IB MYP Design – Criterion A – Inquiring and analysing Revision Notes

These are condensed revision notes for Criterion A – Inquiring and analysing in IB MYP Design. For full explanations and two complete worked examples, read the Criterion A study guide first.

The notes are aligned to the International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014, and suit MYP years 4 and 5 (no SL/HL split). They apply to school design projects and to the design ePortfolio for MYP eAssessment. MYP has no prescribed content list – schools design their own units – and this page covers a skill named by one of the brief’s four assessment criteria. Your teacher will share the exact strand wording and task-specific clarifications.

Also useful: Criterion A practice questions, course hub, printable checklist, criteria in practice notes, design cycle notes.

Facts from the brief

• Criterion A is one of four equally weighted criteria: A Inquiring and analysing, B Developing ideas, C Creating the solution, D Evaluating.
• Each criterion has eight achievement levels (1-8), divided into four bands.
• In Criterion A you are given a design situation, identify a problem to solve, analyse the need for a solution and inquire into the nature of the problem.
• The ePortfolio is a design project presented as a complete design folder that contains a design brief and specification.
• Design courses are assessed as product design, digital design, or combined digital and product design.
• Your teacher marks the ePortfolio against the published year 5 criteria; the IB moderates a sample from each school.

Key definitions

Term	Meaning
Design situation	The starting scenario you are given; broader than a problem
Problem	One specific difficulty, faced by a named client or audience, that a design could solve
Client	A specific person or organisation you design for and can consult
Target audience	The wider group who will use the solution
Need	What the client lacks, shown by evidence
Primary research	Information you collect first-hand for this project
Secondary research	Information already collected or published by someone else
Existing product analysis	Judging products that already tackle the problem, and drawing out ideas
Design brief	A short summary of your analysis of the research that states what is needed and why

Primary and secondary methods

Primary	Secondary
Client interview	Books, articles, reference websites
Questionnaire of the target audience	Product reviews and retailer listings
Observation (timed, counted, photographed)	Published data tables, e.g. body sizes
Your own measurements	Safety or accessibility guidance
Hands-on testing of an existing product	Public pages of existing apps and websites

Quantitative data are numbers (times, counts, masses). Qualitative data are descriptions and opinions (interview comments). Strong inquiry uses both.

Method in steps

Justify the need

1. Name the client and target audience precisely.
2. State the problem: what, when, where.
3. Give evidence with sample sizes: “9 of 12 coaches (75%)”.
4. Give the consequence of leaving it unsolved.
5. Say why existing solutions leave a gap for this client.

Plan the research

1. Write research questions (“What must be carried?”), not just methods.
2. Label each primary or secondary.
3. Choose a method or source for each.
4. Say what each answer will decide.
5. Order them by priority: the answers that change the design most come first.

Analyse existing products

1. Choose 3 or so products relevant to your client, not just famous ones.
2. For each: strengths, weaknesses for your client, idea to adapt.
3. Use a prompt such as ACCESS FM (aesthetics, cost, customer, environment, size, safety, function, materials) only where the headings matter.
4. Write a conclusion: what to adapt, what to avoid.

Write the design brief

1. Client or target audience.
2. Problem and key evidence.
3. Main findings from research and product analysis.
4. Design goal; product, digital or both.
5. Known limits (budget, place of use).

Worked reminders

• Survey percentage: 18 of 24 users said the current app was confusing. 18 ÷ 24 × 100 = 75%. Write “18 of 24 (75%)”.
• Observation mean: search times of 14, 9, 22 and 11 s. Mean = 56 ÷ 4 = 14 s; range = 22 − 9 = 13 s. Report both; a large range shows users differ.
• Value comparison: a charging rack costs £96 for 12 devices, so £8 per device. Cost per unit of function compares products fairly.

Must-know distinctions

• Explain vs justify: explain says what the need is; justify gives evidence that it is worth solving.
• Client vs target audience: one person or organisation you consult vs the wider user group.
• Need vs want: a need is backed by evidence of a problem; a want is a preference (a favourite colour).
• Primary vs secondary: who collected it, not where you found it. Your own online questionnaire is primary; a published online survey is secondary.
• Describe vs analyse (products): describing lists features; analysing says what they mean for your client.
• Design brief vs specification: the brief states what and why (Criterion A); the specification sets measurable requirements (Criterion B).
• Problem vs solution: Criterion A ends with a brief. Deciding “it will be an app” is too early.

Mini example: from evidence to brief

A fictional school canteen app lets pupils pre-order lunch. The client is the canteen manager; the target audience is the pupils.

• Evidence: 18 of 24 pupils tested (75%) said the menu screen was confusing; observed search times of 14, 9, 22 and 11 s (mean 14 s).
• Justification: most pupils tested struggle, and slow ordering means some give up and join the queue, so the pre-order system is not doing its job.
• Product analysis: one existing ordering app groups meals by day, which pupils found clear; another hides prices until checkout, which pupils disliked.
• Brief: “Redesign the canteen pre-order app so pupils can find and order a meal quickly. Testing showed 75% of 24 pupils found the menu confusing. The solution should group meals by day, as in the clearest app studied, and show prices from the start.”

Notice that every sentence of the brief points back to evidence, and there are no measurable targets yet.

Criterion A folder checklist

• ☐ Design situation narrowed to one problem
• ☐ Client and target audience named
• ☐ Need explained, then justified with evidence and sample sizes
• ☐ Research questions written and put in priority order
• ☐ Each question labelled primary or secondary, with a method or source
• ☐ Research carried out and results recorded (tables, quotes, photos)
• ☐ Three or so existing products analysed, with a conclusion
• ☐ Design brief summarising the analysis, with no specification details

Quick self-test

1. Is timing how long visitors queue at an event primary or secondary research?
2. Is reading a published report on how people use public libraries primary or secondary?
3. 18 of 24 users said an app was confusing. Give the percentage.
4. Search times: 14, 9, 22, 11 s. Find the mean and range.
5. Rack A costs £96 for 12 devices. Find the cost per device.
6. State two things a justification of need should contain besides naming the client.
7. Why should research questions be written before choosing methods?
8. Give one reason a retailer’s product description is a weak source on its own.
9. A brief says “The holder must be 200 mm tall and cost under £5.” What has gone wrong?
10. 5 of 40 people surveyed were not in the target audience. What percentage is that, and why does it matter?

Answers

1. Primary: you collect it first-hand.
2. Secondary: someone else collected and published it.
3. 18 ÷ 24 × 100 = 75%.
4. Mean = 56 ÷ 4 = 14 s; range = 22 − 9 = 13 s.
5. £96 ÷ 12 = £8 per device.
6. Any two: evidence (with sample size); the consequence of not solving it; the gap left by existing solutions; when and where the problem happens.
7. The questions decide what you need to know; methods are chosen to answer them. Methods first leads to research that answers nothing useful.
8. It is written to sell, so it reports claims, not independent performance.
9. It contains measurable requirements, which belong in the specification (Criterion B), and gives no evidence of need.
10. 5 ÷ 40 × 100 = 12.5%. Their answers do not describe the target audience’s need, so they weaken the evidence and should be separated out.

Where marks are usually lost

• Opening Criterion A with a finished idea (“I will design a phone app”) instead of a problem.
• A justification made of general statements with no data from the client’s own situation.
• Survey results given as bare percentages with no sample size.
• Surveying classmates or family who are not the target audience.
• Listing “internet, survey, interview” as a research plan, with no questions and no priorities.
• Labelling web searches as primary research.
• Product analysis that is a gallery of photos and prices with no conclusion.
• Only analysing products that are very different from the problem, so nothing can be adapted.
• A design brief that repeats the design situation and ignores the research findings.
• A brief overloaded with measurements that belong in the Criterion B specification.

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014 (published by the IB, 2015). The brief names Criterion A: Inquiring and analysing and requires the ePortfolio design folder to contain a design brief and specification. All examples and data here are fictional.