PAU Balearic Islands Business & Business Model Design (UIB) common mistakes
PAU Balearic Islands Business & Business Model Design (UIB) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked whether a business idea is viable, the candidate writes a generic essay on 'the importance of entrepreneurship' instead of applying a named tool (Business Model Canvas blocks, SWOT, or a break-even calculation) to the specific case given in the prompt.
The exam rewards applied analysis, but candidates memorise definitions and then panic when the prompt gives a scenario. Under time pressure they fall back on rote content they can reproduce without thinking, which feels safe but scores low because it never touches the case data.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the concrete data in the prompt (price, unit cost, fixed costs, target segment) and force yourself to produce at least one quantified or explicitly mapped answer. Practise a fixed template: identify the block or tool, apply it to the given numbers/segments, then state a conclusion. Do three timed drills where every paragraph must cite a prompt fact.
The candidate confuses the value proposition with the product description, listing features ('our app has a chat function') rather than the customer problem solved and the benefit delivered to a named segment.
Candidates learn the Canvas blocks as vocabulary lists and never internalise that the value proposition is segment-specific and benefit-oriented. Marketing language about features is also what they see in real advertising, so it feels like the right register.
What to do instead
Rewrite every value proposition in the form 'For [segment] who [problem], we offer [offering] that [benefit], unlike [alternative]'. In practice answers, always name the segment before the benefit. Do a contrast exercise: take five feature statements and convert each into a problem-benefit statement, checking that the segment is explicit.
When calculating break-even or profit, the candidate mixes up fixed and variable costs, or forgets to separate them at all, and then reports a contribution margin computed from total costs.
Textbook examples often present costs pre-classified, so candidates never practise classification themselves. In an exam scenario with a cost list (rent, raw materials, salaries, packaging), they grab the first formula they remember and plug numbers in without sorting the list.
What to do instead
Always begin by drawing a two-column table and classifying every cost in the prompt as fixed or variable before touching a formula. Memorise break-even as Fixed Costs / (Price - Variable Cost per Unit) and check the units of the denominator. Sanity-check the answer: break-even volume should be plausible relative to the stated capacity or market size.
The candidate treats a PESTEL or SWOT analysis as a list of disconnected bullet points, without linking each factor to a consequence for the business or to a strategic recommendation.
These frameworks are taught as headings to fill, and candidates equate filling all headings with a complete answer. They run out of time and stop at description, never reaching the 'so what' that carries the marks.
What to do instead
After each factor, write a forced 'therefore' sentence: 'Therefore this raises input costs and pressures the low-price positioning.' In SWOT, convert every weakness and threat into a matching action. Practise by writing a PESTEL where each of the six points must end with an implication for the firm's strategy, capped at two sentences each.
The candidate describes the Lean Startup cycle (build-measure-learn, MVP, pivot) as a definition but cannot explain what would be measured, what threshold would trigger a pivot, or how the MVP differs from a prototype or a pilot.
The terminology is easy to memorise and appears in every summary sheet, so candidates stop at recall. They have rarely applied the loop to a concrete venture, so they cannot generate the specifics the question demands.
What to do instead
Prepare one worked example (e.g., a food-delivery MVP) with the hypothesis, the metric, the success threshold, and the pivot decision spelled out. Learn the distinctions: prototype tests desirability with users, MVP tests a real value hypothesis with real transactions, pilot tests operational feasibility. In the exam, always state hypothesis, metric and decision rule.
On legal-form questions the candidate recommends 'Sociedad Limitada' by default for every venture, without weighing liability, minimum capital, taxation, number of partners or administrative burden against the specific case.
The SL is the most familiar Spanish form and candidates treat it as the safe default. They also confuse the legal minimum capital with the amount actually needed to operate, and rarely mention the autónomo or cooperativa options.
What to do instead
Build a comparison grid for the forms you must know (empresario individual/autónomo, SL, SA, cooperativa, sociedad civil) across liability, capital, partners, taxation and formalities. In any answer, state the recommended form, give two case-specific reasons for it, and one reason against the alternative. Explicitly separate capital required by law from funding needed for operations.
In financial-statement questions the candidate confuses profit with cash flow, or reads a balance sheet as if it measured performance rather than a snapshot of assets, liabilities and equity at a date.
Everyday language uses 'profit' and 'making money' interchangeably, and candidates carry that habit into the exam. The three statements are learned separately, so the articulation between them (retained earnings linking the income statement to equity) is never practised.
What to do instead
Drill the articulation explicitly: net profit flows to reserves in equity; depreciation is a non-cash expense added back in cash flow; a profitable firm can still fail if receivables or inventory absorb cash. Practise by taking one small set of transactions and producing all three statements, checking that the balance sheet balances and that cash movement reconciles with the profit figure.
The candidate answers marketing-mix questions by listing the 4Ps generically ('competitive price', 'good promotion') instead of specifying the pricing strategy, the channel choice and the positioning consistent with the chosen segment.
The 4Ps are learned as four words with no decision content, and candidates do not realise that marks come from internal consistency: the price must fit the positioning, the channel must fit the segment, the promotion must fit the message. Without a chosen segment, no specific answer is possible.
What to do instead
Always open with a one-sentence segment and positioning statement, then make each P answer that statement. Name the pricing approach (cost-plus, value-based, penetration, skimming) and justify it. Practise by taking a product and writing two contrasting mixes for two different segments, then checking each mix for internal contradictions.
On motivation and leadership questions the candidate names a theory (Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor) and stops, without applying it to the described workplace situation or distinguishing hygiene factors from motivators in the case.
Theories are memorised as labelled diagrams and candidates assume naming the theory earns the marks. They also conflate the theories, so applying the wrong one to the case goes unnoticed.
What to do instead
For each theory, memorise one distinguishing test: Herzberg asks whether removing the factor merely prevents dissatisfaction (hygiene) or actually motivates; Maslow asks which level is unmet; McGregor asks which assumption the manager's behaviour reveals. In the exam, quote a specific detail from the case, name the theory, then state the managerial action it implies. Practise with three short scenarios and one paragraph each.
On CSR and sustainability questions the candidate produces a list of charitable activities or green claims with no link to the firm's stakeholders, legal obligations, or long-term profitability, and never mentions the triple bottom line or stakeholder trade-offs.
CSR is often studied last and skimmed, and public debate frames it as philanthropy or public relations. Candidates therefore miss that exam answers expect analysis of stakeholder conflicts and of how sustainability affects cost, risk and reputation.
What to do instead
Structure every CSR answer around three moves: identify the stakeholders affected, name the specific conflict or trade-off (e.g., short-term cost versus reputational and regulatory risk), and evaluate the outcome against economic, social and environmental criteria. Anchor the answer in one concrete practice (fair-trade sourcing, circular design, living-wage policy) and assess its cost and benefit to the firm rather than praising it in general terms.