Blog

Jeff Conklin nicely summarises wicked problems as follows:

1. You don’t understand the problem until you have developed a solution. Indeed, there is no definitive statement of “The Problem.” The problem is ill-structured, an evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints. Rittel said, “One cannot understand the problem with knowing about its context; one cannot meaningfully search for information without the orientation of a solution concept; one cannot first understand, then solve.” Moreover, what “the Problem” is depends on who you ask – different stakeholders have different views about what the problem is and what constitutes an acceptable solution.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Since there is no definitive “The Problem”, there is also no definitive “The Solution.” The problem solving process ends when you run out of resources, such as time, money, or energy, not when some optimal or “final and correct” solution emerges. Herb Simon, Nobel laureate in economics, called this “satisficing” — stopping when you have a solution that is “good enough” (Simon 1969)
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong, simply “better,” “worse,” “good enough,” or “not good enough.” With wicked problems, the determination of solution quality is not objective and cannot be derived from following a formula. Solutions are assessed in a social context in which “many parties are equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge [them],” and these judgements are likely to vary widely and depend on the stakeholders independent values and goals.
4. Every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel. There are so many factors and conditions, all embedded in a dynamic social context, that no two wicked problems are alike, and the solutions to them will always be custom designed and fitted. Rittel: “The condition in a city constructing a subway may look similar to the conditions in San Francisco, say, … but differences in commuter habits or residential patterns may far outweigh similarities in subway layout, downtown layout, and the rest.” Over time one acquires wisdom and experience about the approach to wicked problems, but one is always a beginner in the specifics of a new wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation,” every attempt has consequences. As Rittel says, “One cannot build a freeway to see how it works.” This is the “Catch 22” about wicked problems: you can’t learn about the problem without trying solutions, but every solution you try is expensive and has lasting unintended consequences which are likely to spawn new wicked problems.
6. Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions. There may be no solutions, or there may be a host of potential solutions that are devised, and another host that are never even thought of. Thus, it is a matter of creativity to devise potential solutions, and a matter of judgement to determine which are valid, which should be pursued and implemented.

And here is how I’ve roughly paraphrased Paul Cilliers description of complex systems:

• Complex systems have a large number of elements.
• The elements must interact.
• The interaction is fairly rich, i.e. any element in the system influences, and is influenced by quite a few other ones.
• The interactions are non-linear.
• Interactions have a short range, i.e. info is received primarily from immediate neighbours.
• There are loops in the interactions: positive and negative.
• Complex systems are usually open, i.e. they interact with their environment. Actually it is difficult to define the borders of a complex system. Therefore the scope is defined by the purpose and therefore influenced by the observer position.
• They operate far from equilibrium. Equilibrium equals death.
• They have histories. The past influences current behaviour. Must take account of time.
  Each element is ignorant of the behaviour of the system as a whole, it responds to information available locally.

It is interesting that these two perspectives don’t make much reference to each other. While there is mention of social complexity in Jeff’s work, there is little said about complex systems from a complexity science perspective. On the other side I’ve never seen wicked problems or Rittel and Webber mentioned in the complex adaptive systems literature.

Rittel, H. & Webber, M. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155-169.

Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity & Postmodernism. London: Routledge.

Conklin, J.; Wicked Problems and Social Complexity; http://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf; 25 January 2005.

(via Anecdote)

The wisdom of crowds, originally uploaded by densitydesign.

While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom of the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that “under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.” To support this almost counterintuitive proposition, Surowiecki explores problems involving cognition (we’re all trying to identify a correct answer), coordination (we need to synchronize our individual activities with others) and cooperation (we have to act together despite our self-interest). His rubric, then, covers a range of problems, including driving in traffic, competing on TV game shows, maximizing stock market performance, voting for political candidates, navigating busy sidewalks, tracking SARS and designing Internet search engines like Google. If four basic conditions are met, a crowd’s “collective intelligence” will produce better outcomes than a small group of experts, Surowiecki says, even if members of the crowd don’t know all the facts or choose, individually, to act irrationally. “Wise crowds” need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people’s errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are “smarter” than if a single expert had been in charge. Surowiecki’s style is pleasantly informal, a tactical disguise for what might otherwise be rather dense material. He offers a great introduction to applied behavioral economics and game theory.
(via Amazon)

Fast Company calls it an ‘idea-driven narrative’. This genre, made famous by Malcolm Gladwell, takes a simple (but important) idea and uses research, case studies, and personal experiences to enable the reader to see the world from a new perspective. Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki, is a notable addition to this enriching genre.
The simple idea upon which Surowiecki builds is that, under certain conditions, groups of people make better decisions than any individual could hope to make. There are three conditions: the group must be diverse; the individuals should make their decisions independently; and the people must be decentralised, thus ensuring that decisions are based on local knowledge.
This book is essentially about the theme of complexity, and how group decision-making provides a way of tackling uncertain situations and solving apparently intractable problems. Three types of problems are examined, each with its own chapter:

1.cognitive problems: which have verifiable answers (such as calculating the weight of a bull after it has been slaughtered and dressed);

2. coordination problems: in which people coordinate their behaviour, knowing that others are behaving similarly (such as buyers and sellers finding each other and trading goods at a fair price);

3. cooperation problems: which involve getting people to work together for a common good (such as paying taxes or reducing pollution), over and above their individual interests.
(via Anecdote)

Dave Pollard is highlighting the similarities between wicked problems and complexity. I had a similar thought a few months back so it’s good to see others seeing a connection. Of course Dave does with much greater thoroughness.

I was interested in this comment because I agree that the word ‘problem’ is a problem when addressing complex issues.

If it is viewed as a problem you tend to want to fix it which encourages you to think in project management terms: tasks, milestones, targets, efficiency, pre-defined outcomes. For a complex issue the approach should be to improve the situation knowing full well that it can’t be ‘fixed’. At what point is culture fixed? When is trust fixed? When has an organisation done and dusted innovation?

What is frustrating is hearing professionals talk about issues like culture using metaphors that suggest it’s a mechanical problem. I’m referring here to a presentation I attended two weeks ago by someone using the Human Synergistics diagnostic. The talk was sprinkled with terms like ‘levers’ and ‘drivers’ and asking questions like ‘what is causing your culture?’

Language is vital. When I help clients design interventions I tell them to stop trying to solve the problem. Until people understand the importance of a new language for complex problems we are going to slip back into our old ways. And these old ways are not going to help.

(via Anecdote)

Do not do business

1. Reduce your activities to zero
2. Don’t leave the house
3. Don’t call
4. Don’t talk to anybody
5. Stay in bed
6. Close your eyes
7. Stop breathing

This list comes from a German business magazine which devoted an issue to complexity in business. You will need to be competent in German to read the articles but Walter Baets provides a short summary.

(via Anecdote)

WorldMapper, originally uploaded by densitydesign.

(Give a look)

Partiti?, originally uploaded by densitydesign.

A semi seriuos interview with David Hillman, one of the Pentagram partner, about italian party logos