Examiner comments

Criterion A – Research proposal

The candidate has not followed the format required as none of the 4 sections indicated on pages 80–81 of the guide are present — these sections are:

"Research question", "Proposed methodology", "Anticipated difficulties" and "Action plan".

Criterion B – Sources used and data collected

The candidate has only included evidence of one element of primary research — an interview with the owner of Tipton Turf.

Criterion C – Use of tools, techniques and theories

The candidate included a SWOT analysis, which lacked depth, and an Ansoff Matrix which was descriptive rather than analytical. The candidate discussed if Tipton should merge with a local competitor, which demonstrated limited analytical skills. Overall, there is a limited understanding of business management tools and these are superficially applied.

Criterion D – Analysis and evaluation

There is an attempt to analyse, using the SWOT analysis. The candidate also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a merger. However, this analysis lacked depth and is essentially superficial. The results and findings presented by the candidate are limited.

Criterion E – Conclusions

The candidate did come to the conclusion but the question set was on “Should Tipton Turf Expand?”. In the conclusion, the candidate discussed the best option to reach its maximum production. The candidate did not come to a single clear conclusion but in terms of best fit it is 1 rather than 0.

Criterion F – Recommendations

The candidate did make a recommendation (the best solution would be to locate the company’s beef into a local burger chain or steakhouse) but then in the next paragraph said that “Tipton should merge with a local competitor”.

Criterion G – Structure

The candidate’s arguments were not easy to follow. There was some attempt at structure and the candidate has already been penalised under criterion A.

Criterion H – Presentation

The sections of the report were not in the correct order, for example the contents page came before the acknowledgements.

Criterion I – Reflective thinking

The candidate did not present any evidence of reflection on the approach taken in this piece of research and its limitations.

Examiner comments

Criterion A – Research proposal

The research proposal has all the required elements. The methodology and theoretical framework sections are succinct and appropriate. The action plan is quite brief but just sufficiently detailed. Overall this is borderline between the 2 and 3 markband and was given 3 on a best fit approach.

Criterion B – Sources used and data collected

The candidate has included evidence of an interview with the manager. The other three documents in the appendix were the candidate’s own SWOT, PEST and Force Field analyses. Therefore, overall only one example of primary research was included.

Criterion C – Use of tools, techniques and theories

The candidate included an investment appraisal using payback, average rate of return. These were all suitably applied.

Criterion D – Analysis and evaluation

There is a satisfactory analysis of the results of the investment appraisal methods used and some integration of ideas. There was just sufficient evidence of evaluation on page 17 to raise this to 4 marks.

Criterion E – Conclusions

Conclusions were drawn with clear reference to the evidence found in the body of the report, the payback period and average rate of return. However the discussion of the Force Field analysis was not credited as the Force Field document was in the appendix rather than the body of the report. Overall, a best fit mark of 2 was awarded.

Criterion F – Recommendations

There were recommendations made but these were largely unsubstantiated.

Criterion G – Structure

The candidate produced a structured report with an argument that was easy to follow.

Criterion H – Presentation

The report is missing a section on the chosen methodology and the research proposal is not in the right place as it should be positioned before the acknowledgments.

Criterion I – Reflective thinking

There was no appropriate evidence of the candidate reflecting on the approach taken in this piece of research and its limitations.