Ebb and flow: design fixation and creativity in professional groups

Abstract

Design fixation is characterised by an overcommitment to prior experiences, knowledge or assumptions that restricts design exploration. Existing experimental research predominantly portrays design fixation as a momentary, individual-based state that inhibits creativity, leaving unclear its evolution and its implications for creativity within professional groups. Tracking nine new product development projects over two months, this theory-building research takes a temporal perspective to reconceptualise design fixation as a dynamic state evolving over time in group-based interactions. The analysis provides insights into the psychological dynamics underlying design fixation and the social and contextual dynamics influencing it. It further reveals instances when fixation precedes, rather than inhibits, the emergence of creative moments. These findings contribute to a better understanding of design fixation and creativity in the real world.

KEYWORDS:

• Design fixation
• creativity
• design practice
• collaborative design
• case study

Acknowledgements

I appreciate the valuable support and feedback from Lidan Liu, Jin Ma, Shengmin Qian, Yiming Wei and two anonymous reviewers. My gratitude also extends to the company and project members for their participation in this study.

Disclosure statement

The author declares that there are no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Notes

1 The outstanding design expertise of the company is underscored by extensive media coverage of its product design, multiple executives with design experience and growing patents and prestigious design awards.

2 To reduce subjectivity associated with field study, the researcher intentionally maintained a distance from observed actions while immersing in the project (Baker 2006, 176), achieving ‘a balance between being an insider and an outsider, between participation and observation’ (Spradley 1980, 60). Site access was granted by the CEO of the company, with formal consent obtained for recording all project meetings and conversations. Participants were fully briefed on the research activity. The company, project and participants are anonymised following the confidentiality agreement.

3 Unlike prevailing research on fixed, tightly coupled design teams, this study emphasises that real-world collaborations often involve dynamic, loosely coupled groups of designers and other relevant project members. A group-level examination is pertinent, aligning with research on work teams (Metiu and Rothbard 2013, 456; Mortensen and Haas 2018) and professional design collaboration (Pedersen 2020, 59; Perry and Sanderson 1998, 275; Zhang and Ma 2022). A group-level examination extends beyond designers to further examine the fixation of other relevant project members interacting with designers.

4 For instance, while the transcript suggests that ID3 dropped his prior idea with reluctance, in a field interview, ID3 confessed that his inconfidence about his expertise actually influenced the decision. Similarly, while the transcript indicates that ED1 is annoyed, his tone in the audio-recording implies contempt.

5 In this study, the emergence and evolvement of design fixation involved the following emotions: admiration, adoration, aggravation, aggrievance, alleviation, amusement, annoyance, antagonism, anxiety, assurance, bewilderment, complacency, contempt, delight, depression, desire, disappointment, disgust, embarrassment, fear, frustration, grouchiness, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, hostility, impatience, inconfidence, infatuation, insecurity, outrage, pride, regret, relief, reluctance, revengefulness, reverence, satisfaction, self-satisfaction, scorn, surprise, thrill, touch, unease, unhappiness, yearning, zeal.

6 Fixation level is assessed using a three-point scale: High (addicted to a source of bias and dismiss alternatives, disregard counterviews from others), Moderate (reliant on a source of bias while considering alternatives, weigh counterviews from others) or Low (prefer a source of bias but welcome alternatives, absorb counterviews from others). For example, in Episode 4, during inflexion point 4 (see Appendix D), the fixation level of ID3 was assessed as Low. This assessment is established given that ID3 welcomed new inspirations (observations), absorbed critiques from SPM (audio recording) and confessed hesitation about sticking to his idea (field interview).

7 The term ‘creative moment’ is employed because it best encapsulates the data, where creativity: (1) is not exclusively attributed to individual cognition but often arises from group interactions (Harvey and Kou 2013); (2) frequently emerges as a eureka moment promoted by fleeting behavioural coincidences; and (3) is embedded in creative work involving a diverse set of project members (Harrison et al. 2022).