Andalusia PAU Business and Business Model Design common mistakes
Andalusia PAU Business and Business Model Design · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to classify a company's environment, the candidate lists generic PESTEL letters (political, economic, etc.) without tying each factor to a concrete effect on this firm's decisions, and mixes legal with political or environmental with ecological without distinction.
The syllabus label 'environment' invites recall of the acronym, and candidates memorise the six headings as a checklist rather than as an analytical tool; under time pressure they dump the list and hope the marker infers relevance.
What to do instead
For every factor write one sentence of the form 'factor → mechanism → consequence for the firm', e.g. 'a rise in the interbank rate raises the cost of the planned €2m loan, delaying the second production line'. Practise with three real Andalusian sectors (olive oil, tourism, agri-tech) so the mechanism, not the label, becomes the unit of answer.
In stakeholder questions the candidate treats 'stakeholders' as a synonym for 'shareholders plus customers', omits internal groups (employees, managers) and secondary groups (local community, suppliers, regulators), and never states that the groups have conflicting objectives.
Textbook diagrams often show a firm at the centre with arrows, and candidates reproduce the diagram without analysing the tension between, say, dividend expectations and wage demands.
What to do instead
Build a two-column table: stakeholder, what they contribute, what they expect, and how their expectation clashes with another group's. Then answer the question by naming at least one explicit trade-off and how the firm could manage it (e.g. long-term incentive plans aligning managers with owners).
When asked to recommend a competitive strategy, the candidate names 'cost leadership' or 'differentiation' and stops, without showing the industry analysis that justifies the choice or the resources that would make it defensible.
Porter's generic strategies are the most memorised item in the syllabus, so they become a reflex answer; candidates underuse the five-forces analysis that should precede the recommendation.
What to do instead
Structure the answer as: forces analysis (with a rating per force) → the resulting profit pressure → the strategy that responds to it → the resource or capability that sustains it → the risk of imitation. If the forces are weak in a segment, say so; a recommendation without a preceding analysis earns little credit.
In growth questions the candidate lists 'internal growth, mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures' as definitions but never evaluates the financing, the integration risk, or the fit with the firm's stated objective, and confuses a merger with an acquisition or a takeover bid.
Growth modes are taught as a taxonomy, and candidates reproduce the taxonomy in the belief that naming the option is the analysis; they also lack practice in applying criteria to a specific case.
What to do instead
For each growth option write three lines: how it is financed, the main execution risk, and the fit with the firm's objective and size. Learn the crisp distinctions (merger = combination of two firms into one; acquisition = purchase of control; takeover bid = public offer for listed shares) and apply them to a named case.
When asked to design a value proposition, the candidate writes what the product does ('an app that connects farmers to buyers') instead of the customer's problem, the gain created and the pain relieved, and leaves the customer segment vague ('everyone who eats').
Founders and students naturally describe features; the Value Proposition Canvas is memorised as a picture rather than as a discipline of stating jobs, pains and gains before the product.
What to do instead
Write the segment as a specific group with a specific job-to-be-done ('small olive growers who sell to cooperatives and cannot reach direct buyers'). Then list two pains and two gains and match each to one feature. Test the sentence: if a competitor could say the same thing, the proposition is not differentiated.
In a Business Model Canvas question the candidate fills all nine blocks with the same content, puts revenue streams and cost structure in the wrong blocks, and treats 'key partners' as a list of everyone the firm knows rather than the activities it chooses not to perform itself.
The canvas is drawn as nine boxes with no arrows, so candidates fill boxes top-to-bottom without understanding that the right side is the market and the left side is the infrastructure, with the value proposition in between.
What to do instead
Draw the canvas with the value proposition in the centre and arrows from it to channels, customer relationships and segments, and from key activities, resources and partners into it. For each block write one item only, and check revenue streams against 'how does money come in' versus cost structure 'where does money go'.
When comparing Canvas with Lean Canvas, the candidate says Lean Canvas is 'for start-ups' and Canvas is 'for companies' without naming the substituted blocks (problem, solution, key metrics, unfair advantage replace key partners, key activities, key resources, customer relationships) or explaining why the substitution matters.
The distinction is taught as a one-line slogan, and candidates never map block to block, so they cannot explain that Lean Canvas foregrounds risk and uncertainty.
What to do instead
Learn the block-by-block mapping and the reason for each swap: problem before solution because the risk is building something nobody needs; key metrics because a start-up's risk is measuring the wrong thing; unfair advantage because defensibility is the hardest part to prove. Practise by converting one Canvas into a Lean Canvas.
In investment appraisal the candidate computes NPV and payback but ignores the discount rate's origin, mixes nominal cash flows with a real rate, omits the terminal value or the working-capital change, and then recommends the project on payback alone.
Formulas are drilled in isolation, so the candidate applies them mechanically; the conceptual link between the cost of capital and the risk of the project is never practised.
What to do instead
Always state the discount rate and its source (WACC, or a risk-adjusted rate), keep flows and rate consistent (nominal with nominal), and include the initial outlay, operating flows, working-capital changes and residual value. Rank projects by NPV and use payback only as a liquidity comment, never as the sole criterion.
In ratio analysis the candidate computes ten ratios and comments on each in isolation, without comparing across years or against a benchmark, and without linking profitability, liquidity and solvency into a single diagnosis.
Ratio formulas are easy to memorise, so the answer becomes a calculation exercise; candidates are not trained to say what a ratio means or which ratio explains another.
What to do instead
Choose three or four ratios that answer the question, compute them for two years, and write a chain: margin fell because costs rose, which reduced retained earnings, which raised leverage. Use a benchmark (sector average or the firm's own history) and state the limitation of the comparison.
In human-resources and organisation questions the candidate describes motivation theories (Maslow, Herzberg) as history and never connects them to a concrete organisational design choice such as span of control, centralisation or team structure, and never mentions the legal framework of worker representation.
The topic is taught as a sequence of theories, and candidates reproduce them chronologically instead of using them to justify a design decision in a case.
What to do instead
Answer with a design decision first, then the theory that supports it: e.g. 'decentralise decisions to store level because Herzberg's motivators (autonomy, responsibility) predict higher engagement; the cost is loss of standardisation'. Add one sentence on the applicable framework (works council, collective agreement, health and safety duty).