IB Business Management HL Internal Assessment Example

The student integrates the key concept clearly by linking “change” to financial, operational, and strategic implications, which helps the investigation stay concept-driven rather than becoming a purely investment appraisal exercise.

The opening of the findings section shows good conceptual continuity: “The concept of change underpins Manchester United’s decision-making process.” This keeps the concept visible beyond the introduction and supports the overall analytical focus.

The student makes an effective conceptual bridge here by stating that change is central to Lewin’s Force Field Analysis. That explicit framing strengthens the method choice and shows understanding of why the tool is appropriate.

How would the interpretation change if fan resistance or matchday disruption lasted longer than expected? A brief reflection on that would deepen the analysis of change as an ongoing process, not a one-off decision.

In the payback section, the discussion becomes more technical and the concept of change is less explicit. The student should connect the financial result back to how the change process affects stakeholder acceptance, operational disruption, or long-term adaptation.

The ARR section explains the calculation well, but the conceptual link to change is implied rather than analysed. The student should show how the club’s ability to adapt to modern stadium expectations shapes the meaning of the return figure.

The final synthesis could explicitly revisit how change affected the club’s strategic position, not just the financial outcome. Doing so would make the concept feel fully integrated rather than mainly referenced at section openings.

The reference to Deloitte supports the argument, but the student does not fully evaluate the source’s perspective or possible limitations. The analysis would be stronger if it noted that industry reports may generalise across clubs and may not perfectly fit Manchester United’s specific context.

The bibliography still includes more than the allowed 3–5 supporting documents, so this remains a rubric-compliance issue. The student should reduce the document set to a smaller, more purposeful range and explain why those few sources are the most useful.

The student should tighten source selection by prioritising documents with direct analytical value, such as the annual report, a fan survey source, and one benchmarking source. Fewer, stronger documents would better satisfy the rubric and improve coherence.

The sources shown are highly relevant to the question and the club context, including fan opinion and stadium comparison evidence. This helps the investigation use documents that genuinely inform the decision rather than listing sources for breadth alone.

The force-field table is a strong tool choice because it translates qualitative pressures into a structured comparison. The student uses it to show why the reconstruction has momentum despite important constraints.

The payback method is applied using projected total matchday revenue rather than clearly isolating incremental cash flows from the reconstruction. That weakens the tool’s validity, because payback should measure the extra cash generated by the investment itself.

The payback calculation is clearly organised and directly relevant to the research question. Using a formal investment appraisal tool strengthens the line of reasoning because the student is not relying on opinion alone.

If the club’s matchday revenue dipped during construction, how much would the payback period change? Answering that would show whether the recommendation is resilient or dependent on optimistic assumptions.

The student could improve tool selection by adding one risk-focused method, such as sensitivity analysis or NPV. That would better address uncertainty around attendance, costs, and timing, which are important in a project of this scale.

The assumption set is stated, but the student does not test alternative outcomes. A short sensitivity or scenario check on ticket prices, attendance, or construction delay would make the appraisal more robust.

The ARR discussion depends on a margin assumption, but the student does not justify why that margin remains appropriate after a major rebuild. The evaluation would be stronger if the assumption were defended with evidence or compared against an alternative estimate.

The ARR table shows careful application of a second quantitative method, which adds triangulation to the evaluation. This helps the student compare short-term and long-term investment logic.

The student goes beyond listing forces and actually explains why “increased matchday revenue” matters strategically. This is stronger analysis because it connects the data point to the club’s decision-making context.

The student could improve evaluation by ranking the restraining forces not only by importance but also by uncertainty. That would show which risks are most threatening and which are most manageable.

The acknowledgement of using “sensitivity or scenario analysis” shows strong evaluative awareness. The student recognises that the argument would be more reliable if key assumptions were stress-tested.

The data table is useful, but the analysis would be stronger if it explained how each input was derived and whether any figures were rounded or estimated. Without that, the reader cannot fully judge the reliability of the calculation.

The student notes risks such as “economic downturns” and “fluctuating attendance,” but these remain general. A stronger evaluation would quantify at least one downside or show how sensitive the recommendation is to those risks.

The comparison with Tottenham Hotspur is used analytically rather than just illustratively, helping justify why a stadium investment can produce commercial gains over time.

This is a useful evaluation move, but it stops short of actually testing the claim. The student should show how much the ARR would rise or fall under a realistic alternative revenue assumption rather than only stating that modern facilities could improve returns.

The student supports the ARR interpretation with external evidence, which improves credibility and prevents the analysis from relying solely on the student’s own calculation.

The analysis recognises the long-term nature of the project, but it remains somewhat general in its treatment of future income streams. More precise reasoning about which revenue streams are most likely to change would strengthen the evaluation.

Would the recommendation still hold if the reconstruction delayed other strategic investments the club needs? Considering opportunity cost would deepen the evaluation beyond the payback and ARR figures.

The table of contents gives the report a clear roadmap, which supports the reader’s understanding of how the investigation develops from concept to evaluation.

The introduction is well placed and gives useful context before the analytical sections begin, helping the report feel organised and purposeful.

The opening paragraph sets up the context and stakes of the decision effectively, which gives the report a focused starting point.

The introduction could be slightly sharper if it restated the research question in the body of the paragraph, not only on the title page. That would anchor the reader more explicitly at the start of the analysis.

The student could strengthen flow by adding brief signposting sentences at the start of each major section. This would make the transition from concept discussion to findings to appraisals even smoother.

The conclusion is clearly separated from the body of the report, which supports readability and shows a logical progression through the investigation.

Could the final conclusion be condensed into fewer sentences without losing meaning? A tighter ending would make the overall argument feel more controlled and deliberate.

The figure caption clearly identifies the force-field analysis, which makes the visual evidence easy to follow and properly linked to the discussion.

The force-field table presents the key factors in a structured way, making the comparison between driving and restraining forces straightforward for the reader.

If the student wants to improve presentation further, the force-field table could be slightly refined by ensuring each label is paired with a short explanatory note. That would make the scoring rationale even easier to interpret at a glance.

The payback calculations are presented in a sequence that is easy to follow, which supports the transparency of the method.

The payback period figure is labelled clearly, so the reader can immediately identify the purpose of the table and connect it to the written evaluation.

The ARR table also communicates the calculation process clearly, helping the reader see how the final figure was obtained.

The ARR section is similarly well signposted, which helps the report maintain clarity across multiple quantitative tools.