Dear Ken,
The ten attributes given by R&W do not define what a wicked problem is. They
merely describe characteristics of it.
Characteristics do not define entities. They merely provide boundaries to
the space within which an entity may be defined. In theory there is a
potentially infinite number of variations of kinds of entity in the space
bounded by R&W's attributes (or any other attributes) that could be called
a wicked problem. I suggest almost any open ended design problem would
align with R&W's 'wicked problem' attributes. How about, what is the best
power system for an aircraft? Or 'What is the best layout for am offshore
oil processing rig? Or what is the best arrangement for the UK's wavepower
electricity supply? Keith's question, which I interpret as, 'How should we
make decisions today about tomorrow?' is similar.
The mathematical representation I used as an illustration starts to reveal
the varieties of different kinds of real and theoretical entities,
relationships, bounds and criteria that need to be addressed individually
and together to understand and critique an idea such as R&B's wicked problem
concept.
Your reduction to a simple logic alternative in a previous post loses that
ability to improve the precision of the analysis.
From what I read of your posts, it seems that you don't understand the use
of mathematics representations to unpack the hidden epistemological
dimensions of a concept. It is possible to do the same with words, using
maths is simply more effective. It's completely different to making a
mathematical representation of the *functioning* of a theory
Regards with humour,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2014 10:05 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN PHD-DESIGN
Subject: Re: Wicked Problems
Dear Keith, Jonas, and David,
Keith, the way you've phrased this question poses neither a scientific
problem nor a wicked problem. You ask, "What then about the question of
whether 'tomorrow' as it might appear as part of planning, is an example of
a scientific problem and hence open to a definite solution or an example of
a wicked problem and hence not open to a definitive solution?"
The question is so confusing in its grammatical structure that there is no
proper way to answer it. It is impossible to get a clear question out of
this. This question should probably be stated in two or three clear
sentences, each with a subject, a verb, and an object. Once you specify the
question that you intend to ask, it may be possible to answer it.
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.
Wolfgang, you write that we are "probably talking about the difference
between complicatedness and complexity."
In my view, this is not so. While it is in theory possible to describe every
element of a complicated system, there are major differences between complex
adaptive systems and wicked problems. Wicked problems are not wicked because
they involve complex adaptive systems. Complex adaptive systems may be
difficult to understand, and they offer serious theoretical problems, but
complexity is a property of systems. The "wicked aspect of a "wicked
problem" involve the ways in which human beings identify, select, interpret,
attempt to solve, or act upon problems.
There are some very simple systems that fulfil all the criteria that Rittel
and Webber attribute to wicked problems. Such problems are neither complex
nor complicated.
Consider the case of a group of three people working late in an office. They
must order a meal delivered from one restaurant and one restaurant only. One
wants to eat Italian food, one wants to eat Indian food, and one wants to
eat Irish food. All must agree if they are to place the order. If each
person insists on his or her original preference, this is a wicked problem.
Despite the trivial nature of the problem and the relatively low stakes, the
problem may remain wicked and unresolvable. Equally, the problem may be
resolved swiftly in any number of ways.
In responding to Keith, I stated that he is not asking about wicked
problems, but posing language games to probe the nature of his own curiosity
on these issues. He is not describing complicated systems or complex
systems.
But the attributes of a wicked problem do not define either complicated
systems or complex systems. They define ten attributes, qualities, or
qualities that make a problem a "wicked problem" as Rittel and Webber define
it.
David, you are taking issue with "calling something (anything) a *problem*."
I'll have to wait to read your blog. Using the word problem or the concept
of a problem seems to me quite straightforward. It is a perfectly good
English word with different and relatively clear meanings. What it is to be
a problem or to solve one is not always simple - this raises profound
questions in the philosophy of science. I am perfectly happy to agree that
you don't like the word or the concept of a problem. It doesn't bother me.
Feynman (1993), Hadamard (1996), Hersh (1998), and Polya (1990) were all
happy to talk about problems and the nature of what it is to be a problem.
So am I.
Nevertheless, you blogs are always entertaining, and I look forward to
reading your thoughts.
Warm wishes,
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
--
Reference
Feynman, Richard P. 1993. What do you care what other people think? London:
HarperCollins.
Hadamard, Jacques. 1996 [1945]. The Mathematician's Mind. The Psychology of
Invention in the Mathematical Field. With a new preface by P. N.
Johnson-Laird. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hersh, Reuben. 1998. What is Mathematics, Really? London: Vintage.
Polya, G. 1990. How to Solve It. A New Aspect of Mathematical Method.
London: Penguin Books.
Rittel, Horst W J, and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. Policy Sciences, Vol. 4,
(1973), 155-169.
--
Keith Russell wrote:
--snip--
Yes, I agree. I was anticipating that my example of ocean currents would NOT
be seen as a wicked problem. I was trying to illustrate exactly the
differences you raise.
What then about the question of whether "tomorrow" as it might appear as
part of planning, is an example of a scientific problem and hence open to a
definite solution or an example of a wicked problem and hence not open to a
definitive solution?
--snip--
--
Wolfgang Jonas wrote:
--snip--
you are probably talking about the difference between complicatedness and
complexity.
--snip--
--
David Sless wrote:
--snip--
The issue is calling something (anything) a *problem*
--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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|