GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01 - Guitar Stand - Commentary

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Fans

GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 commentary evaluates a 66-page portfolio focused on developing a guitar stand for multiple stringed instruments. It assesses investigation, including mind-mapping, primary and secondary research, and client engagement, noting an initial direction that is somewhat scattered. It also reviews analysis of existing solutions, anthropometric research for optimal pickup heights, surveys, relevant standards, sustainability considerations, and data collection. Finally, it comments on the design brief and specification for realism, technical measurability, and justification through research.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages6

Reading Time15 min

AccessFree to download

Investigation

Evidence

Analysis / Research

Evidence

Specification

Evidence

GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01 | Topic: Guitar Stand
| | | | --- | --- | --- | | General Description: The candidate submits a 66-page portfolio looking at some slightly disparate starting points, they then ‘hone’ these starting points to move the proposal towards a multiple stringed instrument stand. We see the use of a real client throughout the process and therefore the candidate adopts an iterative approach to the work. The final product utilises a range of skills, tools and processes. The product and the candidate’s methodology has a commercial feel to the work. Overall, the submission is of high quality. | | Mod Mark | | Grid 1:
Investigation
Evidence | The candidate considers multiple possible areas to explore through the use of a mind map. (Slide2) This is accompanied by primary research of potential problems experienced by users and brief analysis of existing solutions that exist. They demonstrate an investigation of potential problems; however, this is a little disparate including issue such as chicken welfare and fireside problems. (Slides 3-4) . The client at this stage is rather vague.
They explore further avenues focusing on the area of chicken welfare through primary research and analysis of existing products (Slide 3) . The candidate also questions users to see what problems they experience. The open nature of these questions identifies different areas that can be explored , but it may have been better to look atthe area of music and musicians further with a specific client or user group rather than random disparate scenarios. At this stage the candidate is not illustrating the iterative methodology required to access the highest levels of this criterion.
The potential area is explored (guitar equipment) through the use of a mind map of problems the candidate does also enlist the client and users This is then followed with different users consulted as to the problems they experience to see if there is an overlap (Slide 5) .
This direction is now pursued with justification provided (Slide 6) and design possibilities shown. Further discussion with the user with each of the possibilities helps to inform further direction of the project.
The user/ client is questioned further to ensure their needs are thoroughly considered (Slide 7) . This does demonstrate an investigation of their needs/wants to inform requirements.
It now feels like, despite a disparate start that the candidate has enough reality in terms of client engagement to access the higher levels in this criterion.
We see a preliminary design brief that reflects the information analysed so far. The candidate also looks at possibilities with the user and explores via an article, potential problems that may need to be considered with the end solution. (Slide 6)
This later section of the work is thorough and has some high-level quality.
It does render the earlier work somewhat redundant, that said there is enough client engagement to access a low level three for this criterion. | Level 3 | | Grid 2:
Analysis / Research
Evidence | There is a research plan in place with relevant research areas identified for multiple areas. Questions to be answered stated along with justifications and where the information can be gained (Slides 8 to 9) .
The candidate analyses and evaluates existing solutions (primary research, slides 10 to 11) . And we do see some balance to the research in terms of a positive negative analysis. At this stage we do see some evidence of client engagement, and again this is commendable (Slide 10) .
This research is accompanied by secondary analysis of further products , on slide 12 , and evaluative comments are also provided which leads to a conclusion that mentions specifically some final requirements.
At first glance the anthropometric data looks to be a little generic, but the candidate researches some specific anthropometric information relevant to the project and analyses key data

FAQs

What is the portfolio intended to develop under Unit 9DT01?

It focuses on refining initial ideas into a stand suitable for multiple stringed instruments, using iterative methods with a real client throughout the process.

How does the commentary judge the investigation stage?

It credits the candidate with mind mapping, primary research of user problems, and consultation with users, but notes the early start is somewhat disparate and lacks clear evidence of the required iterative methodology at the highest levels.

What does the commentary highlight about analysis and research?

It reports a structured research plan, evaluative comparison of existing solutions, use of anthropometric data to inform design decisions, surveys about client opinions, and identification of relevant standards, while also pointing out limited purposive engagement at times.

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Fans