Understanding Wicked Problems

What’s Wicked about organizational change problems?

Wicked problems are so-called because they lack any single cause or structure. They are often described as “messes” or tangles of interrelated problems – each of which is framed by various stakeholders in multiple ways, depending on their experience and location in the organization.

In The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems, Herbert Simon contrasted well-structured, rule-based problems with ill-structured problems, which required investigation, bounding, and analysis before they could be resolved (Simon, 1973).  Russell Ackoff (1974) went one step further, describing organizational problem-situations as “messes” that required negotiation to define and could only be assessed subjectively.

Horst Rittel explored the nature of the complex systemic problems of organizational planning and change. He labeled these problems “wicked” problems, to distinguish them from the “tame” problems that scientists and systems developers typically deal with, and that can be solved using logical analysis methods. While tame problems can be defined in terms of goals, rules, and relate to a clear scope of action, wicked problems consist of many, interrelated problems, have vague, emergent goals and boundaries, and are negotiated among stakeholders who hold radically different views of the organization Rittel, 1972; Rittel & Webber, 1973).

Wicked problems can be seen as the equivalent of Ackoff’s messes – tangles of related problems – that are characterized by the following attributes:

• The problem definition depends on the solution: any definition of a solution depends on how the problem is framed and vice versa;
• Multiple problems co-exist: various stakeholders have radically different world views and understand the problem differently, depending on where they are located in the organization (what parts of the problem they experience in their functional group);
• Problems are interrelated: because stakeholders only ever see part of the problem, it is impossoble to define the whole scope of the problem. Solving one person’s problem may make other peoples’ problems worse;
• There are no criteria by which to evaluate a solution: because the problem cannot be defined objectively, it is not possible to define criteria by which we will know if we solved the problem;
• Problems evolve: not only does taking action change the situation, but also the business environment is constantly evolving in unpredictable ways;
• The problem is never solved definitively: every time a change analyst takes action (implements a solution), this changes the problem-situation. The constraints that the overall problem is subject to, and the resources needed to solve it change over time.

Every stakeholder will have a different (and partial) understanding of problems.

Because they are so complex, wicked problems cannot be resolved using structured (logical) analysis methods. We need systemic analysis approaches that use a divide-and-conquer approach to surface multiple problem perspectives. This allows stakeholders to represent their ideal work-system(s) and to debate what needs to change. A wicked problem is one that is just too complex and messy (comprising multiple problem-elements) to be easily defined. As it can’t be defined objectively, so it can’t be resolved using regular analysis methods, such as those  used to generate IT system requirements.

Different stakeholders will define the problem in different ways, depending on the parts they have encountered in their work. The emergence of multiple problem-definitions as the problem is explored distinguishes “wicked” problems from the “tame” problems that organizational analysts and IT systems developers typically deal with. While tame problems can be defined in terms of goals, rules, and relate to a clear scope of action, wicked problems consist of many, interrelated problems, each with its own organizational scope and goals. As a result, wicked problems have vague, emergent goals and boundaries. Ways of framing wicked problems are negotiated among stakeholders who hold radically different views of the organization (Rittel & Webber, 1973). This type of systemic analysis requires group discussion and facilitation, rather than decompositional analysis.

Analysis, design, and problem-solving depend on pattern recognition. When organizations assemble a team of managers or designers to represent different business groups, each person brings the assumptions of their group culture and “best practices” with them. They are expected to collaborate as if they totally understand every single part of every business practice involved. But there are multiple, interrelated problems involved in any situation and different stakeholders will perceive different problems depending on their background, their experience of the business, and their place in the organization (what problems affect them). The key skill is to recognize those problems and tease them apart, dealing with each one separately.

“It comes as no particular surprise to discover that a scientist formulates problems in a way which requires for their solution just those techniques in which he himself is especially skilled.”

Kaplan, Abraham (1964) “The Age of the Symbol—A Philosophy of Library Education” The Library Quarterly. Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 295-304

These types of problem are also known as systemic problems because we use systems thinking (a.k.a. systemic analysis) to resolve them. Systemic analysis methods use a “divide-and-conquer” approach to exploring problems. The sub-problems prioritized by various stakeholders are explored and debated across the wider group of change managers. Goals and potential solutions emerge as “the problem” is framed and re-framed in multiple ways over time, and across stakeholders. This process results in organizational learning, as stakeholders acquire an improved understanding of others’ perspectives across organizational functions and boundaries. Systemic analysis also allows change managers to explore the “knock-on” impacts of change, allowing them to appreciate conflicts and tradeoffs between perspectives and to predict the impact of changes to one area of the organization on other areas and functions.

Analyzing and Solving Wicked Problems

Wicked problems present as tangles of interrelated problems, or “messes” (Ackoff, 1974). Because these problems are so messy, they are defined by various stakeholders in multiple ways, depending on the parts that they perceive — which in turn depends on where they are in the organization, their experience and their disciplinary background.

If you try to model a complex problem-situation, you will rapidly discover that any “system” of work consists of subsystems, the definition and scope of which depends on where the definer stands in the organization. To act upon a wicked problem, you need to understand the multiplicity of perspectives that various stakeholders take. Often, a single person will hold multiple perspectives depending on the role they are playing at any point in time. For example, I trained as an engineer, I was introduced to systemic  analysis during my education, and I adopted a social science perspective as an academic. So I can happily (and obliviously) define any situation in three different ways, depending on which “hat” I am wearing  when I do so!

Wicked problems are so-called because they are not “well-structured” – that is, amenable to analytical methods of problem-solving. This means that analysts often experience difficulty in defining the problem that needs solving or selecting an appropriate technique to model the problem.

“Successful problem solving requires finding the right solution to the right problem. We fail more often because we solve the wrong problem than because we get the wrong solution to the right problem.”

Russel Ackoff (1974) Redesigning the Future. Wiley.

Analysis depends on the type pf problem we face. Each type requires that we use different methods and approaches to analysis. One of the biggest issues with organizational and business process change is that it is widely seen as relating to IT systems change. Using IT systems design techniques to analyze complex organizational and operational problems means that the solution is artificially constrained and implemented as a one-off solutions, rather than as an emergent, experimental change.

Notes:

• The problem structure refers to the way in which elements of the problem are related. This part of the analysis often employs a model or analogy to communicate how the problem is structured across analysts and stakeholders. For example, defining a business problem as relating to customer retention focuses attention only on the business processes and incentives that lead to customer loyalty, excluding product manufacturing and quality issues.
• The problem boundary refers to which business processes and actors (managers and workers) are affected by a problem or solution. The diagram below shows a rich picture (Checkland,

Wicked Problems Require Systemic Analysis

As a result, Wicked Problems have a number of characteristics not found in the sorts of problems for which professional analysts and change-agents are typically trained. They are solved by trial and error, rely more on problem-negotiation than analysis, and need to be investigated, rather than analyzed. Any analysis imposes a model or structure that includes some aspects of the situation and excludes others, imposing an expectation that the elements found will be related in specific ways:

“… it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

Maslow, Abraham Harold (1966). The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance. Harper & Row.

The bottom line is that, while most analysis approaches focus on the form of the solution, wicked problem analysis needs to investigate the nature and scope of the problem. Successful resolution of wicked problems requires appreciative design techniques (Vickers, 1968), where the definition of a solution emerges in tandem with the definition of the problem. Analysts must become enculturated in the problem- situation to understand the stakeholder perspectives that drive various definitions of wicked problems.

They need to be familiar with systemic analysis of problems. Plus, they need to be good facilitators, capable of negotiating solutions across multiple stakeholders, with multiple viewpoints and priorities.

References

Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the future: A systems approach to societal problems. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Rittel, H. W. J. (1972). Second Generation Design Methods. Design Methods Group 5th Anniversary Report: 5-10. DMG Occasional Paper 1.
Reprinted in N. Cross (Ed.) 1984. Developments in Design Methodology, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester: 317-327.

Rittel, H. W. J. and M. M. Webber (1973). “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4, pp. 155-169.

Simon, H. A. (1973). The Structure of Ill Structured Problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8

Vickers G. (1968) Value Systems and Social Process. Tavistock, London UK.