Hi Ken,
You appear to be misunderstanding the idea of a wicked problem.
Klaus has it on the nail when he points out your example is not solvable at
all - i.e it's NOT a wicked problem.
I can't pot basketballs like Luc Longley and that's not a wicked problem
either - Luc Longley is 7'2" tall and that also isn't a wicked problem.
Klaus' second example, is one that would start to appear, in it's initial
formulation, to be a wicked problem. The resolution as Klaus indicates,
involves other issues.
There are alternative perspectives on how to move forward at this point.
One path is to map out the problem and all of these contextual issues in a
dynamic model and identify - design - a solution that will work as a
result of taking into account the reality that the outcomes will be
dynamically changing from here on out. The second way is to suggest that it
can be worked out only via discussion between humans.
Here is the difference between the positions of myself and Klaus. I suggest
it is straightforward to include conceptions, convictions and conceptual
frames in modelling and that dynamic modelling followed, or accompanied by,
dialogue is the most successful way forward. As a result of identifying
limitations on human thinking about complexity (the 2 feedback loop axiom),
and observations over a few decades I suggest approaches based only on
discussion will almost always fail - as we have seen in the Middle East. In
contrast, Klaus believes it is not possible to put conceptions,
convictions, and conceptual frames into dynamic modelling and hence argues
it can only be solved through human discussion by itself. The
discussion-only approach preferred by Klaus is to date the most common, yet
it is also the one that has failed most consistently and spectacularly.
It would be interesting if you would describe a real wicked problem - hard
as you like - fitting Rittel and Weber's criteria - and then we could work
out ways to resolve it, as an example.
Over to you.
Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask] +61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
-----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 Ken
Friedman
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012 1:55 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Design Thinking Readings -- going deeper
Dear Terry,
You write, "The problem is that Rittel and Weber's paper contains many
fundamental mistakes and false conclusions as I've documented elsewhere." I
followed the link to your comments. I'd disagree with the notion that you
documented the fundamental mistakes and false conclusions. IMHO, you stated
your opinion on wicked problems without demonstrating or documenting a way
to address the multiple-loop problems you described, and without
demonstrating that Rittel and Webber are mistaken in their description of a
class of problems.
The notes preceding your comments and the later notes offer useful reading.
Peter Jones and Harold Nelson's notes were especially useful . Harold argued
that the discussion of wicked problems is often problematic because one
cannot "solve" wicked problems. Nevertheless, he noted that one can reduce
wicked problems to tame problems, dissolving them through a design stance.
Another way to solve some kinds of wicked problems is through negotiation -
these involve cases where the wickedness of the problem rests on intractable
differences of opinion. If one agrees to a compromise, one can gain
traction.
A toy model of a wicked problem is a case in which three friends want to go
to a movie. One wants an action film, one wants a weepie, and one wants a
light comedy. If neither is willing to change preferences, this is a
wickedproblem. If they agree to any kind of solution - two successive coin
tosses, a trade-off for the next movie night, a decision to go to a sporting
even instead - they dissolve the problem.
Making the claim that the Rittel and Webber paper is typified by
"fundamental mistakes and false conclusions" is different to documenting
your views. As many have noted, design researchers often misuse the notion
of wicked problems - that's not Rittel's fault or Webber's.
In my view, Rittel's articles and the Rittel and Webber article remain quite
useful, though the issue of wicked problems is often - in its own right -
problematic. Rittel's concept describes several classes of problems subject
to the series of ten constraints and criteria that he describes. The fact
thatsuch problems generate difficulties is quite different to the case that
they may, indeed, constitute a class of problem.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask] | Phone +61 3 9214 6102 |
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|