Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USACAIMCreativity and Innovation Management0963-1690Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.

December 2004134ARTICLESCOLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATIONCREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

254 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Creativity in Communication:
A Theoretical Framework for
Collaborative Product Creation
Stephan Sonnenburg

Most creative acts occur in a collaborative context. Recent research contributions see the
relevance of collaborative creativity but they lack a theoretical basis. What exactly is under-
stood by collaborative creativity and above all, how it is examined, appears not to be the focus
of well-founded analyses. The key objective of this paper is to present a new model charac-
terizing collaborative product creation. This model describes theoretical essence needed for
any creative collaboration. As a result, the phenomenon of communication is crystallized as
the driving force for collaborative creativity. The article is divided into three sections. First,
the paper focuses on creative collaboration in previous creativity research. It is shown that a
different understanding of collaborative creativity exists. Second, four dimensions of the new
model are presented: type of communication, course of performance, working style and the
relation between the nature of problems and the implication of solutions. Lastly, the relevance
of the observations for future research and creativity management is discussed briefly.

Collaboration in Creativity Research approaches. For the purpose of this article,

two levels are suggested: creative collabora-
tion in product creation and creative collabo-
C ollaboration has not been the focus of cre-
ativity research for decades. This is amaz-
ing as the source of creative achievements is
ration in product implementation and
acceptance.
no longer only individuals, but more and In the wider sense of collaboration, most
more combinations of people. Especially in researchers highlight creativity in the phases
business settings, where the development of of product implementation and domain accep-
products expects too much of an individual, tance. It is still assumed that the creative prod-
creative collaborations characterize success. uct is created by individual performance,
One may think of the complexity of planes, ‘even if other individuals may have provided
computers, or pharmaceutics, which needs clues and stimulation’ (Ekvall, 1997, p. 195).
collaborative involvement. Bennis and After the product has been implemented in the
Biederman put the relevance of collaboration relevant social context, experts decide together
in a nutshell: ‘The Lone Ranger, the incarna- (by majority or in agreement) on the creativity
tion of the individual problem solver, is dead’ of the product. In that sense, collaborative
(1997, p. 199). creativity could be described as a social
A more intensive theoretical examination of (Montuori & Purser, 1999), contextual (Amabile,
collaborative creativity started in the 1980s. 1996) or ecological (Harrington, 1990) phe-
However, until now collaborative creativity nomenon. The collaborative or social aspect of
has remained a marginal subject in research. In creativity is stressed above all by Csikszentmi-
a recent publication Sternberg, Kaufman and halyi (1990) with his systems approach. In his
Pretz (2002) give an overview of the main cre- opinion, creativity emerges from the interplay
ativity approaches, but their analysis does not between individual, field and domain. Hence,
contain collaborative approaches. It may be Csikszentmihalyi’s theoretical assertions shift
due to the fact that the term collaboration is the classical research question ‘What is creativ-
not used in a unique academic way. The obvi- ity?’ to an important new research question
ous thing to do would be to group the various ‘Where is creativity?’ (1990, p. 200). As this

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4

Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATION
article concentrates on product development,
collaborative creativity in the wider sense will
be ignored.
In the narrower sense of collaboration, some
theoreticians examine creativity in the process
of product creation. Owing to their synergetic
potential of knowledge and their diversity
human beings can often find better solutions
for complex situations in collaboration than
by working on their own (see Bennis &
Biederman, 1997; Kelley & Littman, 2001;
Schrage, 1995). Early academic research makes
collaborative creativity a subject of discussion.
However, they do not develop models or even
a theory but only focus on single aspects like
brainstorming (Osborn, 1963), group dynamic
factors in educational settings (Torrance, 1972)
or group training procedures (Stein, 1975).
Since the 1990s, collaborative creativity
approaches have been developed with a more
complex design. In this connection researchers
analyse creativity in teams (Kelley & Littman,
2001; Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2000/01; Puccio,
1999; Rickards & Moger, 1999), in groups
(Leonard & Swap, 1999; Nijstad & Paulus,
2003; Rubenson & Runco, 1995; Woodman,
Sawyer & Griffin, 1993), in partnerships (John-
Steiner, 2000), in couples (Chadwick & de
Courtivron, 1996), in improvisational genres
of performance (Sawyer, 2003), in virtual
teams (Nemiro, 2002) or in laboratory collabo-
rations (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Paulus, Larey &
Dzindolet, 2001). Generally speaking, the
investigated social entities are not defined in
an adequate way (e.g. what are the common
interests and differences between groups,
teams and dyads?). According to Moran and
John-Steiner (2003) the various social entities
have an effect on quantity and quality of col-
laborative creativity. Therefore it is difficult to
gain common rules about collaborative cre-
ativity if only a single kind of social entity is
analysed.
To date, most publications with regard to
collaborative creativity concentrate on empir-
ical analysis of techniques, especially brain-
storming. Montuori and Purser criticize the
research focus ‘on brainstorming . . . an artifi-
cial procedure, rather than on natural every-
day interaction, as if brainstorming sessions
where the only time people grudgingly get
together to generate ideas’ (1999, p. 17). Recent
brainstorming research ignores most of the
time the initial meaning of brainstorming as
an aid that ‘can shake a group out of its fixed
patterns’ (Stein, 1975, p. 12). Brainstorming is
merely useful to generate raw ideas, which
may serve as an input in solution finding.
Fundamentally, research on creative collab-
oration concentrates the phenomenon of cre-
ativity to the individual, either as an ability or
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
255
a cognitive mental process. These works still
make the individual ideas the focal point of
collaboration, leading in consequence to an
additive understanding of collaborative cre-
ativity (see Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Kratzer,
Leenders & Van Engelen, 2004; Leonard &
Swap, 1999; Nijstad & Paulus, 2003; Rubenson
& Runco, 1995; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin,
1993). Following Nemiro one could speak
about ‘individual creativity functioning
within the context of a group’ (2002, p. 80).
Current research mostly ignores that human
beings generate ideas in collaboration. Sawyer
(2003) refers to the collaborative level, but only
concerning improvisational theatre and jazz
performances. The additive understanding of
collaborative creativity may be explained by
the fact that psychological studies do not con-
sider the social level in an adequate way. It is
worth noting that the uniqueness and the
emergence of collaborative creativity crystal-
lize at first at this level. Collaborative creativ-
ity becomes an entity unto itself. A mere
psychological analysis takes us to the limits of
academic knowledge about collaborative cre-
ativity. A new sociological approach is devel-
oped in the following section.
Development of a
Theoretical Framework
To create a general framework for collabora-
tive product creation, one could ask whether
different social entities such as dyads, groups
or teams have something in common with
regard to creativity. The hypothesis is that the
phenomenon of communication is the essen-
tial common interest of each creative collabo-
ration, even more creative collaboration could
not emerge without communication. As the
process of communication is specific concern-
ing creativity, a new term is introduced. I call
this term a creaplex, which is derived from
Latin ‘creare in complexu’ (to create in collabo-
ration). The creaplex is defined as a specific
kind of a communication system from which
collaborative creativity emerges. It is charac-
terized by project orientation and purpose, as
it starts with a problem and, if successful,
results in a novel and appropriate product
such as a theory, a work of art or goods and
services.
What is the research benefit of this new
understanding? The word creaplex is not
introduced arbitrarily. Comparing the model
with previous creativity approaches more
attention is paid to activity than to the different
social entities. The creaplex model does not
primarily focus on the creativity of groups
such as the Beatles or partnerships such as
Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
256
Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso. It focuses
on the creativity in a specific collaborative situa-
tion such as the Beatles in songwriting (see
Lydon, 2003; Turner, 2000) or Picasso’s and
Braque’s creation of a shared vision of paint-
ing (see Rubin, 1989). So collaborative creativ-
ity is not viewed as a constant factor but as a
dynamic and moment-to-moment phenome-
non in a unique project.
Before going into detail, it has to be said that
the creaplex model is abstract and general.
This is because the model should cover all
kinds of collaboration in different situations of
product creation. Theoretical assertions are
supported by carefully considered observa-
tions of case study literature from science, art
and economics, expanded by insights from
creativity research. The references are like
‘amuse-gueules’, which stress essential
aspects. They are necessary as a starting point
for further research. With regard to the
creaplex model, five questions are especially
important for analysis:
1. What is communication?
2. Which types of communication are relevant
for creaplexes?
3. How could an ideal creaplex performance
be described?
4. Which working style characterizes a
creaplex?
5. What distinguishes the relation between
the nature of problems and the implication
of solutions?
Communication as Self-production
Communication has long been recognized as
crucial to the success of collaborations, espe-
cially of small groups and teams (e.g. Harris &
Sherblom, 2001; Mabry & Barnes, 1980; Tubbs,
1988). It has to be stressed that no common
understanding of what communication is has
gained acceptance to this day. According to the
German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, the sys-
tems theory is used to explain communication
in creative collaborations. He develops a
theory of autopoietic (self-reproductive) and
self-referential systems (Luhmann, 1992, 1995),
and consequently radicalizes traditional envi-
ronmental and structural-oriented approaches
(traditional systems understanding is also
used by creativity researchers such as Csik-
szentmihalyi, 1990; Montuori & Purser, 1999;
Tan, 1998). This completely different systems
perspective is illustrated with regard to com-
munication, which is the core aspect for
collaborative creativity. Luhmann’s under-
standing of communication differs from the
common use of the term as transmission
of information from one individual to the
Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
next (Davies, 1996; Tubbs, 1988; in creativity
research e.g. Kratzer, Leenders & Van Engelen,
2004; Nijstad & Paulus, 2003). He describes
communication as an emergent phenomenon
which follows the synthesis of three actions:
(1) alter (usually sender) selects an informa-
tion, (2) alter selects an utterance for this
information, and (3) ago (usually receiver)
understands the difference between informa-
tion and utterance (Luhmann, 1995, 2002).
Understanding is the most important action
because it enables a connecting act of com-
munication that leads to a communication
process. In particular, communicative under-
standing does not stand for mental under-
standing of ego or alter. It means a structural
understanding within the network of commu-
nication. ‘Such a network can become its own
theme, can inform itself about its own commu-
nication, can doubt information, refuse accep-
tance, give norms to reliable or non-reliable
information etc. – as long as this occurs in the
operative form of communication’ (Luhmann,
1992, p. 73). Therefore the process of commu-
nication does not coincide with the mental
processes of the participatory human beings.
Mental processes are always black boxes for
communication. It is, for instance, problematic
to speak about a ‘collective mind’ (Weick &
Roberts, 1993). Whatever the single partici-
pant thinks of, it is irrelevant for the structural
maintenance of the communication process.
Only thoughts uttered are crucial for the struc-
tural maintenance and the content of the
collaboration.
The process of communication co-ordinates
and harmonizes the single contributions,
which are adapted to the task of the creaplex.
The contingent and unpredictable variety of
single contributions and their communicative
processing speed up new idea associations in
the ongoing communication process. This is
necessary to find a creative solution in collab-
oration. The content of a communication
process can be regarded as the emergent
property of a creaplex, which is not reducible
to the thoughts of the collaborators. The clear
differentiation between communication and
thought may find no sympathy in psycholog-
ical creativity research but in my opinion it is
fundamental for an unequivocal analysis of
creativity in collaborations.
Types of Communication
Collaborative creativity can only emerge, if all
participants actively take part in the process of
communication. Therefore a small encounter
is a necessary requirement (Paulus, Larey &
Dzindolet, 2001; Sawyer, 2003). Compulsory
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATION
passivity is increased by the number of partic-
ipants, even if the active role is organized
impartially and with equal rights. Three types
of communication are relevant for a small
encounter situation in a creaplex: face-to-face
interaction, tool-mediated interaction and
tool-mediated communication.
Face-to-face interaction is determined by the
presence of the participants in the communi-
cation process. The essential criterion of pres-
ence is dependent on mutual perceptions of
the participants (Luhmann, 1995). As the col-
laborators are at the same place at the same
time, mutual perceptions can be made by all
senses. This characterizes communication.
Face-to-face interactions generally proceed in
verbal communication, sometimes in musical
or physical communication (John-Steiner,
2000; Sawyer, 2003).
Tool-mediated interaction imposes constraints
on presence. As the participants are not at the
same place any longer, specific senses are
focused by means of a medium. For instance,
telephoning, mutual perceptions occur by
hearing, or videoconferencing, mutual percep-
tions occur by seeing and hearing. In this type
of communication the opportunity of verbal
communication is expanded by written com-
munication (e.g. chat communication). To gain
synchronous communication, tool-mediated
interactions are dependent on the technology
of the used medium. Technical failures auto-
matically result in an interaction abortion.
The main characteristic of tool-mediated com-
munication is absence of the participants so
that the utterance of information and commu-
nicative understanding temporally disinte-
grate. One can speak about asynchronous
communication, which mostly uses a writing
medium, e.g. e-mail, fax or letter. The process
of communication can last for a few minutes
or weeks. In summary, Figure 1 gives an over-
view of the characteristic features of the three
types of communication.
face-to-face interaction
status total presence
time synchronous
place same place
form mainly verbal
medium no medium
Figure 1. Types of Communication and their Characteristic Features
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
257
Concerning the efficiency of creaplexes,
strength and weakness can be illustrated by
the time feature. Synchronous communica-
tion, especially in face-to-face constellations,
enables the highest degree of togetherness.
The collaborators can jointly develop idea
associations in the course of interactions and
co-ordinate the content without delay. Asyn-
chronous communication is much more time-
consuming, particularly in dealing with
misunderstanding. For example, e-mails are
sent to and fro, if collaborators do not entirely
understand the content of contributions. The
advantage of asynchronous communication is
that the single participants have more time to
reflect and elaborate the communicative con-
tent in private study.
Course of Performance in Creaplexes
The performance in a creaplex starts with a
problem and at best ends with a solution. The
creativity process occurs between both poles
and it can last for a few hours like a jam ses-
sion or theatre performance, or some years
like the Manhattan Project (see Bennis &
Biederman, 1997) or Scotchgard discovery at
3M (see Robinson & Stern, 1998). The duration
depends on the complexity of the problem and
solution. Before the most important aspects of
the creaplex performance are introduced, two
facts have to be mentioned regarding the
transfer of process models to reality. First, ‘a
physical model of the process would look
more like a plate of spaghetti’ (Leonard &
Swap, 1999, p. 9), and second, there is not just
one generic and standardized creativity pro-
cess (Lubart, 2000/01; Tardif & Sternberg,
1988). Each single process is individual and
determined by the situation. However, a sim-
plistic and clear structure provides starting
points to enhance collaborative creativity in
real settings.
tool-mediated interaction tool-mediated communication
restricted presence absence
synchronous asynchronous
different place different place
verbal and written mainly written
e.g. phone, videoconference, chat e.g. mail, e-mail, fax
Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
258
problem problem
preparation incubation
finding acceptance
co-occurrence, interrelations, feedback-loops
Figure 2. Ideal Stages of a Creaplex Performance
The creative process is one important field
of creativity research. To visualize and handle
this process in theory and practice, stage mod-
els have been successful (e.g. Amabile, 1996;
Treffinger, 1995; the basic model: Wallas, 1926).
Although researchers focus on creative pro-
cesses as a mental phenomenon (for an over-
view see Lubart, 2000/01), it makes sense for
an orientation to transfer the stage approach to
collaborative processes. However, these stages
are primarily viewed through a sociological
perspective in the following. How can the cre-
ativity process in a creaplex be described? A
basic framework is illustrated in Figure 2.
The different stages proceed in a communi-
cation process oscillating between present
phases (face-to-face and tool-mediated inter-
action) and absent phases (tool-mediated com-
munication). In most cases, each stage is part
of both present and absent phases. In reality,
the course of performance is not an assembly-
line process but rather distinguished by co-
occurrence, interrelations and feedback loops.
It has to be said that performance is not closed
but coupled with external stages. The impor-
tant post-stages are implementation (with pos-
sible revision) and social acceptance of the
product in the relevant domain. This post-
process is often described as the innovation
process (e.g. Leonard & Swap, 1999; West &
Rickards, 1999). In the following, the main
stages as shown in Figure 2 are described in a
more detailed way.
Every creativity process starts with problem
finding. Problems can be predetermined by
others (e.g. the management of an organiza-
tion) or they arise within the creaplex. In the
problem acceptance stage it is important for the
performance that the collaborators develop
‘shared mental models’ (Mumford, Feldman,
Hein & Nagao, 2001), which is knowledge,
possessed by all participants, about the prob-
lem and about performance expectations.
Shared mental models make mutual under-
standing and harmonizing during the perfor-
mance easier so that talking at cross-purpose is
decreased. After the identification with the
problem, relevant information is gathered in
the preparation stage and raw ideas are created.
Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
illumination verification modification solution
Brainstorming is a good tool to generate raw
ideas. With focus on quantity of ideas individ-
ual brainstorming in absent phases is sug-
gested (for the advantage of individual
brainstorming see Diehl & Stroebe, 1991;
Paulus, Larey & Dzindolet, 2001). Afterwards
the individually generated ideas are contri-
buted to the communication process. With
focus on quality of ideas (see Mumford,
Feldman, Hein & Nagao, 2001) verbal
brainstorming in face-to-face interaction or
electronic brainstorming in tool-mediated
interaction is recommended. Conducting a
meta-analysis of prior brainstorming research
Dennis and Williams (2003) come to the conclu-
sion that electronic brainstorming is preferred
when the number of collaborators increases
(>4). As the creaplex participants often reach
their cognitive limits in preparation, a ‘point of
creative frustration’ (Sapp, 1992, p. 21) or a ‘sat-
uration point’ (Luhmann, 1995, p. 156) may
come into being. The advantage of collabora-
tion is that frustration can be got over early
and, as a consequence, the collaborative cre-
ative potential is exhausted again.
The incubation stage is predominant in
absence (in private study). As the participants
are closely coupled with the process of com-
munication in present phases, they do not
have enough time for sufficient reflexion and
relaxation, which can additionally enhance
creativity (Ekvall, 1997). Ideas are elaborated
alternately between preparation and incuba-
tion until the best solution is found. This
occurrence mostly takes place in a stage,
which may be called collaborative illumination.
The participants get into a collaborative flow
(Sawyer, 2003) that can be illustrated by a quo-
tation from John Lennon concerning his song-
writing with Paul McCartney: ‘I turned to him
and said, “That’s it! Do that again!” In those
days, we really used to absolutely write like
that – both playing into each other’s noses’
(Turner, 2000, p. 58). At that moment the
creaplex collaborators unanimously realize
that an outstanding solution has been found.
But not every insight is further elaborated. In
the verification stage the solution is assessed
with reference to novelty and appropriateness.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATION
At last it is rejected or accepted. In most per-
formances modification is needed until the final
product or solution is developed.
The course of performance is illustrated in
an ideal way like an ‘unexhausting walk’ to
the creative solution. The creative process is
more complex and liable to break down in
practice. Theoreticians, for instance, observed
characteristics in empirical studies, which
could inhibit the creative performance such as
social loafing, production blocking and evalu-
ation apprehension (for an overview see Diehl
& Stroebe, 1991; Paulus, Larey & Dzindolet,
2001). To keep the performance alive and to
refresh the communication process, several
strategies are possible, e.g. to use learning aid
and creativity techniques (for an overview see
Nickerson, 1999; Stein, 1975), to seek advice of
external consultants (e.g. a motivation coach
or a domain expert), and, if necessary, to
recruit new participants or exchange present
ones.
Working Style in Creaplexes
The productivity of a creaplex is decisively
dependent on the working style. It manages
the way in which the participants’ contribu-
tions come into the communication process.
The connections between the collaborators or
the social entities, from which creaplexes
emerge, regulate the working style such as
friendships (e.g. the Beatles, Bill Gates and
Paul Allen, Georges Braque and Pablo Pic-
asso), couples (e.g. Simone de Beauvoir and
Jean Paul Sartre, Margaret Mead and Gregory
Bateson, Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschen-
berg), families (e.g. Orville and Wilbur Wright,
the Curies, the Kennedys), movements (e.g.
Impressionism, Futurism, Bauhaus), or orga-
nizations (e.g. 3M, Xerox, IDEO). In self-
initiated creaplexes only the collaborators
handle the working style, which is mostly ori-
ented to the usual communication behaviour
of their social entity. However, in extrinsically
initiated creaplexes the working style is
managed by external conditions like orga-
nizational culture or hierarchies so that the
participants behave in their ‘membership
roles’ (Luhmann, 1995, p. 196).
A creative working style is distinguished by
an open communication (Bennis & Biederman,
1997; Kylén & Shani, 2002). It means that con-
tributions to the process of communication
must not be excluded beforehand by bureau-
cratic rules or controlling supervision. In open
and free communication each collaborator has
the same chance to contribute to the course of
performance, and the same right that his con-
tributions are taken seriously. This working
style prevents typical creativity inhibitors like
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
259
passivity (Davies, 1996) or evaluation appre-
hension (Paulus, Larey & Dzindolet, 2001).
In contrast, open communication supports
mutual trust (Chadwick & de Courtivron,
1996; Moran & John-Steiner, 2003) or risk-tak-
ing and experimentation (Kylén & Shani,
2002) increasing the quantity and quality of
contributions.
In practical settings, open communication
is characterized by communication networks,
which are ‘the maps of communication
between participants’ (Mabry & Barnes, 1980,
p. 16). They significantly influence the work-
ing style between the collaborators and the
effective flow of communication (who talks to
whom?). Concerning creaplexes, communica-
tion networks are either formed in social enti-
ties like organizations and are included in
creaplexes, or grow within the creativity pro-
cess. The more human beings participate in a
creaplex, the more different network patterns
are (for an overview of typical structures see
Bavelas, 1950; Mabry & Barnes, 1980; Steiner,
1972). The primary source of differentiation is
the degree of centrality. One can observe
(more or less) equal and decentralized pat-
terns such as in jazz performances, or central-
ized patterns such as Steve Jobs in the
Macintosh project or John Lennon and Paul
McCartney, the leaders of the Beatles. Fixed
patterns, which cannot be dissolved during
the creative performance, are a threat to open
communication. It is recommended to vary
communication patterns during the course of
performance (e.g. decentralized patterns in
face-to-face interaction and centralized ones in
tool-mediated communication) to enhance the
creative potential of the creaplex in an optimal
way.
Problem Nature and Solution Implication
Communication is the operating mode in a
creaplex whereas the combination of problem
and solution is responsible for the content of
the creaplex. If the collaborators, for example,
lose interest in the problem or are not able to
create a product, the creaplex will stop exist-
ing. The key objective of a creaplex is to opti-
mize the task and to find the best possible
solution for the problem. Therefore idea qual-
ity is more important than idea quantity.
The nature of problems and the implication
of solutions are primarily responsible for free-
dom of action or autonomy in the creativity
process. Generally speaking, a minimum of
autonomy is necessary so that creativity can
emerge. In Figure 3 a matrix is derived from
the two dimensions of problem nature and
solution implication. It illustrates the degree
of autonomy in creaplexes. On the vertical
Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
260
solution implication
solu
incremental
presented
low
autonomy
problem nature
discovered
middle
autonomy
Figure 3. Degree of Autonomy in Creaplexes
axis, the problem dimension ranges from
presented/well-defined to discovered/ill-
defined. The horizontal axis shows the kind of
solution and ranges from incremental/adap-
tive to radical/boundary crossing. It has to be
said that the two dimensions represent
continua. Problem-solution-relations can be
located anywhere within the bounded matrix
fields and can be changed during the creative
performance. For instance, product creation
may go into a foreseeable direction and it
finally results in an unexpected solution such
as the accidental discovery of Scotchgard at
3M. Initially a new synthetic fluorochemical
rubber for use in jet aircraft was to be devel-
oped (see Robinson & Stern, 1998).
Various relations of problem nature and
solution implication lead to specific conse-
quences. Problem-solution-relations with low
and high autonomy in a creaplex are described
in the following. Presented problems and
incremental solutions are found particularly in
organizations. The developing creaplex is
characterized by the selection of human
beings concerning their membership roles.
The constellation of the members is made by a
third party (e.g. top management). Therefore
it is possible that participants meet in the
creaplex context for the first time. During
product creation collaborators act within the
limits of a well-defined problem and an
expected solution. The low degree of auton-
omy in this problem-solution-relation is due to
limiting structures of the organization.
According to Ford (1995) business solutions
have to produce value relative to an organiza-
tion’s mission and markets. For instance, a car
manufacturer expects a car but not a plane as
Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
an innovation, or a new BMW has to be recog-
nized as a BMW by the customers.
The relation of discovered problem and rad-
radical ical solution is widespread in creaplexes
where the collaborators are friends or partners
(e.g. Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso or
Marie and Pierre Curie). Sometimes this kind
of relation is relevant for organizations such as
middle
autonomy in informal or unplanned creaplexes (for the
relevance of self-initiated and unofficial activ-
ity in organizations see Leonard & Swap, 1999;
Robinson & Stern, 1998). The creaplexes are
projects jointly chosen and distinguished by
high autonomy in problem-product-relation.
high Collaborators are not reduced to their mem-
autonomy bership roles what influences intrinsic motiva-
tion (Amabile, 1996) to cross the boundary of
the domain in question. It is a big challenge for
collaboration to reach a level of creativity that
enables a radical solution. For that, the partic-
ipants have to invest time to gain relevant
knowledge and experience, as well as mutual
trust and complementarity. This is difficult to
achieve in a creaplex, where collaborators are
randomly chosen and the time span is limited
in advance.
Concluding Remarks
Collaborative creativity requires an adequate
analysis of the phenomenon of communica-
tion, the driving force behind creative collab-
orations. The creaplex, a model to study
collaborative creativity, has been introduced. It
is assumed that this model is broad enough to
cover each kind of creative collaboration in
product creation. There are four essential
dimensions of the model: type of communica-
tion, course of performance, working style and
the relation between the nature of problems
and the implication of solutions. All dimen-
sions were described one after the other
because of the linearity of language. In practi-
cal settings, they are mutually dependent and
they cause together the output of a creaplex.
Additionally, situation-specific variables, such as
the diversity of collaborators (Milliken, Bartel
& Kurtzberg, 2003), leadership (Rickards &
Moger, 1999), conflict (Kurtzberg & Amabile,
2000/01), frequency of communication
(Kratzer, Leenders & Van Engelen, 2004) and
environmental factors (Nijstad & Paulus,
2003), to name a few, affect the four dimen-
sions. They could be considered by future
creaplex research.
A model is always a (useful) representation
of reality. The creaplex model with its four
dimensions may be a basis for further
research. Each creaplex is unique so that gen-
eralizing predictions in form of a toolbox can-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT CREATION
not describe the complexity and emergence of
collaborative creativity. This understanding
has a direct effect on the preferred methods to
observe creative collaborations in a more dif-
ferentiated way. Schrage puts it in a nutshell:
‘Real life remains the best laboratory to
observe the influence of collaborative work’
(1995, p. 37). For retrospective analysis, case
study methods, e.g. the evolving systems
approach (Gruber, 1989), could help to analyse
historical creative collaborations from the
point of view of the creaplex model. For pro-
spective analysis, field studies, like interviews
or participant observations, could be used for
applied settings to accompany and describe
creaplexes. With the help of comparative
analysis, common interests and differences are
established, which lead to an improvement of
understanding of collaborative creativity.
The creaplex model may be useful in the
future not only for research purposes but also
for practice, particularly business settings.
Creativity management has to handle two fun-
damental responsibilities in organizations.
First, it should promote creativity in a general
way through open culture, flexible behaviour
patterns (Ford, 1995) and democratic infra-
structure. These facilitators should be in place
before collaborators start work on problems.
Second, creativity management should sup-
port product creation in specific collaborative sit-
uations. For that, the creaplex model could be
used as a practical scheme. The four dimen-
sions presented serve as management guide-
lines during initiation and realization of a
creative collaboration. They might lead to a
call for action to optimize creativity, for
instance to change the type of communication,
to use another working style, or to enable
more autonomy in the course of performance.
The practical key objective of the creaplex
model and its dimensions is to help collabora-
tions to find creative solutions.
References
Amabile, T.M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Westview
Press, Boulder.
Bavelas, A. (1950) Communication patterns in task-
orientated groups. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 22(6), 725–30.
Bennis, W. and Biederman, P.W. (1997) Organizing
Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration. Per-
seus Books, Cambridge.
Chadwick, W. and de Courtivron, I. (1996) Signifi-
cant Others: Creativity and Intimate Partnership.
Thames & Hudson, London.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) The domain of creativ-
ity. In Runco, M.A. and Albert, R.S. (eds.), Theo-
ries of Creativity. Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, pp. 190–212.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004
261
Davies, M.F. (1996) Social interaction. In Hare, A.P.,
Blumberg, H.H., Davies, M.F. and Kent, M.V.
(eds.), Small Groups: An Introduction. Praeger Pub-
lishers, Westport, pp. 115–34.
Dennis, A.R. and Williams, M.L. (2003) Electronic
brainstorming: Theory, research, and future
directions. In Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (eds.),
Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration.
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 160–78.
Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1991) Productivity loss
in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the
blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 392–403.
Ekvall, G. (1997) Organizational conditions and lev-
els of creativity. Creativity and Innovation Manage-
ment, 6(4), 195–205.
Ford, C.M. (1995) Striking inspirational sparks and
fanning creative flames: A multi-domain model
of creative action taking. In Ford, C.M. and Gioia,
D.A. (eds.), Creative Action in Organizations: Ivory
Tower Visions and Real World Voices. Sage Publica-
tions, Thousand Oaks, pp. 330–54.
Gruber, H.E. (1989) The evolving systems approach
to creative work. In Wallace, D.B. and Gruber,
H.E. (eds.), Creative People at Work: Twelve Cogni-
tive Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 3–24.
Harrington, D.M. (1990) The ecology of human cre-
ativity: A psychological perspective. In Runco,
M.A. and Albert, R.S. (eds.), Theories of Creativity.
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 143–69.
Harris, T.E. and Sherblom, J.C. (2001) Small Group
and Team Communication. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
John-Steiner, V. (2000) Creative Collaboration. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Kelley, T. and Littman, J. (2001) The Art of Innova-
tion: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s
Leading Design Firm. Doubleday, New York.
Kratzer, J., Leenders, R.Th.A.J. and Van Engelen,
J.M.L. (2004) Stimulating the potential: Creative
performance and communication in innovation
teams. Creativity and Innovation Management,
13(1), 63–71.
Kurtzberg, T.R. and Amabile, T.M. (2000/01) From
Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black
box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 13(3/4), 285–94.
Kylén, S.F. and Shani, A.B. (Rami) (2002) Triggering
creativity in teams: An exploratory investigation.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1), 17–30.
Leonard, D.A. and Swap, W.C. (1999) When Sparks
Fly: Igniting Creativity in Groups. Harvard Busi-
ness School Press, Boston.
Lubart, T.I. (2000/01) Models of the creative pro-
cess: Past, present and future. Creativity Research
Journal, 13(3/4), 295–308.
Luhmann, N. (1992) The concept of society. Thesis
Eleven, 31, 67–80.
Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Stanford Uni-
versity Press, Stanford.
Luhmann, N. (2002) What is communication? In
Rasch, W. (eds.), Niklas Luhmann: Theories of Dis-
tinction: Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity.
Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 155–68.
Lydon, M. (2003) Flashbacks: Eyewitness Accounts of
the Rock Revolution, 1964–1974. Routledge, New
York.
Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
262
Mabry, E.A. and Barnes, R.E. (1980) The Dynamics of
Small Group Communication. Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs.
Milliken, F.J., Bartel, C.A. and Kurtzberg, T.R. (2003)
Diversity and creativity in work groups: A
dynamic perspective on the affective and cogni-
tive processes that link diversity and perfor-
mance. In Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (eds.),
Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration.
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 32–62.
Montuori, A. and Purser, R.E. (1999) Social creativ-
ity: Introduction. In Montuori, A. and Purser, R.E.
(eds.), Social Creativity Volume 1. Hampton Press,
Cresskill, pp. 1–45.
Moran, S. and John-Steiner, V. (2003) Creativity in
the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribu-
tion to the dialectic of development and creativ-
ity. In Sawyer, R.K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S.,
Sternberg, R.J., Feldman, D.H., Nakamura, J. and
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (eds.), Creativity and Devel-
opment. Oxford University Press, New York, pp.
61–90.
Mumford, M.D., Feldman, J.M., Hein, M.B. and
Nagao, D.J. (2001) Tradeoffs between ideas and
structure: Individual versus group performance
in creative problem solving. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 35(1), 1–23.
Nemiro, J.E. (2002) The creative process in virtual
teams. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), 69–83.
Nickerson, R.S. (1999) Enhancing creativity. In
Sternberg, R.J. (eds.), Handbook of Creativity. Cam-
bridge University Press, New York, pp. 392–430.
Nijstad, B.A. and Paulus, P.B. (2003) Group creativ-
ity: Common themes and future directions. In
Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (eds.), Group Cre-
ativity: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 326–39.
Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied Imagination. Scribner’s,
New York.
Paulus, P.B., Larey, T.S. and Dzindolet, M.T. (2001)
Creativity in groups and teams. In Turner, M.E.
(eds.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp. 319–
38.
Puccio, G.J. (1999) Teams. In Runco, M.A. and
Pritzker, S.R. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity:
Volume 2 I-Z, Indexes. Academic Press, San Diego,
pp. 639–49.
Rickards, T. and Moger, S. (1999) Handbook for Cre-
ative Team Leaders. Gower Publishing Limited,
Aldershot.
Robinson, A.G. and Stern, S. (1998) Corporate Cre-
ativity: How Innovation and Improvement Actually
Happen. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Fran-
cisco.
Rubenson, D.L. and Runco, M.A. (1995) The psych-
oeconomic view of creative work in groups and
organizations. Creativity and Innovation Manage-
ment, 4(4), 232–41.
Rubin, W. (1989) Picasso and Braque: Pioneering Cub-
ism. The Museum of Modern Art, New York.
Sapp, D.D. (1992) The point of creative frustration
and the creative process: A new look at an old
model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(1), 21–
28.
Volume 13 Number 4 December 2004
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Sawyer, R.K. (2003) Group Creativity: Music, Theater,
Collaboration. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah.
Schrage, M. (1995) No More Teams!: Mastering the
Dynamics of Creative Collaboration. Currency Dou-
bleday, New York.
Sternberg, R.J., Kaufman, J.C. and Pretz, J.E. (2002)
The Creativity Conundrum: A Propulsion Model of
Kinds of Creative Contributions. Psychology Press,
New York.
Stein, M.I. (1975) Stimulating Creativity: Volume 2
Group Procedures. Academic Press, New York.
Steiner, I.D. (1972) Group Process and Productivity.
Academic Press, New York.
Tan, G. (1998) Managing creativity in organizations:
A total system approach. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 7(1), 23–31.
Tardif, T.Z. and Sternberg, R.J. (1988) What do we
know about creativity? In Sternberg, R.J. (eds.),
The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychologi-
cal Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New
York, pp. 429–40.
Torrance, E.P. (1972) Group dynamics and creative
functioning. In Taylor, C.W. (eds.), Climate for Cre-
ativity: Report of the Seventh National Research Con-
ference on Creativity. Pergamon Press, New York,
pp. 75–96.
Treffinger, D. (1995) Creative problem solving:
Overview and educational implications. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 7(3), 301–12.
Tubbs, S.L. (1988) A Systems Approach to Small Group
Interaction. Random House, New York.
Turner, S. (2000) A Hard Day’s Write: The Stories
behind Every Beatles Song. Carlton Books, London.
Wallas, G. (1926) The Art of Thought. Harcourt, Brace
& Company, New York.
Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993) Collective
mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on
flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38,
357–81.
West, M.A. and Rickards, T. (1999) Innovation. In
Runco, M.A. and Pritzker, S.R. (eds.), Encyclopedia
of Creativity: Volume 2 I-Z, Indexes. Academic
Press, San Diego, pp. 45–55.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W.
(1993) Toward a theory of organizational creativ-
ity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
Stephan Sonnenburg (e-mail: s.sonnenburg
@creaplex.net) is a doctoral candidate
at the Institute for the Theory and
Practice of Communication at the
Berlin University of the Arts. He has
three-years job experience as a consult-
ant and strategic planner in advertis-
ing. His research interests include
social systems theory, organization
development and change, and creativ-
ity theory.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004