PAU Business & Business Model Design (La Rioja) common mistakes
PAU Business & Business Model Design (La Rioja) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to classify a firm (individual entrepreneur, sociedad limitada, sociedad anónima, cooperative, sociedad laboral), the candidate answers with a loose description such as 'a small business owned by one person' instead of naming the legal form and its defining features (limited vs unlimited liability, minimum capital, number of partners, governing body).
Candidates memorise the labels from a list but never anchor each one to the discriminating attributes, so under exam pressure they describe the everyday meaning of the words rather than the legal category. Spanish and Rioja-specific forms (S.L., S.A., cooperativa, sociedad laboral, comunidad de bienes) look familiar, which creates a false sense of security.
What to do instead
Build a one-page comparison table with columns: number of partners, minimum capital, liability, governing bodies, tax regime, and a real local example. Before writing, force yourself to state which attribute in the question is the deciding one (e.g. 'liability is limited and capital is divided into shares, therefore S.A.'). Practise by writing the classification first and the justification second, never the reverse.
The candidate lists stakeholders (owners, employees, customers, suppliers, community) but treats their objectives as identical or assumes all objectives reduce to profit maximisation, failing to identify conflicts of interest and how they are reconciled.
Textbook summaries often present objectives as a single list, and candidates conflate 'the firm's objective' with 'shareholder wealth'. They also under-prepare the conflict dimension because it requires reasoning rather than recall, and the exam frequently asks for a short applied judgement.
What to do instead
For each stakeholder group write one sentence on what they contribute and one on what they demand, then write one sentence on a concrete conflict (e.g. employees want wage increases while owners want retained earnings for investment) and one on a resolution mechanism (negotiation, collective agreement, dividend policy, CSR commitments). Rehearse with a real Rioja winery or agri-food firm so the answer is concrete.
When analysing the business environment, the candidate mixes up the layers: it places competitors or suppliers inside the general/macro environment, or puts interest rates or legislation inside the specific/competitive environment, and it confuses the purpose of PESTEL with that of Porter's Five Forces.
The two frameworks are taught together and both are 'environment analysis', so candidates reach for whichever acronym they remember and label the whole answer with it. They also treat PESTEL as a list of facts about the economy rather than as factors that condition the firm.
What to do instead
Fix a rule and apply it every time: general environment = factors the firm cannot influence (political, economic, social, technological, ecological, legal); specific environment = actors the firm interacts with (customers, suppliers, competitors, new entrants, substitutes). Write the heading first, then the factor, then one line on the consequence for the firm. If the question names Porter, do not write PESTEL factors.
The candidate defines a strategy as a goal ('to increase market share', 'to be the leader in quality') rather than as a coherent set of choices about where to compete and how to win, and cannot distinguish corporate strategy (which businesses, which markets) from competitive strategy (cost leadership, differentiation, focus).
Everyday language uses 'strategy' to mean 'plan' or 'objective', and candidates carry that usage into the exam. The levels of strategy are also abstract, so candidates skip the distinction and write a generic paragraph that fits any firm.
What to do instead
Use a template for every strategy answer: (1) which business/market are we in (corporate level); (2) what is the source of advantage - lower cost or differentiated value - and for which segment (competitive level); (3) what functional decisions support it. Write a one-line test: if the sentence could be a KPI, it is an objective, not a strategy. Apply the template to a Rioja exporter so the answer is specific.
When filling in the Business Model Canvas, the candidate writes the same content in several blocks (the value proposition repeats the customer segment; key activities repeat key resources; revenue streams repeat the value proposition) and leaves blocks empty or generic, so the canvas no longer shows how the model creates and captures value.
The nine blocks are learned as a checklist and candidates want to fill every box, so they duplicate content to look complete. They also lack a mental model of the logic linking the blocks, so they cannot see that the canvas is a causal story from value creation to revenue capture.
What to do instead
Before writing, draw the logic chain on the question paper: customer segment → value proposition → channels and relationships → key activities, resources and partners → cost structure; and value proposition → revenue streams. Then write each block only with content that is not already in another block, and check that every cost item has a matching activity or resource and every revenue stream has a matching customer segment.
The candidate describes a value proposition as a feature list ('our product has X, Y, Z') without stating the customer job, pain or gain it addresses, and without distinguishing value proposition from the marketing mix (product, price, place, promotion).
Product descriptions are the easiest thing to write, and candidates fall back on them because the value-proposition concept is abstract. The four Ps are also more familiar, so the candidate drifts into a marketing-mix answer when the question asked about value.
What to do instead
Use the value proposition canvas structure: for the segment, name the customer jobs, pains and gains; for the offer, name the pain relievers and gain creators; then write one sentence in the form 'for [segment] who [job/pain], we offer [offer] that [benefit], unlike [alternative]'. Keep the four Ps in a separate paragraph and label them explicitly so the examiner can see the distinction.
For a production or inventory question, the candidate picks a technique by name (e.g. says 'just-in-time' or 'EOQ') without applying the numbers given, without stating the trade-off it resolves, and without linking the choice to the firm's demand pattern or supplier structure.
Candidates learn technique names and definitions but not the decision rule, so under time pressure they name the tool and stop. Numerical application is skipped because it feels slower than prose, even when the question supplies data.
What to do instead
For every operations answer, write three lines: the trade-off (e.g. holding cost versus ordering cost and stock-out risk), the decision rule with the given numbers substituted, and the consequence for the firm. Practise one EOQ and one make-or-buy calculation end to end so the arithmetic is automatic, and always state the conditions under which the technique is valid (stable demand, reliable suppliers).
In investment appraisal, the candidate computes NPV or payback from the wrong cash-flow base - using accounting profit instead of cash flow, omitting the initial outlay, forgetting working-capital changes, or mixing pre-tax and post-tax figures - and then reports the number without interpreting it against the decision criterion.
The formulas are memorised but the definition of relevant cash flow (incremental, after tax, excluding sunk costs and financing costs) is not, so candidates plug in whatever figure appears in the statement. Time pressure pushes them to skip the interpretation step.
What to do instead
Write a fixed checklist before calculating: initial outlay (negative, at t=0), incremental operating cash flows after tax, working-capital investment and recovery, terminal value; exclude sunk costs, allocated overhead and interest. Then state the decision rule in one line (accept if NPV > 0; compare IRR with the cost of capital) and, when two projects conflict, say which criterion prevails and why.
When asked about entrepreneurship or innovation, the candidate answers with generic praise ('innovation is important to stay competitive', 'entrepreneurs take risks') instead of naming the type of innovation (incremental vs radical, product vs process, disruptive), the stage of the venture, or the specific digital lever (platform, data, automation, e-commerce) and its effect on the business model.
These topics invite opinion, and candidates have read many motivational articles, so they produce plausible-sounding prose that contains no analysable content. The concepts are also newer additions to the syllabus and may have been studied less systematically.
What to do instead
Prepare a small set of named tools and force one into every answer: Schumpeter's types of innovation, the technology-adoption or diffusion idea, the lean start-up build-measure-learn loop, or the business-model-canvas blocks that a digital lever changes. Always finish with a consequence for the firm (cost, reach, customer relationship, revenue model) rather than a value judgement.
The candidate answers a case-style question with theory only - reproducing definitions and framework headings - without applying them to the firm, sector or data in the statement, and without reaching a conclusion or recommendation.
Memorised definitions feel safe and are quick to write, and candidates fear that an applied judgement may be marked wrong, so they avoid committing to one. They also misjudge timing and spend the available space on recall instead of analysis.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-part structure for case questions: identify the specific problem in the case in one sentence, apply the relevant framework using the case facts (naming them), and close with a recommendation plus one risk of that recommendation. Before the exam, practise two past-style cases under time so the structure becomes automatic and you can see how much space analysis needs.