Dynamics of the Creative Process

Maja Jokiel, Grzegorz Jokiel

Abstract

Keywords: dynamics of the creative process, group creativity, creative process management, design thinking, innovation facilitation

Introduction

In 2020, the Wroclaw University of Economics established the Center for Designing Innovative Solutions (DT HUB) to support academic and business organisations in developing innovative concepts using design thinking (DT) methodology. The authors of this article have been involved with DT HUB since its inception, serving as coaches, workshop facilitators and organisers of DTthons – marathon-style design thinking workshops for creative problem-solving. Drawing on these experiences, the authors aim to share observations on how creative processes can be organised and managed from a dynamic perspective, moving beyond the limitations of traditional linear models.

The goal of this article is to propose an original model of the dynamic creative process, derived from the authors’ participatory observations, with the intention to bridge theory and practice by reflecting real-time process dynamics observed in group creativity sessions. In developing this model, the authors focus on group-level creative processes (as opposed to individual creativity), consistent with the article’s placement in the management and quality sciences domain. Internal cognitive processes of individuals are beyond our scope; instead, we examine creativity as an emergent team process. Moreover, while creativity can also be studied at organisational and inter-organisational levels (open innovation networks; Hémonnet-Goujot et al., 2022), these levels are only briefly noted here and not analysed in depth.

Methodologically, this paper follows a qualitative participant-observation approach. The authors did not examine a single bounded case study; rather, insights were inductively synthesised across multiple events where the authors directly facilitated creative teamwork, with each DTthon or workshop typically involving 5–8 teams of participants (with 4–6 members per team) working over an intensive period (e.g. 24–48 hours) to develop innovative solutions to a given challenge. Key contextual factors – such as the time-bound ‘marathon’ format, the mix of participants (students, faculty, company employees) – informed our understanding of the creative process dynamics. These practical observations form the empirical basis of the proposed model.

Definitional Issues

Creativity is classically defined by the dual criteria of originality (or novelty) and effectiveness (usefulness or value) of the outcome (Amabile, 1996), meaning that a creative idea or solution must be new and appropriate to the task or problem at hand. However, recent perspectives argue that creativity should also be viewed as a dynamic potential rather than a fixed property of a final product. For instance, Corazza (2016) proposes a dynamic definition of creativity as “requiring potential originality and effectiveness” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). – an idea may not appear useful or novel immediately, but can later become recognised as creative as conditions change. This addition of potentiality highlights that creativity is an evolving process over time, not just a static judgment of an outcome.

When discussing the creative process, classical models (e.g. Wallas, 1926) often describe a sequence of stages (such as Preparation, Incubation, Illumination, Verification) leading to a creative insight or product. A ‘dynamic’ creative process departs from this linear, stage-wise conception, with dynamism in this context referring to a process that is iterative, non-linear, interactive with its environment, and continually evolving. A dynamic creative process is open-ended – it may loop back on itself, generate new sub-problems, or continue developing even after an initial project milestone is reached, while a dynamic view incorporates affective and motivational elements (such as emotions, flow and frustration) alongside cognitive steps. Prior research supports this integration – for example, Russ (1993) demonstrated the role of affect (play and emotions) in fuelling creativity.

The importance of non-sequential, parallel work is echoed by Nęcka (1999); openness aligns with interactive and systems views of creativity (Csikszentmihályi, 1997); and the inclusion of frustration reflects Corazza’s call to educate about the inconclusive nature of creative endeavours. Each of these attributes will be reflected in the model proposed later, ensuring that our definition is directly connected to how the dynamic process is conceptualised.

Literature Review

To ground the study, we conducted a literature review of existing models and research on the creative process.

Search strategy: We searched major academic databases (Scopus and Web of Science), as well as Google Scholar, for publications using keywords related to the ‘dynamic creative process’, along with terms such as flexibility, crisis, limitations, organisation, and management in creative processes, with the search complemented by a manual exploration of bibliographies and the authors’ own collections. The initial broad search returned several thousand hits (for example, for than 300 results in Scopus for ‘dynamics AND creative AND process’ within management-related fields). We then refined the search to focus on sources most relevant to group creativity dynamics, in particular identifying four key publications that inform our work: De Vreede et al. (2012), Andriopoulos (2003), Cromwell et al. (2018), and Majchrzak et al. (2012). These were chosen because each deals with an aspect of creative teamwork or process innovation pertinent to our model: De Vreede et al. (2012) discuss integrating individual and team creativity in organisations, Andriopoulos (2003) highlights paradoxes in managing creativity (underscoring inherent tensions or crises in creative work), Cromwell et al. (2018) propose an integrated model of dynamic problem-solving under real-world constraints, and Majchrzak et al. (2012) examine practices that improve group creativity over time. Together, these works underscore the need to balance structure and flexibility in creative projects.

Creative process models review: Classic creative process models (e.g. Leigh, 2019; Osborn, 1953; Wallas, 1926) delineate sequential stages—preparation, idea generation, evaluation, etc.—often presented as a linear or cyclical progression, with subsequent models introducing iterations and feedback loops, although many remaining largely cognitive and linear. For instance, the Geneplore model (Finke et al., 1995) splits creative cognition into generative and exploratory phases, while models such as Basadur’s Simplex (Basadur, 1987) add iterative cycles of problem solving. By contrast, recent perspectives advocate viewing the creative process as a complex dynamic system. Lubart (2001) called for studying creative processes as both stable and dynamic, acknowledging that creators often cycle through stages in non-orderly ways. Botella, Zenasni, and Lubart (2011) provided an empirical dynamic model for art students, showing frequent back-and-forth transitions between phases, although while insightful, the model’s complexity can make it difficult to apply directly in management practice. Other authors have stressed the integration of affective and motivational components. For example, researchers such as S. W. Russ (1993) and Shaw and Runco (1994) demonstrated how positive affect (play, enjoyment) and motivation fuel the creative process in children and adults, while Marion Botella and colleagues later incorporated emotional and conative factors into stage-based models. Despite these advances, we found that no existing model fully captures the threefold dynamic that our practical experience suggests is critical – namely, the need for agile, parallel work patterns; the role of group flow and fun in sustaining creativity; and the impact of crises and the team’s resilient responses on the process trajectory.

In light of the literature, our model synthesises and builds upon prior concepts, aligning with Corazza’s (2016) dynamic definition of creativity by treating the process as open and ongoing, and echoing the DA VINCI model (Corazza & Agnoli, 2022) in rejecting a fixed end-point for the creative episode. At the same time, it emphasises practical considerations noted by Cromwell et al. (2018) regarding organisational constraints, and addresses tensions similar to Andriopoulos’s (2003) paradoxes through its Resilience & Flexibility dimension. By merging these perspectives with empirical insights, the proposed model aims to offer a clearer and more actionable framework for understanding and facilitating creative work in team settings.

Dynamic Creative Process – Model Proposal

Both the synthesised definition above and our literature review informed the development of an original Dynamic Creative Process Model (illustrated in Figure 1), designed to better understand the nature of creative activities in group settings and provide practical guidance for those who animate or facilitate such processes. The model’s core premise is that creativity unfolds as an interplay of three reinforcing dimensions – Agility & Parallelism, Flow & Fun, and Resilience & Flexibility – rather than as a fixed sequence of steps.

Figure 1
A Model of the Dynamic Creative Process

Source: authors’ own work.

Diagram: The model is depicted as a triangle where each vertex corresponds to one of the three dimensions (Agility & Parallelism, Flow & Fun, Resilience & Flexibility), while the arrows along the triangle’s edges indicate that strengthening one dimension tends to positively influence another, creating continuous feedback loops.

In this model, the three dimensions are mutually supportive. For example, an increase in Agility & Parallelism can help the group enter a Flow state because team members feel less stuck and more engaged; greater Flow & Fun, in turn, can bolster Resilience, as a positive team mood makes members more willing to persist through difficulties; and a team high in Resilience & Flexibility will be more comfortable experimenting (enhancing Agility). These bidirectional relationships create self-reinforcing cycles within the creative process. We therefore conceive of the process as encompassing simultaneous feedback and feed-forward loops – improvements in one area feed forward to accelerate progress, while feedback from challenges leads teams to adjust and strengthen other dimensions.

Agility & Parallelism

‘Agility & Parallelism’ refers to organising creative work in a flexible, non-linear way, often tackling multiple activities or idea threads in parallel, thereby breaking the mould of the classic stepwise process. Traditional models implied that one should first complete the empathising stage, then proceed to defining the problem, followed by ideation, and so on. In contrast, a dynamic approach rejects strict sequentiality and fixed timeframes. A higher level of agility requires embracing what may seem like ‘creative chaos’: lateral thinking, moving flexibly between tasks as needed, and adapting in real time to new insights.

One concrete example of agility in organising work is the abandonment of hard deadlines for intermediate stages, echoing Goldratt’s Critical Chain theory in project management, which advocates flexible buffers over rigid milestones (Goldratt, 1997). In creative workshops, we found that removing or loosening stage deadlines often allowed teams to explore ideas more deeply and return to earlier phases without feeling they were ‘behind schedule’. This approach aligns with agile project management practices and Lubart’s suggestion to use ‘inch-pebbles’ (small progress markers) rather than large milestones.

Parallelism specifically means that many creative processes are better served by doing certain tasks concurrently, with classic process definitions stressing a clear beginning and end and a prescribed order, but systems thinking in management encouraging a nonlinear view where time is relative and events interdepend. Our dynamic model incorporates this by allowing (indeed, expecting) for teams to iterate and loop among phases, sometimes pursuing divergent and convergent thinking in parallel streams. Empirical support for this comes from Nęcka (1999), who noted that creative people frequently revisit earlier steps and think ahead in unpredictable sequences.

Practices – Fostering Agility & Parallelism: Based on our facilitation experience, we highlight a few practices to encourage agility and parallel work:

Integrating stages of Design Thinking: In real DT sessions we observed that it was ineffective to rigidly separate the ‘empathise’ stage from problem definition, with participants often having to refine their problem understanding while generating ideas, or collect user feedback in the middle of prototyping. We began explicitly blurring the boundaries between DT stages. For instance, teams were encouraged to revisit user needs (Empathise) even during Ideation or Prototyping if new insights emerged, rather than forbidding ‘going backwards’, resulting in the standard Stanford 5-stage DT model being enriched with two additional stages in our practice – we added an Initiation stage at the very beginning and an Implementation stage at the very end (described further under the Ferris Wheel model below) to ensure continuity. The resulting 7-stage ‘Ferris Wheel’ DT process is looped rather than linear, visually emphasising that any stage can connect to any other (hence the Ferris wheel analogy of ongoing rotation). Figure 2 illustrates this 7-stage cycle, highlighting that all the stages are interconnected and can occur in various orders or simultaneously.

Figure 2
Ferris Wheel Model – 7-stage DT Methodology

Source: authors’ own work.

By visualising the process as a Ferris wheel, we emphasise that creative work is cyclical and potentially endless, which addresses a key insight: the creative process does not necessarily conclude with the end of a project. As noted in our conclusion, a project’s end can lead to an ‘incubation’ period for further improvements or entirely new ideas, which aligns with recent thinking in creativity research, such as Corazza’s argument that a creative endeavour remains inconclusive unless we consider subsequent developments. Corazza and Agnoli (2022) likewise demonstrated that creativity in educational design projects continued as students iteratively refined their work beyond initial completion. By formally adding an Implementation stage, we acknowledge the importance of what comes after the prototype/test – actual deployment and iteration in real-world contexts, which is often where creative ideas either flourish or die. It also underscores impact as part of the creative process. We argue that Initiation is “two dots over the i” (as we phrased it informally) – that is, it places crucial emphasis on the human element that is sometimes overlooked.

In sum, the Ferris Wheel model operationalizes Agility & Parallelism by allowing free movement across stages; strengthens Flow & Fun by acknowledging Initiation; and enhances Resilience & Flexibility by explicitly providing for Implementation (where lessons from failure translate into new cycles).

Early team integration: One specific practice was introducing an ‘Initiation’ stage before formal empathising, where we discovered that teams often exhibit rigidity in the first hours despite icebreakers. To combat this inertia, we designed activities (sometimes outside the typical DT scope, like short outdoor challenges or playful team competitions) to create bonds and a shared mindset before tackling the problem. The payoff was evident: by investing time up front in parallel team-building, subsequent stages progressed more dynamically, a practice that also relates to Flow & Fun, as it helps initiate group flow.

Multiple idea streams: In sessions, we often split teams into subgroups, each prototyping a different idea, and then have them swap or merge concepts. This parallel exploration prevents premature closure and increases agility – teams can later combine the best elements of each prototype. Although it requires facilitators to manage more moving parts, our experience shows it leads to more original outcomes and keeps the team energy high (as there is always a ‘backup’ idea if one falters).

Flow & Fun

‘Flow & Fun’ represents the socio-emotional dimension of the dynamic creative process. Flow refers to the well-known concept by Csikszentmihályi (1997): a state of deep absorption or optimal experience where individuals (or teams) are fully engaged and lose sense of time due to a perfect balance between challenge and skill. While flow was originally described at the individual level, recent research confirms that group flow can occur, particularly in collaborative creative endeavours. In a team experiencing flow, communication feels seamless, members build on each other’s ideas, and creativity spikes. Achieving group flow is crucial for sustaining momentum in dynamic processes. According to a scoping review by Pels, Kleinert, and Mennigen (2018), definitions of group flow often involve shared concentration and synchronised engagement. In our model, we treat flow as a collective state that significantly boosts creative performance once reached.

In this context, fun is not mere trivial amusement; it denotes a sense of playfulness, enjoyment, and positive team spirit that accompanies the work. Creativity scholars have noted the value of play and positive affect – for instance, Russ (1993) linked playful pretend play with creativity in children, and, more broadly, playfulness is seen as encouraging risk-taking and idea generation. We include ‘fun’ as a deliberate element to capture the joy of working creatively together. As Yourdon (1997) observed, satisfaction in the work itself (finding joy in the process) can be as important as external rewards in sustaining creative effort, with fun manifested through humour, laughter and a general atmosphere of experimentation without fear. We acknowledge that ‘fun’ might sound colloquial; theoretically it aligns with concepts of intrinsic motivation and play, which have firm roots in creativity research.

Practices – Cultivating Flow & Fun: Drawing from our workshops, we found several techniques effective in promoting this dimension:

• Extended initiation and icebreakers: As noted under Agility, we introduced a dedicated Initiation phase to help teams loosen up, with such activities as collaborative games, improvisational exercises, or even unconventional tasks such as a brief group outdoor adventure (e.g. a mini scavenger hunt on campus) significantly improving the energy and openness of participants.
• Role-playing and perspective shifts: Encouraging participants to adopt different roles can both enhance empathy (vital for design thinking) and add an element of play. Yaniv (2012) described role reversal as a dynamic technique to build empathy. In our sessions, we often had team members literally play roles related to the challenge – for example, acting out a scenario as a user or stakeholder. To facilitate this, we provided props and costumes, such as medical lab coats for healthcare scenarios, or hard hats for construction scenarios, etc. We were surprised by how dramatically these simple items lowered participants’ inhibitions and boosted their creative engagement. This finding supports de Bono’s concept of using physical artifacts such as the Six Thinking Hats or ‘action shoes’ to shift mindsets (de Bono, 1991; 2016). By endorsing a bit of imaginative play, facilitators can help the team reach a state where contributing wild ideas feels natural rather than embarrassing.
• Maintaining a light-hearted atmosphere: Throughout the process, facilitators should monitor the emotional climate. We deliberately include short humour breaks – e.g. sharing a creative meme related to the project or doing a 5-minute fun activity (like a creativity warm-up exercise from Nęcka et al., 2005) mid-session. If the group hits a frustrating point, sometimes simply stepping back and encouraging a joke or storytelling can diffuse tension. One practice is the ‘silliest idea’ interlude: when ideas dry up, ask everyone to propose a deliberately absurd solution. This often triggers laughter and can unblock more sensible ideas later on.

By consciously fostering Flow & Fun, facilitators help the team build creative momentum that is self-reinforcing. A team that genuinely enjoys the collaborative process is more likely to reach flow, and a team in flow tends to produce more and better ideas, which in turn keeps morale high. In our model, this dimension is therefore not a byproduct but a driver of dynamic creativity.

Resilience & Flexibility

The third dimension, referred to here as ‘Resilience & Flexibility’, captures how teams handle the inevitable challenges, constraints and crises that arise during a creative process. In the original draft, we referred to this as ‘Stubbornness & Resistance’, intending to denote persistence in the face of difficulties. Based on reviewer feedback, we adopted the terms Resilience (the capacity to withstand and bounce back from setbacks) and Flexibility (the willingness to adapt or pivot when faced with obstacles) to more positively and clearly describe this aspect. This dimension acknowledges that creative endeavours are rarely smooth, but often “two steps forward, one step back”.

Every system has constraints (Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints reminds us that a process is limited by its scarcest resource or biggest bottleneck (Goldratt & Cox, 2004), and in creative projects, such constraints often precipitate crisis moments. We assert that virtually any significant creative process can encounter a crisis, especially under challenging conditions, although not every process will experience all the possible crises. Interestingly, our literature search revealed relatively few studies explicitly addressing ‘crises’ in creativity, with many authors discussing constraints or conflicts in creative teams, even though these are not quite the same as acute crisis points. We located only a handful of relevant sources: for example, Ou et al. (2017) demonstrated the positive value of certain conflicts (constructive controversy) in creative process, and McLaren (1993), as well as Wojtczuk-Turek (2012), examined the ‘dark side’ of creativity, such as how creative efforts can trigger interpersonal conflict. Andriopoulos (2003) described paradoxes that managers must embrace (e.g. freedom vs. control), which hint at crisis-like tensions. These works imply that challenges are intrinsic to creativity, but none offered a taxonomy of crisis types within a single project – a gap we address with our empirical typology.

Based on our observations across many workshops and creative sessions, we identified six recurring types of crisis situations that tend to occur in group creative processes. These are colloquially labelled (with colourful nicknames often arising during the DTthons themselves) and are described below. Importantly, these crises often emerged in a rough temporal order, but not a strictly fixed sequence – some teams might skip one, others might experience a different order. Figure 4 plots these crises along a timeline of a typical workshop, alongside the team’s average satisfaction level. While this depiction is a simplification (the process is not purely linear), it reflects our experience that early stages have different dominant challenges than later stages.

Figure 3
Crises in the Creative Process

Source: authors’ own work.

Below we present the crises from the start toward the end of a project:

• ‘They are from another planet’ crisis: This crisis occurs at the team formation stage. The group fails to gel – members feel they have nothing in common, communication is poor, and cliques or conflicts may emerge early on. There may be outright animosity or just a lack of cohesion (“We’re speaking different languages!”), resulting in the team struggling to even start the creative work. If not addressed, this can paralyse progress.
• ‘What’s going on?’ crisis: This tends to happen in the problem understanding phase. Despite facilitators’ explanations, the participants do not truly grasp the problem or brief. The team may churn in discussion without a clear direction, because they simply don’t understand the challenge they need to solve.
• ‘Obviously obvious’ crisis: This often strikes during the idea generation or concept development phase. The team initially feels happy with their ideas or solution, only to realise (sometimes through feedback or a second thought) that their ideas are not innovative at all – they are trivial or already known. The excitement deflates once the obviousness of the solution becomes clear. This crisis is particularly damaging to morale: participants feel disappointed and inadequate, as if they’ve wasted effort on mediocrity. In every single DTthon we facilitated, some form of this crisis occurred, making it arguably the most ubiquitous challenge.
• ‘Forest fire’ crisis: This is a time-management crisis, typically arising in later stages (prototyping or testing) when the deadline (e.g. end of workshop or final presentation) looms. The team realises they are running out of time, and panics. Work that was previously going smoothly now becomes frantic; shortcuts are taken, stress spikes.
• ‘A lot of good and unnecessary work’ crisis: Often encountered during evaluation or after building a prototype, when the team discovers that large parts of their work do not actually solve the problem or meet the requirements. The team sees a lot of outputs (research findings, idea sketches, prototype features) but perceives many of them, however good in isolation, as useless with the final goal in mind.
• ‘Broken record’ crisis: This occurs in the refinement stage, such as during repeated prototype testing and tweaking. The team fixes one issue, only to find another, and end up in an endless loop of minor revisions. It’s as if the project will never be ‘good enough’ to finalise. This crisis can cause fatigue and the sense that the creative process has stalled or become repetitive

Each of these crises was identified multiple times in our facilitation experience, giving us confidence that they represent common patterns, not one-off events.

Handling crises – the role of resilience & flexibility: The very identification of these six crises is useful for facilitators: simply knowing the common failure modes means one can anticipate and normalise them. We make a point to warn teams (in a positive way) that “at some point you might feel completely lost (What’s going on?), or realise your idea isn’t novel (Obviously obvious) – and that’s okay, it’s part of the journey.” Anticipation is part of flexibility, as it allows teams to pivot quickly when a crisis hits. For example, if the ‘Obviously obvious’ crisis occurs, a flexible team might decide to bring in external inspiration (searching for analogous solutions in a different domain) to jump-start new thinking, rather than persisting on the same track.

Resilience, on the other hand, is the psychological strength to endure the dip in motivation that crises cause. We found that the ‘Obviously obvious’ crisis required particular resilience: teams would often feel ‘defeated’ upon realising their idea’s lack of originality. A facilitator’s intervention is crucial here. One of our go-to practices is introducing the Kano model (a product development concept distinguishing basic, performance and delight features). We explain to the team that their first ideas usually cover the ‘must-haves’ or expected solutions (hence obvious to stakeholders), but to achieve creativity they must aim for the ‘delighters’ – novel features that exceed expectations. By showing that it’s normal for initial solutions to be obvious (and that it’s a known phenomenon in innovation), we help them reframe the crisis as a learning opportunity. Often combined with an intentional break, this discussion can restore optimism. We even observed that pausing the work (taking a short break or even adjourning until the next day) after the ‘Obviously obvious’ realisation often led to a fresh start and groundbreaking ideas the following day, which aligns with the incubation effect in creativity – giving time for subconscious processing. Of course, as soon as they find a new big idea, the ‘Forest fire’ crisis usually flares up due to the lost time, but at least they are moving in a promising direction!

Practices – Building Resilience & Flexibility:

• Normalise and celebrate iteration: We emphasise from the beginning that revisiting and revising is to be expected. When crises occur, we remind teams that this indicates progress, not failure. For instance, hitting the ‘lot of unnecessary work’ moment means you’ve learned what doesn’t work – which is valuable.
• Provide tools for pivoting: Flexibility can be improved by giving teams structured methods to pivot. One tool we use is a ‘creative matrix’ – when a team is stuck or unhappy with their solution, we draw a simple 2x2 matrix and have them list new ideas that combine elements from two dimensions (e.g. user needs vs. tech constraints). This systematic method often produces a few novel angles to pursue, effectively pivoting their approach rather than persisting in frustration.
• Encourage micro-reflections: After each major phase (or each crisis if it’s evident), we encourage teams to do a quick reflection: “What did we learn? What can we do differently next?” For example, after a “What’s going on?” crisis, a team might see the need to align on terminology and spend 10 minutes collectively summarising the challenge to ensure shared understanding. This reflective practice builds resilience by focusing attention on solutions rather than blame.

In our model, Resilience & Flexibility is perhaps the dimension that most clearly differentiates a truly dynamic creative process from a static one. A static approach might treat setbacks as failures; a dynamic approach treats them as signals to adapt and persevere. By identifying common crises and embedding strategies to deal with them, our model provides a more realistic and robust framework for creative teamwork. We also echo Corazza’s insight that creativity includes training people to handle the frustration of inconclusiveness – part of being creative is living with uncertainty and dead-ends.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, we set out to examine and enhance the dynamics of group creative processes by proposing a new model informed by both extensive practical experience and existing literature. We presented a Dynamic Creative Process Model with three central dimensions – Agility & Parallelism, Flow & Fun, Resilience & Flexibility – and illustrated how these dimensions manifest through a modified Design Thinking cycle (the Ferris Wheel) and the handling of typical creative crises. This concluding section discusses the broader implications of our model, acknowledges its limitations, and offers practical recommendations for facilitators and researchers.

Contributions to theory and practice. Our model contributes to creativity theory by blending cognitive, conative and affective elements into a single framework. Unlike earlier stage models that were predominantly cognitive (focus on steps like idea generation and evaluation) or solely managerial (focus on project structure), our dynamic model highlights that how a creative team works (their adaptability, emotional state, and persistence) is as important as what steps they take. We also introduced a concrete taxonomy of six crisis points in creative teamwork. Future research could build on this by investigating which of these crises occur in other settings (e.g. R&D departments, classrooms) and how teams successfully overcome them. Are certain personality traits or team compositions more resilient? Do particular facilitation techniques consistently avert, for example the ‘They are from another planet’ team formation crisis? By naming these challenges, we hope to spur a systematic study of the dynamics of failure and recovery in creativity – an area that deserves more attention.

Limitations. It is important to critically examine the scope and limitations of our study. First of all, our model is derived from a specific context – primarily short-term creative workshops (DTthons) in an educational or training setting, often involving relatively homogeneous groups (students or professionals in a learning context) and finite problems. Thus, the crises identified and the effectiveness of certain practices (such as using playful props) might differ in other contexts (e.g., long-term R&D projects, cross-cultural teams, high-stakes corporate innovation settings). We encourage caution in generalising the six crisis types universally. Secondly, the model has so far been evaluated informally through the authors’ practice, not through a controlled comparative study. We did not collect quantitative performance data on teams using our approach versus a control, so claims of improved outcomes are based on qualitative observation (e.g. feedback from participants, our own assessment of idea novelty).

Another limitation is that our literature review, while broad, did does not follow a formal systematic protocol (in the PRISMA sense). We used AI tools (e.g. ChatPDF summaries) to assist in identifying themes, which introduced some selection subjectivity (we chose the ‘most interesting’ articles from AI-curated lists). It is possible that relevant studies were missed. For example, we have now included references to Corazza & Agnoli (2022), which we believe strengthen the theoretical grounding.

Validity of the model’s components. We must also be careful in how strongly we present the self-reinforcing nature of the three dimensions. While we observed that agility, flow and resilience seemed to feed each other in practice, these relationships are presented here as hypotheses or conceptual proposals, not proven causal laws. It could be that under certain conditions, too much ‘fun’ could reduce agility (if a team becomes unfocused), or that excessive persistence (stubbornness) could actually harm flexibility (if a team refuses to pivot when needed).

Future directions. Our study opens several avenues for future exploration. Empirical research could be designed to test the effect of implementing the Ferris Wheel model in different settings – does explicitly adding Initiation and Implementation stages lead to measurably better team performance or higher participant satisfaction compared to the standard DT process? Longitudinal studies could examine creative projects that span months to see if the same three dimensions remain pivotal and how enduring the impact of early ‘fun’ interventions or mid-process crises is over longer durations. Another interesting direction is the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in dynamic creative processes, the growing presence of which we briefly mentioned (e.g. using AI tools in literature review or idea generation). While our study did not focus on AI’s role in the creative process itself, this is an area ripe for integration: How might AI tools support teams in achieving flow (for example by handling mundane tasks), or how might they introduce new constraints/crises (such as over-reliance or ethical dilemmas)? The creative collaboration between humans and AI could itself be viewed as a dynamic process (Engelbart’s idea of co-evolution). As AI systems become more prevalent in brainstorming and design (Crimaldi & Leonelli, 2023; Leka, 2024), understanding how to maintain human fun, agility and resilience when AI is part of the team will be valuable. We suggest that future research explores the intersection of AI and the dynamic creative process, for example by using AI facilitators for certain stages and observing changes in team dynamics.

In conclusion, we believe that the dynamic approach to the creative process articulated in our model provides a richer understanding of how creativity unfolds in group settings.

Practical Closing Remark. In facilitating creative processes, one might recall the metaphor of the Ferris wheel: there are highs and lows, rotations and returns, but with supportive structure and a bit of courage, teams can enjoy the ride and reach heights of creativity they never imagined at the outset.

References

• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429501234
• Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six paradoxes in managing creativity: An embracing act. Long Range Planning, 36(4), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(03)00071-2
• Basadur, M. S. (1987). Needed research in creativity for business and industrial applications. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics. (pp. 319-416). Buffalo.
• Botella, M., Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2011). A dynamic and ecological approach to the artistic creative process of arts students: An empirical contribution. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.29.1.b
• Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Dynamic. Retrieved August 11, 2024, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dynamic
• Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627
• Corazza, G. E., & Agnoli, S. (2022). The DA VINCI Model for the creative thinking process. In T. Lubart, M. Botella, S. Bourgeois-Bougrine, X. Caroff, J. Guegan, C. Mouchiroud, J. Nelson, F. Zenasni (Eds.), Homo Creativus. Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99674-1_4
• Crimaldi, F., & Leonelli, M. (2023). AI and the creative realm: A short review of current and future applications. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.01795
• Cromwell, J. R., Amabile, T. M., & Harvey, J. F. (2018). An integrated model of dynamic problem solving within organizational constraints. In R. Reiter-Palmon, V. L. Kennel, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Individual creativity in the workplace (pp. 53–81). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813238-8.00003-6
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins.
• de Bono, E. (1991). Six action shoes. Harper & Collins.
• de Bono, E. (2016). Six thinking hats. Penguin.
• De Vreede, T., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Schwabe, G. (2012). Introduction to the creativity and innovation in teams and organizations minitrack. In 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 216–216). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.370
• Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (Eds.). (1995). The creative cognition approach. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2205.001.0001
• Goldratt, E. M. (1997). Critical chain. North River Press.
• Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement (3rd ed.). North River Press.
• Hémonnet-Goujot, A., Ivens, B., & Pardo, C. (2022). Network creativity: A conceptual lens for inter- and intra-organisational creative processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.02.002
• Leigh, E. (2019). The Osborn-Parnes creative problem-solving process. Project Bliss.
• Leka, S. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in idea management systems and innovation processes: An integrative review. In AICCONF '24: Proceedings of the Cognitive Models and Artificial Intelligence Conference (pp. 160-164). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3660853.3660890
• Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
• Majchrzak, A., More, P. H., & Johnson, J. (2012). Practices to improve group creativity: A longitudinal field investigation. In 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 257–265). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.479
• McLaren, R. B. (1993). The dark side of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 6(1–2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419309534472
• Nęcka, E. (1999). Proces twórczy i jego ograniczenia [The creative process and its limitations]. Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
• Nęcka, E., Orzechowski, J., Słabosz, A., & Szymura, B. (2005). Trening twórczości [Creative training]. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
• Ou, Z., Chen, O., Li, F., & Tang, P. (2017). Constructive controversy and creative process engagement: The roles of positive conflict value, cognitive flexibility, and psychological safety. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(2), 102-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12494
• Pels, F., Kleinert, J., & Mennigen, F. (2018). Group flow: A scoping review of definitions, theoretical approaches, measures and findings. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0210117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210117
• Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of play. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203772621
• Shaw, M. P., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (1994). Creativity and affect. Ablex Publishing.
• Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Harcourt, Brace & Company.
• Wojtczuk-Turek, A. (2012). The “dark side” of creativity in organizations: Individual and group perspectives. In E. Hargreaves (Ed.), Creativity and organization (pp. 208–218). GWP.
• Yaniv, D. (2012). Dynamics of creativity and empathy in role reversal: Contributions from neuroscience. Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026580
• Yourdon, E. (1997). Dead March. Prentice Hall.