IB Business Management HL Internal Assessment Example

The student shows a strong grasp of the key concept by using “change” as an organising lens for financial, operational, and strategic issues. This works well because it moves beyond definition and begins to shape the whole inquiry around adaptation and response to industry pressures.

The student keeps the key concept visible in the findings section, which helps the analysis remain concept-driven rather than purely descriptive. Repeating the idea of change here strengthens coherence and shows awareness that the stadium decision is a strategic response to a changing environment.

This claim is broad and not yet tightly tied to the organization’s direct financial performance. The student should separate national or regional economic impact from club-level benefit, then explain exactly how Manchester United would capture value from the regeneration rather than implying that wider growth automatically improves the club’s finances.

The student connects the organization directly to measurable financial consequences, which strengthens the relevance of the key concept to Manchester United specifically. Using the club’s own revenue position makes the discussion clearly organization-focused rather than generic.

The link to change is clear here, but the student could strengthen integration by explicitly explaining how each force reflects a specific dimension of organizational change, such as stakeholder resistance, strategic renewal, or risk management. That would make the concept feel analytically embedded rather than attached to the framework.

This is a strong organization-specific application because it translates the stadium decision into a concrete financial outcome for Manchester United. The student shows how the proposal could affect the club’s own revenue structure, which is exactly the kind of contextualization this strand rewards.

The student could strengthen the organizational link by adding a Manchester United-specific example of likely sponsors, commercial partners, or existing brand assets that make these opportunities plausible. That would make the claim more evidential and less speculative.

This section shifts heavily toward calculation and only indirectly returns to the key concept. The student should connect the financial appraisal back to change more explicitly by explaining how the investment represents adaptation, long-term transformation, and competitive repositioning, not just a cost-benefit exercise.

The student could strengthen conceptual integration by linking the low ARR to the tension between short-term financial return and long-term organizational change. Explaining why major change projects are often judged strategically rather than only numerically would deepen the conceptual analysis.

The conclusion successfully brings the key concept back into the final judgement by framing reconstruction as a long-term response to change. This is effective because it shows the concept has influenced the overall argument rather than appearing only in the introduction.

This is a useful kind of evidence, but it cannot earn full credit because the underlying supporting document is absent. The student should submit the actual supporting extracts or documents so that the survey figures, provenance, and context can be checked directly.

The report refers to “Supporting Document 1” here, but the document itself is not included in the submission. Because the evidence cannot be inspected, the reader cannot verify the source, depth, or reliability of this claim, which significantly weakens the supporting-document requirement.

This argument depends on a supporting document that is not available to the reader. The student should include the actual source material and, where possible, explain how the document specifically supports the sponsorship claim rather than only mentioning it.

The student could improve the supporting-document quality by pairing this external statistic with a direct excerpt or figure from the cited report. That would make the evidence trail clearer and help demonstrate how the source was used rather than simply referenced.

This calculation depends on an unverified supporting document, so the reader cannot judge whether the 40% margin is realistic or contextually appropriate. The student should either provide the document or justify the assumption using a clearly cited, accessible source.

The bibliography lists useful source types, but it does not replace the required supporting-document set. The student needs to attach the referenced supporting documents themselves, because the appendix of sources alone does not satisfy the criterion.

The student selects a relevant tool and explains why it fits the decision problem. Force Field Analysis is a sensible choice here because it captures both strategic benefits and stakeholder resistance, which is important for a major stadium change.

This is a good recognition of the tools’ limits, and the student should act on it more fully. Adding at least one of the suggested tools, especially sensitivity analysis, would better match the scale and uncertainty of a £2 billion investment.

The investment appraisal would be stronger if the student used discounted cash flow or scenario-based forecasting alongside payback and ARR. For a project of this size, those tools would better capture timing, uncertainty, and the opportunity cost of capital.

The student includes a second, different tool for judging the investment, which adds breadth to the analysis. Using both a change-related framework and a financial appraisal method is appropriate for a reconstruction decision.

This step shows a serious methodological problem because total annual revenue is being divided by the number of games rather than calculating the incremental cash flow created by reconstruction. The student should base the appraisal on the additional revenue attributable to the project, not the whole existing revenue stream.

The calculation here is not well justified because it assumes a simple revenue-per-seat relationship and ignores pricing differences, premium seating, and non-matchday income. The student should explain why this method is appropriate or revise the model to use a more realistic revenue structure.

The inclusion of ARR shows an attempt to assess profitability from more than one angle. This is a strong choice because it allows the report to compare short-term and long-term financial reasoning.

The ARR formula appears to be applied incorrectly here because the denominator should be the initial investment, not the sum of profit and investment. The student should recalculate ARR using the standard formula and check whether the result meaningfully supports the recommendation.

If these commercial opportunities are essential to the case, why are they not incorporated directly into the main financial appraisal? The student should consider whether the selected tool-set is capturing the most important drivers of long-term value.

The student does more than list factors here; they interpret the balance of the analysis. This works well because it converts the force-field table into an evaluative claim rather than leaving it as a static summary.

This is a good evaluative move because the student qualifies the analysis instead of presenting all positive forces as equally convincing. Identifying uncertainty shows awareness that not every driver has the same reliability.

The student has the right idea here, but the evaluation would be stronger if it compared the actual implications of the scoring rather than only noting the tool’s subjectivity. Explaining which forces are most decisive and why would make the judgement more analytical.

This is a plausible claim, but it is not yet analysed rigorously. The student should show how a larger fanbase translates into measurable revenue changes, rather than assuming that brand strength automatically produces higher returns.

The student calls the assumption set “robust,” but the method has not been tested against downside risks or changing conditions. A stronger evaluation would question whether the assumptions are realistic enough for a £2 billion project, especially when ticket demand and operating costs can vary.

The student acknowledges the low ARR, but the evaluation stops short of judging whether this return is acceptable for Manchester United’s strategic goals. They should explain what the figure means in context, rather than simply describing it as modest.

This is a useful insight, but it remains too general. The student should evaluate whether strategic benefits are sufficient to justify the low immediate return in this specific case, using evidence from the report rather than broad industry claims.

This is strong synthesis because the student draws together multiple strands of evidence into a single evaluative theme. Connecting brand strength and market potential shows that the analysis is not isolated by tool, but integrated across the report.

How feasible is a 10.8-year payback period once the student factors in financing costs, construction disruption, and the uncertainty of those commercial opportunities? Testing that judgement would make the evaluation much more convincing.

This conclusion underplays how weak the calculated return actually is. A stronger final judgement would directly confront the 0.964% ARR and explain why, despite that figure, reconstruction is still or is not justified.

The student answers the research question explicitly and without ambiguity. This is effective because the reader can immediately see the final position, which is essential for a strong IA conclusion.

The student could make the conclusion more convincing by stating exactly which uncertainty matters most and how it would affect the final recommendation. Prioritizing the most decision-critical unknowns would make the conclusion more evaluative.

The conclusion is not fully consistent with the evidence because the payback calculation is built on a flawed revenue basis. The student should either correct the appraisal or soften the conclusion so it does not overstate feasibility.

The work has a clear academic structure with major sections that follow a logical sequence from introduction through analysis to conclusion. This helps the reader navigate the argument and supports the overall coherence of the IA.

The table of contents appears inconsistent because the conclusion is listed as spanning pages 13-14, while the main conclusion text is presented earlier and the final page contains only the closing sentence. The student should check that the contents page matches the actual section locations.

The student could improve structure by previewing the order in which the methods will be used and why that sequence makes sense. A brief roadmap at the end of the introduction would help the report feel even more deliberately organized.

The student uses headings to separate the analytical methods clearly, which improves readability and shows purposeful organization. Distinct sections for the conceptual framework and the financial appraisals make the report easy to follow.

A stronger structure would be created if this risk discussion were followed immediately by a short mini-judgement or transition sentence. That would help the argument move more smoothly from appraisal into evaluation.

The final sentence is clear, but the ending feels abrupt because the conclusion is effectively split across pages. The student should revise the placement so the conclusion reads as one complete, tightly connected closing section.

One required front-page element appears incomplete because the session field is left blank. The student should fill in all mandated cover-page information to ensure the submission meets presentation requirements.

The research question is stated clearly and is appropriately focused for an IB business management IA. It is specific enough to support targeted analysis and broad enough to justify multiple tools and forms of evidence.

The student could improve presentation by ensuring the contents page mirrors the exact internal headings used in the body more precisely. Consistent labelling makes the document easier to navigate and gives it a more polished academic finish.

The report repeatedly cites supporting documents that are not provided alongside the submission. For presentation purposes, the student should include the actual supporting-document set so the evidence trail is complete and the reader can verify the claims.

The inclusion of figures and tables supports the presentation well because it makes the analytical process visible to the reader. This is especially effective in a business IA, where numerical and structured evidence should be easy to inspect.

The student has presented the investment appraisal in a clear, table-based format, which helps the reader track the steps of the calculation. That transparency is valuable because it allows the logic of the result to be followed more easily.

The required bibliography is included, which shows the student has attempted to document the sources used. This is important for academic integrity and for allowing the reader to trace the evidence base.