Dear Chris,
This is concise and clear. But I'll say here that I'm not sure this
works -- I think there are many gray zones where skill and judgement
come into play even though the basic task is clearly defined.
All *urban* planning problems and perhaps all of the planning
problems Rittel and Webber discussed were wicked problems, but many
planning problems that are not wicked.
I'm uncomfortable with definitions that refuse to acknowledge clear
cases of design practice -- unless, of course, you want to say, "When
I do this I'm a designer but when I do that I am not" even though the
same job and project requires the same person to do both kinds of
things while filling several kinds of roles.
But it's worth sorting out. Unless, of course, you insist on watch
Gone with the Wind.
Ken
Chris Rust wrote:
[Quoting Ken]
> 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.
--snip--
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.
--
|