"It sounded an excellent plan, no doubt, and very neatly and simply arranged.
The only difficulty was, she had not the smallest idea how to set about it."
Lewis Carrol, of Alice in Alice in Wonderland
Analogous to the various models used in business to guide strategic planning, quality improvement, problem solving and other activities, there are models to guide creativity and innovation. In this working paper, we will explore the various models for creative thinking that have been suggested in the literature over the past 80 years. We will extract common themes from these various models and present a composite model that integrates these themes.
A Review of Creative Thinking Models in the Literature Since 1908
In his book Creativity: The Magical Synthesis, Silvano Arieti (1976) catalogued eight models of the creative thinking process that were proposed during the period 1908 to 1964. Additional models have been proposed since. Because these models represent a piece of the theory of creativity -- how creative thinking proceeds and how creative ideas emerge over time -- it is instructive to review the lines of thinking implied by them.
| | Before we begin this review, however, it is important to note that some experts dismiss the notion that creativity can be described as a sequence of steps in a model. For example, Vinacke (1953) is adamant that creative thinking in the arts does not follow a model. In a similar vein, Gestalt philosophers like Wertheimer (1945) assert that the process of creative thinking is a integrated line of thought that does not lend itself to the segmentation implied by the steps of a model. But while such views are strongly held, they are in the minority. Business people, who have used models for quality improvement, strategic planning, reengineering, and so on, are well-positioned to deal with this apparent controversy. We understand, by experience, that while models are helpful in guiding our efforts, they are not to be used too rigidly. We understand that models are not rote prescriptions. We may deviate substantially from a model in a given situation, but this does not render the model useless. We also understand the concept of flow and realize that one should not be too dogmatic about when one step of the model ends and the next begins. Models are useful, but only a fool follows them blindly. | |
One of the earliest models of the creative process is attributed to Graham Wallas. Wallas (1926) proposed that creative thinking proceeds through four phases.
| | The Wallas Model for the Process of Creativity Preparation (definition of issue, observation, and study) Incubation (laying the issue aside for a time) Illumination (the moment when a new idea finally emerges) Verification (checking it out) | |
Torrance (1988) asserts that Wallas' model is the basis for most of the creative thinking training programs available today. The inclusion of incubation followed by sudden illumination in this popular model may explain why so many people view creative thinking as a subconscious mental process that cannot be directed.
But note the first and last phases of Wallas' model. The notion that creative thinking begins with purposeful preparation and ends with critical verification suggests that creative and analytical thinking are complementary, rather than opposing. Creative thinkers study and analyze, but they have trained their perception mechanisms to notice things that others miss. Creative thinkers verify and judge, but they expect surprises and avoid judging prematurely.
The implied theory behind Wallas' model -- that creative thinking is a subconscious process that cannot be directed, and that creative and analytical thinking are complementary -- is reflected to varying degrees in other models of creativity.
One set of models relies heavily on the theory of subconscious mental processes and uncontrollable events. For example, Campbell (1960) and Simonton (1988) propose that creative ideas emerge from a largely uncontrollable Darwinian process of random variation and natural selection. The basic idea behind what they call the "chance configuration theory" dates back to the 1880s and the writings of psychologist William James. Specifically, the chance configuration model suggests that variations on ideas and concepts come about through random chance. For example, random factors accounted for the mold that killed Alexander Fleming's laboratory bacteria cultures, leading to the discovery of penicillin. Similarly, random factors are also behind the sticker burrs that attached themselves to your pants leg during a walk in the woods. But George de Mestral parlayed these random events into observations that led to the invention of Velcro.
Following a chance event, Simonton and Campbell suggest that creativity proceeds through a natural selection process that chooses and adapts those random variations that are most useful. In completing the third and final step of the model, the successful creator/innovator preserves and reproduces these ideas in concrete form (for example, penicillin or Velcro fasteners). While these last two steps of selection and preservation are analytical in nature, the key feature of the model is that the process is initiated by chance. Simonton cites classic cases of invention (like penicillin and Velcro), as well as anecdotal self-reporting from great creators like mathematician Henri Poincare and physicist Albert Einstein, to support this model.
Barron (1988) similarly places great emphasis on subconscious and chance processes in his four-phase, "psychic creation model."
| | Barron's Psychic Creation Model Conception (in a prepared mind) Gestation (time, intricately coordinated) Parturation (suffering to be born, emergence to light) Bringing up the baby (further period of development) | |
The tone of Barron's model supports the popular view of creativity as a mysterious process involving subconscious thoughts beyond the control of the creator.
In contrast to the prominent role that some models give to subconscious processes, Perkins (1981) argues that subconscious mental processes are behind all thinking and, therefore, play no extraordinary role in creative thinking. Just because we cannot fully describe our thought processes does not mean that we are not in control of them. For example, we cannot begin to describe all of the subconscious mental processes that are engaged in the simple act of picking up a coffee mug. But we are certainly in control of the overall act. Further, Perkins argues, just because random events play a part in some acts of creation, this should not be taken to imply that random events are the source of all acts of creation. Weisberg's (1993) review of the lives of great creators and so-called "moments of invention" supports Perkins' points by demonstrating the years of conscious work and preparation on the part of the creator.
While some models make it appear that creativity is a somewhat magical process, the predominant models lean more toward the theory that novel ideas emerge from the conscious effort to balance analysis and imagination. For example, Rossman (1931) examined the creative process via questionnaires completed by 710 inventors and expanded Wallas' original four steps to seven.
| | Rossman's Creativity Model
| |
Note that while Rossman still shrouds the "birth of the new idea" in mystery, his steps leading up to and following this moment of illumination are clearly analytical.
Alex Osborn (1953), the developer of brainstorming, embraced a similar theory of balance between analysis and imagination in his seven-step model for creative thinking.
| | Osborn's Seven-Step Model for Creative Thinking
| |
Note that Osborn implied purposeful ideation both in his notion of "piling up alternatives" and through his development of the rules of brainstorming as a tool for doing so.
The systematic combination of techniques for directed creativity and techniques for analysis continues as a strong theme in several, more recently proposed models. Parnes (1992) and Isaksen and Trefflinger (1985) outline six steps in their popular creative problem solving (CPS) model. (Tens of thousands of people have learned the CPS model and its associated tools through the seminars conducted by the Creative Education Foundation in Buffalo, NY.)
| | The Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Model
| |
Steps 3 and 4 (problem and idea finding) clearly require novel, creative thinking; while steps 1, 2, 5, and 6 require traditional skills and analytical thinking.
Koberg and Bagnall (1981) propose a similar balanced model in their popular book The Universal Traveler.
| | Koberg and Bagnall's Universal Traveler Model Accept the situation (as a challenge) Analyze (to discover the "world of the problem") Define (the main issues and goals) Ideate (to generate options) Select (to choose among options) Implement (to give physical form to the idea) Evaluate (to review and plan again) | |
Again, notice that ideation, the traditional focus of creative thinking tools such as brainstorming, is proceeded and followed by deliberate analytical and practical thinking. Also note the importance that Koberg and Bagnell place on accepting the situation as a personal challenge. This is consistent with the research into the lives of great creators that illustrates the importance of focusing and caring deeply. (See, for example, Weisberg 1993, Wallace and Gruber 1992, Gardner 1994, and Ghiselin 1952.) Finally, note that the final step of this model support the notion of continuous innovation.
