Castilla-La Mancha PAU Business and Business Model Design common mistakes
Castilla-La Mancha PAU Business and Business Model Design · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to classify a business by sector, legal form and size, the candidate gives only one criterion (e.g. 'it is a limited company') and stops, or mixes criteria, writing 'a large industrial SME' without justifying any of the three axes.
The classification questions in the first block look easy, so candidates answer from memory with a single label and do not structure the answer. They also confuse legal form (S.A., S.L., cooperative, sole trader) with size categories (micro, small, medium, large by employees/turnover) and with sector (primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary).
What to do instead
Build a fixed three-line template and apply it to every case: sector (with the activity that justifies it), legal form (with one reason such as limited liability or capital requirements), and size (citing the employee and turnover thresholds used). Practise on five real local firms until the three axes are automatic.
In environment questions the candidate lists generic 'factors' (economy, technology, society) without separating the specific environment (customers, suppliers, competitors, intermediaries) from the general environment, and without saying whether each factor is an opportunity or a threat for that particular firm.
Textbook headings are memorised as a list, but exam cases ask for a judgement about one named company. Candidates reproduce the taxonomy and never connect it to the case, losing the marks for application.
What to do instead
For each factor write one sentence of the form 'factor → effect on this firm → opportunity or threat'. Force at least two specific-environment and two general-environment items, and ban any factor that could apply unchanged to any company in the world.
The candidate draws a Business Model Canvas but fills the nine blocks with synonyms of each other, puts the value proposition as a product description ('we sell shoes'), and leaves the revenue streams and cost structure blocks as vague words like 'sales' and 'expenses'.
The canvas is learned as a poster to copy rather than as a logic test. Candidates do not check that the value proposition answers a customer problem, and they confuse revenue streams (how money comes in: subscription, unit sale, commission) with cost structure (fixed versus variable).
What to do instead
Before writing the canvas, state in one sentence the customer segment and the problem solved; the value proposition must reference that problem. Then write revenue streams with a pricing mechanism and cost structure split into fixed and variable. Cross-check: every key activity must serve a value proposition, every channel must reach a named segment.
When asked to propose an innovation, the candidate offers 'improve quality' or 'use social media' without classifying the type of innovation (product, process, organisational, marketing; incremental versus radical) or explaining how it creates or captures value.
Innovation is treated as a slogan. The exam expects the four-type classification and a link to the business model, and candidates have not practised turning a vague idea into a typed, justified proposal.
What to do instead
Answer in three moves: classify the innovation with its type and intensity, explain the change in the value proposition or cost structure, and state the risk or resource needed. Rehearse with local firms (a winery, a hotel) so each proposal is concrete and typed.
In SWOT and competitive-strategy questions the candidate mixes internal and external items (putting 'new competitor' in weaknesses), and then recommends 'cost leadership' for a small firm with no scale, without linking the choice to Porter's five forces or to the firm's resources.
SWOT is copied as a 2x2 grid without the internal/external rule, and generic strategies are memorised as three words. Candidates do not test whether a strategy is feasible given the firm's size, so the recommendation contradicts the case data.
What to do instead
Apply a hard rule: strengths and weaknesses are internal and controllable; opportunities and threats are external. Then justify the generic strategy with two pieces of case evidence (scale, cost structure, differentiation source) and one force from the five-forces analysis that supports it. If the firm is small, say why cost leadership is rejected.
The candidate computes a break-even point but reports it in euros when the question asks for units (or vice versa), forgets to subtract variable costs from price to get the unit contribution margin, and does not interpret the result ('we must sell X units to start earning profit').
Formulas are memorised without their meaning, and under time pressure the candidate substitutes total costs into the numerator. The interpretation is skipped because the arithmetic feels like the whole answer.
What to do instead
Always write the formula with units: Q* = Fixed costs / (Price − Unit variable cost). Compute the unit margin first and label it in euros per unit. Finish with one sentence interpreting the threshold and, if asked, the margin of safety. Check by multiplying Q* by the margin and confirming it equals fixed costs.
In accounting questions the candidate confuses a balance-sheet item with an income-statement item (putting a purchase of machinery as an expense), ignores VAT when told the invoice includes it, or presents a balance sheet that does not balance and does not notice.
The dual-entry logic and the accrual principle are not internalised, and candidates rush to fill tables without applying the accounting equation after each entry. VAT is treated as part of the price rather than a liability to the tax authority.
What to do instead
After every entry check Assets = Liabilities + Equity. Classify each item by asking whether it is a resource owned (asset), a debt (liability), or a flow of the period (income/expense). For VAT, split the base and the tax explicitly and record the tax as a payable. Do a final balance check before moving on.
When analysing profitability the candidate computes a ratio but does not say what it measures or whether the result is good, and mixes ratios from different bases (e.g. comparing a return on equity with a margin on sales as if they were the same thing).
Ratios are learned as formulas to plug numbers into. Candidates do not connect return, margin and rotation, and have no benchmark, so the number is left uninterpreted and earns no analysis marks.
What to do instead
For each ratio write: formula, value, meaning in one sentence, and a comparison (previous year, sector, or the DuPont link between margin, rotation and leverage). Never present a ratio without its interpretation; if no benchmark is given, say what the value implies for the firm's situation.
In marketing questions the candidate designs a survey or a market research plan without specifying the sample, the data-collection method and the objective, or proposes a marketing mix that contradicts the chosen segmentation (premium positioning with discount pricing).
The four Ps are listed as a checklist and segmentation is treated as a separate topic, so the pieces are never made consistent. Research methods are named without the operational detail the exam rewards.
What to do instead
State the research objective first, then method (survey, interview, observation), sample and instrument. For the mix, write one sentence per P and check each against the target segment and positioning; any inconsistency (price versus image, channel versus segment) must be corrected before writing the final answer.
In human-resources and organisational questions the candidate describes motivation theories generically (Maslow's pyramid) without applying them to the case, and cannot distinguish selection, training and evaluation, or confuses organisational structure types (functional, divisional, matrix) with coordination mechanisms.
The HR block is often studied last and answered from general knowledge. Candidates reproduce theory names but do not diagnose the case's specific problem (turnover, low motivation, conflict) or recommend an instrument that fits it.
What to do instead
Use a diagnosis-first structure: identify the HR problem in the case, name the concept that explains it, and propose one concrete instrument (e.g. a variable pay scheme, a training plan, a change in the reporting line) with its expected effect. Draw the org chart type and justify it by the firm's size and diversification.