How Tech Modelling SUpPorts Risk Management

Demonstrate understanding of how technological modelling supports risk management  

GENERIC Technology | Level 2 | AS 91358 (2.5) | 4 Credits 

This external is a written report and falls under the Generic Technology heading. It is an organised collection of evidence that clearly demonstrates your understanding with reference to a specific standard.

Reports must not exceed the equivalent of ten single-sided A4 pages but reports of fewer than ten pages are strongly recommended. Only the first ten pages will be marked if a submission exceeds this limit.

For both hard copy and digital submissions, a typeface is not prescribed but font size must be set at the rough equivalent of Arial 12. Margins should be set at roughly 2.5 cm all around (top and bottom, left and right).

--- MATERIAL IN THE REPORT ---

The material included should clearly communicate the your understanding and could include material such as:

• annotated photographic evidence of: a process, or processes, an outcome, or outcomes (including mock-ups and prototypes)

• annotated illustrations (e.g. graphics, design sketches, drawings, photographs, screenshots)

• written descriptions, explanations, and discussions

• material from research sources

• any combination of the above.

Where evidence of a your technological practice or outcome helps to demonstrate understanding, then evidence of the outcome or practice can be included. Evidence of the practice or the outcome in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate understanding.

Evidence from practice or evidence of an outcome can assist a candidate to demonstrate understanding where it is the basis for a reflection on what was done and why it was done.

--- COMMENTS FROM 2020 ---

Candidates were successful when they focused on how the model(s) they made helped them manage risks which could have impeded the development of their final outcome.

The overarching contexts of risk are:

• Social environment (should). Is this sustainable? Is this the right thing to do? What are the long term effects of doing this?

• Socially acceptable (should)Is this culturally, socially appropriate? Is it ethical? Is it legal?

• Practical Reasoning (should)     The should context has a broader context outside of the outcome itself ie does it meet the brief, specifications, the client’s need, is it suitable for the proposed environment?

• Technically feasible (could)       Do I have the skills? Can it be made that way? How do I make it? What materials and or resources are needed etc

• Functional Reasoning (could)Will this do what it is meant to do? Is this the best way to do this? Is this the best tool or technique to use?

Successful candidates used a specific model that would enable them to make decisions connected to these contexts (could and should), for example: 

• The square edges on my cardboard model showed me that I should change to rounded corners making it safer for kids in the lounge (social environment).

• My research modelling showed me that my skirt had to be the right length for attending church (socially acceptable).

• Doing the dovetail modelling showed me I had the skills (technically feasible) and which joint was the strongest.

• By testing the fabric for waterproof qualities, I could see it would be fit for purpose in the rain.

Candidates are reminded that ethical and legal risks need to be relevant to the model/outcome i.e., plastic in the ocean linked to food packaging or the legality of using an image i.e. copyright.

Candidates were disadvantaged when they wrote about every step of their brief, specification, or how the model was made. Candidates are encouraged to address the achievement criteria concisely not fill the report with unnecessary information.

It is not necessary for candidates to discuss the advantage or disadvantage of one form of modelling over another; the standard is about choosing a specific model that will help manage a risk, enabling the candidate to complete their outcome to the desired brief/specifications. For example, using CAD drawing to visualise their sketches in 3D.

While important in the development of an outcome, candidates do not need to explain what recycling, sustainability, Health and Safety or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) are, just how these might be linked to a modelling method, which will enable a decision to be made, for example:

• My modelling research showed that I should use recycled items.

• My brief stated that it had to be sustainably made so to meet the brief I decided to use FCS paper for my book.

• I now know what joints I had to make, and I have decided to use the band saw and this will require me to wear masks, and eye protection.

• Because of my client’s allergies I will adhere to the HACCP plan 

Candidates are reminded that the modelling is not the person wearing the outfit e.g. “My model was too tall for the toile to be socially acceptable”. The model is the toile so this could be written as: “The toile helped me manage the risk of the dress being too short for my tall client and not socially acceptable.”

Candidates should avoid making repetitive statements throughout their report which do not demonstrate their understanding, for example ‘This stage of modelling helped me decide what should and could be done at different stages of my technological practice’.

Candidates need to demonstrate that each model had a purpose, they cannot repeat the same generic sentence throughout the report i.e. “ this model helped me meet my brief”.

Candidates who used risk registers were often able to meet the Merit criteria. However, candidates are reminded to link the type, severity and probability of the risk to a model, rather than just listing risks and stating whether the risk was high or low.

Check out the 91358 Assessment Report 2020 if you want some more specifics about what was done to meet each level of achievement.

--- EXEMPLARS ---

91358 Exemplars Recent

91358 Exemplars 2016