JISCMail - PHD-DESIGN Archives

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

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