Inspiration and fixation: Questions, methods, findings, and challenges

Vasconcelos, Luis A.; Crilly, Nathan

doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.11.001

Cited by 142 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

154

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, we were able to refine some aspects of the experiment protocol using observations during the workshop, feedback from participants, and the problems generated (Table 2). Some findings are consistent with the highlights of Vasconcelos and Crilly (2016). The group with stimulus has less time because of the explanation phase Propose a coffee break for the two other groups with a discussion topic far divorced from the transport problems Several problem categories were not or only poorly covered by both groups Highlight these categories as consequences or causes of the problems from other categories Abstract categories confuse participants, see fidelity of the representation (Vasconcelos and Crilly, 2016) Remove the taxonomy and leave only a list of eleven categories (some were merged)…”

Section: Pilot Testsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…A stimulus was designed and refined in the pilot test phase. Vasconcelos and Crilly (2016) suggest that stimuli have the following properties: modality of representation, fidelity of representation, quantity, proximity to the problem, diversity, novelty, and finally timing of stimulation.…”

Section: Pilot Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Use regular language for labelling categories Examples alter the preciseness and originality of the generated problems, see proximity to the problem (Vasconcelos and Crilly, 2016) Explain the categories textually and give examples that are not related to the system to be diagnosed verbally Written examples given to participants with the stimulus caused fixation, see proximity to the problem (Vasconcelos and Crilly, 2016)…”

Section: Scholarly Vocabulary Confuses Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stimulating usage problem generation: An urban mobility case study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designers improve urban mobility solutions by investigating archetypal usage problems in existing mobility systems. User-centred design methods help accomplish this task, but lack effectiveness when not supported by appropriate tools. Here we posit that the use of a traveller-centred stimulus improves the effectiveness of travel problem generation. To test this hypothesis, an experiment is conducted with two control groups as a baseline for non-stimulated problem generation and two experimental groups that are provided with a traveller-centred stimulus. The two sets of groups are composed of one group of urban mobility experts and one group of non-experts. Results show that stimulated groups generate novel ideas with a greater variety covering most of the traveller experience dimensions than non-stimulated groups.

show abstract

Section: Pilot Testsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Pilot Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scholarly Vocabulary Confuses Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulating usage problem generation: An urban mobility case study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results show that the overall selection of ESMs across groups is consistent, and rather expected regarding the topic (Innovate with sustainable consumption modes, with stakeholders, through territorial resources). Post-test reflections suggest that adding a less obvious ESM (for instance Innovate through Biomimicry) might bring more innovative opportunities as it increases the distance to the design task (Vasconcelos and Crilly, 2015). Lastly, the direct method 2 provided a large number of insightful questions for the reformulation of the problem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To explore these problems, designers often use cognitive strategies, also called "ideation mechanisms", "design heuristics", "stimulation mechanisms" (Mulet and Vidal, 2008;Tyl, et al, 2014;Yilmaz et al, 2015). Vasconcelos and Crilly (2015) proposed a useful state of the art of external stimuli variables studied in literature. They underlined that that stimuli must be neither too near nor too far from the design task, in order to generate creative solutions.…”

Section: A Gap In the Selection Of Appropriate Heuristics In Eco-ideamentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Select Appropriate Stimulation Mechanisms to Perform an Eco-Ideation Session?

Tyl¹,

Vallet

Pialot

2018

Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The generation of eco-innovative ideas requires the development of specific heuristics or stimuli. If several types of heuristics have been elaborated in innovation -and eco-innovation-, the selection of appropriate heuristics adapted to an industrial problem for ideation -and eco-ideation-have not been addressed. This paper explores three methods for selecting heuristics called Eco-ideation Stimulation Mechanisms (ESM) for an energy-based case: (1) an examination of environmental issues; (2) a direct screening of the problem through the ESMs; (3) an examination of inspiring cases.

show abstract

How to Guard Against Fixation? Demonstrating Individual Vulnerability is More Effective Than Warning of General Risk

Neroni

Crilly

2020

Journal of Creative Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Creative behavior can be inhibited by fixation and so reducing fixation is a focus of much creativity research. One of the most common methods of tackling fixation is to warn people of fixation risks and instruct them to avoid constrained problem framing and solution search. However, such treatments are often ineffective. One possible explanation for this is that people typically believe that they (as individuals) are less vulnerable to a specified risk than other people are (in general). If we really want to motivate people to guard against a risk, we need to demonstrate that they, as individuals, are vulnerable to those risks. To study the effect of demonstrating individual vulnerability to fixation, we conducted an online experimental study using number and word tasks that both included a fixation "trap." The first task was used to provide a "demonstrated vulnerability" treatment (revealing participants' own fixated behavior) to the experimental group. This group outperformed those who received a comparable "asserted vulnerability" treatment (a warning about general fixation effects) and also those in a control group. Researchers and practitioners developing creativity training and tools aimed at reducing fixation effects should consider the benefits of demonstrating individual vulnerability to fixation rather than, or in combination with, issuing warnings that people in general are vulnerable to fixation.

show abstract

Inspiration and fixation: Questions, methods, findings, and challenges

Cited by 142 publications

References 67 publications

Stimulating usage problem generation: An urban mobility case study

Stimulating usage problem generation: An urban mobility case study

How to Select Appropriate Stimulation Mechanisms to Perform an Eco-Ideation Session?

How to Guard Against Fixation? Demonstrating Individual Vulnerability is More Effective Than Warning of General Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About