Ken Friedman wrote:
> Chris seems to be saying that Rittel's definition of wicked problems
> is actually a definition of design. That is simply not so. There are
> millions of simple, tractable design problems we solve every day using
> algorithmic methods.
I am saying exactly what Ken suggests I am saying (so no dispute there)
and I don't agree with him that applying algorithmic methods is
designing although of course designers use those methods for dealing
with routine tasks every day. Quite a lot of people (a majority of
people in the world perhaps) may agree with Ken, as this is a matter of
terminology we might agree that there is no absolute rule we can use to
test for correctness. I am just saying that the wicked problem gives us
a more useful and interesting boundary than more inclusive approaches,
which seems to be so inclusive that we lose any possibility of
identifying a manageable field of knowledge.
The examples Ken gives are very helpful. Ken's junior graphic designer
asked to "format this limited placement offering for Chris Rust & Co.
Merchant Banking using the design manual specifications for this kind of
document" is not being asked to do any actual designing unless there are
concealed problems not answered by the design manual. That's why Graphic
Design companies have people who used to be called artworkers, or
paste-up artists and are now referred to as "Mac Operators". Skilled
workers but not deaigners.
Similarly I had a job once rather like the engineering task described by
Ken, specifying arrangements of steel components to deal with certain
loads or dimensional arrangements required by a client or project
manager, using a design guide and some basic structural calculations. I
was called a designer and sometimes we had an unusual problem where the
environment, or the operating requirements called for something
non-standard, or the client didn't really know what they wanted in any
detail, then I really was designing. The rest of the time I was doing
sums, drawing, making lists and writing specifications - all skills a
designer needs but little different from the skills needed by, for
example, a quantity surveyor.
So yes, I do think that the wicked problem is a way of characterising
designing and setting some limits on what we mean by the term while
remaining completely inclusive in regard to the great variety of
disciplines, contexts and practical content of designing.
Rittel and Webber did not talk about design in their seminal 1973 paper
on wicked problems, they were talking about planning in a social policy
context. But they were quite categorical that wicked problems were not
just an interesting sub-set of the problems that planners dealt with,
they were the only problems. Section III of the paper is titled
"Planning Problems are Wicked Problems." and that is the thrust of their
arguments. I suggest that it is possible to extend this argument to
designing although I have to admit that I have been so persuaded of
that, partly by Richard Buchanan's introduction to the topic (Buchanan
1992) and partly through my own direct observations, that I have not
attempted to untangle it. Maybe now is the time to start.
Best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
Buchanan, R. (1992) Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Design Issues
8,2 Spring 1992 5-21
Rittel, H. Webber, M. (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning/,/
/Policy Sciences// 4/, Elsevier Scientific Publishing, Amsterdam, pp.
155-169.
|