3 ms·

Is this the same sort of thing where a solution may require several necessary prerequisites, none of which are sufficient? Meaning, you may successfully complet

Is this the same sort of thing where a solution may require several necessary prerequisites, none of which are sufficient? Meaning, you may successfully complete eight prerequisites and see no change in the problem, which would be discouraging, until you finish the 9th final prerequisite at which point it would be solved.

shoo 8y ago
There could be a problem of the form you describe that has a formal specification, is well-defined, and has a clear optimal solution. Such problems are not wicked problem. Wicked problems are a lot messier. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem#Characteristics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem#Characteristics I reckon the "problem" of climate change is a good example of a wicked problem: > 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. "Solving" the "problem" of climate change is tangled up with population, global inequality of wealth between different countries, pollution, natural climate & ecological systems, the physical economy, the interests of different groups, the interest of groups who do not even exist yet, managing non-renewable resources, international trade negotiations, the accuracy with which we can approximately measure and simulate the trajectory of the global environment & physical economy, etc. There is not one clear objective function or agreement on constraints. > 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. People compare different policies, projecting ahead to the year 2100, etc. But imposing a finite time horizon is an approximation, reality will likely persist after 2100... > 3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse. > 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. > 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. Yes: the problem is global, there is a sample size of one planet to experiment upon with no control group to compare against, there is no opportunity for subsequent trials. The opportunity costs of inaction or making a sub-optimal decision are very high (not everyone pays the same cost. some benefit!) . > 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. Arguably climate change is a symptom of fossil-fuel dependence, or overpopulation, or failures in fundamental human ability for long-term planning & ethics, or failures in the organisations and systems used to govern our societies (optimising for short-term stability and unable to react to long-term problems, capture by powerful minority interest groups, etc), or failures to produce fundamental breakthroughs in physics over the last few decades to enable cheap new energy sources or some other tech-fix ... > 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 social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Bartweiss 8y ago
Those situations are certainly relevant to 'wicked problems', yes. I grabbed a few highlights from what was formally a ten-point definition; Rittel and Webber managed to be impressively restrictive while still including a lot of problems. I think several of the rules they give imply wicked problems are likely, though not necessarily, multi-causal issues like you describe: 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. 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. 8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. 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. 1, 8, and 9 imply that the scope of wicked problems is undefined and linked to the choice of solution, so we should problems with multiple causes. 2, 4, and 6 imply that we can't be sure when a solution is adequately tested or a solution space is exhausted, so we can never eliminate the possibility that the solution is "all our measures plus one more." What's more, the difficulty of assessment means we might never know if a solved wicked problem was multicausal, or if the final measure which produced change might have sufficed on its own. And you're definitely right that multi-factor solutions are a big part of what makes this harder. It's not enough to run antismoking ads, or raise tobacco taxes, or implement black box warnings; it could always be some combination that mattered. And if you try all three and smoking rates drop, you can't backtrack to find out, because the problem might be hysteresic - what if the taxes stopped smoking, but the ads plus warnings prevent it? The implications for ongoing problems, from drug addiction to gun violence, aren't terribly comforting. Not only can we not try each solution, we can't be sure a measure we've already tried unsuccessfully is safe to dismiss.

shoo 8y ago

There could be a problem of the form you describe that has a formal specification, is well-defined, and has a clear optimal solution. Such problems are not wicked problem. Wicked problems are a lot messier. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem#Characteristics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem#Characteristics I reckon the "problem" of climate change is a good example of a wicked problem: > 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. "Solving" the "problem" of climate change is tangled up with population, global inequality of wealth between different countries, pollution, natural climate & ecological systems, the physical economy, the interests of different groups, the interest of groups who do not even exist yet, managing non-renewable resources, international trade negotiations, the accuracy with which we can approximately measure and simulate the trajectory of the global environment & physical economy, etc. There is not one clear objective function or agreement on constraints. > 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. People compare different policies, projecting ahead to the year 2100, etc. But imposing a finite time horizon is an approximation, reality will likely persist after 2100... > 3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse. > 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. > 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. Yes: the problem is global, there is a sample size of one planet to experiment upon with no control group to compare against, there is no opportunity for subsequent trials. The opportunity costs of inaction or making a sub-optimal decision are very high (not everyone pays the same cost. some benefit!) . > 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. Arguably climate change is a symptom of fossil-fuel dependence, or overpopulation, or failures in fundamental human ability for long-term planning & ethics, or failures in the organisations and systems used to govern our societies (optimising for short-term stability and unable to react to long-term problems, capture by powerful minority interest groups, etc), or failures to produce fundamental breakthroughs in physics over the last few decades to enable cheap new energy sources or some other tech-fix ... > 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 social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).

Bartweiss 8y ago

Those situations are certainly relevant to 'wicked problems', yes. I grabbed a few highlights from what was formally a ten-point definition; Rittel and Webber managed to be impressively restrictive while still including a lot of problems. I think several of the rules they give imply wicked problems are likely, though not necessarily, multi-causal issues like you describe: 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. 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. 8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. 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. 1, 8, and 9 imply that the scope of wicked problems is undefined and linked to the choice of solution, so we should problems with multiple causes. 2, 4, and 6 imply that we can't be sure when a solution is adequately tested or a solution space is exhausted, so we can never eliminate the possibility that the solution is "all our measures plus one more." What's more, the difficulty of assessment means we might never know if a solved wicked problem was multicausal, or if the final measure which produced change might have sufficed on its own. And you're definitely right that multi-factor solutions are a big part of what makes this harder. It's not enough to run antismoking ads, or raise tobacco taxes, or implement black box warnings; it could always be some combination that mattered. And if you try all three and smoking rates drop, you can't backtrack to find out, because the problem might be hysteresic - what if the taxes stopped smoking, but the ads plus warnings prevent it? The implications for ongoing problems, from drug addiction to gun violence, aren't terribly comforting. Not only can we not try each solution, we can't be sure a measure we've already tried unsuccessfully is safe to dismiss.