategy. The student should keep distinguishing the app itself from USSD, online banking, and self-service channels so the discussion measures the correct intervention.

The student could sharpen the focus by briefly stating how “market competitiveness” will be measured in practice. Naming the specific indicators up front would make the question more operational and help readers see how each section answers the same inquiry.

This explanation is useful, but it stays general and does not show a concrete selection logic for why each source is the best fit. The student should explain which source answers which part of the question, and why some sources are stronger evidence than others.

The student could improve the methodology by stating a simple comparison procedure, such as pairing Equity’s annual report figures with CBK sector data and then checking whether third-party reporting confirms the same trend. That would make the triangulation process more transparent.

This is a strong methodological insight because it shows the student understands not just how the tool works, but also when it may be less reliable. Recognising a framework’s limits strengthens the credibility of the investigation.

What would the HHI need to include in order to represent the whole Kenyan banking industry rather than only a subset of large banks? Thinking about that distinction would help the student test whether the index is being applied at the right scale.

The method becomes too narrow here because the HHI is then calculated from only five banks, yet it is discussed as if it represented the entire sector. The student should either justify this as a partial concentration measure or include all relevant firms consistently.

This is a relevant application of source material because it connects the broader literature directly to the Kenyan banking context. The student is not simply describing mobile banking in general; they are using evidence to frame the competitive environment under investigation.

This claim is relevant, but the citation is incomplete and cannot be traced cleanly in the reference list. The student should ensure every in-text source is fully referenced so the evidence can be checked and trusted.

The student treats all digital transaction growth as if it came from the app, but the evidence here also includes other digital services. The analysis should separate app-specific activity from broader channels so the source material supports the claim more precisely.

The student uses the table data directly in the explanation, which is good source application. The analysis begins to link evidence to a specific competitive implication rather than leaving the numbers isolated.

This is a plausible interpretation, but it goes beyond what the cited data can directly prove. The student should either supply evidence of the rebrand’s specific impact or present this as a cautious inference rather than a confirmed result.

This is a strong use of subject knowledge because the student is not forcing a simple success narrative. Considering market saturation as an alternative explanation shows an understanding that performance trends can have multiple causes.

The market-share formula is not aligned with the banking data that follows, because the analysis uses assets rather than sales. The student should use a denominator that matches the sector’s reporting conventions, such as total assets or deposits, and then apply it consistently.

This is too causal for the evidence presented. The student should avoid attributing asset growth solely to the app without controlling for other drivers such as sector growth, interest rates, inflation, or broader bank strategy.

This shows coherent subject knowledge because the student correctly explains why substitutes matter in Kenyan banking. The comparison with M-Pesa is relevant and helps the evaluation connect strategy to real market conditions.

The student interprets the HHI threshold correctly, but the surrounding analysis is still built on an incomplete market sample. The conclusion should not present the threshold comparison as fully valid unless the index includes the full relevant market.

How much of this improvement can be linked to the app itself, and how much could be due to Equity’s wider digital or macroeconomic environment? Reflecting on that distinction would make the conclusion more precise and more convincing.

This is a strong research gap statement because it identifies what prior work tends to do and shows how the current investigation differs. That helps justify the analysis and demonstrates purposeful research design.

The student shows awareness of a sound research strategy by using triangulation. This matters because it reduces reliance on any single source and makes the findings more robust when the evidence is compared across different datasets.

The analysis moves too quickly from trend to cause. The student should distinguish correlation from causation and show why the observed digital growth is specifically due to the app rather than wider digital banking adoption.

This conclusion is assertive but not yet critically tested against alternative explanations. The student should ask whether the same increase could also be explained by industry-wide digitisation, customer habits, or competitor behaviour.

This is a good example of analytical thinking because it interprets a weaker growth figure instead of simply treating it as failure. The student is beginning to weigh context and avoid overreading one metric.

This is a broad claim that is only partly supported by the preceding evidence. The student should explain which specific figures show efficiency improvements and why asset growth should be read as a competitive outcome rather than a general business trend.

The evaluation here is sensible, but the claim of continued dominance is stronger than the evidence presented. The student should either support that statement with comparative performance data or soften the wording to match the scope of the analysis.

This is a good evaluation of method because it comments on why triangulation improves the credibility of findings. The student is reflecting on evidence quality rather than only describing what was used.

This is too general to count as sustained evaluation. The student should be more specific about what each tool reveals, what it misses, and how the tools together resolve those weaknesses.

If the market share is stable rather than rising sharply, what exactly counts as evidence that the app improved competitiveness? Considering that question would help the student define the boundary between defence of position and genuine expansion.

The report follows a clear academic structure, and the contents page shows the major sections in an appropriate order. That organization helps the reader navigate the investigation and shows awareness of the expected report format.

The numbering jumps from 5.1 to 5.3, which suggests a missing or mislabelled subsection. The student should make the section numbering consistent so the structure reads cleanly and the hierarchy of ideas is easy to follow.

Including a labelled figure to support the Five Forces discussion improves presentation because the reader can connect the theory to the analysis visually. This is a useful structure choice in a data-heavy investigation.

The table sequence and supporting calculations are useful, but the HHI section would be easier to follow if the processed data, summation, and interpretation were introduced in a more explicit step-by-step order. Clearer signposting would make the logic of the calculation easier to trace.

The references section has several inconsistencies in bibliographic style, and this entry is a good example because the title, organization name, and retrieval details are not presented uniformly. The student should standardize all references to one citation format.

This reference is too incomplete to be fully useful because it does not give the specific page or report title that the analysis relies on. The student should provide complete publication details so the evidence trail is transparent.