GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 - Golf Bag Storage Full Portfolio Evidence

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Fans

GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 portfolio evidence focused on solving the storage of golfing equipment. The assessment commentary evaluates the candidate’s coverage across investigation, analysis/research, specification, design ideas, and development grids. Feedback highlights strengths in research variety and the use of images and initial solutions, while identifying gaps in ergonomics, measurability of specifications, justification of design scoring, manufacturing process detail, and stronger linkage between testing evidence and product development.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Investigation

Analysis / Research

Specification

Design ideas

Development

GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01 | Topic: Golf Bag Storage Full Portfolio Evidence | | | | --- | --- | --- | | General Description: A folder of 50 pages. The candidate accesses all sections of the assessment criterion. The candidate undertakes a project that aims to fulfil the clients requirements to solve the storage of Golfing equipment. | | Mod Mark | | Grid 1:
Investigation
Evidence
Slides 1-4 | A high-level project would demonstrate and effectively identify and justify pertinent design possibilities.
Slides 2-4. The client is identified on slide 2, and four possible design solutions are identified with justification as to why the issue is a problem for the client and initial possibilities are also identified. In Slide 3, these areas are shown with prime images and some starting points to consider are identified. The differing potential areas of design possibilities are a little disparate, it may have been better to focus on golf or simply home storage solutions. The reason for choosing this area of study is confirmed on slide 4.
A more focused starting point of possible solutions and the addition of more visuals would help support the candidate’s discussion in this grid and raise the work to a higher level. This is a level 2 piece of work. | Level 2 | | Grid 2:
Analysis / Research
Evidence
Slides 5-14 | A high-level folder would include a perceptive selection of research sources, relating these to the design possibility.
The research is found on slides 5 to 14. Under the initial design brief on slide 5, the candidate provides a research plan, in which justification of the research is shown, evidencing a link between the research and the design possibility. This link is further reinforced with conclusion statementson some of the slides and a research analysis on slide 14.
The research is varied and includes prime research of the environment in which the final product is intended to be sited. Key information showing the dimensions and weights of the products to be stored are seen on slide 12.
The material research slide 11 is generic, a greater assessment value to material research can be seen in the product analysis slides of 7 and 8, where the benefits of the given material properties are directly related to the use of the product. Overall, the work has a rather generic feel to it with some aspects such as the footprint of the product more carefully considered. | Level 3 | | | This is a sound research section. The needs wants and values of the user should be analysed in more depth, and the lack of ergonomics and anthropometrics limit the award, Knowing the weights that people can lift, or the size of knuckle space required to remove items from a shelf are an example of some missing key points. This is a level 3 award, | | | --- | --- | --- | | Grid 3:
Specification
Evidence | In this section a specification that contains a range of specification points that are realistic, technical and measurable would be able to access a high assessment.
The candidate offers a reworked and design brief on slide 14. This is not necessarily a progression from the information found in the research but does add some additional justification to the project.
Specification points are justified on slides 15 and 16. However, the specification is lacking measurability. To gain the highest assessment specific test must be stated and compared against measurable parameters. As mentioned in the previous section, the candidate referenced the size of objects to be stored. This information could have been used for measurability.
This is a level 2 submission. | Level 2 | | Grid 4:
Design ideas
Evidence | A high-level submission in this section would use a range of design strategies to generate a range of design proposals and would reference material selection and manufacturing processes in detail.
The candidate offers 6 design proposals on slides 17 and 18. The use of analogous solution

FAQs

What is the overall purpose of the portfolio in Unit 9DT01?

It aims to fulfil client requirements by solving the storage of golfing equipment, specifically through design work across multiple assessment grids.

Which section is described as having a sound research basis, and what is missing?

The research section is described as sound, but the needs, wants, and values of the user should be analysed in more depth, and ergonomics/anthropometrics are noted as limitations.

What issues are raised in the specification and how could it be improved?

The specification is considered lacking measurability; the feedback recommends stating specific tests and comparing against measurable parameters, using details like object dimensions for measurability.

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Fans