Internal Assessment

You must base your commentary on three to five supporting documents about a real organisation facing a real issue. These documents provide the factual basis for your analysis — they might include news articles, company financial statements, interview transcripts, or extracts from the company's own publications. You then apply business management tools, techniques, and theories to analyse the issue and make a justified recommendation.

Your supporting documents must be genuinely relevant to the issue you are analysing. They should provide concrete, specific information — not just general background about the company. Strong documents give you data and evidence you can use in your analysis: financial figures, market data, quotes from decision-makers, or descriptions of the specific problem. A document that only provides a general company history without linking to your chosen issue will not support strong analysis.

This is the analytical core of the commentary. You must select appropriate course tools (e.g. SWOT analysis, ratio analysis, decision trees, Ansoff's matrix, force field analysis, STEEPLE) and apply them effectively to the specific issue. The key words are "apply" and "analyse" — you are not just describing what the tool is, you are using it to generate insight about the business's situation. For example, a SWOT analysis that simply lists four bullet points without connecting each point to evidence from your supporting documents is superficial; a SWOT where each point is linked to specific evidence and then used to inform a recommendation is effective.

You must extract and interpret relevant data from your supporting documents to support your analysis. This might include: financial figures (revenue, profit margins, debt levels), market share data, employee numbers, survey results, or growth rates. The data should be directly relevant to the issue you are analysing, and you should show that you understand what the numbers mean — not just quote them.

Based on your analysis, you must make a specific, justified recommendation. This is not a summary of everything you have said — it is a clear, actionable proposal that follows logically from your analysis. A weak conclusion says "the business should consider all options carefully." A strong conclusion says "based on the SWOT, ratio analysis, and force field analysis above, the business should pursue Option A because it addresses the identified weaknesses while building on the company's key strengths in X and Y, and the expected value analysis suggests it has the strongest risk-adjusted return."

This is about critically reflecting on your own analysis and recommendation. What are the limitations of your analysis? What assumptions have you made, and how might they affect your conclusions? What factors might cause your recommendation to fail? Are there any stakeholder groups who would be negatively affected by your recommendation? A strong evaluation acknowledges uncertainty and alternative perspectives, demonstrating that you understand business decisions are rarely clear-cut.

The commentary should be well-organised with a clear introduction, logical flow between sections, appropriate use of headings, and proper referencing of all sources (including your supporting documents) using a recognised citation style. Graphs, tables, and diagrams should be clearly labelled and referred to in the text.