#33 - Wicked Problems
What makes a wicked problem, and what it means for those who encounter one.
The concept of wicked problems is common term in the realms of social planning and learning, but is not well known outside of that.
In a nutshell, a wicked problem which has substantial real world complexity that prevents it from being solvable. This can be differentiated from tame problems, which are solvable or approximately solvable.
That sounds relatively redundant, but let’s consider the effects of wicked problems based on the work of Jeffery Conklin:
The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.
Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.
Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one shot operation".
Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.
With its origins in social planning, wicked problems include things like homelessness, healthcare, epidemic management, and many more. But as the concept has caught on, wicked problems have been identified in economics, software development, business, technology, and more.
When you get down to it, the impacts of wicked problems are profound. Humans learn off quick, iterative feedback (AIs do as well, of course). Wicked problems inherently lack this: solutions are not quick, you have no idea when you’ve reached a point that is “good enough” (no stopping rule), even the definition of what is “right” and “wrong” is up for debate, and complexities of the problem may only show themselves after the solution is formulated!
Human? Machine? Alien? It doesn’t matter - it’s going to be tough to learn in that environment. While you could become well read on such problems, that knowledge will only take you so far as it is limited by the limited inputs and feedback that wicked problems provide.
Not all hope is lost though. Two of the originators of the concept of wicked problems do note approaches for tackling wicked problems in the real world. Their assertion is that attempts to solve should be:
Authoritative - relatively few people should be involved in order to minimize additional complexity due to politics and differing stakeholder views
Competitive - but attempts to solve wicked problems should pit opposing viewpoints against each other in a competitive framework, evaluating A vs. B and continuing as challenger solutions come along.
Collaborative - despite the competitive nature, the desire and focus should be around finding the best possible solution. To that end, all information should be shared and the solution group should approach it as a “team sport.”
Reading this back, it definitely calls to mind for me the founding of the United States. As the founders well knew, a straight appeal to the broad population was almost sure to end in disaster. As such, an authoritative group was formed, various ideas were pitted against each other, all with the end goal of building a great nation.
We are certainly in a different world today, and there is good reason to be skeptical of any and all appeals to authority in our modern world. Yet many of our problems are wicked, and we need better solutions to them.