 |
 |
> read horst rittel on wicked problems (Rittel, Horst W. J. and > Melvin M. > Webber, (1984). Planning Problems are Wicked Problems. Pages > 135-144 in N. > Cross (Ed.). Developments in Design Methodology. New York: John > Wiley & > Sons). he made clear that problem solving works well when one is > concerned > with technical solutions, like herbert simon conceptualized (Simon, > Herbert > A. (1969/2001). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition. > Cambridge, MA: > MIT Press.) by contrast. but as soon a multiple political > interests are > involved, and i am suggesting this to be usually the case in design > that is > of interest to various stakeholders, not just the engineer next > door, the > solution becomes the problem and what designers propose has a strong > political dimension. I'm aware of Rittel's characterizations, as well as Simon's, and agree with the notion that wicked, multi-stakeholder problems have political (and other) dimensions. However where I seem to deviate is with respect to the notion that solving a wicked problem is not problem solving. Perhaps it comes down to questioning why the term "wicked problem" was chosen, as opposed to "wicked opportunity" or "complex circumstance". In my way of characterizing things, the adjective "wicked" modifies the noun "problem"; the notion of "problem" remains central. Solving a "wicked problem" would by extension be problem solving, moderated by the special needs of "wicked"-ness. Before I forget (and because I don't have the references at hand), how are you defining "technical"? > you have to ask yourself where a problem comes from, who defines it > and what > benefit are served by the particular problem definition that is > promoted. > david sless' traffic jam example is a good one to start. > engineers, he > said, would want to make the road wider. psychiatrists might want to > encourage stress treatment for drivers. business managers might > want to > stagger working times on the job. city governments might pass a law > preventing certain vehicles to use the road at certain time, etc. > traffic > engineers, psychiatrists, business managers, city officials all > represent > different institutional interests. i would not say that problems > are the > exclusive domain of institutions, but often designers ally > themselves with > one in order to get their proposals realized. Again, all of this sounds reasonable. However any form of allegiance, even to one's self, implies a restricted perspective. I'll go further and say that regardless of whether we talk about "design", "problem-solving", "change-agency", and any of the multitude of other descriptions, in each case we as individuals adopt a limited perspective. Perhaps this can be generalized to state that any attempt to interact with a situation requires by definition some institutionalization. My original reaction to this portion of the statement was, I think, founded in the idea that I have problems that I want solved and I don't consider myself an institution. > first, indeed, i have never seen an institution to speak, to > reflect, or to > act. only people can talk, think, and do something. but when > people speak > or act in the name of an institution, as a member, as a > professional, or as > a believer, they implicitly accept a restricted way of thinking and > acting > and in this sense subjugate themselves to whatever they believe is > appropriate to the role they occupy. it is rare that members of > institutions reflect on their membership although this is not > impossible. Reading into this comment, in how many circumstances, characterized as "design" or "problem solving" do you think that the participants spend time reflecting on their beliefs? My supposition is that regardless of whether they see themselves as individual, member of a profession, institutional employee, or something else, very few people will engage in reflection-in-action. On the other hand if you're asserting that designers are distinguished from problem solvers by their use of reflective practices, then I'm all for the distinction :) > when defining design as problem solving, one almost always takes > the problem > for granted and works toward its solution, dissolution, or > resolution, an > artifact that, once put in place makes the problem disappear. > designers who > accept a problem as a given problem submit themselves to the > institution > that defined it as such. I see such acceptance as being indicative of a poor problem solver, but that's just me. Again, I think that we are in substantive agreement, differing only in our use of the terms "design" and "problem solving". I suppose that there are (at least) two ways forward: - agree to use "design" and "problem solving" as shorthands for the distinctions that you have made - drop the pre-suppositions regarding problem solving and look instead at modifiers (e.g. "wicked", "routine", "prescribed", etc.) to indicate differences in approach Maybe I'm engaging in a kind of Orwellian redefinition of language. In the same way that "double-plus-good" can substitute for "great", why can't "wicked-reflective-problem solving" substitute for design? Why create new words that are really just shorthand and end up creating confusion? Thanks for the response to my (emotional) post. Jason P.S. Next thing you know the spirit of Wittgenstein will appear and push for pointing-and-grunting instead of words...