NSSCO Design and Technology (6187) common mistakes
NSSCO Design and Technology (6187) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a design brief that restates the problem in vague terms ("make a better storage unit") and jumping straight to a chosen solution without listing or evaluating alternatives, so the folio shows one idea and no justification for it.
Candidates treat the brief as a title and assume the examiner only wants to see the finished product; they sketch the first idea that comes to mind because it feels efficient and they fear running out of time.
What to do instead
Structure the folio with fixed headings before starting: Problem, Brief, Specification (numbered measurable points), Research, Three+ alternative ideas each with a sketch and a two-line evaluation, Chosen solution with reasons, Plan, Make, Test, Evaluate. Write the brief as one sentence naming user, purpose and constraint, then force at least three genuinely different concepts before selecting one.
Producing isometric and orthographic drawings without consistent projection: mixing first-angle and third-angle layout, omitting hidden detail, leaving out centre lines, or drawing freehand lines that are not parallel to the axes.
Candidates learn the two projections close together and cannot recall which side the plan goes on; they also draw without a set square or grid, so the geometry drifts and dimension lines become ambiguous.
What to do instead
Decide the projection convention at the start of the paper and write 'First angle' or 'Third angle' with the standard symbol beside the drawing. Use a T-square, set square and light construction lines; erase construction lines last. Practise the rule: in third angle the plan sits above the front view, in first angle below. Check every view shares alignment lines and that hidden edges are dashed, not missing.
Choosing materials by appearance or habit rather than by property: specifying mild steel for a component that must stay light, using MDF outdoors, or picking acrylic for a part exposed to impact or heat without comment.
Candidates memorise material names without linking them to properties, and revision notes often list materials as a vocabulary list rather than as property comparisons, so selection is not reasoned.
What to do instead
For every material choice in the folio, write a two-column justification: required property (strength, weight, corrosion resistance, cost, machinability) against the material's value for it. Build a personal comparison table of the six or seven workshop materials (pine, hardwood, MDF, plywood, mild steel, aluminium, acrylic, HIPS) covering density, hardness, workability, and weather resistance, and cite it in the design decision.
Naming tools imprecisely or unsafely in the practical write-up, for example 'use the saw' for a curved cut, 'drill a hole' with no bit type or speed, or describing holding work by hand while drilling or turning.
Candidates describe outcomes rather than operations and have often watched a process only once; the safety step feels obvious so it is left out of the written answer.
What to do instead
Describe each operation as tool + setup + action + safety: for example 'mark the curve, cut with a coping saw held vertically with the work clamped in a vice, file to the line, wear goggles'. Learn the pairing rules (crosscut saw for across grain, rip saw along grain, tenon saw for joints, coping saw for curves, Forstner or flat bit for large holes, HSS bit for metal at slow speed) and always state the clamping and PPE.
Describing a joining method that does not match the materials or load: using a butt joint with glue only for a load-bearing frame, screwing into end grain, or specifying a wood joint for two metal sheets.
Candidates learn joints as a list and pick the one they can draw, without considering grain direction, sheet thickness, or whether the joint must resist racking or tension.
What to do instead
Choose joints by function: state whether the joint carries tension, shear or racking, then select. Use mortise and tenon, dowel or halving joints for frames; corner halving or rebate for boxes; rivets, bolts or spot welds for sheet metal; mechanical fasteners where disassembly is needed. Add a sketch of the joint in the plan and one sentence on why it suits the load and material.
Drawing a mechanism without working out the motion: levers, linkages, cams or pulleys sketched with no pivot positions, no input/output arrows, and no attempt to check that the movement actually produces the required travel.
Candidates treat mechanisms as decoration in the design and copy a familiar diagram; they rarely test the geometry, so the sketch cannot be built and the examiner cannot see the reasoning.
What to do instead
For every mechanism, draw the input and output with arrows, mark pivots and fixed points, and annotate the type (first/second/third class lever, crank and slider, cam and follower). Add a simple calculation or scale sketch showing the required movement is achieved, and state one advantage and one limitation of the chosen mechanism.
Treating circuits as symbols only: drawing a battery and bulb with no values, omitting the switch or resistor, confusing series and parallel, or being unable to say why a component is there.
Candidates learn circuit symbols as pictures and skip the underlying quantities; without voltage and resistance the purpose of each component is invisible.
What to do instead
Label every circuit with supply voltage, component values and current path. State the function of each part in one line (switch isolates, resistor limits current to protect the LED, diode blocks reverse flow). Practise series/parallel rules with a worked example, and check the drawing by tracing current from positive terminal back to negative before submitting.
Writing the evaluation section as praise ("it worked well and looks good") rather than evidence: no test against the original specification, no measurements or user feedback, and no honest statement of limitations or possible improvements.
Candidates see evaluation as a closing formality and are reluctant to criticise their own work; they also run out of time at the end of the project and write it in a hurry.
What to do instead
Return to the numbered specification and answer each point with evidence: measured dimensions, a photograph, a test result, or a user comment. Then list two limitations and two specific improvements with the change you would make. Use the format 'Specification point X - met/partly met/not met - evidence - what I would change'.
Ignoring sustainability and social context entirely, or bolting on a single sentence about recycling, when the question asks about environmental impact, energy use in manufacture, or the effect of a product on users.
Candidates see these as 'theory' topics separate from making, and revision time goes to drawing and tools; the vocabulary of life-cycle thinking is unfamiliar.
What to do instead
Use a six-point checklist for any product: material source, energy in manufacture, transport, use-phase energy, disposal or reuse, and effect on the user or community. Apply it to your own project in a short paragraph and to one exam product. Learn the difference between renewable and non-renewable energy sources and give one concrete design decision (for example, designing for disassembly or using a recycled material) with its trade-off.
Managing the practical project poorly: no time plan, no cutting list or materials order, work left until the last weeks, and a portfolio assembled after making rather than recording decisions as they happen.
Candidates underestimate making time and treat the folio as a tidy-up task; without a schedule, testing and finishing are squeezed out and evidence of process is lost.
What to do instead
Write a week-by-week plan with milestones (research complete, final design signed off, materials ordered, making complete, testing complete, evaluation complete) and review it weekly. Keep a dated log or photo record of each stage as it happens, and produce a cutting list with quantities and sizes before starting. Leave the final week free for testing, finishing and evaluation only.