Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber introduced the concept of “wicked problems” in their 1973 paper titled “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” and the book (“Thinking Design”) published in 2013. Wicked problems are complex, ill-defined issues that involve multiple stakeholders with conflicting values and incomplete information. In the context of the general theory of planning, Rittel and Webber highlighted several dilemmas (described as following properties as contrasting differences between wicked and non-wicked or tamed problems):
1: No Definitive Formulation of a Wicked Problem: Wicked problems lack a definitive and objective formulation. Unlike well-defined problems, where solutions can be objectively evaluated based on predefined criteria, wicked problems don’t have a clear and ultimate test for determining the success of a solution. Wicked problems, unlike tame problems, cannot be exhaustively formulated in advance. In the case of wicked problems, as exemplified by the need for a management information system or a new product in a company, each step of the solution generates unique and unforeseen questions. The information required to address these questions cannot be fully anticipated beforehand, making it challenging to provide exhaustive information at the problem’s formulation stage. Wicked problems lack a definitive formulation, challenging traditional systems approaches that prioritize understanding the problem before solving it.
2: No Objective End Criteria (No Stopping Rule, No Clear End to the Problem-Solving Process): There is no agreed-upon set of criteria to evaluate solutions for wicked problems. Different stakeholders may have different values, priorities, and perspectives, leading to subjective judgments about the effectiveness of potential solutions. This property of wicked problems is the absence of a “stopping rule.” Unlike well-defined problems such as chess puzzles or mathematical equations, where a clear solution marks the end, wicked problems lack a definitive endpoint. In chess, solving a combination of moves or finding the value of x in an equation signals problem resolution. However, with wicked problems, there is always room for improvement, and the nature of the problem itself does not provide a conclusive stopping point. While practical constraints like time, money, or patience may halt planning efforts, the inherent logic of wicked problems allows for continual attempts at improvement, making them distinct from problems with clear-cut solutions.
3: Solutions Are Not True or False (But Good or Bad): In the context of wicked problems, solutions cannot be objectively categorized as true or false. Instead, they are better or worse, more or less appropriate, depending on the values and perspectives of the stakeholders involved. This property of wicked problems is that, unlike tame problems where solutions can be deemed “correct” or “wrong” based on objective criteria, wicked problems defy such categorization. Instead of being labeled as right or wrong, solutions to wicked problems are evaluated as “good” or “bad,” subject to varying perspectives and preferences. What is considered good for one person may not be so for another. Unlike tame problems, there is no universal set of criteria or rules to determine the correctness of solutions to wicked problems. The notions of true or false do not apply in the context of wicked problems, emphasizing their inherently subjective and context-dependent nature.
4: No Immediate, Next or Ultimate Test of Solution: Wicked problems often involve ethical considerations and value judgments. Different stakeholders may have conflicting ethical principles, making it challenging to find universally acceptable solutions. This property highlights that, unlike solving a chess problem where results can be immediately and definitively checked, wicked problems lack both immediate and final review opportunities. The consequences of actions taken to address wicked problems unfold over time, and there is no set time limit for their potential impact. The absence of a final review is due to the ongoing and unpredictable nature of consequences, which may extend into the future. This characteristic emphasizes the continuous and dynamic nature of wicked problems, where further consequences, some potentially catastrophic, can emerge, making a final evaluation challenging.
5: Every Solution Is a “One-Shot Operation” (No Opportunity to Learn By Trial and Error): Implementing solutions to wicked problems is often a one-time, irreversible process. Given the complex and interconnected nature of these problems, it is challenging to predict the full consequences of a solution in advance. This property emphasizes the distinction between wicked problems and tame problems. While chess problems or equations can be repeatedly played or solved, wicked problems do not offer the luxury of repeated solutions. Solving a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation,” and once an attempt is made, it cannot be undone. Unlike the iterative and prototypical solutions found in tame problems, wicked problems don’t allow for trial and error or experimentation. Each attempt to address a wicked problem is significant, and there is no opportunity to build, observe, dismantle, and rebuild, as seen in traditional problem-solving approaches.
6: Non-Enumerable Permissible Set of Operations or Decision Choices : This property distinguishes wicked problems from tame problems by highlighting the nature of allowed operations. Tame problems, such as chess puzzles or chemical analyses, have well-defined and exhaustive lists of permitted operations. In chess, for instance, players have a limited set of moves to choose from. Similarly, in chemical analysis, specific procedures and tools are predefined. In contrast, wicked problems lack a comprehensive and enumerable list of allowed operations. There are no strict limitations on the actions or interventions one can take. Solutions to wicked problems can involve a wide range of possibilities, driven by principles and creative imagination. The open-ended nature of wicked problems contrasts with the more structured and constrained operations permitted in tame problems.
7: Every Problem is Essentially Unique (Problem Original Enough To Span a New Type or Class of Problems): This property underscores that every wicked problem is fundamentally unique (not similar to the existing or known earlier), presenting a challenge as one cannot rely on past experiences to learn for future instances. Transferring successful strategies from the past is not straightforward, as seemingly similar problems may have distinguishing characteristics that render old solutions ineffective. Hastily deciding on the type of solution and assuming the reuse of old solutions in new contexts is not advisable when dealing with wicked problems. The uniqueness of each problem requires careful analysis and a nuanced approach to finding effective solutions.
8: No Exclusive or Terminal Problem Statement (Problem and Solution Spaces Are Inseparable, Problem Is An Outcome of Another / Previous Solution / Symptom): The problem space of wicked problems is constantly evolving, making it difficult to create a comprehensive problem statement. As new information emerges or stakeholders change their perspectives, the understanding of the problem may shift over time. This property of wicked problems, in contrast to tame problems, is that every formulation of a wicked problem is intrinsically linked to a statement about the solution, and vice versa. In other words, any statement made about the problem is, in essence, a statement about the solution. Unlike tame problems, where the problem and solution are distinct entities, wicked problems have a fluid and interconnected nature, blurring the lines between problem understanding and solution formulation. This contrasts with the traditional concept of problems held by proponents of the first-generation approach, emphasizing the unique and intertwined nature of wicked problems. A solution to an existing problem, would yield to be a genesis of new or other problems or opportunities in the future. Every wicked problem is hence considered to be addressing the symptom of another problem (if the root casuses are addressed or eliminated, the problem seize to persist in the future). This implies that the problems are either complex or beyond the span of control of a planner in order to eliminate the root cause. Hence, under compulsion to sub-optimally deal with the symptoms as good or bad interim or temporary solutions).
Planners Are Not in Control: Planners may not have full control over the problem-solving process due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders, each with their own agendas and perspectives. The collaborative and dynamic nature of wicked problems makes it challenging for planners to dictate the course of action. This property contrasts tame problems, which have a defined and natural form, with wicked problems that can be seen as symptoms of underlying issues. In tame problems, the problem level is evident and doesn’t require discussion. However, wicked problems are often symptoms of deeper problems, and it’s uncertain if the right level of the problem is being addressed. Addressing symptoms without understanding the root cause can exacerbate the actual problem. For example, warehouse inventory issues causing delays may be viewed as a symptom, prompting consideration of broader aspects like human resources policies or the organization of the purchasing department. The complexity of wicked problems requires a cautious approach, avoiding assumptions that the identified problem level is the root cause, and encouraging a more comprehensive system approach.
9: Discrepancies Have Multiple Different Explanations: The resolution of wicked problems is not a definitive endpoint. As new information becomes available or societal values evolve, the problem-solving process may need to be revisited, and solutions may need to be adapted or replaced over time. This property addresses the expression of a problem as a discrepancy between the actual and target states. In solving such problems, the crucial question is why the discrepancy exists. However, with wicked problems, there can be multiple explanations for the same discrepancy, and determining the best explanation is impossible. For instance, if production efficiency is the issue, one might attribute it to old machines, an inadequate schedule, or an ineffective production manager. Depending on the chosen explanation, the solution will take a different direction — firing the manager if the blame is on them or acquiring new equipment if machinery is deemed inadequate. The initial step in explaining the problem becomes pivotal in navigating wicked problems, making them particularly challenging to address.
10: Accountability for Wicked Problem Solving (Planner Has No Right To Be Wrong): This property highlights a key contrast between “tame problem solvers” and “wicked problem solvers.” Unlike those dealing with tame problems, wicked problem solvers do not have the privilege of making mistakes without accountability. The responsibility for their actions is emphasized, emphasizing the need for a high degree of accountability in addressing wicked problems.
Rittel and Webber’s ideas have had a significant impact on the field of planning and problem-solving, emphasizing the need for a more adaptive and collaborative approach when dealing with complex, wicked problems.
