Criterion B: Defining the Project

Habeeb Yusuf
Jan 6
4 min read

Overview

Marks out of: 6

Approximate A4 page count: 4

Approximate word count: 1200

Page Contents

Aims
Criteria B1: Problem statement
Criteria B2: Design specification
Markscheme

Aims

This criterion assesses the student’s ability to:

B1: produce a problem statement that identifies opportunities for the redesign of the product through the task analysis
B2: produce product design specifications with reference to research (UI and UX derived from existing product analysis in the empathize phase)

B1: Problem Statement

Pages: 1-2 pages, Words: 400-500

In this section, the you must clearly explain why a redesign is needed, using evidence from their task analysis and research carried out in Criterion A. A high-scoring problem statement is not just “there is a problem”. It must show:

what is currently happening
why it is a problem for the user
why this problem is worth redesigning, supported by research

You can structure your problem statement using the four parts below.

Part 1. Describe the current situation

Start by briefly explaining what is happening right now. You should describe:

The existing product (what it is and what it is meant to do)
Who is using it (your primary persona)
The specific task the user is trying to complete with the product

Make sure this links clearly back to:

your storyboard
your task analysis
your observations from Criterion A

This helps the examiner see that your problem is based on real use, not assumptions.

Part 2. Explain the current problem

Next, explain what goes wrong when the user uses the product. You should clearly explain:

Where the product fails
What difficulties the user experiences
How this negatively affects the user

Your explanation should be:

Specific (not vague)
Task-focused (linked to what the user is doing)
User-centred, considering:
- physical issues (comfort, strain, fatigue)
- cognitive issues (confusion, effort, concentration)
- emotional issues (frustration, stress)
- ergonomic or usability issues

Part 3. Identify opportunities for redesign

Once the problem is clear, explain how the product could be improved. These improvements might relate to:

ergonomics
usability
safety
efficiency
comfort
control
accessibility
performance

Each opportunity should:

be clearly linked to your task analysis
explain why a redesign is needed

A good way to do this is by using phrases such as:“This presents an opportunity to redesign the product because…”. This shows the examiner that you are thinking like a designer, not just describing a problem.

Part 4. A summary the research that justifies the problem

This final part is where many students lose marks, so don’t skip it. To reach the highest mark band, you must:

summarise relevant research
explain how the research confirms that the problem is real and worth solving

Your research might include:

analysis of existing products
ergonomic or anthropometric data
materials research
user feedback
environmental or contextual factors

The key idea is to show that your problem is:

✔ real

✔ researched

✔ appropriate for redesign

In simple terms, your problem statement should clearly answer:

What is the product?
Who is using it and for what task?
What goes wrong?
Why does this matter to the user?
Why is redesigning this product justified by research?

Example 1:

Example 2:

What to evidence?

B2: Design Specification

Pages: 2-3 pages, Words: 700-800

In this section, the student must translate the problem and research into a clear set of design requirements that will guide the redesign. A design specification is not a wish list. It is a measurable, research-informed set of requirements that the final product must meet.

For this task, you need to create a table with 5 columns, like this:

Essential and desirable requirements.

The student can be separated:

Essential requirements (must be met)
Desirable requirements (nice to have)

Each requirement should:

be written in full sentences
describe what the product must do
be testable later in the project

⚠️ Examiners criticise vague or unsupported requirements, especially when the specification went beyond what was evidenced in Criterion A .

Strong links to research

Every specification must be:

justified using research
clearly linked back to:
- user needs
- task analysis
- existing product analysis
- UI/UX findings

Justification

A strong design justification should clearly explain what design decision is being made, what research supports it, and why it benefits the user, all in one clear paragraph. Begin by stating the requirement or feature, then reference specific evidence such as anthropometric percentiles, material properties, ergonomic principles, usability findings, or environmental data, and finally explain how this evidence proves the decision is appropriate. For example, a student might justify an adjustable handle by referring to anthropometric hand-size ranges (e.g. 5th–95th percentile users), explaining that this variation means a fixed-size handle would not suit all users, and concluding that adjustability improves comfort, safety, and usability during the task. The key is to move beyond description and show a logical chain: research evidence → design decision → improved user experience or performance.

Examples of acceptable justification: