Dear DRS

A discussion of Wicked Problems is always of interest but often problematic. One of the first difficulties encountered is the conflation of the many assumptions of what is meant by 'problem' . There has been some extremely interesting thinking about the nature of problems and the concomitant strategies for dealing with them. A form of problem for scholars and scientists is the problem of not knowing something—not having factual knowledge, not having instrumental knowledge and not having predictive knowledge. For others it may be a problem of not knowing what to do—not having deontic (ethical) knowledge. For creatives it may be not knowing what is aesthetic. Another set of problem categories includes when things are broken as in: "Houston we've had a problem" (Apollo 13). Another popular category involves situations that frighten people, make them mad, hurt them etc. When talking about problems it is helpful to be transparent about what constitutes a problem in order to determine effective strategies for dealing with them.

Professionals and consultants often frame difficulties as complex vs. simple problems. In addition to the notion of complex and simple problems, some very good scholars have explored problems through different types. Herbert Simon explored the notion of 'ill-structured' problems, Russ Ackoff looked at problems as 'messes' and Horst Rittlel contrasted 'Wicked Problems' to 'Tame Problems'. These are all very different perspectives on what constitutes problematic situations—interesting in themselves certainly but the point made here is that there are many useful and interesting approaches to understanding problems that get lost in a generalized aggregation of the concept of 'problem'. 

Wicked Problems have been an attractor for designers, managers and planners of all stripes. Too often there is little appreciation of the idea Rittel presented and Wicked Problems are taken to be actual problems of some sort. For instance a consultant might develop a strategy for decomposing Wicked Problems into Tame Problems which can then be solved in the straight forward manner one has been taught to do. Rather than developing strategies for coming up with 'solutions' to Wicked Problems, Rittel developed strategies for 'resolving' them—i.e. coming to a political or social agreement concerning what action to take rather than an agreement about what is true or predictive. Rittel developed a strategy for problem resolution based on a formal argumentation process called IBIS (Issue Based Information Systems) that has been further developed since his death.

As an alternative, a design strategy, when confronted with the conditions constitutive of Wicked Problems, is one of problem 'dissolution'. This means taking a design stance rather than a reactive problem solving stance and creating a situation that dissolves the conditions that had been considered problematic. There are 'design problems' of course but they are an artifact of a good design approach rather than the trigger for a good design approach.

Harold Nelson
[log in to unmask]
http://www.haroldnelson.com/

organizational design competence
http://www.organizationaldesigncompetence.com/----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Jones | Redesign" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:20:41 AM
Subject: Re: Wicked Problems

Ken, thanks for changing the title, and the replies Terry, Ken, et al - 

Methodology recapitulates ontology. 

Without extending the background any further, I will indicate that in our
Strategic Foresight & Innovation program we teach the Meadows system
dynamics approaches,  Gharajedaghi/Ackoff school of social systems and
idealized design, and Christakis/Warfield's methodology of dialogic design
science. I am also starting to develop lessons in service systems (also a
"science") as formulated by authors in ISSS and IBM (current president David
Ing is a Toronto collaborator of mine). I know the strengths and weaknesses
of the different schools of thought. 

Systems research has always, always been about philosophy. Norbert Wiener
developed Cybernetics as a response to his information theories being
ignored in favor of Shannon and Weaver in his time. His Human Use of Human
Beings was pure ethical philosophy, he was essentially making the same
warnings as Jacques Ellul.  Ross Ashby's work on control theory absolutely
defines the Christakis SDD process, except socially, not as an reductionist
system approach but a change-driven approach. West Churchman's work on
inquiring systems describes 5 inquiry or reasoning processes. Traditional
system dynamics is very much analytic-deductive, whereby feedback loops have
to be identified, operationalized, measured before controlled. This is but
one inquiry system. SDD is constructed to draw on all 5 (Churchman's 5th or
systems approach is inquiry of multiple perspectives and toward human
progress). 

Again, methods are not theory, and the social theories of human behavior and
interaction draw from different philosophical stances, but can use similar
methods. But the ontological position one has toward design absolutely
determines the kinds of problem systems you see and you're willing to take
on. There are two points that clarify the difference:

Donella Meadows is our classic system dynamics references, yes? She would
agree with your position on feedback loops, but  then also say it doesn't
matter for intervention. Her famous paper on the 12 Places to Intervene in a
System: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points  basically shows
that the top four most powerful change drivers (again, "design") are social
decisions that must be made by stakeholders, not technical factors
identified in analysis and modeling. The most significant is power to
transcend paradigms. Social systems design aims at these fundamental
agreements, because even if you get feedback loops "right" you never get
them all, and they change by the time you've analyzed your runs. Look at
Afghanistan:
http://www.comw.org/wordpress/dsr/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/afghanistan-130
0.jpg

Two, in social design we follow Hasan Ozbekhan's principle. It's another
ontological position - that it is unethical to design change programs
without the complete engagement of the stakeholders in the problem system.
Ozbekhan published only a few papers, but he's considered the originator of
normative planning, a process we teach in SDD engagements and OCADU. Even
before Rittel defined wicked problems Ozbekhan wrote about problematiques -
in particular the global problematique of 49 continuous critical problems
that evolve and overlap, obscuring initial causes and demonstrating
misleading effects. These 49 are still with us today. Christakis published a
retrospective inquiry on the problematique that tells much of this story:
http://www.globalagoras.com/files/ANCretrospective.pdf 

OK, three. If we elevate our discussion above methodology, to ontology and
paradigms, we'll find some divergence, which is fine. It's always been there
in the systems and design fields. I am a constructivist/interpretivist in
most research, because of the messiness of human-centered problems. But in
designing social systems design that stance and the selection of methods
depends on the problem and its goals. Change outcomes are not manageable by
predictive or reductionist methods, as the Club of Rome discovered with the
Limits to Growth. If research is oriented to Understanding (as dialogic
approaches are by their very nature), they are also in conflict with
positivist or reductionist mindsets. These are not irreconcilable, but our
epistemological cultures determine more of our scientific (and design)
process and method than our desire to resolve action in wicked problem
systems in the best ways "for that situation." Again, an agreement.

In our classes, students learn the applicability of methods by doing. from
the learner problems selected, and let the problems determine their planning
and methods. (If they choose system dynamics methods, we have them do causal
loop mapping, not system modeling, it’s an interdisciplinary program with
mixed backgrounds and no time for building math models in class).
  
Thanks for the opportunity to share some of these ideas. 

Peter

Peter Jones, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor, Faculty of Design
Sr. Fellow, Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab)

OCAD University
205 Richmond Street West, Toronto, Canada  M5V 1V6 

http://designdialogues.com