“Wicked Problems”

What’s the difference between a regular problem and a wicked problem?

In our inaugural post, we highlighted how important it is for us to maintain an ongoing conversation with our readers. Informative conversation is the simple goal we set out to accomplish through Vino, Veritas, and Strategy. Fortunately, recent feedback from one of our "vinoveritati" allows us to continue the conversation and (hopefully) provide some clarity.

Although pleased with our initial effort, the knowledgeable vinoveritati pointed out that we may have hoisted ourselves on our own petard by tossing around the phrase “wicked problems” without ever defining the term! (Our rather technical response was, “…well duh!”) So now, let’s talk about wicked problems!!

Contrary to popular belief, the term wicked problems was not coined in 1980s Boston to describe the Bruins’ inability to win the Stanley Cup. Actually, design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber first used the term wicked problems in a 1973 publication to explain the complex challenges encountered when attempting to tackle planning and social policy problems.

Rittel and Webber labeled regular problems, like those in mathematics, chess, or puzzle-solving, as ‘“tame problems.” Tame problems are solvable, and the outcome is clear-cut. For example, there is little doubt about the solution to the tame problem, 2+2 = X.

Wicked problems, on the other hand, are challenging to define, so there is essentially no end to the number of possible solutions. Rittel and Webber observed that each attempt to solve a wicked problem changes the variables involved in the problem. This means that every unsuccessful attempt at solving the problem does not just leave it unsolved but actually makes the problem worse. Accordingly, wicked problems are not responsive to trial-and-error efforts to fix them. Finally, no timeframes or stopping rules are associated with wicked problems; therefore, no inherent logic eventually leads us to an "Aha! Problem solved" moment.

What we have just described is a wicked problem in captivity. In the wild, the wicked problem takes on a different set of added characteristics, making it even more challenging to address. The term wicked problem gets used as a buzzword (or perhaps a buzzphrase?), which is then tossed around in government circles with wild abandon. Why? Policymakers hate wicked problems with a passion, as they inevitably have lose/lose outcomes.

In the wild, wicked problems are sometimes complicated to detect as they mean different things to different groups. Because they are social and/or political problems, they are framed differently by each participant in the argument. Defining the minimum wage, for example, is framed differently by workers, business owners, economists, and policymakers. There is little agreement on fact because each group sees the variables from their perspective and assigns different weights to each. Wicked problems are generally socio-political in nature. As such, the solutions are not viewed as yes/no by those impacted but rather as good/bad, depending on how they affect the individual or group. At best, resolutions to wicked problems undoubtedly leave at least 50% of those impacted angry, and more likely, the resolution will leave 100% of them dissatisfied. And when re-election is required to keep your job, is it any wonder that policymakers are so hesitant to address wicked problems?

Classic examples of wicked problems today are environmental, economic, or political in nature. It has been suggested that any problem that requires a large number of people to change their outlook and/or behavior to find a resolution fits the definition. Like most problems, wicked problems are not like fine wines; they do not improve with age. In fact, the easiest way to spot a wicked problem in the wild may be to identify which “cans” policymakers are continuously kicking down the road. Balanced budget? Migration reform? The Social Security piggy bank? A 2-State solution? Those are wicked problems!

We promised common sense discussions, not just about problems but about solutions. Wicked problems are the most difficult that we face. Are they too hard to solve? They are not. They require a whole of government approach and national effort to address them. But more importantly, they require sacrifice. The fact that wicked problems are generally resolved in lose/lose outcomes indicates that compromise is the key to tackling wicked problems. No one gets what they want in the resolution of wicked problems. Everyone has to sacrifice something for the good of the whole. In future posts, we want to discuss how that can work.

For years, we have viewed the formulation of a National Strategy as a wicked problem. The current preeminent strategic document formulated by the US government is the National Security Strategy.

Over the next few posts, we will explore what strategy means... and maybe what it should mean at the national level. We will also look at what is and possibly should be, the focus of a National Security Strategy. Maybe we can give our take on how policymakers define our national interests and why they rarely seem of interest to our nation's citizens.

We want to finish by passing along our thanks to the vinoveritati, who posed the question that led to this post. Not only is he a friend we greatly respect, but he is also the source of everything we know about creating and running a government program!! Subscribe to find out how you can join the ranks of the vinoveritati!!