S

Structure

Three sections. 1,800 words. Here is how to use them.

The IB specifies a three-section structure for the BM IA. Follow it. Within each section, the guide below gives you the sub-structure that works. You can see it in action in the Sample IA.

One word matters: appropriate. Criterion F rewards structure that fits your specific research question, not a generic template that could be dropped into any IA. The three sections below are fixed. But within the analysis section especially, how you divide and organize the argument is your decision to make, and it should follow from your RQ.
1

Introduction

~400 words
  • The Company (Background): Brief background on the organization - its industry, market position, and core activities.
  • The Issue (The Problem): A clear outline of the specific real-world business issue or strategic decision you are investigating, and why it is significant.
  • The Concept (The Lens): State your chosen key concept (Change, Creativity, Ethics, or Sustainability) and explain its direct relevance to your research question.
  • The Methodology (Research Approach): Explain the primary and secondary sources you used, justify why they were selected, and briefly name the business tools you will apply to analyse the data.
2

Analysis and Discussion

~1,100 words

This is the core of your IA, and this is where structure matters most. There is no single right way to organize this section. The organizing principle you choose should come from your RQ, not from a template. Ask yourself: what is the most logical way to build an argument toward an answer to my specific question?

Organizing principles that work:

  • For vs. against: advantages and disadvantages of the decision or strategy, especially useful for yes/no or should/shouldn't questions
  • Internal vs. external stakeholder impacts: how different groups are affected differently
  • Ethical / evaluative framing: "yes, the practice is justified because..." then "no, it is not because..."
  • By business function: finance, operations, marketing, HR (if your RQ spans multiple functions)
  • By analytical tool: one tool per sub-section, where each addresses a different aspect of the RQ (not the same point approached twice)

The test is simple: could someone read just your headings and follow the logic of your argument toward an answer to the RQ? If yes, your structure is working.

If you organize by tool, make sure each tool genuinely addresses a different dimension of your question, and that you apply it to your specific organization and supporting documents, not as a textbook exercise. Two tools done deeply is stronger than four done superficially.

The word count here is generous because this is where the marks are. Criterion D (Analysis and Evaluation, 5 marks) lives entirely in this section. Go deep rather than wide.

3

Conclusion

~300 words
  • Answer the research question directly. Do not dodge it. Make a clear, definitive judgment.
  • Summarise the main supporting evidence. Briefly reference the findings that led to your conclusion - do not introduce new analysis here.
  • Return to the key concept. What does this case study tell us about how the concept works in practice? What is the broader insight?
  • Acknowledge limitations. What did you not have access to? What would have strengthened the research? This shows intellectual honesty and earns marks under Criterion E.
Word budget check: 400 + 1,100 + 300 = 1,800. The introduction and conclusion are tight: every sentence needs to work. The analysis section is where you have room to develop ideas properly.

What does not count toward the word limit

These do not count: the research question itself, headings, references and bibliography, the contents page, any labels or captions on figures, and the supporting documents in the appendix. Everything in the main commentary does count.

Choosing your tools

The IB allows up to five tools, theories, or techniques, but in practice aim for two to three. More than three almost always means not enough depth to score well on Criterion C. Three done superficially is worse than two done properly. Depth vs. breadth is the most important decision here.

Strong choices

  • 7Ps Marketing Mix
  • Triple Bottom Line
  • Investment Appraisal (NPV, payback)
  • Profitability Ratios
  • Ansoff Matrix
  • Porter's Five Forces
  • Lewin's Change Model
  • Maslow's Hierarchy
  • Boston Matrix

Use with caution

  • SWOT (too descriptive as a primary tool)
  • STEEPLE (same issue - tends to become a list)
  • Force Field Analysis (often superficial)
  • Generic "stakeholder analysis" without depth

SWOT and STEEPLE are not banned. But if they are your primary analytical framework, they invite description rather than analysis. Use them as background context if needed, but build your analytical core around a tool that forces you to take a position.

You do not need to apply the full framework of any tool. A partial application is fine - focus only on the dimensions relevant to your RQ. When you do this, name which parts you are using explicitly. For example: "The environmental and technological dimensions of a STEEPLE analysis are most relevant to this question." That signals deliberate selection, not incomplete work.

HL students: using at least one HL tool is not required, but it tends to make an IA stand out. If your RQ has a financial dimension, investment appraisal (NPV, payback period) or profitability ratios are natural choices.

Financial ratios (profitability, liquidity) are essential if your RQ touches on financial performance or market share: they provide the quantitative backbone that examiners expect to see.

Go deep, not wide. The examiner is more impressed by a thorough application of one tool - where you are clearly thinking, not just filling boxes - than by a shallow run through five frameworks.
Next: Analysis & Writing →