Strategic decision-making, as a future-oriented form of problem solving, is about creating new and useful solutions for the future. In fields such as urban planning, where stakes are high and resources are limited, there is a constant tension; the further we look into the future, the harder it becomes to anchor our ideas in facts. Yet, the higher the stakes, the more we crave certainty and turn to structured methods of future thinking. This results in uncertainty being concealed behind a façade of methodological confidence. Creativity becomes an umbrella term accounting for all aspects not explained by rational or scientific methods. Yet, by definition, strategic decision making is creativity! It is about bringing about outcomes that are both novel and valuable.

It was only with the rise of romanticism and its admiration for imagination as distinct from intellect and feeling in the nineteenth century that the idea of creativity as we know it now became worthy of scrutiny. In the early accounts, creativity was often discussed in connection to imagination and genius. One could observe some patterns in the workings of painters and artists but few could provide a systematic understanding of creativity.

Post WWII was a turning point for study of creativity. During the war, generals had observed that some officers can take better decisions in complex setting of unexpected events during the war than the others. They asked for more studies on 'giftedness' and ways that they can identify and recruit more creative officers in military. In 1950, J P Guilford, the then head of American Psychology Association, called for more scholarly reflections on the concept, which resulted in more than 70 definitions for creativity in the field of psychology alone.

Three approaches emerged in study of creativity: Holy Cow! approach, which looks for some special traits or abilities, themselves unexplained, which explain creativity. Nothing But path, which reduces creativity to the ordinary and denies its special characteristics, all in all. Finally, the In Between approach that acknowledges the uniqueness of creativity but considers it explorable and understandable.

Also labelled as the 'We-paradigm' of creativity, frames creativity as an information-processing capacity. This implies that anyone with enough information processing capabilities, regardless of their individual differences, and dependent or independent of technology, could engage in a creative process and bring about creative solutions.

Creativity could be broken into tasks, distributed among multiple actors, and supported by institutional structures to ensure smooth operation and successful results. By removing reliance on individual qualities in creativity then, it is possible to design frameworks and processes that consistently deliver creative outcomes.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a key critic of Simon and a pioneer of the experiential view of creativity, argued that creativity is more than just problem-solving. Arguably, what differentiates a creative solution from a non-creative one is how the problem is initially framed, this is creative problem finding. He and his supporters believe that creativity retains a mysterious quality, rooted in curiosity, motivation, attention, and the elusive 'Aha!' moment—none of which can be fully explained or replicated by computers.

For proponents of this view, the entire creative process must occur within one’s mind. Though still collaborative and shaped by social context, environment, and communication, it differs from the engineered model, as it cannot be broken down into discrete steps or assigned as separate tasks.

While scholars came to appreciate the role of structured frameworks in creativity, they also recognized its complexities and resisted overly simplistic, problem-solving models. This prompted efforts to incorporate individual traits into creative decision-making.

In business studies, these efforts led to frameworks showing how individual traits influence collective creativity and how the environment shapes personal creative processes.In urban planning and public policy, these discussions focused on institutional design rather than the internal structure of individual decision-making. In decision science, it remained largely confined to theoretical explorations of decision-making styles.

Much of the theoretical reflections on the concept of style come from the world of visual art. It is a well-discussed yet divisive subject. For some, style is merely a decoration to the content of the work of art; an accessory. As Whitman, for example, in his essay "Democratic Vistas" (1871) wrote: "Style, when true and real, is but the last thing, the resultant, a rich and born fullness, the casing, not the interior substance itself, but just the enveloping sheath or adorning curtain of the thing."

For others, style reflects the totality of the work of art, a unique mix of essential components, inseparable from content. As Cocteau writes: “Decorative style has never existed. Style is the soul.”

"Style is the manner in which individuals take in data from the outside world and make decisions based on the data." Spicer and Sadler-Smith (2005)

"Decision making style as a learned habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation. It’s not a personality trait, by the habit-based propensity to react in a certain way in a specific decision context." Scott and Bruce (1995)

Measuring decision-making style has been important for policy design, health interventions, and financial decisions, as different styles lead to different choices. It helps with tailoring training, improving decisions, predicting job fit, and designing interventions.