The internal assessment is a 50-hour design project. You identify an existing product, research the person who uses it, analyse where it fails them, then develop and present a redesigned solution supported by a physical model.
"The design project is an open-ended task in which a student must identify, analyse, evaluate and redesign an existing product to meet the needs of an intended user(s). As part of the project, students need to develop a physical fidelity model for testing and evaluation purposes."
Design technology guide, p. 67.
How to Read This Guide
Three different kinds of information appear on this page, and it matters that you can tell them apart.
- From the guide. Quoted directly from the IB guide, with a page reference. This is what you are actually assessed on.
- Mr. K's method. A way of meeting the requirement. Useful, tested, and not the only way. Every template on this page is my method.
- Mr. K's commentary. My opinion or judgment call, including things specific to our school and context.
Where this guide says "must", check which of the three it is coming from. If a requirement is not quoted with a page reference, treat it as advice rather than as a rule.
The Five Criteria
| Criterion | Name | Marks | What you produce |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Empathize | 9 | Primary persona, storyboard, and analysis of existing products |
| B | Define | 6 | Problem statement and product design specification |
| C | Ideation | 6 | Three feasible redesign ideas, evaluated against the specification |
| D | Design | 6 | Iterative fidelity models and formal design drawings |
| E | Present | 6 | The redesigned solution, compared with the existing product |
| Total | 33 | Maximum 35 A4 pages | |
Key Rules
Every rule below is stated in the guide. Page references are given so you can check them.
- Maximum 35 A4 pages. The examiner stops reading once the page or word limit is reached. (p. 66)
- Maximum 3,500 words, excluding annotations of 10 words or fewer. (p. 66)
- Annotations must be no more than 10 words each. Anything longer counts toward the word count. (p. 66)
- A4 portrait layout throughout, except the detailed dimension drawings in criterion D. (p. 66)
- You redesign an existing product. You do not invent a new one. (p. 67)
- You must develop a physical fidelity model for testing and evaluation. (p. 67)
- Required evidence includes digital images of your primary persona showing their issues with an existing product. (p. 73)
- Reference sources as footnotes on the page. Footnotes do not count toward the word count, and no separate references page is required. (p. 72)
- Appendices are not read by examiners. Anything critical to assessment must be in the body of the report. (pp. 66, 68)
- Annotations must be legible, preferably typed. Handwritten annotations must be equivalent to Arial 11pt, and black ink is recommended. (p. 66)
- Subject-specific vocabulary is rewarded across all of the assessment criteria. (p. 67)
The task is to redesign a product that already exists. Every criterion after A refers back to that product: criterion B defines the problem with it, criterion E compares your solution against it. A project that invents a new product instead of redesigning the one your research identified leaves criterion E with nothing to compare against, and the criteria have no way to reward it.
"The design project should demonstrate a level of complexity that aligns with the expectations of a Diploma Programme (DP) course."
"It is important to note that the selected product being redesigned should correspond to the complexity and appropriateness of the project. It is unlikely for a student to achieve higher bands on the assessment criteria by attempting to redesign a simple problem with an overly complex solution."
Design technology guide, p. 66.
Read that second quote carefully, because it cuts both ways. An ambitious solution bolted onto a trivial problem will not lift your marks. Neither will a genuinely complex problem addressed with something you could buy for five yuan. The problem and the solution need to be proportionate to each other, and both need to be worth a DP course. Come talk to me before you commit to a product.
Page and Word Budget
| Criterion | Grade marks | Approximate page count | Recommended word count |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion A: Empathize | 9 | 9 | 900 |
| Criterion B: Defining the project | 6 | 4 | 1,200 |
| Criterion C: Ideation and modelling | 6 | 8 | 900 |
| Criterion D: Designing a solution | 6 | 10 | 300 |
| Criterion E: Presenting a solution | 6 | 4 | 200 |
| Total | 33 | 35 | 3,500 |
Design technology guide, p. 72, table 4.
Criterion A gets nine pages and only 900 words. It is carried by images, storyboards and annotations, not by paragraphs. Criterion B gets four pages and 1,200 words, the largest word allocation on the project in the smallest page allocation. That is where sustained writing belongs. Criteria D and E together get fourteen pages and 500 words, so they are almost entirely drawings, photographs and annotations.
Students who write essays in A and bullet points in B are working against both allocations at once.
The guide describes the word count in two ways that pull against each other. On p. 72 it calls the count "a recommendation only, not a target" and says students and teachers have flexibility to allocate it based on assessment needs. On p. 66 it states that teachers must not award marks for work over the word or page limit, and that the examiner will stop reading once these limits are reached.
Treat the per-criterion figures as guidance for how to distribute your writing, and treat 3,500 words and 35 pages as hard ceilings.
Referencing
"Students must ensure their assessment work adheres to the IB's academic integrity policy and that all sources are appropriately referenced and presented on the page as a footnote. Footnote references do not count towards the word count. No additional references page is required."
Design technology guide, p. 72.
Footnotes are free. A bibliography page is not, because it consumes one of your 35 pages and the examiner does not need it. Reference on the page where you use the source.
Mr. K's Notes
Notes from Mr. K will appear here.
Empathize is the foundation of the project. You research a primary persona, analyse the specific task where an existing product fails them, and evaluate a range of existing products. Every later criterion refers back to what you establish here.
"This criterion assesses the student's ability to:
- analyse a primary persona appropriate to the redesign of the product
- present a storyboard based on the observations of a primary persona using a product for a specific task
- analyse existing products and the successes and weaknesses of key features."
Design technology guide, p. 72.
Three Strands
| Strand | What you produce | Pages |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Primary persona | An explanation of the persona's characteristics, context, preferences, motivations and requirements, evidenced with images of them using the existing product. | ~2 |
| 2. Storyboard | A visual task analysis of the persona using the product for a specific task, highlighting the issues they encounter. | ~3 |
| 3. Product analysis | Annotated images of product testing, across a typical range of four to six products. | ~4 |
Mark Scheme
| Mark | Strand |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1–3 | The student:
|
| 4–6 | The student:
|
| 7–9 | The student:
|
Design technology guide, pp. 72–73.
Read the three descriptors down the column rather than across. The content stays the same at every band. What changes is the verb.
- Persona: states, then describes, then explains. Explaining means giving the reasons behind the persona's needs, not more detail about them.
- Storyboard: a limited task analysis, then a task analysis, then a comprehensive task analysis. The unit being judged is the task analysis, not the drawing quality.
- Products: outlines a list of key features, then describes successes and weaknesses of some key features, then evaluates accurately across all key features.
That last one is the most common place marks are lost in this criterion. A list of features is a 1 to 3. Judging them is a 7 to 9.
Page allocationApproximately two A4 pages or the equivalent.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- a range of digital images of the primary persona displaying their issues with an existing product
- an explanation of the characteristics, context, preferences, motivations and requirements of the primary persona."
Design technology guide, p. 73.
Does the Persona Have to Be a Real Person?
The guide does not say. You will hear this claimed confidently in both directions, so it is worth knowing exactly what the source does and does not contain.
Pointing toward a composite. The glossary defines a primary persona as "a profile of the user for a product" that provides "a human face and story to a particular audience" (p. 68). The guide also states that the individual or group directly using a product "may also be categorized as a primary persona" (p. 69). A group cannot be one named individual.
Pointing toward a specific person. The required evidence above asks for digital images of the primary persona displaying their issues with an existing product. The storyboard strand is assessed on "the observations of a primary persona using a product" (p. 72). Both are difficult to produce for someone who does not exist.
Nothing in the internal assessment section requires the persona to be real, named, interviewed, or a single individual. Equally, nothing permits a persona invented from imagination, because that persona cannot supply the required images.
Work with an actual person you can photograph and observe using the product. Not because the guide names that as a requirement, but because the evidence it does require is hard to generate any other way.
Interviews, surveys and observations are listed as methods you may use (p. 69), so choose whichever produce the characteristics, context, preferences, motivations and requirements you need to explain. If your persona draws on several real users, say so and say which parts came from where. That is honest, it is defensible, and it still gives you a person to photograph.
"The student must research the primary persona's characteristics, context, preferences, motivations and requirements to gain insights into their needs. This research should include but is not limited to:
- demographic considerations such as age, education, ethnicity, access challenges, family status, and occupation
- abilities and skills
- behaviour patterns and attitudes
- goals, concerns, needs and opportunities
- the primary persona's physical, social and technological environment."
Design technology guide, p. 69.
Those five research areas and the five explanation points in the required evidence are your structure. Cover all of them. The template below arranges them in an order that reads well and leaves room for the images.
Mr. K's persona template
PRIMARY PERSONA: [Name] [A range of digital images: the persona using the existing product, showing the issues they encounter. This is required evidence.] CHARACTERISTICS - Age, occupation, education, family status: - Access challenges or relevant physical considerations: - Abilities and skills relevant to this product: CONTEXT - Physical environment: [Where is the product used?] - Social environment: [Who else is involved or affected?] - Technological environment: [What else do they use alongside it?] - Frequency and duration of use: PREFERENCES - Behaviour patterns and attitudes: - What they choose, and what they avoid, and why: MOTIVATIONS - Goals: [What are they trying to achieve?] - Concerns: [What worries them about the current situation?] - Why solving this matters to them: REQUIREMENTS - What the product must do for this person: - Needs and opportunities identified through research: - Specific difficulties with the existing product, tied to moments of use:
Anthropometric data, biomechanics and percentile ranges are not named anywhere in the internal assessment section of the guide, so do not let anyone tell you they are required here. I still want you collecting them.
The reason is p. 67: subject-specific vocabulary "is rewarded across all of the assessment criteria". A persona whose hand span you have measured against percentile data produces specification points in criterion B that you can actually test in criterion D. A persona described only in adjectives does not. Human factors are how a design technology student explains a requirement rather than asserting it.
Add these under CHARACTERISTICS and REQUIREMENTS where they are relevant to your product:
- Anthropometric data: relevant body dimensions and the percentile range you are designing for
- Biomechanical considerations: grip force, reach range, range of motion
- Ergonomic requirements: posture, repetitive strain risk, duration of use
While all the IB commissioned sample IA papers include a secondary persona, there is zero reference to "secondary personas" in the IA material. There is a reference to personae being created following primary and secondary research tucked into page 65 of the Teacher Support Materials document, but there is no discussion of primary vs. secondary. It is my opinion that the secondary personae in the sample IA documents is either a residual element from older papers or possibly a requirement that was provided when creating the samples but later removed from the curriculum. As a result, I'm instructing my students to only create a primary persona, and would encourage other teachers to do the same.
- No digital images of the persona showing their issues with the existing product. This is required evidence, and its absence caps the strand.
- The persona is described rather than explained. Description is the middle band. Explanation means giving the reasons behind the needs.
- One or more of characteristics, context, preferences, motivations and requirements is missing. All five are named in the required evidence.
- Frustrations are vague ("it is uncomfortable") rather than tied to a specific moment of product use.
- No link between the persona's requirements and the design of the existing product.
- The persona runs past two pages, squeezing the storyboard and product analysis.
Page allocationApproximately three A4 pages or the equivalent.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- a storyboard for the chosen primary persona that highlights the issues of using a product."
"Note that:
- extended writing to address this strand should not be included."
Design technology guide, p. 73.
This is the instruction students most often miss. Three pages of storyboard with paragraphs of explanation underneath is the wrong shape. Communicate visually, with short annotations. Your 900 words for criterion A are needed elsewhere.
The Storyboard Is a Task Analysis
"Task analysis: A strategy used to develop empathy and understanding of how users perform a task to achieve their intended goal."
Design technology guide, p. 68.
Every band descriptor for this strand judges the task analysis: limited, then satisfactory, then comprehensive. The drawing is the medium. The task analysis is the assessed content. Criterion B then requires a problem statement "informed through the task analysis", so this strand is also where your next criterion comes from.
"Storyboards are created as a result of the student's qualitative and quantitative research into the primary persona or intended user(s). They are used to communicate visually the sequential stages of the intended user(s) completing a task analysis with an identified product and the challenges they encounter. A storyboard can help students map out opportunities to redesign a product to provide a solution."
Design technology guide, p. 69.
Pick one task, not one day. "Braking while carrying a bag" is a task. "A morning commute" is a lifestyle. The narrower the task, the more comprehensive your analysis of it can be inside three pages.
Break the task into its sequential stages, one frame per stage, and let the frames run all the way through to the point of failure and its consequence. Annotate each frame with what the persona is doing and what the issue is. Keep every annotation to 10 words or fewer so none of it touches your word count.
Mr. K's storyboard structure
STORYBOARD: [Name of the single task] Persona: [Name] Existing product: [Product name] Visual sequence, one frame per stage of the task. Annotations only. No paragraphs. 10 words or fewer per annotation. FRAME 1 [Image] Annotation: [Action at this stage] FRAME 2 [Image] Annotation: [Action, and the issue emerging] FRAME 3 [Image] Annotation: [The point of failure] FRAME 4 [Image] Annotation: [Consequence for the persona] FRAME 5 [Image] Annotation: [What they do instead, or give up on] FRAME 6 [Image] Annotation: [End state of the task] Optional final frame: - A short annotated summary of the opportunity this reveals. - Keep it to annotations. This strand takes no extended writing.
- Extended writing included, which the guide explicitly says to leave out.
- A general story about the persona's life rather than a sequential analysis of one task.
- Frames show what happens but never indicate the issue, so no task analysis is visible to assess.
- The task is too broad to analyse comprehensively in three pages.
- The storyboard is not linked to the task analysis that criterion B then depends on.
- Images with no annotations at all.
Page allocationApproximately four A4 pages or the equivalent.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- annotated images (see "Features of the design project" section) of the product testing. A typical range should be between four to six products."
Design technology guide, p. 73.
"Students should conduct functional analysis of existing, similar products. In cases where a product is not available for testing and analysis, a digital product may be used, excluding the user interface (UI) and user experience (UX). This analysis enables students to scrutinize what makes existing product designs a success or failure."
"A student may make a comparative model that includes:
- the success of a range of products' form and functionality
- materials and components
- aesthetics and ergonomic features
- manufacturing and construction techniques
- environmental and safety considerations."
Design technology guide, p. 69.
The required evidence is annotated images of product testing, not of products. Wherever you can, get the product in your hands and test it against the task from your storyboard. The guide only permits a digital product when one is not available for testing, and even then the UI and UX are excluded.
For products you cannot get hold of, I'm strongly encouraging my students to use retailers and product information relevant to them. In practice this means Taobao and JD.com rather than Amazon, Shopee, eBay, or any other site not operating inside China. Use local currency, metric measurements, and products that are actually available to you.
This is more work on the front end because it requires moving beyond a quick Google search, and it is far better for comparison and for understanding how features are marketed. It also has a practical benefit for this strand: a product you can order is a product you can test, and testing is what the required evidence asks for.
Capture UX Here
Criterion B requires design specifications with reference to research, specifically "UI and UX derived from existing product analysis in the empathize phase" (p. 74). That analysis happens in this strand. If you do not record user experience observations while testing these products, criterion B has nothing to draw on.
Mr. K's product analysis template
PRODUCT ANALYSIS [#] of [4 to 6] Product name: Manufacturer: Price and availability: Source: [Annotated images of the product being tested. 10 words per annotation.] TESTING - Task tested: [Use the task from your storyboard] - Method: [How did you test it? What did you measure or observe?] - Result: FORM AND FUNCTIONALITY - Primary function, and how well it is achieved: - Key features, and whether each succeeds or fails: MATERIALS AND COMPONENTS - Materials used and their apparent rationale: - Durability, weight, safety: AESTHETICS AND ERGONOMIC FEATURES - Visual language, colour, finish: - How the design relates to the user's body: - Relevant dimensions and percentile fit: MANUFACTURING AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES - How it appears to be made, and what that allows or prevents: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS - Lifespan, repairability, end of life: - Hazards or risks in use: USER EXPERIENCE (carry this into criterion B) - What using it feels like, in the persona's context: - Where the experience breaks down: EVALUATION - Successes: [Which key features work, and why] - Weaknesses: [Which key features fail, and why] - What this means for my redesign:
Cover all key features of each product, because the top band says all. Work through the same headings for every product in the same order so the comparison is easy to follow and easy to mark. Finish each analysis with a judgment, not a summary. The verb in the top band is "evaluates".
- Fewer than four products analysed, when the guide gives a typical range of four to six.
- Products described rather than evaluated. Description sits in the middle band.
- Only some key features are judged, when the top band asks for all of them.
- Images of products rather than annotated images of product testing.
- Weak choice of products, especially where obvious comparators are skipped.
- Inconsistent details between products, such as metric for one and imperial for another, or prices from different markets.
- No link between the products analysed and the persona's requirements.
- No user experience observations recorded, leaving criterion B without the UX evidence it requires.
Criterion B turns your research into a defined project. It has two parts: a problem statement drawn from the task analysis, and a design specification whose requirements refer back to what your research found. This is the smallest page allocation on the project and the largest word allocation.
"This criterion assesses the student's ability to:
- produce a problem statement that identifies opportunities for the redesign of the product through the task analysis
- produce product design specifications with reference to research (UI and UX derived from existing product analysis in the empathize phase)."
Design technology guide, p. 74.
Two Strands
| Strand | What you produce | Pages |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Problem statement | The current situation, the current problem, and a summary of the research that shows the problem is the right one. | ~1 |
| 2. Design specification | Essential and desirable requirements, each explained with reference to the research. | ~3 |
Mark Scheme
| Mark | Strand |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1–2 | The student:
|
| 3–4 | The student:
|
| 5–6 | The student:
|
Design technology guide, p. 74.
- Problem statement: presents, then describes, then explains. Alongside that, the opportunities go from limited, to some, to key, and the link to the task analysis goes from superficial to informed through it.
- Specification: the requirements are stated, then outlined, then explained. The reference to research goes from limited, to relevant, to relevant and detailed.
Both strands land on the same two ideas: explain rather than assert, and show the research behind each claim. The phrase "informed through the task analysis" appears in the two upper bands. If your problem statement does not visibly come out of your storyboard, you are capped at the bottom band no matter how well written it is.
Page allocationApproximately one A4 page or the equivalent.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- a problem statement, which includes:
- the current situation
- the current problem
- a summary of research that informs the appropriateness of the problem."
Design technology guide, p. 74.
"Students should produce a concise problem statement that sets the direction of the design project intentions. The problem statement should incorporate the intended persona's user needs for the chosen product and students should be open to refining the problem statement based on new insights, feedback and challenges."
Design technology guide, p. 70.
Three components, all required, on roughly one page. The third is the one most often left out: a summary of the research that shows this is the right problem to be solving. Without it there is nothing for the examiner to judge "appropriateness" against.
Note also that the guide expects the statement to be refined as the project develops. It is not a commitment you make once in September and never revisit.
Mr. K's problem statement template
PROBLEM STATEMENT THE CURRENT SITUATION [Persona name], a [user in one phrase], currently uses [existing product] to [task from your storyboard]. They do this [frequency] in [context of use]. [What the situation is now, before any judgment about it.] THE CURRENT PROBLEM [Existing product] fails to [specific limitation], which means [persona name] cannot [goal from the persona] without [difficulty or consequence]. [Reference the specific stage of the task analysis where this occurs.] SUMMARY OF RESEARCH INFORMING THE PROBLEM - From the persona: [Requirement or motivation that makes this problem matter] - From the task analysis: [The stage where the product fails, and its effect] - From the product analysis: [Which existing products fail this need, and how] - Why this is the appropriate problem to address: OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDESIGN - [Key opportunity 1, traced to a stage of the task analysis] - [Key opportunity 2, traced to a stage of the task analysis] - [Key opportunity 3, traced to a stage of the task analysis]
Write the opportunities as a short list at the end. The descriptors judge whether your statement identifies opportunities and whether they are informed through the task analysis, so making them explicit and traceable does you a favour. Naming the storyboard frame each one comes from takes four words and settles the question.
- The summary of research is missing, so the appropriateness of the problem is unevidenced.
- The link to the task analysis is superficial, which is the wording of the bottom band.
- The statement describes a large social issue rather than the situation and problem for this persona and this product.
- The existing product is not named.
- No opportunities for redesign are identified, only a complaint about the product.
- The statement is never revisited, even after later research changes what you know.
Page allocationApproximately three A4 pages or the equivalent.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- a design specification that captures both essential and desirable requirements, ensuring that the redesigned product meets the needs of the intended user."
Design technology guide, p. 74.
"A design specification is generated from research data through a comprehensive investigation of the design opportunity and through the formulation of the problem statement. Students should prioritize the design's essential and desirable specifications, and these should be justified with references to sources."
"The design specification for the solution must include UX derived from product analysis and the empathize phase. Additionally, it should encompass aspects of the design dependent on their suitability for the product and their design context. The following should be considered as part of the design specification process.
- Attributes: Desired qualities or characteristics
- Components: Individual parts or elements
- Constraints: Limitations or restrictions
- Environment: Context or surroundings
- Functions: Intended operations or actions
- User needs: Specific functionality, usability and performance requirements
- Safety: Avoiding potential hazards, harm or injury, and legal requirements
- Aesthetics: Visual appeal, colour, shape, texture and style
- Manufacture requirements: Material selection, production techniques and assembly requirements"
"This list is not prescriptive or exhaustive."
Design technology guide, p. 70.
The difference between the bottom and top bands of this strand is the phrase "with limited reference to the research" against "with relevant and detailed reference to the research". A specification point you cannot trace to something in criterion A is not evidence of research, whatever else it is. If you cannot find its source, either go and do the research or take the point out.
Two things I add that the guide does not require.
First, a source column. The descriptors ask for reference to the research, and a column naming the persona, storyboard frame or product analysis behind each point makes that reference impossible to miss.
Second, measurable targets wherever a requirement can carry one. "Comfortable" cannot be tested in criterion D. "Handle diameter 32 to 38mm" can. The guide does not use the word measurable, so this is my advice rather than a rule, but a specification you cannot test is a specification that gives you nothing to do in criteria C, D and E.
Mr. K's design specification table
DESIGN SPECIFICATION Group your points under the guide's categories, using the ones that apply to your product: attributes, components, constraints, environment, functions, user needs, safety, aesthetics, manufacture requirements. UX is required. # | Category | Requirement | Explanation, with reference to research | Source | Priority --|----------|-------------|------------------------------------------|--------|--------- 1 | User needs | [What the product must do or be, with a target where possible] | [What the research showed, and why this requirement follows from it] | [Persona / Storyboard frame / Product #] | Essential 2 | Attributes | Handle diameter 32 to 38mm | Persona hand breadth measured at 78mm, 50th percentile. Product 1 handle is 28mm, below the 5th percentile, and the persona reported grip fatigue after ten minutes. | Persona + Product 1 | Essential 3 | Functions | Operable with one hand only | Task analysis frames 3 and 4: the persona's other hand is holding the frame throughout this stage. | Storyboard, frames 3 to 4 | Essential 4 | UX | [What using it should feel like, and at which stage of the task] | [Drawn from testing existing products in the empathize phase] | Product analysis | Essential 5 | Aesthetics | [Requirement] | [Evidence] | [Source] | Desirable Essential: the design fails if this is not met. Desirable: the design is improved by this, but its absence is not a failure.
- Requirements are stated rather than explained, which is the bottom band.
- No reference to the research behind each requirement.
- No UX requirements, when the guide states the specification must include UX derived from product analysis and the empathize phase.
- Points that cannot be traced to anything in criterion A, often aesthetics or cost assumptions carried in from outside the project.
- Everything marked essential, when the guide asks you to prioritize essential and desirable.
- Requirements phrased so loosely that criteria C, D and E cannot test against them.
- The specification is written and then never used again.
Present three feasible redesign ideas, then evaluate them against your specification through testing and user feedback and identify the one you are taking forward. The second strand ends in an annotated presentation drawing of that chosen idea.
"This criterion assesses the student's ability to:
- present a range of annotated, feasible redesign ideas using an appropriate medium(s) to address the problem statement, which can be interpreted by others
- evaluate the redesign ideas against the design specifications through testing and user feedback."
Design technology guide, p. 74.
Two Strands
| Strand | What you produce | Pages |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Present feasible redesign ideas | Three ideas communicated through sketches, drawings, CAD, images and fidelity models, at one to two pages each. | ~6 |
| 2. Identify the redesign ideas | An annotated presentation drawing of the chosen idea, tested against the specification and user feedback. | ~2 |
Mark Scheme
| Mark | Strand |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1–2 | The student:
|
| 3–4 | The student:
|
| 5–6 | The student:
|
Design technology guide, pp. 74–75.
The first strand has a hard gate before any of the quality language applies. Fewer than three ideas is the bottom band. Not a deduction, the band itself. Three ideas is the entry price for 3 to 4 and above, and above that the difference is whether the ideas address some key features or all of them.
The second strand is a verb ladder again: states, then describes, then evaluates the difference between the ideas against the specifications. Note what all three bands hold constant: through testing and user feedback. An evaluation done at your desk with no testing and nobody consulted does not reach any band cleanly.
Page allocationApproximately six A4 pages or the equivalent, at one to two pages per idea.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- a range of feasible ideas communicated using sketches/drawings/CAD/images and fidelity models (one to two A4 pages per idea)
- the highlighting of additional research and/or feedback enabling iterative development of ideas
- annotations (see "Features of the design project" section).
Design technology guide, p. 75.
"Students should use appropriate informal or formal sketches or drawings and digital or physical fidelity modelling to communicate their ideas visually. As the ideas are developed and refined, their feasibility is determined against the design specifications, which help determine the appropriate aspects of each idea."
"The process of sketching or drawing design ideas involves an informal or formal approach that must address the key opportunities identified through the exploration of the persona and the task analysis."
Design technology guide, p. 70.
Note the second required evidence point, which is easy to overlook. This strand is not a gallery of three finished concepts. It should show additional research and feedback feeding back into the ideas as they develop. Sketch, get a reaction, change something, show the change.
Make the three ideas genuinely different from one another: different mechanism, configuration, material or interaction, rather than the same object in three colours. The guide asks for "three of the best possible" ideas and for a diverse set, and three variations on one concept gives your evaluation nothing to compare.
Address all key features in each idea, because the top band asks for all of them. Annotate every drawing at 10 words or fewer so the annotations stay outside your word count.
Mr. K's idea presentation template
DESIGN IDEA [#]: [Descriptive name] [1 to 2 A4 pages] [Annotated sketches, drawings, CAD or images. Photograph any quick fidelity models. 10 words per annotation.] CONCEPT - [How this approach works, and how it differs from the other two] KEY FEATURES - Feature 1: [Annotated on the drawing] - Feature 2: [Annotated on the drawing] - Feature 3: [Cover all key features, which the top band requires] OPPORTUNITIES ADDRESSED - [Which key opportunity from the problem statement this answers] - [Which stage of the task analysis it targets] MATERIALS AND FEASIBILITY - Proposed materials, and why: - Can this be made within your constraints? Risks? ITERATIVE DEVELOPMENT (required evidence) - Additional research carried out on this idea: - Feedback received, and from whom: - What changed as a result: [Show the before and after on the page]
- Fewer than three ideas, which places the strand in the bottom band regardless of quality.
- Three variations on one concept, leaving nothing meaningful to evaluate.
- Only some key features addressed, when the top band asks for all.
- No evidence of additional research or feedback developing the ideas, which is required evidence.
- Drawings without annotations, so the ideas cannot be interpreted by others.
- Ideas that drift away from the existing product and become new inventions.
- Ideas that do not trace back to the problem statement or the task analysis.
Page allocationApproximately two A4 pages or the equivalent.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- an annotated presentation drawing of the feasible redesign idea tested against design specifications and user feedback."
Design technology guide, p. 75.
This strand ends in an annotated presentation drawing of the idea you are taking forward. A written evaluation, a scoring table, or a paragraph explaining your choice does not satisfy the required evidence on its own. Whatever method you use to reach the decision, the two pages must show the selected idea drawn and annotated, with its testing against the specification and the user feedback visible.
"Selecting the most appropriate idea should be validated against the performance and user requirements. To determine feasibility, the ideas are evaluated and tested based on the design specifications and feedback from intended user(s). This evaluation helps identify the most suitable idea that should be further developed in the next stage of the design process."
Design technology guide, p. 71.
A matrix is not required by the guide. I use one because the strand descriptor asks you to evaluate the ideas against the design specifications through testing and user feedback, and a matrix makes that evaluation visible in very little space, which matters when the whole strand is two pages.
Run the matrix first, then draw the winner. Keep the matrix compact so most of the two pages goes to the presentation drawing, which is the part that is actually required.
Mr. K's evaluation matrix
EVALUATION MATRIX Key: OK = meets specification ~ = partially meets X = does not meet Spec # | Specification (abbreviated) | Idea 1 | Idea 2 | Idea 3 | Tested how? -------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|------------ 1 | [e.g. One-hand operation] | OK | OK | X | [Test method] 2 | [e.g. Handle 32 to 38mm] | OK | ~ | OK | [Measured] 3 | [Spec point] | | | | [User feedback] ... | [Continue for all points] | | | | USER FEEDBACK - Who was consulted: [Persona name, and anyone else] - What was tested with them, and how: - What they said about each idea: SELECTION Selected: Idea [#], [Name] Why, using the evaluation evidence above: THEN, ON THE SAME OR FOLLOWING PAGE: [Annotated presentation drawing of the selected idea. Required evidence. Annotate the key features, the specification points each one answers, and the changes made in response to testing and user feedback.]
- No annotated presentation drawing of the selected idea, which is the required evidence for this strand.
- Evaluation based on preference rather than on the design specifications.
- No testing and no user feedback, both of which appear in every band of this strand.
- The differences between ideas are stated rather than evaluated, which is the bottom band.
- Not all specification points are considered.
- No clear statement of which idea was selected.
- The selected idea contradicts the evaluation without explanation.
Criterion D is your development process. You build fidelity models, test them with the intended user against the design specifications, refine, and repeat. Then you produce formal drawings that would let a third-party manufacturer make the thing. Ten pages and only 300 words, so this criterion is almost entirely visual.
"This criterion assesses the student's ability to:
- develop and annotate iterative fidelity models through multiple testing and refinement cycles to arrive at the intended redesigned solution that addresses the problem statement, design specifications and needs of the intended user
- design drawings of the intended design solution and its components that aid communication and visualization to a third-party manufacturer."
Design technology guide, p. 75.
Two Strands
| Strand | What you produce | Pages |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Develop fidelity models | Multiple testing and refinement cycles, with intended user testing against the design specifications. | ~6 |
| 2. Design drawings | Formal assembled, exploded and orthographic annotated drawings with dimensions, proportions and assembly. | ~4 |
Mark Scheme
| Mark | Strand |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1–2 | The student:
|
| 3–4 | The student:
|
| 5–6 | The student:
|
Design technology guide, pp. 75–76.
- Fidelity models: the model partially, then satisfactorily, then thoroughly addresses the problem statement. The testing goes from limited, to outlined, to evaluated against all of the design specifications.
- Drawings: limited, then adequate, then comprehensive detail.
The word "all" in the top band is doing real work. Testing three specification points thoroughly will not reach 5 to 6 if your specification has twelve. This is the moment your criterion B decisions come back to you: a specification full of untestable wishes makes this band unreachable.
Page allocationApproximately six A4 pages or the equivalent.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- annotated drawings (visual representations such as informal or formal design drawing or sketches, photos of physical models, or CAD) of the multiple testing and refinement cycle through intended user testing to align with the requirements stated in the design specifications. Annotations must not be more than 10 words each. Any annotation more than 10 words will be considered as counting towards the word count.
Design technology guide, p. 76.
The guide states that as part of the project, students need to develop a physical fidelity model for testing and evaluation purposes (p. 67). Digital modelling is permitted and useful within the development cycle, and it does not replace the physical model.
"Students should employ a range of modelling and testing strategies to develop and refine their idea, ensuring the product meets the design specification requirements and intended users' needs. Low-fidelity models serve as proof of concept and may test only single or few aspects."
"In contrast, high-fidelity models can be tested against multiple aspects of the design specifications, offering a more comprehensive evaluation of the selected idea with end-user feedback to aid the development stages towards a solution."
"The student is expected to repeat multiple model, test, refine cycles to arrive at a solution that addresses the initial design problem, design brief and specifications."
Design technology guide, p. 71.
Document each cycle in the same short structure: what you built, which specification points you tested, how you tested them, what the result was, and what you changed as a consequence. Repeating one structure makes the cycle legible at a glance and keeps you inside 300 words for the whole criterion.
Test with the intended user, not only with yourself. Every band of this strand refers to the needs of the intended user, and the required evidence names intended user testing directly. Record results as measurements or quotes rather than impressions.
Mr. K's iteration log template
ITERATIVE DEVELOPMENT Keep every annotation to 10 words or fewer. MODEL 1: [Name, e.g. low-fidelity foam model] [Photograph of the physical model, annotated] - Fidelity and method: - Spec points tested: [List the numbers from criterion B] - Tested with: [Intended user? How?] - Result: [Measurements or a direct quote] - Change for the next model, and why: MODEL 2: [Name, e.g. revised grip, 3D printed] [Photograph, annotated] - Fidelity and method: - Spec points tested: - Tested with: - Result: - Change for the next model, and why: MODEL 3: [Higher fidelity, tested against multiple spec points] [Photograph, annotated] - Spec points tested: - Tested with: - Result: - Change for the next model, and why: FINAL MODEL [Photograph, annotated] - Every specification point, tested: [Cover all of them, which the top band requires] - Outstanding gaps, and what you would change with more time:
- No physical fidelity model, when the guide requires one.
- One finished model with no evidence of earlier, rougher versions.
- Models shown but no testing results, so no cycle is visible.
- Testing against a few specification points only, when the top band asks for all of them.
- No intended user involved in testing.
- Changes between models not explained, so two models look like two objects rather than one development.
- Annotations over 10 words, quietly eating a word budget of only 300 for this criterion.
Page allocationApproximately four A4 pages or the equivalent, at one to two images per page.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- formal design drawings used to represent the completed redesigned solution
- a range of formal assembled, exploded and orthographic annotated drawings, including dimensions, proportions and assembly of the solution and its components, are there to aid communication and visualization to a third-party manufacturer.
"Note that:
- there should be approximately one to two images per page
- there should be annotations."
Design technology guide, p. 76.
Three drawing types are named, and all three are expected:
- Orthographic, with dimensions and proportions
- Assembled, showing the complete product
- Exploded, showing the components and how they go together
These must be formal drawings. The informal sketching allowed in the modelling strand does not carry over here. This is also the one place A4 portrait is relaxed: the guide permits another orientation for the detailed dimension drawings in criterion D (p. 66).
"Formal design drawings should be produced to represent the design solution. These should include assembled, exploded and orthographic details, including components, intended to communicate the drawings accurately to a third-party manufacturer."
Design technology guide, p. 71.
A bill of materials is not mentioned anywhere in the guide, so treat it as optional. I ask for one because the test in this strand is whether a third-party manufacturer could build your design from what you have given them, and a parts table answers questions your drawings cannot: what each component is made of, how many are needed, and how each is produced.
If you include one, number the parts to match your exploded view. If you are short on pages, the drawings come first.
Mr. K's bill of materials template
BILL OF MATERIALS Part numbers match the exploded view. Part # | Part name | Material | Qty | Dimensions | Process | Notes -------|-----------|----------|-----|------------|---------|------ 1 | [Name] | [Material] | 1 | [L x W x H] | [e.g. FDM print] | [Source, cost] 2 | [Name] | [Material] | [Qty] | [Size] | [Process] | [Notes] 3 | [Name] | [Material] | [Qty] | [Size] | [Process] | [Notes]
- Drawings without dimensions or proportions, both named in the required evidence.
- A perspective render only, with no orthographic views.
- No exploded view, so component relationships and assembly are never communicated.
- Informal sketches used where formal drawings are required.
- No annotations on the drawings.
- More than one or two images per page, making dimensions unreadable once scanned.
- Drawings that show a different design from the one developed in the modelling strand.
Present the redesigned solution with its key features annotated, then show how it compares with the existing product you started from and how it addresses the problems you identified. Four pages and 200 words, so this is annotation work, not an essay.
"This criterion assesses the student's ability to:
- present the intended redesign solution and annotate the key features
- present how the application of the redesigned solution compares with the existing product and how it addresses the identified problems."
Design technology guide, p. 76.
Two Strands
| Strand | What you produce | Pages |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Present the solution | The redesigned product with its key features annotated, presented as though to a third-party manufacturer. | 2 |
| 2. Improvement on the existing product | A description of how your solution compares with the original product identified at the start of the project. | 2 |
Mark Scheme
| Mark | Strand |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1–2 | The student:
|
| 3–4 | The student:
|
| 5–6 | The student:
|
Design technology guide, pp. 76–77.
The first strand moves on annotation quality alone: limited, then adequate, then comprehensive annotations of the key features. The drawings or photographs are assumed. The annotations are what is marked.
The second strand moves on the identified problems. At 1 to 2 you compare. At 3 to 4 you compare and address some of the identified problems. At 5 to 6 you compare and comprehensively address them. "Identified problems" means the ones from your problem statement and task analysis, so this criterion is only as strong as criterion B was specific.
Page allocationTwo A4 pages or the equivalent, at two to three images per page.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- the redesigned annotated product and the key features. Annotations must not be more than 10 words each. Any annotation more than 10 words will be considered as counting towards the word count
- approximately two to three images per page.
"Note the following.
- The student is required to present the intended solution as though to a third-party manufacturer, using appropriate visual communication methods that can be created by hand or CAD. This should showcase the product's features and may include perspective, exploded, assembly, orthographic, net development, cutaway views, and FEA, etc.
- The presentation itself (style of delivery, medium used) is not formally assessed."
Design technology guide, p. 77.
There is a real presentation in this stage, and you choose its form. The guide says the student may present digitally, as a slide show, verbally, online or in whatever suits their context, and that the student decides who the audience should be: the teacher, peers, or members of the wider community (p. 71). None of that is formally assessed. What is assessed is the two pages of annotated evidence that go into your report.
Two to three images per page, every key feature annotated, and each annotation naming the specification point it satisfies. Ten words is enough for "Textured grip, 35mm diameter, meets spec 2" and that annotation does two jobs at once.
Comprehensive means every key feature, not just the interesting ones. Work around the product systematically so nothing is skipped.
Mr. K's final design structure
THE REDESIGNED SOLUTION: [Product name] [Two to three images per page. Photographs of the physical model, renders, or formal views. Presented as though to a manufacturer. Views may include perspective, exploded, assembly, orthographic, net development, cutaway, or FEA.] ANNOTATED KEY FEATURES (10 words maximum each) A - [Feature]: what it does, and the spec point it meets B - [Feature]: what it does, and the spec point it meets C - [Feature]: what it does, and the spec point it meets D - [Material]: material and reason E - [Dimension]: key measurement [Continue until every key feature is annotated. Comprehensive means all.] Keep any longer explanation out of this strand. Criterion E has 200 words in total across both strands.
- Attractive renders with few or no annotations. The annotations are what the band descriptors judge.
- Only some key features annotated, when the top band asks for comprehensive coverage.
- Annotations naming a feature without saying what it does or which requirement it meets.
- Annotations over 10 words, spending a 200 word budget on captions.
- Too many images per page, against the two to three the guide suggests.
- Features or materials appearing here that were never developed or tested in criterion D.
Page allocationTwo A4 pages or the equivalent.
"The required evidence for this strand is:
- a description of how the student's solution compares with the original product that was identified at the start of the project for redesign."
Design technology guide, p. 77.
"The student should demonstrate:
- how the solution is an improvement on the existing product
- how the solution is intended to be used by the user(s)
- how the solution is better suited to the needs of the intended user(s)."
Design technology guide, p. 72.
The comparison is with the specific product identified at the start of the project for redesign, the one your persona uses and your storyboard analyses. Not the market in general, and not an idealised version of the problem. If your project has drifted so far that the original product is no longer a meaningful comparison, that drift will surface here.
Three things to demonstrate, and the middle one is the most often skipped. Showing how the solution is intended to be used takes you back to the task from your storyboard and shows the same task performed with your redesign.
Side-by-side images and a comparison table are my way of covering all three points in two pages with 200 words. Neither is required. What they buy you is density: a table row can carry a requirement, the original's performance, your solution's performance, and the evidence, in less than a sentence of prose.
Be honest about the requirements you did not fully meet. Nothing in the descriptors penalises an unmet specification point that you acknowledge, and the top band asks you to address the identified problems comprehensively, which includes the ones still outstanding.
Mr. K's comparison structure
COMPARISON WITH THE ORIGINAL PRODUCT [Side by side images: original product and redesigned solution. Annotated, 10 words maximum each.] 1. HOW THE SOLUTION IMPROVES ON THE EXISTING PRODUCT Requirement | Original product | Redesigned solution | Evidence ------------|------------------|---------------------|---------- [Spec 1] | [Performance] | [Performance] | [Test result] [Spec 2] | [Performance] | [Performance] | [Measurement] [Spec 3] | [Performance] | [Partially met: explain] | [Test result] 2. HOW THE SOLUTION IS INTENDED TO BE USED [Images of the persona performing the task from your storyboard, using the redesign. Annotate the stages that previously failed.] 3. HOW IT IS BETTER SUITED TO THE NEEDS OF THE INTENDED USER - Identified problem 1: [How the redesign addresses it] - Identified problem 2: [How the redesign addresses it] - Identified problem 3: [How the redesign addresses it] - Still outstanding: [What remains, and what you would change] USER RESPONSE - [Persona name] testing both products on the same task: - Original result: Redesign result:
- No comparison with the original product, which caps this strand immediately.
- The redesign is described on its own terms rather than set against the original.
- Only some identified problems are addressed, when the top band asks for comprehensive coverage.
- How the solution is intended to be used is never shown.
- The identified problems here do not match the ones in the problem statement.
- Unmet requirements are hidden rather than acknowledged.
- Two pages of prose, against a 200 word budget for the whole criterion.
Useful links, references, and resources to support your IA. This section is updated over time, so check back regularly.
Useful Links
Notes from Mr. K
This space is for additional guidance that does not fit neatly into one criterion: common questions, exam session reminders, or clarifications on the guide above.
More content coming. If you have a question that should be answered here, ask in class.
Related course topics
- Which aspects of ergonomics are vital to establish when analysing the usability of products? (A1.1)
- Which user-centred research methods will produce the evidence criterion A asks for? (A2.1)
- Which prototyping techniques suit each stage of the model, test, refine cycle? (A2.2)
- How does the design process map onto the five assessment criteria? (B2.1)
- How do modelling and prototyping decisions affect what you can test? (B2.2)
- How is product analysis conducted, and what should it produce? (C3.1)