Hi Harold,
Thanks for your message. I understand that position.
To reiterate my response to Peter.
I suggest the game (i.e. the theory and philosophy appropriate to
understanding and designing in relation to multi-feedback loop problems) is
completely changed by the realisation that individuals and groups are
unable, due to biological limitations, to understand and predict the dynamic
behaviours of situations involving multiple feedback loops.
The lack of this ability to predict the dynamic behaviours over time of
multiple aspects of design situations and their outcomes is a limiting
factor on the competence of design activity.
Where this lack of ability is found (and it seems to be true for
multi-feedback loop situations) then, stakeholders/ constituencies' belief
in agreement on a design problem and strategies for solution, is not an
indicator of competence in design or of the identification of a satisfactory
design solution. In fact, my research indicates that an illusion occurs in
which people feel that they understand and can prediuct things that they
cannot (and it is easy to demonstrate their lack of understanding)
I suggest the above facts if true (and they seem to be) result in the
collapse of the underlying assumptions of most of the methodological,
theoretic and philosophical foundations in the literature relating to
complex design. Ashby, Meadows and Forrester being exceptions.
Best wishes,
Terry
===
Dr Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
[log in to unmask] Mob: +61 434 975 848
Senior lecturer,
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Dept of Psychology and Social Sciences
Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
Senior Lecturer, Dept of Design
Curtin University, Western Australia
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, UK
===
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Harold
Nelson
Sent: 12 February 2012 02:48
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: The problem with problems
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
[log in to unmask]
http://www.haroldnelson.com/
organizational design competence
http://www.organizationaldesigncompetence.com/
advanced design institute
http://www.advanceddesigninstitute.blogspot.com/
accidental vagrant
http://accidentalvagrant.blogspot.com/
|