 Last
week in my article on Design Thinking I mentioned that such thinking is
focused on "wicked problems", which I defined as "the intractable,
complex-system
challenges that require parallel iterations of both the 'problem' and
the 'solution', until both become clearer at the same time (and
sometimes once you find the 'solution' you realize your concept of the
'problem' was wrong)".
A couple of readers picked up on the
term and wanted to know if I had coined it, and more about such
problems. The term was coined by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973
to describe problems in public policy and planning that defy solution
by analytical methods. Wicked problems, they said, have these ten
characteristics:
- Each attempt at creating a solution changes the understanding of the problem.
- Since you cannot define the problem, it is difficult to tell when it is resolved.
- There are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved.
- There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
- Every implemented solution to a wicked problem has consequences, some of which are unforeseeable or adverse.
- Wicked problems do not have a well-described set of potential solutions (it's a matter of individual judgement).
- Since every wicked problem is essentially unique, there are no ‘classes’ of solutions that can be applied.
- Every
wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem (there is
no constant or 'root' problem underlying others in the set).
- The causes of a wicked problem can be perceived in numerous, changing ways.
- There
is an unreasonable expectation that the team working on the problem
will find a satisfactory solution, preferably the first time.
The Cognexus Institute provides these examples of Wicked Problems meeting these criteria:
- Fighting terrorism
- Where to route a new highway
- A national healthcare system for the U.S.
- Sprawl and sustainable development
- What to do when oil resources run out
- The U.S. Social Security system
- World hunger
- Global warming
- Environmental planning
- Military base closure
- Business design challenges
- Complex software development (e.g. expertise finders)
My list of the world's ten most intractable problems all meet these criteria as well.
The
people I have spoken with who deal routinely with such problems have
stopped using the terminology that was traditionally applied to
complicated but 'tame' problems: solution, analysis, cause. They even
avoid using the term 'problem' because its connotation is something
that has a solution. But the terms that are appropriate instead are
awkward, because they hit home the impotence of those trying to tackle
them: instead of solutions and problems they talk of "approaches to
deal with or cope with" a "situation". And instead of analysis and
cause they use complex-system terminology like "pattern recognition"
and "correlation". It's a humbling vernacular, and it's not surprising
so many have chosen to leave such 'problems' for others to 'solve', or
to use fruitless, complicated-system tame-problem 'solutions' that
appear to work for awhile, and blame their later failure on other
factors.
So how should we "deal with" complex situations, when the current state is clearly unsatisfactory and suboptimal?
Let's start by looking at three examples of what nature does in such situations. Dave Snowden has described
how birds flying in a flock so gracefully are simply following three
'simple rules': they fly towards the centre of the flock, veer to avoid
colliding with other birds, and match speed to the neighbouring birds
in the flock as much as possible. How do they 'know' to do this? Instinct.
Second
example: Geese follow a number of rules to determine breeding rights
and territories. Only one breeding pair is allowed in each (large,
well-sheltered) breeding area. Each breeding area is usually maintained
unchanged from year to year. Only geese who migrated to the area the
previous year are 'eligible' to be breeders. Until they are three years
old, geese may only 'play nest' (the eggs, if laid at all, are not
fertilized or incubated). Those who meet these criteria may vie for
breeding rights, in a ritual that is usually more noise than fight, and
is usually won by the eldest goose and gander which are healthy. The
non-breeding geese then migrate further north to all-bachelor summering
grounds. The goslings are immediately transfered to an open area (one
where predators can be seen coming from far away). Several breeding
pairs will meet at this area, and if there are fewer than about four
goslings per adult, some of the adults will leave their newborns with
the remaining adults and migrate to the northern summering grounds.
How
does this complex series of behaviours occur with such predictability?
In part it in instinctive, and in part it is evolutionary: Trial and error. If one 'rule' leads to better survival, the survivors will perpetuate that rule and teach it to the next generation.
Third
example: In the winter, a certain number of the birds that summered in
each area will hibernate, a certain number will migrate to a warmer
climate, and a certain number will feed on what's stored away or
available all winter long. Birds rarely freeze to death. Somehow they
just know how many should stay, how many should go, and how many should
sleep. There is no hierarchy at work here, making the decision. The decision on what to do is made by each individual, and the collective wisdom is right.
Now let's look at human complex situations. Chris Corrigan has been using one complex situation technique, Open Space Technology,
very successfully, for a number of years, addressing issues like
suicide among First Nations youths. The critical differentiators
between this technique and more traditional business techniques are:
- a high number of context-rich, small-group ideating and knowledge-sharing conversations;
- attention to inviting and attracting the best possible people (see this post as a wonderful example of an invitation; how can anyone who cares about the world resist responding?);
- participants self-select and self-manage;
- passion (bounded by responsibility) as the fire that sparks and drives the energy and imagination of the session;
- the
integral practice of being open to new ideas, new ways of thinking, and
new ways of doing things, of suspending disbelief and skepticism, and
of listening attentively; and
- freedom of each participant to decide what to do to act upon the learnings that come from the session.
There are a number of organizations and journals researching how to cope with complex situations (sometimes called social complexity
to differentiate from mathematical complexity). Most of them
acknowledge the wisdom of the methods nature uses to deal with
complexity, and the value of Open Space Technology. Snowden has
developed an interesting model called ABIDE which calls for:
- establishing
(and acknowledging natural) attractors and barriers to encourage
desired and discourage undesired behaviours in lieu of attempting to
tightly 'manage' essentially unmanageable complex situations;
- recognizing
that individuals in complex situations often have multiple identities
which behave differently (and hence respond differently to attractors
and barriers);
- acknowledging that complex situations need to be
probed for recognizable patterns (correlations, not causation), and
explored, rather than analyzed and exploited;
- seeking many diverse, novel viewpoints, ideas and insights about the situation; and
- looking
ecologically rather than systematically at the environment in which the
situation is located (you can design a model that will simulate what's
happening, but not predict what will happen next).
If you put
all the principles highlighted in green above together you have what
might be the start of a means of coping or dealing with Wicked
Problems. Not a system or methodology, mind you -- these concepts don't
apply in the brave new complex world -- just a means, an approach. Some stuff that seems to work.
If
you're a manager, or a consultant, and this seems way too soft and
imprecise for comfort, you'll just have to learn to 'deal' with it. If
you're a fan of the approaches of Freakonomics or the Wisdom of Crowds, a complex approach to Wicked Problems is probably right up your alley. |