IB Business Management HL Internal Assessment Example

The introduction of the key concept ‘Change’ is stated clearly, but the student should weave explicit references to this concept throughout the financial analysis to fully integrate it into each ratio discussion.

The explanation of mobile money as an innovation is clear. To strengthen analysis, connect this description directly to how it triggered change at Safaricom.

The paragraph on strategic change concisely ties back to the concept. To elevate integration, reiterate this linkage in the conclusion.

The works cited demonstrate a range of credible sources. However, only two supporting documents are appended—expand to at least three to meet the rubric’s quantity requirement.

The Supporting Documents header is present, but the range is narrow. Integrate additional relevant documents—such as industry reports or customer surveys—to enrich depth.

The future research section proposes meaningful extensions. To enhance supporting documents, include interviews or market reports to triangulate financial findings.

The methodology section lists appropriate financial tools but lacks justification for selecting each ratio. Explain why GPM, PM and RGR specifically address the research question.

The description of tools and accounts from the IB textbook is coherent. To improve, cite specific page numbers or examples from the textbook to validate alignment.

The heading “Ratio Analysis” indicates a structured approach. However, formulas for each ratio (e.g., $\text{GPM}=\frac{\text{Gross Profit}}{\text{Sales Revenue}}$) should be included for transparency.

The rationale for using a 16-year gap is sound, demonstrating understanding of trend reliability. Consider briefly acknowledging any major economic events that could distort early-year comparisons.

The discussion of profitability ratios is conceptually clear. To deepen evaluation, link how changing margins reflect the shift from telecom to fintech.

The GPM table effectively shows rising margins. For a more robust causal analysis, discuss alternative drivers alongside M-Pesa’s impact.

The RGR comparison highlights early rapid growth. The explanation of the decline to 9.92% is superficial; consider discussing market maturation and competition.

The discussion on asset growth and liquidity effectively links M-Pesa to balance sheet changes. Consider adding a brief comparative note on other Safaricom segments for context.

The limitations paragraph shows critical reflection. For a stronger evaluation, suggest inclusion of non-financial metrics (e.g., customer adoption rates) in future analyses.

The conclusion outlines key transformations and acknowledges limitations, demonstrating consistency. To improve, directly restate how the evidence answers the research question.

The research question is concise and focused, directly aligning with IB requirements and setting a clear investigative scope for the assessment.

The contents table is well organized, enhancing navigation. Consider adding page ranges for figures and tables to further guide the reader.

The narrative ahead of the tables is verbose. To enhance clarity, separate explanation of the analytical approach from the presentation of results in distinct subsections.

The discussion section begins but is cut short. Ensure each analytical observation transitions into interpretive commentary linking back to the research question.

The balance sheet table is comprehensive but blank cells under some headings reduce readability. Ensure all columns are labeled or removed if not used.

The blank Profit Margin table disrupts flow and prevents analysis. Populate this table with 2006–2024 PM values or remove the placeholder.