Canary Islands PAU Business & Business Model Design (ULPGC / ULL) common mistakes
Canary Islands PAU Business & Business Model Design (ULPGC / ULL) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to classify a firm's environment or a stakeholder, the candidate lists generic labels ("entorno general", "clientes") without linking each to the specific case data, and never distinguishes the specific/competitive environment from the general environment.
Textbook definitions are memorised as lists, so the candidate pattern-matches the word "entorno" to a memorised list instead of reading what the case actually describes (a new competitor, a change in regulation, a supplier conflict).
What to do instead
Before writing, underline every actor and every change in the case text, then assign each to general environment (economic, legal, technological, socio-cultural), specific environment (competitors, suppliers, customers, intermediaries) or internal. Write each answer as "element → type → effect on the firm", so no label appears without a consequence. Practise with two past papers and check that every named actor in the prompt is used at least once.
In Business Model Canvas questions the candidate fills the nine blocks with the firm's activities rather than with the model's logic, mixes up Key Resources with Key Activities, and puts the value proposition as a description of the product's features instead of the benefit delivered to a named customer segment.
The nine blocks are memorised as a list of headings with no operational definition, and under time pressure the candidate writes anything plausible under each heading to leave no blank box.
What to do instead
Learn each block with a test question: Key Resources = what we must own or access (assets, people, IP, capital); Key Activities = what we must do repeatedly; Value Proposition = the problem solved and the gain created for a specific segment, phrased as "for [segment] we deliver [benefit] because [mechanism]". Redraw the canvas for three well-known firms from memory and check each block against these tests. In the exam, write one sentence per block, not a list of nouns.
When recommending a competitive strategy, the candidate names "cost leadership" or "differentiation" but does not state the scope (broad vs. niche), does not connect it to the firm's actual resources in the case, and does not check consistency with the rest of the value chain (e.g. recommending differentiation while the case shows the firm cutting R&D).
Porter's generic strategies are learned as three words to be picked, so the candidate treats the choice as a labelling exercise rather than as a system that must be internally consistent with resources, activities and the target segment.
What to do instead
Answer in three mandatory steps: (1) define the target scope with evidence from the case, (2) name the source of advantage and the specific activity that creates it, (3) test consistency by naming one case fact that supports it and one that could undermine it. Reject the strategy if the case contains a fact that contradicts it, and say so explicitly; examiners reward the reasoned rejection.
In break-even and cost questions the candidate mixes up fixed and variable costs, computes a margin on total cost instead of on the variable cost, and gives a break-even figure in euros when the question asks for units (or ignores capacity, so the answer is unattainable).
Formulas are memorised without the underlying classification rule, and the candidate does not re-read the question's required unit before writing the final number.
What to do instead
Apply a fixed classification test before calculating: does the cost change with the volume produced or sold in the relevant period? Then write the formula with units attached (Q* = CF / (p − cv)) and finish with a check sentence: "this requires selling X units, which is Y% of capacity, therefore feasible/not feasible". Always state the contribution margin per unit explicitly, since it earns method marks even if arithmetic slips.
In investment appraisal the candidate discounts each year's cash flow correctly but forgets the initial outlay's sign, ignores working capital recovery and residual value, and compares projects of different duration or size using NPV alone without mentioning payback or IRR.
Practice is done on single-line formula exercises, so the candidate never internalises the full cash-flow schedule, and treats NPV as a single number rather than one criterion among several.
What to do instead
Build a standard timeline table for every problem: year 0 (outlay plus any initial working capital, negative), years 1..n (operating cash flows, tax-adjusted if the question gives tax), final year (add residual value and working-capital recovery). Compute NPV, payback and, if asked, IRR from that table only. When comparing projects, add one sentence on scale and duration differences before recommending.
In marketing-mix questions the candidate answers with the four Ps as a definition list, without segmenting the market first and without making the four decisions mutually consistent (e.g. premium price with a mass-distribution, discount-led promotion).
Segmentation, targeting and positioning are studied as a separate topic from the mix, so the candidate does not see that the mix must follow from the chosen segment.
What to do instead
Force the chain: segmentation criteria (which variable, why it is relevant here) → target segment named explicitly → positioning statement ("for X we are the brand that Y") → then each P justified by that positioning. End with a coherence check sentence naming one P that reinforces another. If the case gives no data for a P, say what assumption you are making.
In financial-statement questions the candidate calculates a ratio and stops, without interpreting it, without a comparison base (sector, prior year) and without linking it to a decision; or computes profitability on the wrong base (e.g. return on assets using equity).
Ratio practice is done as arithmetic drills, so the candidate never learns that a ratio without a benchmark carries no meaning.
What to do instead
For every ratio write three lines: formula and result, comparison (with the prior year or sector figure given in the case), and consequence for the firm's decision (financing, credit, dividend). Memorise the denominator of each family: return on assets uses total assets, return on equity uses equity, liquidity ratios use current liabilities. If no benchmark is given, state the direction of the result and what it would need to be compared against.
In human-resources questions the candidate names a motivation theory (Maslow, Herzberg, Vroom) as the answer to a case about a demotivated team, without applying its categories to the specific facts, and confuses leadership styles with motivation theories.
Theories are memorised by author and pyramid, so the candidate recognises the topic but has no procedure for turning the theory into a diagnosis and an action plan.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-part structure: diagnose using the theory's categories (name which needs/factors are unmet, citing case facts), choose a leadership style and justify it against the situation's contingencies (task structure, team maturity, time pressure), then propose two concrete actions with an indicator to check. Keep a one-line definition of each theory plus one criticism, so you can also answer the "limitations" part that often follows.
In entrepreneurship questions the candidate proposes a business idea and jumps straight to the legal form, skipping the problem validation, the target customer and the numbers; or picks a legal form (S.L. vs. S.A. vs. autónomo) by prestige rather than by capital, liability, number of partners and taxation.
The business plan is treated as a document to describe rather than a sequence of hypotheses to test, and legal forms are memorised as a list of acronyms without decision criteria.
What to do instead
Write the plan in the exam in a fixed order: problem and evidence → target customer and value proposition → revenue model and initial cost estimate → resources needed → legal form with three explicit criteria (capital required, liability, number of partners) → main risk and mitigation. For legal forms, keep a comparison table of minimum capital, liability and taxation, and always justify the choice with the case's numbers.
The candidate runs out of time because they write long theoretical introductions before the case-specific analysis, and leaves the final recommendation or the numerical part unanswered.
The candidate treats the exam as an essay and writes to fill space, not allocating time per question or per mark, and does not notice that applied parts carry most of the marks.
What to do instead
In the first two minutes, read all questions and write the mark allocation and a time budget beside each (roughly one minute per mark). Answer in the order of marks per minute, not question order, and for each answer put the case-specific analysis in the first sentence, with definitions compressed to a clause. Reserve the last ten minutes to return to any unanswered numerical part, since a stated formula and method often earns partial credit.