IA Playbook
Connect a key concept, supporting documents, and business tools to a focused argument.
Use this guide to keep the research question sharp, the evidence relevant, and the evaluation tied to the rubric.
Business Management IA
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
Criterion names, marks, and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.
How well one key concept (change, creativity, ethics, or sustainability) is analysed and woven through the project.
Stronger evidence
Integrates that analysis effectively throughout the project.
Early-stage evidence
Shows knowledge of the key concept.
Whether you use three to five relevant supporting documents with enough depth and a range of views.
Stronger evidence
Three to five relevant, in-depth documents that offer a range of ideas and views.
Early-stage evidence
Fewer than three or more than five documents, or they are barely relevant.
How well business management tools and theories are chosen and applied to the research question.
Stronger evidence
Tools and theories are well chosen and applied with clear relevance to the question.
Early-stage evidence
Few tools or theories are used, or they don't fit the question.
How effectively data from the supporting documents is used to analyse and evaluate the research question.
Stronger evidence
Effective use of document data, thorough analysis and evaluation, and sustained integration of ideas that weighs assumptions and implications.
Early-stage evidence
Little data from the documents and no analysis or evaluation.
Whether the conclusions follow from the evidence and explicitly answer the research question.
Stronger evidence
Conclusions match the evidence and clearly answer the research question.
Early-stage evidence
Conclusions are superficial or do not match the evidence.
Whether the project is organized with an appropriate structure.
Stronger evidence
The structure is appropriate.
Early-stage evidence
The structure is limited.
Whether the project includes the required presentation elements: title page, accurate table of contents, headings and subheadings, and numbered pages.
Stronger evidence
All required presentation elements are present.
Early-stage evidence
At least one required element is missing (title page, accurate contents, headings, page numbers).
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Shows knowledge of the key concept. |
| 2 | Describes how the key concept connects to the organization. |
| 3 | Analyses how the key concept applies to the organization. |
| 4 | Partly integrates that analysis into the project. |
| 5 | Integrates that analysis effectively throughout the project. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Fewer than three or more than five documents, or they are barely relevant. |
| 2 | Three to five generally relevant documents, some lacking depth. |
| 3 | Three to five relevant documents with enough depth. |
| 4 | Three to five relevant, in-depth documents that offer a range of ideas and views. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Few tools or theories are used, or they don't fit the question. |
| 2 | Some tools and theories are applied, but their relevance is superficial. |
| 3 | Tools and theories are adequately chosen and applied, though their relevance is not always clear. |
| 4 | Tools and theories are well chosen and applied with clear relevance to the question. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Little data from the documents and no analysis or evaluation. |
| 2 | Superficial use of document data, leading to limited analysis and evaluation. |
| 3 | Adequate use of document data with some analysis and evaluation. |
| 4 | Enough document data and mostly effective analysis and evaluation, with some integration of ideas. |
| 5 | Effective use of document data, thorough analysis and evaluation, and sustained integration of ideas that weighs assumptions and implications. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Conclusions are superficial or do not match the evidence. |
| 2 | Some conclusions match the evidence. |
| 3 | Conclusions match the evidence and clearly answer the research question. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | The structure is limited. |
| 2 | The structure is appropriate. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | At least one required element is missing (title page, accurate contents, headings, page numbers). |
| 2 | All required presentation elements are present. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Choose one concept and keep returning to it so the analysis stays aligned with the rubric.
Step 2
Select three to five documents that are relevant, varied, and rich enough to support the investigation.
Step 3
Use business frameworks only where they help answer the research question rather than filling space.
Step 4
Make the conclusion answer the question directly and tie back to the evidence you actually used.
Did You Know?
Marksy grades your draft against IB criteria, gives you criterion-level feedback, and shows exactly what to improve before final submission. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.