Galicia PAU Business and Business Model Design common mistakes
Galicia PAU Business and Business Model Design · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the business-environment question, the candidate defines an oligopoly only by 'few firms' and then fails to apply the remaining criteria (interdependence, barriers to entry, product homogeneity or differentiation) to the case described, so the classification is asserted but not justified.
The definitions are memorised as one-line labels and the exam often gives a short scenario that must be matched criterion by criterion; under time pressure the candidate grabs the label that sounds closest and moves on, losing the reasoning marks.
What to do instead
Build a four-point checklist for each market structure (number of firms, entry barriers, product type, price-setting power) and, for every case, write one short sentence per criterion before naming the structure. Practise with past PAU-style short cases where two structures are plausible (e.g. oligopoly vs monopolistic competition) and force yourself to state which criterion decides it.
When asked to analyse a company's business model with the canvas or a similar framework, the candidate lists the nine blocks as headings and fills each with a generic phrase ('good customer relationship', 'important partners') without linking them to the specific firm in the prompt.
The framework is learned as a vocabulary list rather than as a set of questions about a concrete business; the candidate also fears leaving a block empty, so filler is written instead of a justified statement.
What to do instead
For each block, write the answer as 'who/what + evidence from the case + why it matters for revenue or cost'. Train by taking a real local firm (a winery, a hostel, a bike-repair shop) and completing the canvas with named segments, named channels and a stated revenue stream, then checking that every block could only describe that firm.
In SWOT or strategy questions, the candidate puts the same item in two quadrants (for example listing 'strong brand' as both a strength and an opportunity) or classifies internal and external factors the wrong way round, and then recommends a strategy that does not follow from the analysis.
The internal/external distinction is confused with positive/negative, and the candidate treats SWOT as a descriptive list rather than as the input to a choice; the recommendation is written independently of the matrix.
What to do instead
Before writing, sort every fact into a two-by-two grid with the rule 'can the firm change it? yes = internal, no = external' and 'helps or harms?'. Then cross the quadrants explicitly: strength + opportunity gives an attack strategy, weakness + threat gives a defensive one, and state in one sentence which cross you are using to justify the recommendation.
The candidate answers an organisational-structure question by naming the structure (functional, divisional, matrix) but cannot say what problem it solves, what coordination cost it creates, and which structure fits the firm size and diversification in the prompt.
Structures are memorised as diagrams without their trade-offs; the candidate also confuses 'departmentalisation' with 'coordination mechanism' and so cannot connect structure to the firm's strategy.
What to do instead
For each structure, prepare three sentences: the coordination problem it solves, its main cost (duplication, slow decisions, dual authority), and the contingency that favours it (size, product range, geographic spread). When answering, first state the firm's contingency, then choose the structure and justify it against the alternatives you rejected.
In a market-research question, the candidate proposes a survey but never specifies the population, the sampling method, the sample size logic or the wording of the questions, and then draws conclusions that the design cannot support.
The candidate treats 'do a survey' as a complete answer and has not practised turning a research objective into an operational design; the difference between primary and secondary sources and between qualitative and quantitative aims is blurred.
What to do instead
Answer in a fixed chain: objective, information needed, source (primary or secondary), technique, population and sample, instrument, and how results will be analysed. For each proposed question, check that it is closed or open as intended and free of leading wording. Practise converting a vague objective ('find out if a new product would sell') into a testable design with a defined population.
In operations questions, the candidate computes a break-even point or productivity figure correctly in isolation but does not interpret it (what the number means for the decision) and mixes units, for example comparing a break-even in units with a target expressed in euros.
Formulas are rehearsed without the meaning of each term, and the candidate does not write units next to intermediate results, so a unit mismatch goes unnoticed until the final answer is nonsensical.
What to do instead
Write the formula, then substitute with units shown at every step, then add one sentence of interpretation ('the firm must sell X units before making a profit; current sales are Y, so it is above/below by Z'). Do a unit check at the end: units × price must give euros, and contribution margin per unit must be smaller than price.
In investment appraisal, the candidate applies the payback criterion alone to accept a project, ignores the time value of money, or compares projects of different duration or size without saying so, and does not reconcile a positive NPV with a discount rate that was chosen arbitrarily.
Payback is the easiest method to compute under exam pressure, and the candidate has not internalised why discounting matters; the discount rate is often given in the prompt but is used without comment.
What to do instead
Always compute payback, NPV and, where feasible, IRR, and answer with a ranked recommendation that states each method's limitation (payback ignores cash flows after the cut-off and the time value of money; IRR can mislead with non-conventional flows). State where the discount rate came from and what a higher rate would do to the decision.
In business-law questions, the candidate names a legal form or a contract type but confuses key features, for example treating a limited company's liability as unlimited, mixing the roles of the general meeting and the administrators, or stating that a minor can validly contract without mentioning representation.
Legal forms are learned as a table of names rather than as bundles of consequences (liability, capital, taxation, decision-making bodies), and the candidate has not practised applying capacity and consent rules to a short scenario.
What to do instead
For each form (sole trader, civil partnership, limited liability company, public limited company, cooperative), prepare the same five rows: liability, minimum capital, governing bodies, taxation, transferability of shares. When a scenario is given, first identify the parties and their capacity, then the type of contract, then the rule and its consequence, citing the relevant Spanish rule by name rather than number if unsure.
In entrepreneurship and social-responsibility questions, the candidate gives a generic list of 'benefits of being an entrepreneur' or 'advantages of CSR' with no link to the specific stakeholder, cost or legal obligation, and treats CSR as identical to philanthropy or to legal compliance.
These topics invite memorised lists, and the candidate has not distinguished the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary layers of responsibility or the difference between a business plan section and a slogan.
What to do instead
Anchor every claim to a named stakeholder (employees, customers, suppliers, community, environment) and to a concrete cost or benefit, and separate legal obligation from voluntary action. For entrepreneurship, structure answers around the business plan's real sections (value proposition, market, operations, finance, risk) rather than adjectives about attitude.
The candidate runs out of time because they write long essays on the first question, leave calculation questions last, and answer a 'justify' question with description only, so the reasoning marks are lost even where the content is known.
Exam technique is not rehearsed under timed conditions; the candidate allocates effort by interest or by the order of the paper rather than by marks per minute, and does not distinguish command words such as define, explain, compare and justify.
What to do instead
Practise full papers to time with a written plan: read all questions first, allocate minutes in proportion to marks, do the calculations you are confident in early, and underline the command word before writing. For 'justify' and 'evaluate', force yourself to include a decision, at least one reason and one counter-argument or limitation, then stop.