I'm more and more nervous about what I think Conklin is doing in his book "Dialogue Mapping" (refer my initial post). I don't think it's helpful to pull social complexity out from wicked problems. As if wicked problems can exist in the absence of social complexity. Or, at least, in the absence of social factors.
Conklin wants to say that wickedness is a property of the "problem/solution space" and social complexity "is a property of the social network that is engaging with the problem".
However, I don't think you can have "wickedness" in a problem unless you have social factors. They are a necessary condition for wickedness. (However, they are not a sufficient condition - you need other things as well to get "wickedness").
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Nick, I wanted to respond to your previous post, so thanks for persisting with this topic!
The attempt to distinguish the problem characteristics from its social context is my attempt to stay true to Rittel's original work. In “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning” (1973) he lists 10 characteristics of wicked problems (e.g. every wicked problem is essentially unique). I suspect it reflects the times and his audience (this is before ‘post-modernism’) but Rittel worked hard to frame the definition of ‘wickedness’ as objective and free of social context.
In another section of that paper called “The Social Context” he actually points to the limitations of the dominant industrial/mechanical philosophy behind planning and design of that time. Like Rittel, I find I am speaking to and writing for broad audience, part of which understands and accepts the fundamentally social nature of work, another part of which still clings to goal of being able to apply linear process thinking to wicked problems.
Jeff Conklin
Hi Jeff
It's great to get your feedback.
If I understand your comment right, you're saying that the most helpful thing to do when explaining wicked problems is to tease out the characteristics of the problem itself that make it wicked. These characteristics, since they lie within the problem itself, will not be social. But rather something to do with the nature of the issue itself. Is that right?
I take your point that this would be helpful for some audiences.
I take it you would agree, though, that you need a social context to have wickedness? (That is, there is no such thing as a wicked problem that exists without a social system "around" it). But that it is also true that not all social problems are wicked.
Again, great to get your comment.
Nick
Hi Nick,
Yes, exactly -- you can’t really separate problem ‘wickedness’ from it the social system around it. (Indeed, there are no problems at all without someone declaring them to be so!)
The distinction of ‘problem wickedness’ is very freeing for many people and organizations … “Hey, maybe we’re not just a bunch for hapless idiots after all! The people aren't wicked ... the problem is!” It lets them step outside of the inertia, avoidance, and helplessness of the situation and consider that perhaps they don’t have adequate skills and tools to deal with this new class of problem.
Naming is powerful stuff, and having a name for problems that resist neat, linear solutions gives organizations a new place to stand and take a more systemic view.
Jeff
Hi Jeff
I like how you are clearly positioning the wickedness in the problem and not in the people. And I agree that being able to name "wickedness" as an idea is very freeing for people in organisations today. We see it a lot in our work here at 2nd Road: it frees people up sufficiently for them to be happy to try some new ways of engaging.
Thanks for the comments.
Nick
Post a Comment