Dear Keith,

Thanks for your note [1, below].

I was not working out whether 10 out of 10 criteria have been met in a situation to which someone might ascribe the general term “PROBLEM.”

I was specifically responding to your question on the difference between a “SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM” and a “WICKED PROBLEM.”

The concept of the wicked problem is not a glass bead game. I was trying to address serious issues with respect to “wicked problems.” As I stated, however, I was not trying to address or to define ALL criteria for ALL problems.

In fact, I acknowledged [2, below] that it may be possible to remove a few criteria and still classify something as a wicked problem. I was specifically discussing that kind of problem that Rittel and Webber (1973) describe as a wicked problem.

This is more than a glass bead game. But I do not believe you are actually asking about wicked problems. It seems to me that you are posing language game questions to probe the nature of your own curiosity on these issues. I may be wrong on this, but whether I am wrong or not, this is not a glass bead game. The nature of wicked problems – whatever we call them – is serious.

These kinds of situations make organized human action very difficult, indeed.

Addressing these kinds of challenges from another perspective, Michael Cohen, James March, and Johan Olsen (1972) advanced a theory of organizational decision-making that they labeled “the garbage-can model.” Cohen, March, and Olsen’s work led to an extensive body of literature in management and organization theory. What I find interesting in in that literature is the way that it fits together with Rittel and Webber’s concepts. Essentially, the issues that constitute a wicked problem lead to many of the kinds of poor decisions in organizations that Cohen, March, and Olsen describe.

If my criticism of your syntax was incorrect, please accept my apologies. Right or wrong, it was a difficult sentence. I accept that you may have written a sentence that was “exact if unaccommodating of the kinds of logics that might remedy its meaning by rendering it as something it is not.”

Even so, I did indeed address the question in explaining why the question is neither a scientific problem nor a wicked problem [2, below].

I think that wicked problems involve significant issues. I appreciate the many posts and probes put forward here, but I suspect that this may not be the best forum for winkling this oyster out of its shell. It’s a great place to raise the issue, but perhaps not the best place to solve it.

By this, I do not mean an attempt to “solve” a wicked problem, but rather to develop solutions to the nature of the kind of problem labeled a “wicked problem” with some attempt of ways to address this kind of problem.

This thread evolved when I put forward the Rittel and Webber description of a wicked problem. I did this when Terry requested that I select a theory that he might formalize in mathematical terms to demonstrate the conceptual power of mathematical form over against words and ideas stated in words. That’s how it came up, and – after answering two posts – this is where I will probably let it drop, at least for now.

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Private email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia

--

References

Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, Johan P. Olsen. 1972. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No.1. (Mar., 1972), pp. 1-25.

Rittel, Horst W J, and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, (1973), 155-169.

--

[1]

Keith Russell wrote:

—snip—

While it is very enjoyable to work out whether 10 out of 10 criteria have been met in any situation that someone might ascribe the term ‘problem’ to, I think tomorrow would have long become yesterday before there was a resolution.

That is, as Hegel might have said, one could spend his whole life cleaning his gun and never shoot.

I can’t see that there is much use for the concept of a wicked problem if it is simply a glass bead game.

—snip—

PS - My syntax, in the tomorrow example I provided, is exact if unaccommodating of the kinds of logics that might remedy its meaning by rendering it as something it is not.

—snip—

--

[2]

Ken Friedman wrote:

—snip—

BUT whichever way I parse the question, it is not a scientific question. Neither does it pose a wicked problem. The word “tomorrow” is a time marker. When you use a time marker in planning, you simply state that something should happen. That is a declaration or, in some cases, a normative statement. While scientific questions may have time markers in them, “the question of ‘tomorrow’ as it might appear as part of planning” is not such a time market. It is a general, abstract question. So ”the question of ‘tomorrow’ as it might appear as part of planning” is not a scientific question.

The fact that ”the question of ‘tomorrow’ as it might appear as part of planning” is not a scientific question does not make it a wicked problem. The reason this question is not open to solution is that it is not a question. This is like asking “how long is a piece of string?” This is not a precise, definite question open to solution — but it is not a wicked problem either. It’s a word game or a conceptual puzzle of some kind, and so is ”the question of ‘tomorrow’ as it might appear as part of planning.”

Once again, Rittel and Webber (1973: 161-166) define the attributes of a wicked problem clearly:

“1) There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. 2) Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 3) Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. 4) There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. 5) Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly. 6) Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. 7) Every wicked problem is essentially unique. 8) Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. 9) The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution. 10) The planner has no right to be wrong.”

Just as we stipulate problems in mathematics and problems in law, so the kind of problem that a “wicked problem” is, is defined by stipulation. If a problem has these attributes, it is a wicked problem. If it does not, it is not a wicked problem. There are many kinds of problems that admit no definite solution without being wicked problems. A wicked problem meets ten criteria.

It is possible that a deeper or more careful discussion would suggest that one or two criteria can be dismissed without changing the fact that a problem remains essentially wicked, but that kind of inquiry requires far more time and care than I can give it here.

Your question -- “the question of ‘tomorrow’ as it might appear as part of planning” -- meets none of the criteria that define a wicked problem. It has no solution because it is meaningless as stated here.

—snip—



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------