Design fixation: Classifications and modern methods of prevention

Abstract

The term design fixation is often used interchangeably to refer to situations where designers limit their creative output because of an overreliance on features of preexisting designs, or more generally, an overreliance on a specific body of knowledge directly associated with a problem. In this paper, we argue that interdisciplinary interest in design fixation has led to increasingly broad definitions of the phenomenon that may be undermining empirical research efforts, educational efforts to minimize fixation, and the acquisition and dissemination of transdisciplinary knowledge about fixation effects. To address these issues, we recommend that researchers consider categorizing fixation phenomena into one of three classifications: unconscious adherence to the influence of prior designs, conscious blocks to change, and intentional resistance to new ideas. Next, we distinguish between concept-based design fixation, fixation to a specific class of known design concepts, and knowledge-based design fixation, fixation to a problem-specific knowledge base. With these distinctions in place, we propose a system of orders of design fixation, recommend methods for reducing fixation in inventive design, and recommend areas that are in need of further research within the field of design science.

Why is it difficult to design innovative IT? : An agential realist study of designing IT for healthcare innovation

“…Another earlier definition describes design fixation as "a blind adherence to a set of ideas or concepts limiting the output of conceptual design" (Jansson & Smith, 1991, p. 3). However, some authors argue that designers may be consciously influenced by ideas or bodies of knowledge or even resist certain ideas intentionally (Youmans & Arciszewski, 2014). Overall, design fixation is portrayed as problematic since it can obscure and inhibit potential new ideas and designs, leading to a reduced variety in design solutions (Crilly, 2015) and even replication of designs (Youmans & Arciszewski, 2014).…”

“…However, some authors argue that designers may be consciously influenced by ideas or bodies of knowledge or even resist certain ideas intentionally (Youmans & Arciszewski, 2014). Overall, design fixation is portrayed as problematic since it can obscure and inhibit potential new ideas and designs, leading to a reduced variety in design solutions (Crilly, 2015) and even replication of designs (Youmans & Arciszewski, 2014). Furthermore, designers can also become fixated in terms of design process and methods (Crilly, 2015).…”

“…A more narrow view of design fixation focuses on designers' cognition and how they become fixated or their creative output blocked from the exposure of examples and existing designs. This makes designers rely on features from the examples and existing designs, limiting the novelty in their designs which results in designs that are similar to that of previous designs (Crilly, 2015;Youmans & Arciszewski, 2014). For instance, studies have shown that people have difficulties to see beyond artifacts' conventional functions which inhibit the possibility to design new functions (Crilly & Cardoso, 2017).…”

“…A broader view of design fixation does not only focus on the effects of examples and prior designs, but how knowledge and specific frames of references limit designers' creative output (Crilly, 2015;Youmans & Arciszewski, 2014). That is, designers rely "on a specific body of knowledge directly associated with a problem" (Youmans & Arciszewski, 2014, p. 129) and although designers' expertise and knowledge in a domain may enable them to successfully perform within that domain, it is argued that this inhibits creativity beyond the domain (Crilly, 2015).…”

“…Fagerberg (2005) argues that uncertainty is inherent in all innovation processes. Making designs that are similar to existing designs entail less risk, both for users and designers (Crilly, 2015;Youmans & Arciszewski, 2014). For instance, Thakur et al (2012) point out that if healthcare practitioners are familiar with a certain technology, it is more likely that they will find it useful and easy to use, and that their fear and uncertainty regarding the technology are reduced.…”