Back To Business Management

IA Playbook

Business Management IA Criteria Guide

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

Assessment criteria

See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.

This is Marksy's independently written criteria explanation, not an official IB publication.

Criterion A: Integration of a key concept (5 marks)

How meaningfully the selected key concept shapes the business investigation.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address integration of a key concept, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion B: Supporting documents (4 marks)

How suitable, current, varied, and effectively used the supporting documents are.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address supporting documents, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion C: Selection and application of tools and theories (4 marks)

How appropriately business tools and theories are selected and applied.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address selection and application of tools and theories, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion D: Analysis and evaluation (5 marks)

How effectively evidence and business concepts are combined into analysis and judgment.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address analysis and evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion E: Conclusions (3 marks)

How clearly the conclusion answers the research question from the preceding analysis.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address conclusions, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion F: Structure (2 marks)

How effectively the report is organized for a reader following the investigation.

Stronger evidence

Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address structure, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion G: Presentation (2 marks)

How consistently the report uses citations, formatting, tables, figures, and other conventions.

Stronger evidence

Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address presentation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Integration of a key concept (5 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for integration of a key concept.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address integration of a key concept, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
5The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion B: Supporting documents (4 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for supporting documents.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address supporting documents, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
4The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion C: Selection and application of tools and theories (4 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for selection and application of tools and theories.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address selection and application of tools and theories, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
4The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion D: Analysis and evaluation (5 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for analysis and evaluation.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address analysis and evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
5The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion E: Conclusions (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for conclusions.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address conclusions, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.

Criterion F: Structure (2 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for structure.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address structure, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.

Criterion G: Presentation (2 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for presentation.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address presentation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.

Build Sequence

Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.

Step 1

Anchor the key concept

Choose one concept and keep returning to it so the analysis stays aligned with the rubric.

Step 2

Curate the supporting documents

Select three to five documents that are relevant, varied, and rich enough to support the investigation.

Step 3

Apply tools with purpose

Use business frameworks only where they help answer the research question rather than filling space.

Step 4

Close with explicit evaluation

Make the conclusion answer the question directly and tie back to the evidence you actually used.

Submission Checklist

  • The key concept is visible throughout, not just named once.
  • Supporting documents are relevant, sufficient in depth, and varied.
  • Business tools and theories connect clearly to the research question.
  • The conclusion answers the question and stays consistent with the evidence.

Quick Wins

  • Write a one-sentence business claim for each section before drafting.
  • Replace general commentary with data points from the supporting documents.
  • Use the same key terms consistently so the rubric language stays obvious.

Did You Know?

Turn IA Criteria Into A High-Scoring Draft

Marksy gives independently written feedback on your draft's focus, evidence, and evaluation. Verify it against current school or authorized source materials before 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.

1. Upload your IA draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get an estimated mark and feedback for every IA criterion.
3. Revise and resubmit with focused improvements.
Marksy grading results view

Instant Grading Results

See where your score is now, not just where it could be.

Marksy criterion feedback highlights

Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback

See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.

Marksy list of fixes for an IB draft

Action List To Improve

Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.

Marksy AI detection and highlight review

Confidence And Integrity Signals

Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.

Start IA GradingSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Start IA Grading