Applied creativity, a structured approach to generating and executing novel ideas, is gaining traction as a rival to design thinking in the age of AI. According to Accenture Song's Nick Law, while executives widely agree that creativity will be a core differentiator in the workplace, companies are failing to institutionalize it. The January 2025 remarks from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman—who emphasized the ability to ask creative questions—underscore the growing consensus.
Accenture Song's research reveals a stark disconnect: 81% of top business leaders say their organization can generate creative ideas, but only 16% report that those ideas very frequently become initiatives that drive growth. Law's team spent a year studying this gap, finding that most firms lack the systematic processes—what they call “applied creativity”—to bridge inspiration and execution. The finding echoes comments from Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman, who wrote that “creativity will remain the real currency,” and Autodesk CEO Andrew Anagnost, who predicted workers must become “creative orchestrators.”
The report positions applied creativity as a successor to design thinking, a methodology that dominated corporate innovation over the past two decades. Where design thinking focused on user empathy and iteration, applied creativity emphasizes the synthesis of diverse ideas under pressure, using AI tools as collaborators rather than replacements. The market context is clear: as AI automates routine cognitive work, human creativity—defined as the ability to ask the right questions—becomes the scarce resource.
For companies, the implication is that investing in creativity training and processes is no longer optional. Accenture Song argues that firms must embed creative practices into their workflows, not just hire “creative” individuals. This could reshape corporate R&D, marketing, and strategy units, forcing a shift from efficiency metrics to innovation metrics. The broader signal is that the consulting and software industries may see a new category of tools and services designed to systematize creativity.
A counterargument holds that creativity remains inherently unmanageable and that corporate efforts to systematize it often produce formulaic results. Skeptics point to design thinking's decline as a cautionary tale: over-standardization can kill the original spark. The real differentiator may remain raw talent and serendipity, not process.