IB MYP Design – Criterion B – Developing ideas Revision Notes

For full explanations and a worked project, use the Criterion B study guide. These notes condense it for the final weeks before your folder is due.

They follow the International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014, which describes Criterion B (Developing ideas) as writing a detailed specification that drives the development of a solution, then presenting the solution. MYP has no SL/HL split; these notes suit MYP years 4 and 5 and the design ePortfolio. MYP has no prescribed content list – schools design their own units – so this page covers a skill the brief’s criteria name. Your teacher will share the task-specific clarifications for your project.

Related pages: the four criteria in practice, design cycle revision notes, the MYP Design course hub and the printable checklist.

Facts from the brief

• Four equally weighted criteria: A Inquiring and analysing, B Developing ideas, C Creating the solution, D Evaluating.
• Each criterion: eight achievement levels (1-8) in four bands.
• ePortfolio: a design project presented as a complete design folder containing a design brief and specification.
• Assessed as product design, digital design, or combined digital and product design.
• Teachers mark ePortfolios against the year 5 criteria; the IB moderates a sample from each school.

Key definitions

Term	Meaning
Design brief	Short statement of the problem, the client or user, and the goal (comes out of Criterion A)
Design specification	List of measurable requirements the solution must meet
Specification point	One requirement + target + reason; ideally + test method
Measurable target	A number with a unit, a range, or a clear yes/no condition
Tolerance	Allowed variation, e.g. 150 ± 2 mm means 148-152 mm is acceptable
Feasible idea	One you can make with the skills, tools, materials, time and budget available
Range of ideas	Ideas that solve the problem in genuinely different ways
Decision matrix	Table scoring each idea against specification points, often weighted
Justification	Reasoned explanation of the choice, linked to specification points and feedback
Planning drawing	Drawing accurate enough to make the product from (scaled, dimensioned)
Wireframe	Simple layout sketch of one screen in a digital product

The specification point formula

Requirement + measurable target + reason (from research) + test method.

Category	Weak	Measurable
Function	Holds a bag	Holds a 5 kg bag without slipping for 8 hours
Size	Small	Fits within 80 × 40 × 60 mm
Ergonomics	Comfortable	Hook opening at least 30 mm to fit a bag strap
Materials	Durable	No cracks after 200 hang-and-remove cycles
Safety	Safe	No sharp edges: all edges radiused to at least 2 mm
Aesthetics	Attractive	Five target users rate it at least 4 out of 5
Cost	Cheap	Material cost £5 or less
Sustainability	Eco-friendly	At least 50% recycled material by mass
Digital: speed	Fast	Timer screen loads in under 2 seconds
Digital: usability	Easy to use	A new user starts a timer in 3 taps or fewer

Method in steps

Writing the specification

1. List the research findings from Criterion A.
2. Work through the categories: function, user, size,
   materials, load, safety, aesthetics, cost,
   sustainability, time.
3. For each, write requirement + target + reason.
4. Add a "how will I test this?" column.
5. Mark each point essential or desirable.

Generating a range

1. Break the problem into functions (hold, fix, protect...).
2. Use a morphological chart, mind map or SCAMPER.
3. Sketch at least three different concepts.
4. Annotate each sketch with specification numbers.
5. Note feasibility: skills, tools, materials, time, cost.

Choosing and justifying

1. Weight each specification point (e.g. 3 essential, 1 desirable).
2. Score each idea 1-5 per point.
3. Weighted total = sum of (weight x score).
4. Check no idea fails an essential point outright.
5. Gather client or user feedback.
6. Write the justification: chosen idea, points it meets,
   why each rejected idea was weaker, feedback, weaknesses
   you will fix in development.

Presenting the solution

Product: orthographic views (scaled, dimensioned in mm),
         isometric/3D view, exploded view, parts list.
Digital: wireframes, site map or flowchart, style guide.
Always: title block with scale, projection method, units.

Small worked reminders

Tolerance. A spec says the hook’s width is 150 ± 2 mm. Acceptable widths are 148 mm to 152 mm.

Scale. At 1:2, an 80 mm part is drawn 40 mm long. At 1:5, a line drawn 32 mm long represents 32 × 5 = 160 mm. Always dimension the real size.

Weighted matrix. Weights: stability 3, cost 2, looks 1 (maximum 5 × 6 = 30).

Criterion (weight)	Idea P	Idea Q
Stability (3)	4	5
Cost (2)	3	2
Looks (1)	5	3
Weighted total	3×4 + 2×3 + 1×5 = 23	3×5 + 2×2 + 1×3 = 22

P wins by one point, so the written justification and feedback matter more than the total. A one-point gap is not a strong reason on its own.

Annotation that earns its place

Annotations on idea sketches should link features to specification points and say something testable or feasible. Compare:

• Weak: “Nice curved shape.”
• Strong: “Curve radius 15 mm fits a bag strap up to 30 mm wide (spec 3). Bent from 3 mm acrylic on the strip heater – feasible in one lesson.”

Model justification (bag hook, short form)

I chose Idea P, a bent-acrylic hook that clips over the desk edge. It scored 23 out of 30 against 22 for Idea Q, a screw-on steel hook. Both hold a 5 kg bag (spec 1), but Q needs holes in school desks, which the site manager refused. P costs about £2 of material against Q’s £4 (spec 7). Four of five users preferred P’s colours. P is less stable than Q (score 4 against 5), so in development I will widen the clip to grip desks from 18 to 25 mm thick.

Why it works: it names the choice, quotes the scores, compares with the rejected idea using specification numbers, uses user feedback and admits a weakness with a planned fix.

Projection: third angle versus first angle

	Third angle	First angle
Plan position	Above the front view	Below the front view
Right-hand end view	To the right of the front view	To the left of the front view
Symbol	Show the projection symbol in the title block	Show the projection symbol in the title block

Must-know distinctions

• Brief vs specification. The brief states the problem; the specification lists measurable requirements.
• Possible vs feasible. Anything might be possible; feasible means you can make it with your resources.
• Range vs variants. Different working principles versus the same idea in new colours or sizes.
• Describe vs justify. Describing says what the design is; justifying says why it beats the alternatives, with evidence.
• Presentation drawing vs planning drawing. A rendered image shows appearance; a planning drawing gives sizes, materials and assembly.
• Wireframe vs flowchart. A wireframe shows one screen’s layout; a flowchart or site map shows movement between screens.
• Criterion B vs C. B presents the chosen design and its drawings; C plans the making process (steps, time, resources) and builds the prototype.

Quick self-test

1. What two things does the brief say Criterion B asks you to do?
2. Rewrite “It must be light” as a measurable specification point for a school bag hook.
3. A specification says 250 ± 3 mm. Is a part measuring 246.5 mm acceptable?
4. Name two methods of generating ideas.
5. A student shows the same phone case in red, blue and green. Why is this not a range?
6. State the five things you check for feasibility.
7. Weights 2, 2, 1; Idea R scores 4, 3, 5. Calculate its weighted total and the maximum possible.
8. At 1:5, how long is a 125 mm edge drawn?
9. In third-angle projection, where is the plan placed?
10. Which drawing shows how parts fit together?
11. Name two planning diagrams for a digital product.
12. Why should every specification point have a test method?

Answers

1. Write a detailed specification that drives the development of a solution, and present the solution.
2. Example: the hook must have a mass of no more than 60 g, so it does not pull the desk edge down; test by weighing.
3. No. The acceptable range is 247-253 mm, and 246.5 mm is below 247 mm.
4. Any two: annotated sketching, mind map, morphological chart, SCAMPER, modelling.
5. The ideas share one working principle and form; only colour changes.
6. Skills, tools, materials, time, budget.
7. 2×4 + 2×3 + 1×5 = 8 + 6 + 5 = 19; maximum 5 × (2 + 2 + 1) = 25.
8. 125 ÷ 5 = 25 mm.
9. Above the front view.
10. An exploded view.
11. Any two: wireframes, site map, flowchart, style guide.
12. So Criterion D testing can check each point objectively.

Where marks are usually lost

• Specification points with adjectives (“strong”, “user-friendly”) but no target.
• No reasons: points appear from nowhere instead of from Criterion A research.
• Ideas that are variants of one concept, or only one idea developed.
• Ideas sketched with no annotation linking them to the specification.
• No feasibility comments, so an unmakeable idea is chosen.
• A decision matrix total quoted as the whole justification.
• An idea chosen despite failing an essential specification point.
• Planning drawings with no scale, projection method or key dimensions.
• Digital projects with a finished-looking mock-up but no wireframes or navigation flow.
• No sign of development between the chosen idea and the final presented design.

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014.