Ten Properties of Wicked Problems

Wicked problems are so-called because they are not “well-structured” – as in, amenable to analytical methods of problem-solving.

Typically, they present as “messes” or tangles of interrelated problems, which are defined by various stakeholders in multiple ways, depending on the bits they see (which in turn depends on their experience and their position in the organization). 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 trained.

Horst Rittel, who originated the concept, described ten characteristics that make these problems particularly difficult to resolve (Rittel, 1973):

1. Every wicked problem is unique

Because wicked problems are so complex, interrelated, and novel, no-one has experience of how to solve this type of “messy” problem. Each group of problem-solvers possesses a “symmetry of ignorance” (Rittel, 1972). No-one can claim relevant expertise; instead, they need to pool information and partial understandings of the situation, to piece it together and make sense of it.

2. Problems are interrelated

Each wicked problem consists of a mess, or tangle of problems, each of which may have multiple causes. Problems are interrelated – each problem may be a symptom, or cause, of other problems, so solving one problem will not necessarily improve the situation. Every problem can be seen as a symptom or the cause of another problem.

3. There is no definitive formulation or boundary of a Wicked Problem.

Wicked problem definitions are subjective. The way in which the problem-situation is defined depends on the eye of the beholder. Sensitization to certain types of problem causes people to see them everywhere.

Wicked Problems defy efforts to delineate their boundaries and to identify their causes. They span organizational, functional, and management boundaries. Multiple stakeholders will define the problem differently, and bring competing agendas for change.

4. We cannot plan how to solve wicked problems

Wicked problems do not have a predictable set of potential solutions, as you can’t define them in advance. The nature of the problem(s) requires investigation and experimentation, rather than using typical problem-solving methods that are focused on designing a solution.

5. We have no criteria to judge whether we have solved a wicked problem

Because we cannot define a wicked problem, we also cannot define criteria to evaluate if we solved it. So any solutions we devise are not “right” or “wrong,” only better or worse (subjectively) in this particular situation, at this specific time.

6. Wicked problems can be described in multiple ways

The way the problem is defined determines (and constrains) potential solutions. But the problem definition depends on the situation boundary selected (what is chosen as inside or outside the scope of the problem) and the point(s)-of-view used to define the problem. As each stakeholder will have a different perspective, depending on where they are in the organization, their disciplinary or functional background, and their educational background, problem-solvers face a multiplicity of problem definitions.

7. Wicked problems have no logic to indicate when a solution has been reached

In computing terms, wicked problems have no “stopping point.” There are no criteria by which to evaluate if we have solved the problem, so judging when we have a good-enough solution is entirely subjective.

8. There is no way to test a solution in advance

We therefore have to wait and evaluate the impact of changes over time.

9. Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’

There is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error; every solution attempt changes the problem-situation. So every time we take action, we change the nature of the problem(s) that we face.

10. Change-agents are liable for the consequences of their actions

The effects of implementing a solution affect real people in the way that they work. This can matter a great deal to the people involved, so change-agents can’t afford to mess things up. Problem-analysts should attempt to assess the impact on actors in the problem-situation and to obtain impact from those people, before taking action.

Systemic Impacts of Wicked Problems

These characteristics have knock-on impacts:

Firstly, any problem resolution process must recognize the legitimacy of multiple problem definitions. Because wicked problems cannot be defined objectively, the definition chosen by any team of change-agents will be understood differently by every member of the team, and the potential solutions will be perceived differently. This is why organizational change is perceived as so political – actors in a situation often fail to realize that their interpretation of the situation is subjective and that others view the situation differently. Any successful change method must make these aspects explicit, so analysts can discuss and negotiate perspectives that are acceptable to all.

Secondly, human agency is entangled in organizational processes and systems, so the ability of change agents to effect change is both constrained by and directed by “material agency” – the goals and constraints embedded in elements of the situation. For example, the design of a computer system may only allow certain people to access data about product sales, limiting the range of options for using the system for other purposes. Analysts find the range of solution options open to them constrained by the need to workaround, change, or accept aspects of material agency that emerge as they explore and appreciate the problem-situation.

Thirdly, any problem-solving process needs to be exploratory and iterative in nature. Modern systems requirements techniques are designed around the supposition that there is a single problem and that it can be defined easily and analyzed rapidly. As a result, we spend far too little time exploring the problem-situation. Russell Ackoff famously said

“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: a Systems Approach to Societal Problems, ‎ Wiley, pg. 8.

Successful resolution of wicked problems requires appreciative design techniques (Vickers, 1968). Analysts need to become enculturated in the problem-situation, so they understand the stakeholder perspectives that drive multiple 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.

Solving Wicked Problems requires appreciation of the problem-situation, accompanied by systemic analysis. Horst Rittel (1972), who originated the term, suggested that we use a process of argumentation to design solutions: “a counterplay of raising issues and dealing with them, which in turn raises new issues, and so on, and so on.” He saw the goal of argumentation as piecing together a big picture from the fragmented viewpoints and problem-definitions held by change-agents, stakeholders, and those people who work in the problem-situation.

References

Ackoff, R. (1974) Redesigning the Future: a Systems Approach to Societal Problems, ‎ Wiley,

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.: Reprinted in N. Cross (ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1984, pp. 317-327.

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

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