An Approach to Addressing Wicked Problems

What is a Wicked Problem?

From Wikipedia: “A wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. The use of the term "wicked" here has come to denote resistance to resolution, rather than evil.”

Some examples are: global climate change, human trafficking, social injustice, poverty and hunger. Characteristics include those shown in this graphic:

Problem Solving = Process Change

One way to look at problems is in terms of process change. That is, a "problem" is a set of conditions that are undesirable to some person or group. Such conditions are sustained by processes, that is, planned and/or repeated patterns of events. To change the undesirable conditions, it's necessary to change the processes that are sustaining those conditions.

Feelings and unmet desires must be part of the process view

A very important point that I'll revisit below is that feelings and desires, happiness and suffering must be parts of the process view. If there are no feelings, there is no problem, and there is no basis for process change.

A major error in problem solving is to overly separate feelings from analysis. Human feeling, desire, happiness and suffering need be accounted for. There are no other motivations for human beings to solve problems and no "solutions" that do not involve the reduction of suffering and/or increase in happiness for one or more real people.

Structured Analysis

A very powerful form of process change is the Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM; see link here), which I'll refer to as "structured analysis". In my view the heart of structured analysis is to see situations as networks of causes and effects that can be indefinitely extended and subdivided. This view is can be represented using data flow diagrams, as shown (with variation) in the image below.

Very broad scope, very strong problem solving capability

Structured analysis can be applied to ANYTHING that can be modeled as a network of real world causes and effects. That includes virtually everything in the realm of daily human experience except at the furthest limits of what is known. In other words, cause and effect analysis only breaks down when we reach things like quantum mechanics, general relativity, the Big Bang, consciousness and spirituality.

For everything else, it is technically possible to construct highly detailed models that describe with great precision what is happening and where the pain points are in the "wicked problem" situations. And with contemporary computing capacity and crowdsourcing, there is essentially no technical constraint on the ability to capture detailed information for these models, to view, evaluate and manipulate that information, and to brainstorm and identify action points in those models.

Knowns, Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns

Having said that, structured analysis still needs information to operate on. In terms of "known unknowns", cause and effect analysis may require scientific research, e.g. curing cancer.

However, if structured analysis is applied rigorously, there should be very few large pockets of "unknown unknowns" that is, things that are completer surprises, aside from things outside the edges of science, as described above. If the network of cause and effect is cast wide enough, it may find "black boxes", areas that it cannot "see inside". However, these are then "known unknowns" that simply have to be cracked. And short of the need for scientific research, there are techniques for cracking such areas, starting with looking for patterns in their inputs and outputs (#cybersecurity).

Two other major features of structured analysis

Start anywhere

In addition, it is a major feature of structured analysis that you can start with a very high level model of a situation, and systematically break it into smaller and smaller domains and levels of detail. Or, you can start with small domains and details and add them up to a big picture. As long as you keep the cause and effect connections in place, the whole thing holds together.

Things need to "add up"

Another feature of structured analysis is that it has a "self-checking" quality. If someone asserts something to be true and real, it has to fit into the overall network of cause and effect. If the asserted situation doesn't have reasonable causes, or does not produce sensible effects, then it is open to question.

How to work with Wicked Problems

I contend that "wicked problems" are subject to structured analysis or full SSADM. And the that the "problems inside the problem" of wicked problems are places where the modeling has not been pushed to sufficient scope and/or detail.

I'm going to test that contention by looking at the ten features of wicked problems from the graphic above, in terms of structured analysis.

After that, I'm going to point out where I think this "process change" approach currently fails when applied to the big wicked problems that the world faces today.

The Ten Feature of Wicked Problems

Every problem is unique

Yes, however, they can all be modeled as networks of causes and effects (subject to the limits described above.) This includes Jon's examples of global climate change, human trafficking, social injustice, poverty and hunger.

There is no clear problem definition

Every problem is a set of conditions that a person or group finds undesirable, where that set of conditions is held in place by a network of causes and effects. Every problem definition can start with a list of the groups and their desires. It might be a long list, however, so be it. Again, we have effectively infinite computational capacity to capture and work with cause and effect models.

Are multi-causal, multi-scalar and interconnected

See "network of causes and effects that is indefinitely extensible and divisible". Again, there is ample computational capacity to deal with this (#globalclimatemodeling).

Multiple stakeholders with conflicting agendas

Again, list the stakeholders and their desires. And again, we have effectively infinite capacity for information capture, evaluation, etc.

At the same time, in my view this is the biggest challenge in wicked problems, and is related to the "problems within the problem" that I describe below.

Straddle organizational and disciplinary boundaries

See "network of causes and effects, etc." Organizational and disciplinary boundaries are transparent to structured analysis, except in the view of authority and ownership, which is a particular "slice" of the network of causes and effects.

Every wicked problem is connected to others

See "network of causes and effects...". Bring it on!

Every solution ramifies throughout the system

Yep. To paraphrase Tim Allen in Tool Time, "More Analysis!"

Solutions are not right/wrong but better/worse

That's because the entire world is a network of evolving processes, and "right/wrong" are subjective, constantly changing, ultimately based on human suffering and happiness.

Everyone who does not agree with the basic goal of decreasing human suffering and increasing human happiness please step forward. Or, we'll just run the cause and effect analysis and let it sort you out.

Can take a long time to evaluate solutions

Modeling, computation, crowdsourcing; patience and perseverance; not failing until you quit...

Problems are never complete solved

Not until perfect human happiness is achieved. However, incremental improvements can go on indefinitely.

So what's the problem?

All the above is subject to debate and refinement. I contend that as long as suffering and happiness are included in the network of causes and effects, the above analysis of wicked problems is going to be difficult to counter. However, I'd be happy to learn where I'm wrong, because that provides information on how to do better!

Having said that, there are some "hidden unknowns" in the general network of causation in the world, that I see as the "problems within the wicked problems." These are areas where there is great potential for generating change.

The problems inside the problems

The major problems inside the wicked problems, from my perspective, are these:

Including more people in the problem solving activity

Ultimately, changing the processes behind large-scale wicked problems must involve a broad consensus of many people. It is the summation of desires for change among all stakeholders that drives change.

The problem here is one of distribution of information and education. This goes back to the joke: "Q: What is your opinion of ignorance and apathy? A: "I don't know and I don't care."

People do care. However, they need to have understanding to direct their caring. The problem within that problem has many elements, four of which are described next.

Lack of broad understanding of "feeling"

People talk about purpose, values, engagement, performance, emotional intelligence, affect, emotions, desires, limbic system, hormones, neurochemistry, happiness and suffering, and all the things that aggravate and prevent these things from functioning well.

However, I believe there is a missing center. That missing center is indicated by the question: "What are 'feelings', in terms of actual moment to moment physical and mental experience?"

This is similar to asking "What is health?" instead of asking "What is health care?" We know that feelings are very important, somehow at the center of the above topics. However, we don't have a broad commonsense understanding of what feelings actually are.

So feelings are a "black box" in the network, and they create a "gray zone" of fuzzy understanding. That allows room for the idea that "feelings are just mental illusions created by brain", which in turn inhibits (or excuses) people from taking action on all the above-mentioned topics connected to feelings.

One way to start understanding feelings is to try on the following model, and decide whether it fits your experience. That is, 1) the sensations we call feelings are instantaneous full-body energy experiences that drive desire, thought and action; 2) feelings are part of a "feeling function" (as described by the Swiss psychologist Karl Jung); 3) the feeling function encompasses aversion/attraction, judgment, values, emotions and physical and mental performance states ("readiness to act").

Taboo of talking about power

People talk about the "status quo", "bureaucracy", "authoritarianism","inertia", "bad bosses" and "toxic cultures", along with unending complaints about politics and international relations.

At the same time, people very seldom talk directly about power, or even use the word power. And yet power clearly is at the center of all these issues. Things are the way they are because people exercise power for both good and ill to maintain things the way they are.

However, because people rarely talk directly and analytically about power, power is another major black box in the overall network of causes and effects of the world. And so it is another area that is resistant to broad understanding, meaningful evaluation, and effective change action.

One way to start is to see that what people mean by power in most cases is a combination of capability, status and personal sense of power, distributed over personal, interpersonal and group domains, and that what people are most concerned about is the use of differential power for one's benefit in a way that harms other people. There's a fine line there, too, because that perfectly describes a competitive sales situation.

Lack of broad use of "mental models"

Behavior and experience are largely governed by mind, and a large part of mind is devoted to making mental models. In return those mental models are what largely control behavior and experience, happiness and suffering, engagement and empowerment, skills and performance, and on and on and on.

This is straight cause and effect analysis. Yet people do not commonly talk about mental models and mental modeling, unless they are engaged in influencing mental models, such as in psychology, marketing, political messaging and so on. So this is yet another "black box" that gets in the way of explaining "how things work" and what do about it.

One way to start is to observe your own thoughts and consider how often they are based on models of something that is real, either past, present, potential future or an "imaginary reality".

Limited training in process thinking capability

The actual exercise of structured analysis, even in an informal way, requires "process thinking capability", which we define as "the capacity of individuals and groups to make mental models of processes and process change." Limitations on this capability are the primary bottleneck in pursuing cause and effect analysis as a problem solving approach.

That's why ActionMap's mission is to increase process thinking capability at the largest possible scale (please see our other articles on that topic.)

Conclusion

Real world "wicked problems" can be extremely complex and intractable and can be the source of great suffering. Even after problems are better defined by analysis, many different approaches may need to be applied to identify and implement solutions.

Structured analysis is a strong supporting tool that can address most of the surface challenges with wicked problems.

The "problems within wicked problems" that are described above are potential high value action points for enabling the broader use of structured analysis, and cause and effect analysis in general, for working with wicked problems.

Call to action

We are working on white papers to address the three "problems within wicked problems" described above, related to feelings, power and mental models.

Our call to action is for as many people as possible to start thinking and talking more about feelings, power, mental models and process thinking capability, in order to make these concepts more broadly understood and more effective in collective problem solving.\

What do you think?

Are there situations where structured analysis and other such methods cannot be applied at all?

It is unreasonable to include human values and feelings in the network of causes and effects in a situation?

Are there other "problems within the problem" that need to be addressed?

We would appreciate any thoughts that you might have to share on these subjects, to broaden and enrich the conversation.

Free training in how to increase process thinking skills, based on a highly simplified form of structured analysis, is provided at https://freetraining.actionmap.com.

About the author(s)

Jim's LinkedIn profile is at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimjohnson/

More about Jim, Anne and ActionMap can be found at https://actionmap.com

#increaseprocessthinkingcapability #betterfasterprocesschange #accelerateinnovation #actionmaptoolkit #consensuscatalyst