IB Design Technology IA Ideas for the 2027 Syllabus
For first assessment in May 2027, the IB Design Technology IA begins with an existing product that you can redesign for an intended user. It is not an open-ended invention contest. A strong project starts with a specific user problem, gives you access to the product and user, and allows repeated physical testing.
This guide offers project directions rather than ready-made research questions. Your final problem statement, specifications, redesign ideas, and evidence must come from your own investigation. If you need a broader overview of the process first, read the IB Design Technology IA design-cycle guide.
What Changed for the 2027 Design Technology IA?
The IB describes the new design project as an open-ended task in which a student identifies, analyses, evaluates, and redesigns an existing product for an intended user. The course was first taught in 2025 and is first assessed in May 2027.
The key requirements are:
- The starting point is an existing product and a justified need for redesign.
- The project must respond to the needs of an intended user or user group.
- A physical fidelity model is required for testing and evaluation.
- SL and HL use the same five criteria, 50 hours, 33 marks, and 3,500-word maximum; only the weighting differs.
- Projects may come from product design, robotics, textiles, architecture, food, or another suitable design field.
The five criteria are A: Empathize, B: Defining the project, C: Ideation and modelling, D: Designing a solution, and E: Presents a solution. The official IB update provides the current Design Technology assessment overview.
That redesign requirement changes how you should choose an idea. “Invent a smart water bottle” is too vague. “Redesign this hard-to-open bottle lid for a user with reduced grip strength” gives you a product, a user, a measurable problem, and a route to testing.
Stuck on your IB draft?
Get instant, detailed feedback on structure, evidence, and reasoning, then compare it with your current school materials.
The Four Checks Every IA Idea Should Pass
Before committing to a project, test it against four questions.
1. Can you access a real intended user?
You need more than a general target market. Choose someone you can interview, observe, and return to for feedback. A family member, student, teacher, coach, shop worker, or community volunteer is often more useful than an imagined global audience.
2. Can you obtain and examine the existing product?
The project should allow you to measure the original product, identify its materials and features, observe it in use, and explain where it fails. Avoid products that are inaccessible, dangerous to dismantle, or protected by systems you cannot realistically inspect.
3. Can you make a physical fidelity model?
A polished digital render is not enough by itself. Choose a project you can model physically using school workshop processes, textiles, card, foam, wood, polymers, 3D printing, electronics, or another manageable method.
4. Can you test the specifications?
Good specifications produce evidence. “Comfortable” is difficult to evaluate until you define a method such as a user rating after a ten-minute task. “Portable” becomes testable when you set maximum dimensions or mass. Your Design Technology IA criteria guide should shape these decisions before modelling begins.
12 Workable Design Technology IA Redesign Ideas
Each direction below identifies an existing product, a possible user need, and useful tests. Adapt the direction to a user you can genuinely investigate.
1. Redesign a Kitchen Utensil for Reduced Grip Strength
Start with an existing peeler, jar opener, knife handle, or measuring tool. Investigate grip diameter, required force, wrist angle, slippage, cleaning, and safe storage with an intended user.
Possible tests include task completion time, user comfort ratings, grip-force comparisons, slip resistance, and cleaning time.
2. Redesign a School Chair Accessory for Posture and Movement
Instead of attempting to manufacture a complete chair, redesign a removable back support, foot support, bag hook, or seat accessory for a specific student. Observe how the current chair is used across a normal lesson.
Possible tests include posture observations, adjustment time, stability under load, compatibility with classroom furniture, and user feedback after repeated use.
3. Redesign a Medication Organizer for a Specific Routine
An existing pill organizer may have unclear labels, difficult lids, poor portability, or weak error prevention. Focus on the intended user's actual routine rather than adding technology automatically.
Possible tests include opening force, sorting time, identification accuracy, drop resistance, visibility under different lighting, and accidental-opening trials. Avoid making medical-effectiveness claims.
4. Redesign Reusable Food Packaging for One Local Seller
Work with a bakery, market stall, or school canteen to examine an existing container. The redesign might improve stacking, portion protection, return logistics, material use, or ease of carrying.
Possible tests include compression, leakage, assembly time, storage volume, material mass, and repeated-use durability.
5. Redesign a Desk Organizer for a Defined Workspace
Generic desk organizers are common, so the value must come from a particular user's process. Study the objects used, reach zones, available space, dominant hand, cable paths, and frequency of access.
Possible tests include retrieval time, occupied area, tipping stability, cable insertion, and user errors during a repeated task.
6. Redesign a Sports-Equipment Carrying Product
Investigate an existing racket cover, ball carrier, swimming-kit bag, climbing chalk bag, or protective case. Choose a user whose equipment and travel routine you can observe.
Possible tests include load distribution, packing time, water resistance, ventilation, range of movement, impact protection, and attachment security.
7. Redesign a Mobility-Aid Accessory
A cane holder, crutch cuff, wheelchair storage pouch, or walker attachment can expose clear usability problems. The scope should remain an accessory unless you have the expertise and supervision to address the safety-critical aid itself.
Possible tests include attachment time, movement clearance, load capacity, one-handed operation, and stability over repeated cycles.
8. Redesign a Household Waste-Sorting Product
Study an existing bin or compost container in a real household. Problems might include confusing categories, smell, liner slippage, cleaning, limited space, or access for children.
Possible tests include sorting accuracy, lid force, cleaning time, capacity, footprint, odour containment proxies, and user preference.
9. Redesign a Product for Visual or Tactile Identification
Choose an existing remote control, measuring tool, container, or household interface whose controls are difficult for a particular user to distinguish. Explore contrast, shape coding, tactile landmarks, spacing, and error prevention.
Possible tests include identification accuracy without sight, task time, incorrect inputs, learning time, and performance under low light.
10. Redesign Portable Lighting for a Defined Task
Start with a book light, workshop lamp, bedside light, or emergency lamp. Focus on a user's actual task and environment rather than maximizing brightness.
Possible tests include illuminance at a defined distance, glare ratings, stability, adjustment range, operating time, packing volume, and surface temperature.
11. Redesign a Rainwater or Plant-Watering Product
Investigate an existing watering can, planter insert, or small collection device. A useful problem might involve lifting, pouring control, water loss, uneven distribution, or maintenance.
Possible tests include flow rate, spillage, mass when full, distribution uniformity, assembly time, and user control.
12. Redesign a Learning Manipulative for One Classroom Need
Observe an existing model, flash-card system, counting aid, or science demonstrator in use. Focus on a clear learning or handling obstacle and consult the teacher and students who use it.
Possible tests include setup time, task accuracy, durability, number of usable configurations, storage volume, and teacher feedback.
Ideas That Usually Create Weak Projects
Some ideas sound impressive but make the assessment process harder.
- A completely new invention: the 2027 task requires redesign of an existing product.
- An app-only solution: the requirement for a physical fidelity model makes a purely digital interface difficult to justify.
- A safety-critical medical device: testing may be unethical or beyond school-level facilities.
- A project without an accessible user: imagined feedback cannot replace real investigation.
- A very complex electronic product: too much time may go into making basic electronics work instead of demonstrating iterative design.
- A cosmetic restyle: changing colour or form without a demonstrated user problem rarely produces meaningful specifications or testing.
- A product chosen only because it is easy to manufacture: manufacturability matters, but the redesign must answer a supported need.
From an Idea to a Defensible Problem Statement
Begin with observation, not a solution. Record what the intended user does, where the product causes difficulty, and what evidence supports that conclusion. Then write a problem statement that leaves room for several redesign approaches.
Weak:
I will make a better desk organizer.
Stronger:
A secondary-school art student working at a narrow shared desk frequently loses time moving drawing tools and charging cables because the current organizer blocks the usable work surface and tips when taller tools are removed.
The stronger version identifies the user, context, existing product failure, and consequences without deciding the final form too early. This makes it easier to develop justified specifications and several genuinely different ideas.
Check your own draft
Get estimated marks by criterion, comments on your writing, and a clear list of what to fix first.
How to Plan Criterion C Before Choosing the Project
The top band for Criterion C expects three strong annotated, feasible redesign ideas, followed by comparison through testing and user feedback. The official guide also expects fidelity models and evidence of iteration.
Ask whether your starting product permits at least three meaningful approaches. A jar opener, for example, could be redesigned through handle geometry, a clamping mechanism, or a high-friction material system. Three colour variants of the same object would not demonstrate the same breadth.
Keep each model purposeful. One model may test grip geometry, another stability, and another access or assembly. Record what changed because of the result. The portfolio guide is most useful when your evidence already follows this test–feedback–refinement sequence.
A Quick Project-Selection Scorecard
Score each candidate from 0 to 2.
| Question | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing product is available | No | Limited access | Available throughout |
| Intended user is accessible | No | One interview only | Repeated access |
| Problem is supported by evidence | Assumed | Partly observed | Clearly observed |
| Three redesign directions are possible | No | Minor variations | Distinct approaches |
| Physical models are feasible | No | Difficult | Feasible at school |
| Specifications can be tested | Mostly subjective | Mixed | Mostly measurable |
| Risk and ethics are manageable | High | Requires controls | Low and manageable |
A low score does not mean the social problem is unimportant. It means the project may not let you produce the evidence the IA requires within 50 hours.
Final Advice
The best 2027 Design Technology IA idea is rarely the most futuristic. It is the one that lets you understand a real user, analyse an existing product, create several feasible redesigns, build physical models, and show how testing changed the solution.
Confirm the current task details with your teacher and the official IB guide before finalizing your project. Then keep a record of every interview, measurement, test, failure, and design change: those decisions are the substance of the report.