4.1 REFLECTION ON DIFFICULTIES IN MANAGING RISKS
When we try to manage problems, such as those in the cases studied, at Chapters 2 and 3, we encounter recurring difficulties. These difficulties can be the delayed consequences of earlier attempts at corrective action. This stems, in large part, from both the nature of complexity and from finite limits to our capabilities and capacity to understand and learn in complex, ever-changing environments. Those who understand the true nature of these environments use terms such as ‘messy’ or ‘wicked’ to describe them. To most of us, these environments are very familiar. We may even consider them to be normal. We face them every day of our lives. We are part of them; that we are human is both common and contributory to the complexity.
When faced with such problems, particularly whilst they are the early stages of development, we may just see them as sources of frustration. We may even fail to recognise their existence. We may not consider them problems at all. At times we will deliberately choose to ignore them, re-directing our attention, instead, to more pressing issues.
The challenge is to recognise the environment and the problem situations that grow in that environment for what they are. Traditional ways of thinking and traditional analytical methods have been shown to be largely ineffective in providing the understandings we need when faced with dynamic complexity, where delayed feedback occurs. There is a body of evidence suggesting human cognitive capability is not up to the task of dealing with the levels of complexity found to exist in the case studies. Further, the way we think about these complex, dynamic, systemic problems can be quite inappropriate.
Systems thinking can help our quest to understand better and to learn about complexity and complex, dynamic problems. The case studies and the literature search provide a number of leads toward what we might need to consider when choosing ways of addressing risky wicked problems.