0
Research Papers

Design Fixation and Its Mitigation: A Study on the Role of Expertise

[+] Author and Article Information
Vimal K. Viswanathan

e-mail: v.viswanathan@gatech.edu

Julie S. Linsey

e-mail: julie.linsey@me.gatech.edu
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
801 Ferst Dr NW,
Atlanta, GA 30332

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the Journal of Mechanical Design. Manuscript received July 11, 2012; final manuscript received March 19, 2013; published online April 25, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Jonathan Cagan.

J. Mech. Des 135(5), 051008 (Apr 25, 2013) (15 pages) Paper No: MD-12-1354; doi: 10.1115/1.4024123 History: Received July 11, 2012; Revised March 19, 2013

Engineering idea generation plays a vital role in the development of novel products. Prior studies have shown that designers fixate to the features of example solutions and replicate these features in their ideas. This type of fixation acts as a major hindrance in idea generation, as it restricts the solution space where designers search for their ideas. Building upon the study by Linsey et al. [2010, “A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty,” ASME Trans. J. Mech. Des., 132, 041003], this study hypothesizes that designers fixate to example features and this fixation can be mitigated using certain defixation materials including alternate representations of the design problem. To investigate this, the experiment conducted by Linsey et al. [2010] with engineering design faculty is replicated with novice designers. Participants generate ideas for a design problem in three groups: one group working with a fixating example, a second group working with the same example along with alternate representations of the design problem and a control group. The obtained results show that both the novice designers and design faculty fixate to the same extent, whereas the defixation materials have differential effect on the two groups. This result indicates that design researchers need to be very careful in developing methods and guidelines that are formulated and tested with studies on novice designers. The effectiveness of such measures may vary with the level of expertise of the designer.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Topics: Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Defixation material provided to the participants in the Defixation Group [17]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Design problem description provided to the participants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Example solution provided to the participants in the Fixation and Defixation groups [17]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Ideas in example solution categorized based on function

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The mean percentage of example features used varied significantly across the conditions. Error bars show (±1) standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Both expert and novice designers replicate example solution features in their designs. Error bars show (±1) standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Sample solutions showing high degree of fixation to the example. Some of the texts in the concepts are modified for clarity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Sample solutions with low degree of fixation to the example. Some of the texts in the concepts are modified for clarity.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Quantity, number of example features used and number of energy sources used by the design faculty followed a linear pattern with idea generation time. The error bars show (±1) standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Percentage of example features used and percentage of concepts with gas engine by the design faculty followed a linear pattern with idea generation time. The error bars show (±1) standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The pattern of variation of the quantity of nonredundant ideas reveals a difference between experts and novices. Error bars show (±1) standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Both design faculty and novices tend to fixate upon the energy source specified in the example solution. Error bars show (±1) standard error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The Fixation Group produced lower number of ideas for energy sources compared to the Control Group. Error bars show (±1) standard error.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In