Choosing the right product for your IB Design Technology IA is not about finding the most complicated object. Select an existing product that causes a documented problem for an accessible user, can be physically modelled with your available resources, and allows measurable testing of whether the redesign improves performance or user experience.
For the course with first assessment in 2027, the IB design project involves identifying, analysing, evaluating, and redesigning an existing product for intended users. This guide explains how to identify a suitable product, control its scope, and plan feasible tests before committing to the project.
Confirm Which Design Technology Course Applies
The revised Design Technology course has its first assessment in May 2027. Its design project uses five common SL and HL criteria: Empathize, Defining the project, Ideation and modelling, Designing a solution, and Presents a solution.
The project is allocated approximately 50 hours, contributes 40% at SL and 30% at HL, and has a maximum report length of 3,500 words. Students completing final assessment in 2026 follow the previous course, so confirm your examination session and use the guide supplied by your teacher. The IB's official Design Technology curriculum page provides briefs for both assessment periods.
Start With a User Problem
“I want to redesign a water bottle” identifies an object but not a design need. A stronger starting point is: “A student with reduced grip strength struggles to open, hold, and clean their reusable bottle during the school day.” This establishes a user, context, observable actions, and possible ergonomic requirements.
Choose someone you can interview, observe, and involve in repeated testing. Family members, classmates, teachers, hobbyists, and community workers can be appropriate users when participation is safe and ethical. The user should remain accessible throughout the project rather than appearing in one initial interview.
User research must influence design decisions. Observations and interviews should produce specific requirements, not remain as unused background information. The RevisionDojo guide to effective Design Technology user research explains this evidence chain.
Screen Each Possible Product
Compare possible products against explicit selection criteria before beginning extensive research.
| Criterion | Strong choice | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|
| Genuine need | A repeated difficulty supported by evidence | The problem is mainly assumed |
| Existing product | The product can be accessed and analysed | The idea is effectively an unrelated invention |
| Manageable scope | One important function can be improved | An entire system must be redesigned |
| User access | The user can provide repeated feedback | The user is hypothetical or unavailable |
| Feasibility | Key features suit available tools and materials | Industrial equipment is essential |
| Testability | Requirements permit measurements or structured feedback | Success can only be called “better” |
| Iteration | Early models can reveal weaknesses | Only one final build is possible |
| Design depth | Function, ergonomics, materials, manufacture, or sustainability matter | Changes are merely decorative |
A product need not fail in every respect. A convincing project can address one significant weakness while preserving the original product's successful features.
Keep the Redesign Practical
List your available tools, materials, processes, budget, workshop access, and construction time. Strong candidates often have limited components and a clear physical interaction. Possibilities include a utensil that is uncomfortable to grip, a bag compartment that fails to secure equipment, a space-consuming desk accessory, or a container that is difficult to open, clean, or stack.
These are categories rather than complete topics. Each needs a specific existing product, intended user, context, and evidence-based problem.
Be cautious with products dependent on advanced electronics, mains electricity, pressure containment, medical validation, or safety-critical structural loads. Such projects may be unsuitable unless your school has the necessary equipment and expertise. Your physical fidelity model must still provide meaningful evidence about the redesigned features.
Plan Testing Before Selecting the Topic
A strong DT IA product redesign allows you to define credible tests before designing the solution. Ask what evidence would demonstrate that the redesign serves the user better than the original.
Include both performance testing, which examines what the product does, and user testing, which examines how comfortably, efficiently, or successfully the intended user interacts with it.
| Product issue | Measurable requirement | Feasible test |
|---|---|---|
| Difficult opening | User opens it within 5 seconds | Record three timed trials from the same position |
| Poor grip | No slipping during normal use | Record slips and grip adjustments during a defined task |
| Excessive weight | Mass remains below a justified limit | Measure the prototype using a suitable scale |
| Weak storage | Holds required items without failure | Apply the intended load for a fixed period |
| Difficult cleaning | Surfaces can be cleaned within 2 minutes | Repeat a standard cleaning task and inspect residue |
| Instability | Remains upright under a defined disturbance | Conduct repeated controlled tilt or force tests |
“Must be ergonomic” is too vague. Replace it with a threshold, procedure, or observable result justified through user research, anthropometric data, product analysis, or baseline testing. If professional laboratory equipment or an unrealistic number of participants would be required, simplify the requirement or choose another topic. See RevisionDojo's guide to testing Design Technology products for additional examples.
Compare Options and Establish a Baseline
Once you have three possible products, score each from 1-5 against criteria such as user access, evidence of need, feasibility, safety, and testability. Weight the most important criteria and calculate each total by multiplying scores by their weightings.
A selection matrix is not objective proof because its result depends on how you justify each score. Support ratings with preliminary interviews, material costs, workshop inventories, or product analysis. The RevisionDojo IA topic guide provides further screening questions.
Test the original product before developing your redesign. Useful baseline evidence includes task completion times, dimensions, mass, failure frequency, stability, load performance, comfort ratings, and photographs of posture or grip. Keep the user, task, equipment, and environmental conditions consistent when comparing the original product with your model.
Avoid Common Selection Mistakes
Do not decide immediately to add a hinge, sensor, or folding mechanism. Doing so turns research into an attempt to justify a predetermined solution rather than investigate the problem.
Avoid purely cosmetic changes unless appearance has a researched effect on acceptance, usability, or context. Stronger projects usually address function, ergonomics, assembly, durability, repairability, manufacture, or material use.
Complexity also does not guarantee quality. A focused product developed through several models usually produces stronger evidence than an ambitious mechanism built only once. Choose a topic that permits inexpensive early models, focused trials, and at least one evidence-based revision. RevisionDojo's explanation of what Design Technology examiners look for clarifies why traceable evidence matters.
Final Product Approval Checklist
Before committing, confirm that you can:
- Identify and repeatedly access the intended user
- Document a genuine problem with an existing product
- Complete the work in approximately 50 hours
- Analyse the original product directly
- Develop several meaningfully different concepts
- Build a physical fidelity model safely
- Test the most important requirements
- Compare results with baseline evidence
- Leave time and materials for iteration
- Make changes extending beyond decoration
If several answers remain uncertain, narrow the problem or select another product. Changing direction early is better than discovering during evaluation that meaningful testing is impossible.
Conclusion
The best product for an IB Design Technology IA combines a genuine user need, controlled scope, feasible physical modelling, and measurable testing. Gather preliminary user evidence, test the existing product, and compare several options before requesting approval.
RevisionDojo's step-by-step Design Technology IA guide can support the next stages. Jojo AI and Coursework Review can also help you check whether requirements, development decisions, and evaluation remain connected to evidence.
Sources and referenced URLs
- IB Design Technology curriculum and assessment overview
- Official IB Design Technology subject brief, first assessment 2027
- Official IB Design Technology curriculum update
- RevisionDojo guide to choosing a strong IA topic
- RevisionDojo guide to effective user research
- RevisionDojo product-testing guide
- RevisionDojo IB Design Technology IA examples
- RevisionDojo guide to what examiners look for
- RevisionDojo step-by-step IA guide