Several smart thinkers in this field have attempted to categorize problems along a continuum where, say, a math problem is on one end, and wicked problems on the other. In the middle are problems that may be tough, but can be solved with known, conventional means. Wicked problems are in a category of their own, separated from the others by discontinuity. They are simply unlike all other problems by any reasonable standard.
There’s a temptation to characterize wicked problems the way George Costanza characterized the premise for the “art imitates art” Seinfeld show on Seinfeld: to say that there’s nothing you can do to nail down a wicked problem.
That’s demonstrably untrue, or all the world’s biggest problems throughout the ages would still be with us.
Many, if not most, of these problems were resolved because they were overcome by other events. More often than we’d care to admit, wicked problems have metastasized and caused war, famine, genocide, displacement, and other hugely destructive and catastrophic, but nevertheless definitive courses of events.
The complexity of problems can be mapped along two dimensions:
- The degree of linearity in the problem-solving process. Or put another way, the extent to which the path dependence is predictable. Building a suspension bridge is no trivial undertaking, but engineers have a good idea in what order it should happen. Conversely, policymakers in international affairs are constantly arguing where to start resolving conflicts.
- The compatibility of solution constraints – i.e., how many eggs we have to break or people we have to annoy, in a workable solution. Software development projects seem to always have this problem – choose any two of quality, cost, and time.
Wicked problems are on the extreme ends along both these dimensions, usually to the point of confounding anyone who tries to hold them down long enough to make sense of them.
Consequently, these are problems that can be solved, if solving them means: a) being confident that a given approach will yield a solution, and b) that the solution will satisfy all, or even any, of the known constraints.
Taming them, however, means bringing enough order and discipline that progress can be made against the problem’s underlying needs. Instead of a catastrophic resolution of the problem, we can make deliberate trade-offs, choosing which constraints to satisfy. Similarly, by pursuing a problem pacification strategy, there will be some control over the timing and sequence of events.
Comments