Business Management HL

1. 1.

   Research preparation only. A hypothetical courier firm wants to investigate whether new routing software would reduce driver stress. Its manager proposes interviewing only two volunteer drivers in the manager's office and recording named answers in a public report. Identify two threats to useful evidence and propose two corresponding improvements. Use ethics as the conceptual lens; do not conduct interviews or invent responses.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Worked explanation

   1. Volunteer recruitment can create self-selection bias if those opting in differ systematically from other drivers. A sample of two also provides little precision, but small size alone does not establish bias. Broader recruitment across shifts and routes can improve representation; increasing sample size can improve precision.
   2. Under an ethics lens, consider drivers' ability to decline without consequences and the handling of personal information. This is a proposed research design, not evidence that software improves wellbeing.

   Common mistake: Anonymising a biased sample does not fix representativeness, and a larger sample alone does not remove fear of disclosure.

   Marking points

   • Identifies possible self-selection bias because volunteer drivers may differ systematically from other drivers.
   • Identifies possible response inhibition because answers are publicly identifiable and the interview setting is manager-controlled.
   • Proposes inviting a broader range of drivers across shifts or routes and reporting participation limitations.
   • Proposes voluntary informed consent, private interviewing and de-identified reporting with secure handling of responses.

   Examiner tip: Anonymising a biased sample does not fix representativeness, and a larger sample alone does not remove fear of disclosure.

2. 2.

   Research preparation only. A hypothetical workshop considers equipment costing $10000 now. Forecast net cash inflows are $6000 at the end of year 1 and $6000 at the end of year 2. Use the supplied discount factors 0.91 and 0.83. Calculate NPV, then recalculate if both inflows are 10% lower. Make a conditional recommendation through a change lens. Assume no residual value, other cash flows or tax.

   [4 marks]

   Worked explanation

   1. Discount the net inflows at their respective dates and subtract the initial outflow once. The factors are supplied rounded, so use them consistently.
   2. Base-case NPV is +$440; reduced inflows give $5400 x (0.91 + 0.83) - $10000 = -$604. Under change, investigate implementation downtime and staff adaptation before relying on forecasts; no real project research is supplied.

   Common mistake: Do not discount the initial outlay again or treat the positive base-case NPV as robust to all transition costs.

   Marking points

   • Forecast present inflows = $6000 x 0.91 + $6000 x 0.83 = $10440.
   • Forecast NPV = $10440 - $10000 = +$440.
   • At $5400 per year, present inflows = $9396 and NPV = -$604.
   • Recommends proceeding only if evidence supports the inflows and transition risks, since a 10% shortfall reverses the NPV decision.

   Examiner tip: Do not discount the initial outlay again or treat the positive base-case NPV as robust to all transition costs.

3. 3.

   Research preparation only. For a hypothetical retailer's proposed repair service, management forecasts 300 annual jobs, a convenience sample of 20 existing customers yields 15 expressions of interest, and a dated supplier quotation estimates spare-parts costs but excludes delivery. Develop one justified inference, two limitations and one next research step. Use sustainability as the conceptual lens without claiming environmental savings have been measured.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Worked explanation

   1. Distinguish a sample proportion from market demand: 75% is a description of these respondents, not an annual sales forecast.
   2. Link repair to potential product-life extension under sustainability, but retain uncertainty about take-up, costs and net environmental effects. Plan the missing evidence; do not invent pilot results or present this as a completed IA.

   Common mistake: Stated interest is not paid demand, and offering repairs does not by itself prove a net environmental benefit.

   Marking points

   • Infers that some sampled existing customers express interest in repair, which could support longer product use if actual repairs occur.
   • Explains that 15/20 = 75% stated interest in a convenience sample cannot establish 300 annual paid jobs or represent the whole market.
   • Explains that excluding delivery understates the known cost basis and that environmental savings require evidence about replacement, transport and parts.
   • Proposes checking actual willingness to pay with a broader sample or a fully costed pilot plan and requesting delivered parts costs before a conditional recommendation.

   Examiner tip: Stated interest is not paid demand, and offering repairs does not by itself prove a net environmental benefit.

4. 4.

   Research preparation only. A fictional theatre considers a new booking system under a change lens. Option A costs $4000 now and yields an additional end-of-year cash receipt of $12000 with probability 0.60 or $1000 with probability 0.40. Option B costs $2000 now and yields a certain additional end-of-year receipt of $6500. The receipts are after all operating costs but before the initial system cost. Ignore discounting and tax. Calculate each option's expected net monetary value, compare A's worst outcome with B, and state what evidence is needed before recommending A. The probabilities are unverified planning assumptions, not actual research findings or a completed IA.

   [4 marks]

   Syllabus placement evidence: IB Business management guide, first assessment 2024, updated July 2024; The business management toolkit, printed p.14: decision trees; Internal assessment criteria C-E, printed pp.57-58.. Applies prescribed decision-tree appraisal to a single organization's change decision and evaluates uncertain inputs. Core for the HL track, although this toolkit method is shared with SL rather than inherently HL-only. Fictional preparation inputs do not count as supporting documents or completed assessed research.

   Worked explanation

   1. Weight only the mutually exclusive receipts by probabilities summing to one, then deduct each option's initial outlay once. A gives $7600 - $4000 = $3600, while B gives $4500 without a probability branch under the supplied certainty assumption.
   2. Inspect the low branch as well as the average: A risks a $3000 loss. Change-related claims such as easier staff adaptation need their own evidence; an attractive high branch cannot overturn B's higher stated expected net value by itself.

   Common mistake: Do not compare A's best receipt with B's net value, omit initial costs, or treat an unverified probability as a guaranteed outcome.

   Marking points

   • Calculates A's expected net monetary value as 0.60 x $12000 + 0.40 x $1000 - $4000 = $3600.
   • Calculates B's certain net monetary value as $6500 - $2000 = $4500; B exceeds A by $900 on the stated expected-value criterion.
   • Calculates A's worst net outcome as $1000 - $4000 = -$3000, unlike B's stated certain +$4500, showing additional downside exposure.
   • Requests evidence for A's success probability or transition receipts/costs before recommending A; explains that on the given monetary evidence alone B is preferable, while any proposed advantage of A must be independently substantiated.

   Examiner tip: Do not compare A's best receipt with B's net value, omit initial costs, or treat an unverified probability as a guaranteed outcome.

5. 5.

   Research preparation only. A fictional ceramics maker asks whether a new kiln improves quality. Its planning dataset lists January, old kiln: 24 defective items out of 1200 inspected; February, new kiln: 18 defective items out of 600 inspected. Assume each month's inspection covers every item produced, and the definition of a defect is unchanged; product mix and staff experience may differ. A manager proposes reporting only 'six fewer defects' and deleting February's inspection record because it weakens the case for investment. Calculate both defect rates, explain what comparison is justified and what causal claim is not, and propose an ethical evidence-handling response. Use ethics as the lens. All records are invented teaching data, not an actual study or completed IA.

   [4 marks]

   Syllabus placement evidence: IB Business management guide, first assessment 2024, updated July 2024; 5.6 Production planning (HL only), printed p.35: defect rate; Internal assessment, pp.54-55 and criteria A, D-E, pp.56-58.. Uses the expressly HL-only defect-rate measure for a concrete evidence-integrity appraisal under ethics. Core within this HL cohort; the exercise remains preparation-only, supplies no genuine supporting records and does not establish a causal quality effect or completion of an independently researched project.

   Worked explanation

   1. Standardise by items inspected before judging quality: 0.02 versus 0.03 means the later month has a higher defect share despite fewer defective items. The increase is one percentage point, or 50% relative to the old rate, not a one-percent relative rise.
   2. Because these are complete monthly counts, a larger sample alone is not the missing remedy. Preserve the unfavourable record and investigate comparable product types and operator experience before attributing the difference to the kiln; ethical reporting exposes rather than suppresses the evidence boundary.

   Common mistake: Do not infer quality improvement from a lower defect count when output changed, or remove contrary evidence to make a recommendation appear stronger.

   Marking points

   • Calculates January's defect rate as 24/1200 x 100 = 2% and February's as 18/600 x 100 = 3%.
   • Explains that the defect count fell by six but the rate rose by one percentage point; the count alone hides the lower production denominator.
   • Limits the conclusion to the observed monthly comparison rather than claiming the kiln caused worse quality, because product mix or staff experience may differ.
   • Proposes retaining and accurately referencing both records and reporting denominators, definitions and limitations; rejects selective deletion as misleading stakeholders rather than legitimate analysis.

   Examiner tip: Do not infer quality improvement from a lower defect count when output changed, or remove contrary evidence to make a recommendation appear stronger.

6. 6.

   Research preparation only. A fictional shop's booking-system trial has a proposed Gantt schedule measured from time 0 in working days: A preparation runs from 0 to 2; B staff training from 2 to 5; C system testing from 2 to 4; D launch from 5 to 6. B and C both require A to finish; D requires both B and C to finish. B and C also need the same sole specialist continuously, so they cannot overlap or be split. A and D need no specialist. Identify the resource conflict. Keeping A and B at their proposed times and B before C, find the earliest feasible revised intervals for C and D, and calculate the revised completion time and delay. Explain one evidence check needed before recommending the trial through a change lens. Intervals exclude their finishing endpoint. This is an invented planning exercise, not completed research.

   [5 marks] · no calculator

   Syllabus placement evidence: IB Business management guide, first assessment 2024, public edition updated May 2022: The business management toolkit, printed p.14, Gantt chart (HL only); internal assessment, business research project.. Practises the expressly HL-only Gantt tool through a supplied schedule and a transparent staffing constraint, without requiring an optimisation algorithm or drawing a critical-path network. Core within HL only, situated in existing research preparation. A teacher must check the later session guide; no authentic project or implemented trial is claimed.

   Worked explanation

   1. Read the overlapping bars as competing claims on one person. A precedence-only plan can permit B and C to overlap but cannot make the specialist work on both continuously.
   2. With B first, C starts at 5 and ends at 7; D then takes one day and ends at 8. Preserve task durations and dependencies. The resulting two-day delay is a planning implication, not an observed implementation result; check the resource assumptions before recommending change.

   Common mistake: A Gantt chart showing simultaneous bars does not establish that enough staff exist to deliver the overlap.

   Marking points

   • Identifies the specialist as double-booked during time 2 to 4, even though the proposed overlap satisfies the stated precedence constraints.
   • Keeps B at 2 to 5 and schedules the two-day C at 5 to 7.
   • Schedules D at 7 to 8 because both B and C must finish before launch.
   • Calculates completion at time 8, a delay of 2 working days from the original time 6.
   • Requests evidence such as the specialist's actual availability or the validity of task-duration estimates, linking it to feasibility of the proposed change.

   Examiner tip: A Gantt chart showing simultaneous bars does not establish that enough staff exist to deliver the overlap.

Original, unofficial practice questions from SubjectScout — not official past-paper questions or complete syllabus coverage. Added English teaching explanations are AI-authored; independent teacher review is pending.