ReThinking Wicked Problems in a Decentralized World
Many problems are solvable because cause and effect are easy to identify. Wicked problems are problems with many interdependent factors making them seem impossible to solve. Because patterns and information are often incomplete, in flux, and difficult to define, solving wicked problems requires a deep understanding of the stakeholders and ecosystems involved. Complex issues such as pandemics, poverty, civil unrest, climate change, hunger, natural hazards, multicultural integration, cybersecurity, homelessness, political gridlock and social injustice are examples of wicked problems.
The term “wicked problem” was coined by Horst Rittel, design theorist and professor of design methodology at the Ulm School of Design, Germany. In the paper “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” he describes ten characteristics of wicked problems:
- There is no definitive formula for a wicked problem.
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule, as in there’s no way to know your solution is final.
- Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false; but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate 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 a set number of potential solutions.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem.
9. There is always more than one explanation for a wicked problem because the explanations vary greatly depending on the individual perspective.
10. Planners/designers have no right to be wrong and must be fully responsible for their actions.
Wicked problems are systemic and emergent. Wicked problems cannot be isolated and tackled through the current traditional industrial age linear approach. The patterns that characterize wicked problems form through self-organization within an almost infinite number of individual interactions. These patterns emerge through endless interactions across dense networks and their many cause-effect relations can never be fully mapped out in real time.
We increasingly find that our economies and social organizations are global in nature and interconnected. Complex global networks now span around the planet; unfortunately our science and much of our thinking has left us in a situation where we are far from understanding these complex systems and the new set of issues they present.
Peter Senge puts it well when he says “whether you talk about energy, food or water, we live in this web all of us we don’t know where our food comes from and the consequence of the systems that produce and distribute it, we don’t know where our energy comes from and we don’t know the consequences of our use of it. We don’t know much about anything that affects our daily living because we live in an extraordinary web of systemic interdependence, it is, in my opinion, the defining feature of this age… and we are totally unprepared for it, we don’t know how to see it, we don’t know how to think about it.”
In a paper, “Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution,” published in 2000, Nancy Roberts identified the following strategies to cope with wicked problems:
Authoritative
Authoritative strategy seeks to tame wicked problems by vesting the responsibility for solving the problems in the hands of a few people. The reduction in the number of stakeholders reduces problem complexity, as many competing points of view are eliminated at the start. The disadvantage is that authorities and experts charged with solving the problem may not have an appreciation of all the perspectives needed to tackle the problem. Much of the current homeland security and emergency management strategies rely primarily on this authoritative strategy.
Competitive
Competitive strategy attempts to solve wicked problems by fostering competition to solve them, pitting opposing points of view against each other. The advantage of this approach is that different solutions can be weighed up against each other and the best one chosen. The disadvantage is that this adversarial approach creates a confrontational environment in which knowledge sharing is discouraged. Consequently, the parties involved may not have an incentive to come up with their best possible solution. This is the strategy where private business, politicians and religious leaders compete for the public’s attention. Competitive strategy sometimes leads to polarization and tribalism.
Collaborative
Collaborative strategy aims to engage all stakeholders in order to find the best possible solution for all stakeholders. Typically these approaches involve meetings in which issues and ideas are discussed and a common, agreed approach is formulated. A significant advantage of this approach is the creation of a strong information sharing environment. The main problem is the risk that certain ideas, while integral to finding a possible solution, may be too controversial to accept by other involved parties.
Open source networks are a primary platform for this strategy including peer to peer networks and social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter.
ReThinking Wicked Problems in a Decentralized World
When ecosystems of wicked challenges become increasingly complex, linear cause and effect recognition breaks down. Because of high levels of interconnectivity, ecosystem parts become harder to define. What is needed is a holistic and sensemaking approach to asset allocation, problem typology and risk management. Sensemaking is the process by which people give meaning to their collective experiences. It has been defined as “the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld). Systems thinking and sensemaking means factoring in all relevant metrics, dynamics, stakeholders and interconnected parts required to sustain the whole system and thus mitigate systemic criticality.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
Angi English is currently a SME III for the Executive Education Team at the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security and an Adjunct Professor for Idaho State University in Homeland Security and Emergency Management. She is the former Chief of Staff at the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management and a HSx Founding Scholar for Innovation at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) Center for Homeland Defense and Security (HSx 1701). She has a Master’s in Security Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) (MS 1303/1304)and a Master’s in Educational Psychology from Baylor University. She’s also a graduate of the Executive Leader’s Program at the Naval Postgraduate School (ELP 1201). She is a Certified Part 107 Unmanned Aerial Systems pilot and serves as an Advisory Member of the DRONEREPONDERS and a finalist for Women to Watch Global UAS Awards, 2021. She lives in Austin, Texas.
