IB Business Management Internal Assessment guide

What this criterion assesses

One of the four key concepts (change, creativity, ethics or sustainability) used as a lens, with the analysis of the connection between the concept and the organization effectively integrated throughout the project — introduction, body and conclusion — not just name-dropped.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion A: Integration of a key concept (0–5):
- 0: Either the work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below or the key concept identified is neither change, creativity, ethics nor sustainability.
- 1: The student demonstrates knowledge of the key concept.
- 2: The student describes the connection between the key concept and the organization under study.
- 3: The student analyses the connection between the key concept and the organization under study.
- 4: The student partially integrates the analysis of the connection between the key concept and the organization under study in the internal assessment.
- 5: The student effectively integrates the analysis of the connection between the key concept and the organization under study throughout the internal assessment.
Note: The project must use only one of the four key concepts (change, creativity, ethics or sustainability), clearly indicated on the title page. Evidence of the key concept should appear in all sections of the project including the introduction, body and conclusion.

What this criterion assesses

Three to five relevant supporting documents that address the research question in appropriate depth and breadth, providing a range of ideas and views. Documents must be contemporary (published within three years of submission) and the majority of the project's information should come from them.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion B: Supporting documents (0–4):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: There are only one or two, or more than five, supporting documents or they are of marginal relevance.
- 2: There are three to five supporting documents that are generally relevant but some lack depth.
- 3: There are three to five supporting documents that are relevant and sufficiently in-depth.
- 4: There are three to five supporting documents that are relevant, sufficiently in-depth and provide a range of ideas and views.

What this criterion assesses

Business management tools and theories effectively selected and applied with clear relevance to the research question — the right analytical frameworks (e.g. SWOT, STEEPLE, ratio analysis, decision trees) chosen for the issue, and actually applied to the organization's data rather than described in the abstract.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion C: Selection and application of tools and theories (0–4):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: There is a limited selection and application of business management tools and theories or these business management tools and theories are not relevant to the research question.
- 2: There are some business management tools and theories selected and applied to the research question. Their relevance to the research question is superficial.
- 3: The business management tools and theories are adequately selected and applied to the research question. Their relevance to the research question is not always clear.
- 4: The business management tools and theories are effectively selected and applied with clear relevance to the research question.

What this criterion assesses

Data from the supporting documents effectively selected and used, leading to a thorough analysis and evaluation of the research question — a sustained integration of ideas that also considers the assumptions underpinning the arguments and their implications.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion D: Analysis and evaluation (0–5):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: There is limited selection and use of data from the supporting documents with no analysis and evaluation of the research question.
- 2: The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is superficial, leading to limited analysis and evaluation of the research question.
- 3: The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is adequate with some analysis and evaluation of the research question.
- 4: The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is sufficient, leading to a mostly effective analysis and evaluation of the research question with some integration of ideas.
- 5: The selection and use of data from the supporting documents is effective, leading to a thorough analysis and evaluation of the research question. There is a sustained integration of ideas with consideration of the assumptions underpinning the arguments and implications.

What this criterion assesses

Conclusions consistent with the evidence presented in the project that explicitly answer the research question — without introducing new facts or arguments that were not discussed in the body.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion E: Conclusions (0–3):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: Conclusions are inconsistent with the evidence presented, or conclusions are superficial.
- 2: Some conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented.
- 3: Conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented and explicitly answer the research question.
Note: The conclusion should not introduce facts or arguments not discussed in previous sections. It is good practice to acknowledge aspects of the research question that were not fully answered or need further investigation.

What this criterion assesses

The research project is organized using an appropriate structure: an introduction that sets the context (organization, issue, methodology), a main body that presents and analyses findings, and a conclusion that answers the research question.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion F: Structure (0–2):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: Limited structure.
- 2: Appropriate structure.
Note: The expected elements are an introduction that sets the context (background on the organization, the issue or problem, and the methodology used), a main body in which findings from the supporting documents are presented and analysed, and a conclusion that explicitly answers the research question.

What this criterion assesses

The project is effectively presented with all required elements: a title page, an accurate table of contents, appropriate headings and sub-headings, and numbered pages — within the 1,800-word limit.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion G: Presentation (0–2):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: One or more of the required elements of a well-presented research project is missing.
- 2: All of the required elements of a well-presented research project are included.
Note: The required elements are a title page, an accurate table of contents page, appropriate headings and sub-headings, and numbered pages. The project must not exceed 1,800 words; moderators will not read beyond 1,800 words.