Decision Making / 4 / 4.9 / 4.9.1

4.9.1 Tame Vs Wicked Problems—Ability To Formulate The Problem

Tame problems can be exhaustively formulated and written down on a piece of paper. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation.

Before we might understand extant problem situations, and what the future might hold, we are challenged to deal simultaneously with detail and dynamic aspects of complexity. These are inextricably linked to the underlying systemic structures. Detail complexity describes myriad, interrelated factors or forces, just too many to be considered at any one time. Dynamic complexity describes something insidious and self-organising.

Many wicked problems are exceedingly complex. Problems we often face within socio-technical organisations are characterised by C = 10ⁿ, where n is within the range 6 to 13 (Kline, 1995: 49-68). Clearly, such problems cannot, in any practical sense, be exhaustively formulated. Those problems that can be exhaustively formulated and reliably solved are characterised by C < 5. The complexity of wicked problems can be many orders of magnitude greater than tame problems.

Vennix (1996) notes the one of the most pervasive characteristics of the existence of wicked problems is that people hold entirely different views on whether there is a problem, and if they agree there is, what the problem is. He also suggests that wicked problems can be quite intangible. Various authors, including Ackoff (1981), Checkland (1985; 1990), and Checkland and Scholes (1999) have also suggested that in these circumstances there are no ‘objective’ problems. Vennix (1996: 13) suggests there are only situations defined as problems, by people closely involved in those problem situations.

Difficulty in formulating wicked problems comes from inherent dynamic complexity. Dynamic complexity is typified by being; dynamic, tightly-coupled, governed by feedback, non-linear, history-dependent, self-organising, adaptive, counter-intuitive, policy-resistant, and characterised by trade-offs (Sterman, 2000: 21-22).

Before we can solve wicked problems, we need to identify and understand what underlies and produces spontaneous self-organisation: we need to understand the relationship between systemic structure and dynamic behaviour.

Problem formulation may be fostered by use of various intellectual devices, which accommodate the imprecise or incomplete understanding of the problem as it is first encountered. These devices variously incorporate language, icons and symbols to record ideas, help reveal, enunciate and document and surface assumptions held by stakeholders and managers, and to aid communication. This was introduced at Section 1.13 and Figure 1-9.

These are useful because of their richness and their ability to facilitate the elicitation of ideas, triggering of new ones, and revealing gaps in the association of ideas (Hodgson, 1992). Tools that might be used to achieve this are:

• Cognitive (or concept) mapping (Eden, 1988).
• Rich pictures, as part of the Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1990).
• Influence diagrams (Coyle, 1977; 1996).
• Causal-loop diagrams (Richardson and Pugh, 1981; Senge, 1990; Sterman, 2000).
• Hexagons (Hodgson, 1992).

Language and communication lie at the heart of expressing ideas about problems. Without effective communications dialogue will fail, assumptions will remain hidden and problem formulation efforts will be stifled. Symbols and icons are valuable aids to communication. They are rich in meaning the expression of which is vital to problem conceptualisation.

Particularly in a group problem-solving setting, use of these devices may encourage alternate perspectives to be brought into the dialogue. However, when it comes to use of symbols and icons, it must be noted that each of us may attach different meaning to them and have different feelings about them.

Arguably, only music and mathematics are universal symbolic languages, and only in music and mathematics is there a minimum of scope for interpreting of what is written. But, in discussing the nature of problems and writing down their formulations, many linguistic, communication, emotional, perceptual and cultural impediments arise.

Some of these can be alleviated by use of the tools listed above. Unfortunately, these tools are not universally applicable and use requires significant skill. We need to recognise this in the design of strategy development interventions. One way to accommodate this is to have a range of tools and techniques and devices available and be skilled in their use.