Define the term performance-related pay (PRP).

Explain one impact on PU and one impact on PU’s lecturers of the new working patterns.

Explain two methods of primary market research that PU could use to monitor the progress of each course.

Recommend whether PU should open a campus in Country B. 

Performance-related pay (PRP) is a system of financial reward where the amount received by a worker is linked to how well they have reached targets and met criteria.

PRP can be a motivator, but it is also difficult to implement, for example to measure and quantify performance.

Award [1] for a partial definition which may be circular or tautological.
Award [2] for a clear definition that shows knowledge and understanding beyond stating that pay is related to performance.

Maximum award: [2].

Impact on PU:

• Home working: How to monitor? Maybe more available facilities? Costs of extra equipment for home?
• Reduced vacations: Facilities better used. Possible increase in costs, though may help with sustainability.

Impact on PU’s lecturers:

• Work at home for 3 days a week. How feasible? What facilities? Less travelling, more time available.
• Reductions in vacations: Unlikely to be welcomed by lecturers; less motivation? Leading to higher staff turnover?

The new working patterns are about home working and reduced vacations. Training may be considered as it is explicitly linked to the new working patterns, e.g. about the fact that lecturers need specific training to adapt to the new working patterns.

N.B. PRP is a type of financial reward, not a working pattern (candidates’ knowledge of PRP has already been assessed through question Q4a).

N.B. candidates may also explain the impacts as “long-term impact” versus “short-term impact”, or “positive impact” versus “negative impact”, or “financial impact” versus “HR impact” – all these approaches are valid, as long as they are about the new working patterns.

Mark as a [2] + [2].

Award [1] for an appropriate impact on PU’s lecturers and an additional [1] for application. Award [1] for an appropriate impact on PU and an additional [1] for application. Maximum award overall: [4].

Methods include:

• Focus groups
• Observation
• Questionnaires
• Interviews

These methods can help collect data from students and/or teachers.

Accept any other relevant method.

Mark as a [2] + [2].

Award [1] for an appropriate method identified and an additional [1] for explanation and application to the stimulus. Maximum award overall: [4].

Refer to Paper 1 markbands for 2016 forward, available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials.

Arguments for:

• Country B has an expanding economy. Suggests potential growth in student numbers. Also suggests Country B can afford to pay PU.
• Could enhance PU’s reputation further – already strong.
• PU receives a flat fee and a payment per student who completes a degree course.
• Country B will provide the campus and facilities.
• Country B will recruit staff, saving PU the trouble.
• PU maintains control over courses, syllabuses, training, monitoring.

Arguments against:

• Lots of areas PU has little control over: student numbers, quality of student and staff recruitment, facilities.
• Some aspects will involve more work for PU: market research, monitoring, approving degrees, training, providing syllabuses.
• Increased costs for PU. Do these match the returns?
• There are a lot of unknowns.
• Other major issues to contend with – falling student numbers, accident etc. Maybe PU should concentrate on core activities.

Accept any other relevant argument for or against.

Marks should be allocated according to the Paper 1 markbands for 2016 forward section B.

For a one-sided answer, award up to a maximum of [5].

Both sides considered, good use of evidence, particularly from Section B, but no effective conclusion/evaluation award a maximum of [8].

For full marks a fully supported conclusion/evaluation with good use of evidence, particularly from Section B.

Some definitions were very good, but some were so short and tautological ("performance-related pay means that workers are paid according to their performance") that candidates could not achieve 2 marks. Candidates have plenty of time to develop their answers and show their knowledge and understanding of the terms they are asked to define.

Many explanations were very good, but some candidates did not understand the topic of "working patterns" (and for example they wrote about performance-related pay, possibly because they just defined that term).

Again, many explanations were good, usually about surveys/questionnaires and interviews, though many candidates did not sufficiently develop their answers in the context of PU. When preparing Paper 1, candidates should be encouraged to develop their answers, rather than opting for a 'minimalist' approach.

Most candidates were able to structure balanced answers, with arguments for and against the opening of a new campus in country B. The best answers went beyond the case study, for example applying the Ansoff matrix (market development), commenting on international issues (different culture, possible different language), or evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of a joint venture with a foreign government. Examiners noted that, as always, some candidates unfortunately wrote one-sided answers starting with their chosen conclusion and then justifying it: "PU should do it for all the following reasons...." The final Q4(d) question, always worth 10 marks, requires synthesis and evaluation. Candidates are expected to make judgments based on arguments and counterarguments.