It is a truth universally acknowledged that, if you ask 5 management consultants to define the main problem your organization faces, you’ll end up with a list of at least 25 problems … and there’s a good reason for this. Ask any experienced change analyst or management consultant and you’ll be told that there is no such thing as a “stand alone” business process or problem – despite the methods taught in business schools and advocated in best-selling management books. If there were, no-one would need all these methods and books, would they?

Horst Rittel (1972) came up with the term “wicked problems” to describe the interrelatedness of organizational planning and change problems. (Rittel & Webber (1973) describe ten characteristics of wicked problems:

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. Wicked problems are just too complex and interrelated with other problems to define – so any definition is subjective and problems will be perceived differently by different stakeholders.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Wicked problems lack any inherent logic or formulation, so there is no way of detecting when they are solved.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. Because we can’t define the problem, we don’t know if a solution will solve it — just whether the situation is likely to be made better or worse by a solution.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. Related to #3, we can’t test if we solved a problem we could not define.
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 at a solution changes the problem-situation, so solutions are irreversible. We can’t have a “do-over” if we get things wrong.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. Basically, we can’t define the logic of a problem, so we can’t define a set of elements that should be incorporated into any solution.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. This is a biggie. Because wicked problems are embedded into the nests of problems, symptoms, points-of-view, business processes, and phenomena related to the problem-situation, every single problem we encounter is unique. That means that we can’t all on experience to solve it. Rittel (1972) describes this as imposing a “symmetry of ignorance” on the problem-solving team. There are no experts, when every problem is unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. Problems are interrelated in ways that makes problems in the situation impossible to pick apart and solve separately. We need to consider the system of relationships between problems in order to take action.
9. A wicked problem can be explained in multiple ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution. Various actors in the situation (managers, workers, and other stakeholders) will hold different perspectives on problems, based on the experience they bring from their prior experience in organization functions and problem-solving. These perspectives will affect how each stakeholder thinks that the problem should be approached. The choice of explanation negotiated across stakeholders will affect the choice of resolutions that are deemed acceptable.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong. Unlike scientists, who formulate a hypothesis to solve a problem, planners work by trial and error. They need to consider potential impacts on organizational actors: “planners are liable for the consequences of the solutions they generate; the effects can matter a great deal to the people who are touched by those actions.” [Rittel & Webber, 1973, pg. 167).

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.

References

Mitroff, I.I., Kilmann, R.H. (2021). Wicked Messes: The Ultimate Challenge to Reality. In: The Psychodynamics of Enlightened Leadership. Management, Change, Strategy and Positive Leadership. Springer, Champaign. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71764-3_3

Pickering, Andrew (1995) The Mangle of Practice. University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL.

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.