Identifying needs and writing a design brief

The most-cited AC1 weakness: candidates write a brief for a design need but never explore the user's needs in detail — stating the problem in the abstract without naming a specific user or context. Fix it by covering BOTH the design need AND the user's needs: who they are, where and how they use it, and any constraints. Ideally name a real client.

A second recurring fault is leaping straight to one product — deciding on day one to "make a phone stand" without showing that several needs were considered. The project asks you to explore several possibilities, then develop one, so the choice is visible and reasoned. Sketch a range of different needs and contexts first, then justify the one you take forward.

The key definition trap. A brief is a short, OPEN statement of the problem; a specification is the later list of testable criteria. Writing the solution into the brief — "a red acrylic phone stand 120 mm tall" — fixes the design before research and closes off ideas. Keep the brief open (product, user, purpose); leave measurable constraints for the specification.

Strong folders name a real client who gives feedback; weak starts design for a vague, unnamed user — "people", "everyone". A named person can be interviewed and consulted as the project develops, so the brief and decisions are anchored to a real user and context. Designing for "anybody" leaves the brief impossible to justify. Name a specific client at the start.

A special case examiners flag: if your project is a MODEL (e.g. an architectural concept model) rather than a working product, the brief must state that a model is being made. Candidates who skip this evaluate only the real building, not the model itself. Say in the brief you are making a model, then investigate and evaluate existing models — not only the full-size object.

The opposite failure to over-fixing: a brief so vague it gives no direction. "Design something useful for the home" names no product, no specific user and no clear purpose, so nothing can be researched or tested against it. A usable brief still names the product, the user and the purpose — open on HOW, precise on WHAT, for WHOM and WHY. Check it answers all three.

A specific wrong belief: that a strong brief describes the finished product, so the more it fixes materials, sizes and features the better. In fact a good brief stays OPEN — stating only what is to be designed, for whom and why — so a wide range of ideas is possible. Fixing the detail belongs to the specification; the brief and specification are not the same document.