Wicked issues A tame problem Has a well

Wicked issues

A tame problem • Has a well defined and stable problem statement • Has a definite stopping point i. e. when the solution is reached • Has a solution that can be evaluated as right or wrong • Belongs to a similar class of problems that are all solved in a similar way • Has solutions that can be easily tried and abandoned • Come with a limited set of alternative solutions

Wicked social problems • In 1973, Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber, two Berkeley professors, published an article in Policy Sciences introducing the notion of “wicked” social problems. The article, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, ” named 10 properties that distinguished wicked problems from hard but ordinary problems.

No definitive formula • 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. It’s not possible to write a well-defined statement of the problem, as can be done with an ordinary problem.

No stopping rule • 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. You can tell when you’ve reached a solution with an ordinary problem. With a wicked problem, the search for solutions never stops.

Solutions not true or false • 3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad. Ordinary problems have solutions that can be objectively evaluated as right or wrong. Choosing a solution to a wicked problem is largely a matter of judgment.

No immediate solution • 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. It’s possible to determine right away if a solution to an ordinary problem is working. But solutions to wicked problems generate unexpected consequences over time, making it difficult to measure their effectiveness.

One shot operation • 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. Solutions to ordinary problems can be easily tried and abandoned. With wicked problems, every implemented solution has consequences that cannot be undone.

No set Solutions • 6. Wicked problems do not have an exhaustively describable set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. Ordinary problems come with a limited set of potential solutions, by contrast.

7. Unique • 7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. An ordinary problem belongs to a class of similar problems that are all solved in the same way. A wicked problem is substantially without precedent; experience does not help you address it

Symptom of another problem • 8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. While an ordinary problem is self-contained, a wicked problem is entwined with other problems. However, those problems don’t have one root cause.

9. Discrepency explained • 9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. A wicked problem involves many stakeholders, who all will have different ideas about what the problem really is and what its causes are.

10. The planner has no right to be wrong. • Problem solvers dealing with a wicked issue are held liable for the consequences of any actions they take, because those actions will have such a large impact and are hard to justify.

Characteristics of wicked problem • You don’t understand the problem till youj have develop the solution • Wicked problems have no stopping rule • Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong • Every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel • Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions

Everybody has a different definition of the problem • A wicked problem is a set of interlocking issues across many domains • Not understanding the problem shows up as different stakeholders who are ‘certain’ that their version of the problem is correct and/or that others are flawed – each stakeholders position is based on the objective of their organisation

Shared understanding is essential • • Combat fragmentation Build and evolve a common mental model Apply dialogue mapping Create a common understanding and commitment

What are the 3 ingredients of dialogue mapping • A collaborative display • Using the Issue Based Information System (IBIS) notation – – • Question - What should we do about X Idea - Response Pros and cons More questions about questions ideas or pros and cons A dialogue mapper – – Actively listens and capture the moves – Listens, summarises and asks for validation of their understanding – Partners the speaker –can interrupt IF in the service of listening e. g. ‘have I capture this correctly? ’.

7 key questions • • What should we do? How should we do it? What are the criteria for success? What is the cost of this? What does this mean? Why has this happened? What is the background?

Case study part 1 • • The patient is a 21 year old man who is 6 ft 6 in and weighs 19 stone. He has been in a wheelchair since a car accident left him paralysed, unable to walk and with limited visibility and has had to move back in with his mother who is his full time carer. Social Service provide both personal and social care support to a total of 20 hours a week. • He has a manual wheelchair that creates significant problems for his mother who has back problems herself caused by osteo-arthritis. • The agency staff provided by social care have refused to take him out due to the health and safety risk to the staff of pushing the wheelchair. He is unable to self propel a manual wheelchair. • The wheelchair service informed him they are unable to offer him an electric wheelchair due to his visual impairment. He was advised that this was exclusion in the commissioning criteria.

Case study part 2 • • • • He would need support to go outside regardless if it was an electric wheelchair or manual wheelchair. The patient is very keen to be able to continue in further education so that he could find work that would suit his abilities as he had been training to become an accountant before the accident. Without the means to go out social care support is more of a sitting service giving his mother some respite time but actually not providing the opportunity for the patient to have a quality of life and be able to socialise with people his own age and to participate more fully in the community. It has been estimated that the cost of an electric wheelchair would have been similar to the current wheelchair that has had to be adapted numerous times

Questions • What are the issues here – are they wicked or tame • Who are the different stakeholders? • Who might have the power to resolve the issues? • • • What has this happened? What is the background? What does this mean? What could have been done? What might be the criteria for success? What might be the cost of this?