A pretty good overview of what wicked problems are can be found on this site (with lots of dead links) at Unidata.
According to the CogNexus Institute, a wicked problem is
…one for which each attempt to create a solution changes the understanding of the problem. Wicked problems cannot be solved in a traditional linear fashion, because the problem definition evolves as new possible solutions are considered and/or implemented.
They give credit to Horst Rittel for describing the term,who in his seminal paper published with Melvin Webber point out ten distinguishing features of wicked problems, of which some or all may apply:
- There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule
- Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad
- There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem
- Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly
- Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan
- Every wicked problem is essentially unique
- Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem
- The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution
- The planner has no right to be wrong
Cognexus provides some additional insights about the phenomenon:
- Simple problems “are easy to solve, because defining a problem inherently defines a solution”
- When stakeholders can’t agree on the definition of the problem, they have a “wicked” problem, and the hope is that they can be “tamed”
- This means that any one person can’t keep track of all the variables involved in the problem – hence, several people have to be involved
- Because subjective considerations play a role, resolving wicked problems involves a political process [and should be managed as such]
I think an additional element of wicked problems is that any solution that comes to mind has an unacceptable outcome, and that this inevitably creates cognitive dissonance among the stakeholders. Consequently, we have as a species developed novel ways of postponing the unpleasantness of dealing with wicked problems until it’s too late. And then rationalize our inaction in retrospect.
The problem with these definitions and descriptions is that it starts with an endpoint (the wicked problem) but doesn’t describe the various factors that complicate problem-solving. Wicked problems are those that are on one end of a continuum; they are not in a category all by themselves.
Some factors that occur to me:
- Clarity about stakeholders – stakeholders are those have an interest in the solution, or in the process of reaching a solution. We have to consider:
- The size of the stakeholder population. In some cases, it’s a small management team, in others it’s the human race.
- How easily the stakeholders can be identified. Or put another way, how clear the distinction is between those have a stake and those who don’t. This is complicated by secondary effects, since it’s not always apparent at the outset what might happen, and who might be affected.
- The diversity of interests among stakeholders. The more diverse, the worse the problem, and it’s especially bad if there are conflicting interests.
- Level of consensus around the need for change – too much consensus is not necessarily a good thing (viz. groupthink), but if there are widely differing and strongly held opinions about the importance of a problem, things get much more difficult.
- Level of consensus around the type of solution-it seems to be human nature to discuss solutions without having a clear idea of the problem, or as George Burns once said: “Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair.”
- Extent to which boundary conditions and constraints are known – people are generally unwilling to commit resources and take risks until they understand the consequences of the alternative (doing nothing).
- Understanding of secondary effects -the most insidious of all are unintended consequences, which sometimes can be phenomenal, and other times disastrous.
- Diversity of factors that need to be satisfied – hard, soft, measurable, intangible, emotional, economic, technical, physical, you name it. The more, the weirder.
- Urgency, or, how important it is to get it right the first time – a surprising number of successes come after initial failures. Although nobody sets out on something new expecting to fail, there are problems that radically change with the passage of time
- Whether the default solution is acceptable – in other words, if doing nothing will have acceptable results.
- Whether solution set is convergent, divergent, or completely unknown – a convergent solution set is one in which one solution over time will become apparent as superior to all others; divergence when there are two or more mutually exclusive courses of action that each have advantages and disadvantages; and there are cases where the solution set is unknown and unknowable.
Guess what? This doesn’t lend itself to a 2×2 matrix, and I’m not even sure it can be scored.
To be continued…
Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair.
Comments