Talk:Wicked problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Additional Approaches and External References

November 15: added two external links at the end of the list. Not sure I'm the best person to edit the full list as indicated in the note just ahead of the ext ref list. thanks, bob Weberbob 19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

November 13: I've made most of the changes indicated below. need to work on notes, references which I'm presently doing. Thanks Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weberbob (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I intend to edit this page to add information relating to the work of Robert E. Horn on Social Messes, and work that Horn and I are doing on using visual language and group collaboration processes that leverage collective intelligence to analyze wicked problems, evaluate alternative strategies for resolving a specific wicked problem, choosing a strategy, and developing a detailed implementation plan.

I also intend to rearrange somewhat the information already on the page without deleting or editing any of the information that presently exists other than the references and links portions at the bottom. Weberbob 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InnovationWorks software

Does anyony agree that this is an appropriate external link: Innovation Works web site. They have developed a free piece of software in association with Massey University and the Institution of Technology and Engineering. The software is designed to support the development of good solutions to "wicked problems". Think this might be helpful. 86.136.126.48 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wicked Problems and Operations Research

"Wicked Problems" and "Social Messes" are well understood concepts in the area of "soft" Operations Research. The whole area of "Problem Structuring Methods" (PSM) was developed to a great extent on the basis of Rittel & Webbers, and Russel Ackoff's, work with these concepts. The article is good enough as it is. It can be improved -- as any article can be improved.

Wicked problems aren't solved, they are made "wickeder" when people try to treat them as tame problems. Using a simplistic example, the bypass round the historic town that was built without prior involvement of the archaeologists means that the ancient Roman temple site that was uncovered during construction now means a costly and time consuming delay while the road is re-routed. 129.230.248.1 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)David Hodgson

I think this article needs a lot better summary and perhaps a couple of examples about what exactly is a "Wicked problem". I tried to study it, but after reading I was still puzzled. Ossiman 10:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Conklin's Definition

Is the representation of Conklin's "four defining characteristics" accurate, because they're self-redundant.

1) Problem is understood only after solution is formulated. 4) Problem is never solved.

Ergo: wicked problems are never understood.

I'll throw one more at you... `Wicked problems are often "solved" through group efforts.'. The key here is that solved has more than one meaning in this article. Wicked problems can be solved, but because of the problems nature, a final solution cannot be solved. So solving a wicked problem is really damage control. The problem will always exist, but the goal is to find a compromise and try to balance the effects of each solution. `Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but instead better, worse, or good enough.' & `There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.'--Capi crimm 01:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs sections

Take a look at where the table of contents appears (under the ~standard stylesheet anyway) and what's in it: the TOC is at the tail end of all the prose, and the only stuff appearing in it is endmatter. That should be a dead giveaway that this article needs to be re-structured (even just a little bit) into sections. Without sections, the entire article is jammed into the "introductory paragraphs" space.

I'm adding a cleanup tag to this end. Mlibby 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This section seems obsolete. Should it be removed or saved somewhere? Karpinski (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example?

Would, for example, a single male attempting a 'fulfilling' (dating) relationship with a single female be considered a 'Wicked problem?' If so, would an example of how this 'Wicked problem' fits each of the several characteristics be suitable for this article? I.e.

  1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem [How does one define 'fulfilling?']
  2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule [could be dependent on definition of 'fulfilling']
  3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad[etc.]
  4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem [If they get together, will she break up with him? If she breaks up with him (or vice versa), will they ever go out again?]
  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 [the period of the male's life during which he is attempting said relationship with said female is said one-shot operation]
  6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan
  7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique
  8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem [unhappiness in being single, for example.]
  9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution
  10. The planner has no right to be wrong (Planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate)[etc.]

160.36.119.134 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC) {there. I signed my post. Happy?}