Starting in the right direction

A.K.A. An intro into how you'll be marked

There's nothing worse than getting to the end and realizing you've missed something significant. It can be difficult to reengineer your work to meet the assessment requirements. This page tells you just enough about each of the criterion so that you can get started in the right direction. When you finish your draft, check the more detailed self-marking guide.

Criterion A: Key concept

You choose one of four concepts (change, creativity, ethics, sustainability) and use it as a lens for your entire IA.

Strong work: The concept appears in your RQ, shapes which tools you choose, is actively analysed in every section, and is revisited in your conclusion. You explain how the concept connects to the organization's decisions and outcomes, not just that it connects. If you removed the concept, the argument would collapse.

Watch out for:

• Retrofitting: writing the IA first, then adding a concept to the cover page.
• Writing "creativity" twelve times without ever explaining what creativity means for the organization. Vocabulary is not analysis.

Self-check: In how many of your main body sections is the concept actively analysed, not just mentioned?

Criterion B: Supporting documents

You select 3–5 sources that provide the evidence base for your analysis. This criterion assesses your selection, not how you use them (that's separate).

Strong work: Your SDs give you different angles on the same question: internal and external, financial and qualitative, supportive and critical. Each has enough substance to draw on. All are recent (within three years).

Watch out for:

• SDs about the general topic rather than your specific organization (e.g. "the future of e-commerce" for a Costco IA).
• Three sources that all say the same thing from the same angle.
• Wikipedia, Investopedia, textbook pages, or pre-made SWOT analyses downloaded from the internet. These are not acceptable SDs.

Self-check: Would someone looking at your SDs say "those give you different perspectives" or "those all sound the same"?

Criterion C: Tools and theories

You apply business management frameworks to help answer your RQ. The examiner cares about whether you chose the right tools for your question, not how many you used.

Strong work: Each tool clearly helps answer your RQ. A stakeholder analysis for an ethics IA. A force field analysis for a change IA. Two or three well-chosen tools will score higher than five generic ones. You apply tools to your specific organization, not as textbook exercises.

Watch out for:

• SWOT or STEEPLE applied because you know how, not because it helps answer your RQ. If your SWOT could appear in any IA about any company, it is not doing useful work.
• Using a SWOT or other analysis found online rather than applying the framework yourself to your own research.

Self-check: For each tool, ask: why did I pick this one? "Because it helps answer my RQ" is the right answer. "Because I know how to do it" is not.

Criterion D: Analysis and evaluation

You use data from your supporting documents to analyse and evaluate your RQ. The examiner is specifically checking whether your analysis draws from your SDs.

Strong work: Your claims are visibly grounded in SD data: quotes, figures, findings. You explain what the data means, weigh evidence for and against, and make judgments. The strongest IAs challenge an assumption, such as using SD evidence to argue against an organization's own claims.

Watch out for:

• A three-page bibliography but few SD citations. Extra research is fine, but it does not earn marks here.
• Sections that wander away from your RQ and become distractors.
• Accepting every piece of evidence at face value without ever questioning a claim or weighing alternatives.

Self-check: Highlight every SD citation in your analysis. Large unhighlighted sections are not contributing to this mark.

Criterion E: Conclusions

Your conclusion answers your RQ directly, based on the evidence you presented.

Strong work: Summarize what your analysis found, then directly answer the RQ. Revisit the concept. Be definitive, not hedged. A closed question ("Should X do Y?") tends to produce a clearer conclusion than "to what extent."

Watch out for:

• Answering a different question. "X will succeed if they make changes" is not the same as "will X succeed?"
• "To some extent" as a conclusion. That is not an answer.
• Going over 1,800 words. The examiner stops reading at 1,800. If your conclusion falls beyond that point, it does not exist.

Self-check: Reread your RQ word by word. Does your conclusion address every part of it?

Criterion F: Structure

Your IA needs an organizing principle that helps the reader follow your argument.

Strong work: Your structure is tailored to your RQ. "For vs. against." "Internal vs. external stakeholders." "Yes, because... vs. no, because..." Someone can read just your headings and understand the logic of your argument.

Watch out for:

• Structuring by SD order (SD1, then SD2, then SD3). That is a summary, not an argument.
• A single heading like "Research and Analysis" covering many pages with no sub-sections.
• Using a school-provided template that does not fit your specific question.

Self-check: Read just your headings in order. Do they tell a story that leads to an answer?

Criterion G: Presentation

Four things, and only four:

1. Title page
2. Accurate table of contents
3. Headings and sub-headings
4. Numbered pages

All four present = full marks. Check your final PDF, especially page numbers (they often disappear when converting from Google Docs).

Word count

1,800 words maximum. The examiner stops reading at 1,800. If your conclusion is beyond that point, it is invisible. If you are over, cut from the main body, not the conclusion.

Do not put text in bordered boxes and call them figures. Examiner reports flag this as an academic integrity issue.