Wicked and Less Wicked Problems: A Typology and a Contingency Framework Notes

Introduction to Wicked Problems

• Wicked problems are complex, intractable, open-ended, and unpredictable and seem to be increasing.
• Examples include global warming, drug abuse, child protection, and natural disasters.
• The term 'wicked' may be applied indiscriminately, leading to a generic concept that doesn't fit all situations.
• A 'one best way' approach may be used to tackle problems, creating a mismatch between solutions and specific situations.

Shortcomings of Scholarship on Wicked Problems

• Totalising Frame: Accounts often view wicked problems as intractable masses of complexity, defying definition and solution.
• This makes it difficult to break the problem down into manageable parts and understand the individual components.
• Apocalyptic Style: There is a temporal variant of totalising where wicked problems are believed to require transformational and fast-moving solutions.
• Impossible Standard of Success: A conception of success is invoked which is almost impossible to achieve, leading to a binary choice between transformative success or ongoing defeat.
• Fails to recognize positive gains from attempts to improve the situation, including incremental changes and ‘small wins’.
• The discourse has not encouraged thinking about degrees of wickedness, instead seeing each situation in binary terms as either wicked or tame.
• Insufficient consideration has been given to analyzing the constituent elements of these problems.
• Generic ‘one-size-fits-all’ interventions are likely to be poorly adapted to the subtleties of each problem landscape.

Progress of Wicked Problems

• The 'wicked' problem discourse emerged in the 1970s from a critique of rational–technical or 'engineering' approaches to complex issues of social planning and public policy.
• These approaches require impossibly high levels of goal-clarity, coordination and performance information.
• They neglect the lived experiences and perspectives of stakeholders and service providers.
• Rittel and Webber's 'Dilemmas in a general theory of planning' (1973) critiqued 'engineering' approaches to urban and social problems.
• Modern society is too pluralistic to tolerate artificial solutions imposed on social groups with different attitudes and values, and this pluralism undermines the possibility of clear, agreed solutions.
• Finite problems tackled by science and engineering are seen as relatively ‘tame’ or ‘benign’ as their elements are definable and solutions are verifiable.
• Modern social problems are generally ‘ill-defined’ and resistant to an agreed solution, relying on political judgements rather than scientific certitudes.

Related Phenomena and Literature

• Poorly defined problems and stakeholder conflicts are considered evidence of ‘messy’ policy problems (Ackoff, 1974; Horn, 1981).
• Simon (1973) drew attention to ‘ill-structured’ problems.
• Problem definition is crucial, and every perspective about the nature of a problem tends to imply a preferred solution (eg Peters, 2005).

Strategies for Tackling Wicked Problems

• Roberts (2000) identified three possible types of intervention: authoritative, competitive, and collaborative besides traditional professional management.
  • Authoritative Strategies: Entail strong leaders with clear directive authority and rely on a high-calibre leader to discern the nature of the problem and devise an effective solution for it.
    • However, wicked problems are usually beyond the cognitive capacity of any one mind to diagnose or comprehend (Heifetz, 1994), especially if they are technically complex issues.
    • These problems also call for thoughtful analysis, dialogue and action on the part of affected stakeholders.
  • Competitive Strategy: Sponsoring or fostering competition between societal actors to come up with understandings of the problem and potential advances in dealing with it.
    • These risk generating heightened conflict that consumes resources and delays solutions, as happens when litigation looms large.
  • Collaborative Strategy: Public consultation or participation in decision-making.
    • Its problem is the opposite to that of strong leadership, in that even if the collective public was capable of uncovering and conveying the relevant knowledge, it is doubtful that it could pull this together into a coherent account (Heifetz, 1994).
  • Expert Strategy: Similar to the authoritative one except that the basis of the leader’s authority is expert knowledge about the problem area.
    • To the extent that expertise can have some impact, its value derives not from being able to diagnose the problem but from understanding what questions need to be asked and investigations pursued.
    • This form of intervention suffers from the fact that, by definition, the nature of the problem is beyond the thinking abilities of even the most erudite expert.
    • More importantly, it neglects the fact that technical expertise is not the only type of capability required.
    • Also needed is the capacity to lead, organise and manage the implementation of responses.
• The 'one-size-fits-all' model has bedevilled government organisations for decades (Turnpenny et al., 2009; Alford and Hughes 2008; Head and Alford 2015).

A Typology of Problems

• The great majority of the literature on wicked problems tends towards a standard model of wicked problems, inspired mainly by Rittel and Webber (1973), there are variations on that formulation, with key terms that are different but with roughly the same meanings (Ison, Collins, & Wallis, 2015).
• Examples are ‘intractable controversies’ (Schon & Rein, 1994); ‘unstructured’ or ‘incorrigible’ problems (Hisschemoller & Hoppe, 1995; Hoppe, 2010); ‘tangled problems’ (Dawes et al., 2009); and ‘complex problems’ (May, Jochim, & Pump, 2013).
• There has also been some impetus towards formulating typologies of various kinds, seeking to classify either different conceptions of the nature of the problem (eg Heifetz, 1994; Hisschemoller & Hoppe, 1995; Hoppe, 2010); varying levels of engagement of publics and the strength of institutional linkages (May et al., 2013); or the relative weight of various wickedness criteria (Turnpenny et al., 2009).
• Some authors have attempted to condense and simplify Rittel and Webber’s original list of 10 characteristics of wicked problems, by grouping the key ideas

Constructing a Typology of Problems

• One difficulty is how to ensure its dimensions and elements are the most relevant ones in respect of wicked problems.
• Focusing on the two irreducible elements of wicked situations: the problem itself and the actors involved.
• When articulated with each other, they form a two-dimensional matrix of possibilities.
• The categories represent a spectrum or continuum rather than discrete or self-contained types.
• Another difficulty relates to the quality of the nominated dimensions.
• The framework incorporates more finely grained features within each dimension.
• The framework provides a set of common categories for case by case analysis, ie for seeking to advance our understanding of each wicked problem in its specific terms – which is in fact the form in which they usually present themselves.
• Understanding a wicked problem entails a reflexive or iterative analysis (Horn, 1981; Ison et al., 2015; Rein 1976; United Nations 2007).
• The starting point is to formulate a working hypothesis as to where in the matrix the particular situation sits.
• The purpose is not to ‘solve’ the problem but to obtain an opening picture of which aspects of the situation merit further investigation.
• This should lead to a more nuanced analysis of problems, in which the broader categories are adjusted to take account of the sub-categories, with each problem logically situated and informed by deeper understanding of the factors underpinning their positioning as problem types.
• Understanding these factors paves the way for discovering methods of tackling them.
• The broad matrix has two dimensions, one relating to the problem itself, the other to the people involved.
• The vertical dimension reflects the nature of the problem, in particular its level of intractability in itself (see Heifetz, 1994; Roberts, 2000).

Problem Types

1. Clear Problem and Solution: Both the nature of the problem and the solution may be clear to the decision-makers in question. The relevant knowledge was ‘out there’; but it required large effort to find, develop and apply it.
2. Known Problem, Unknown Solution: The nature and causes of the problem may be known, but the solution is not – and indeed, it is difficult to find a sound solution owing to analytical or political complexities.
3. Unknown Problem and Solution: Neither the problem itself nor the possible effective solutions are clearly known to the decision-makers in question (see Hisschemoller & Hoppe, 1995; Levin, Cashore, Bernstein, & Auld, 2012; van Bueren, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 2003).
   • In this simple schema, the first type is the least wicked, while the third type is the most wicked.

Stakeholders and Institutional Context

• The horizontal dimension concerns the key people – the stakeholders and their institutional context – who affect the tractability of the problem.
• The essential consideration here is the propensity or otherwise of those involved to enable the problem to be properly addressed (see Farrell & Hooker, 2013; and May et al., 2013).
• This propensity is a function of three factors:
  • locus of important knowledge about the problem
  • the extent to which managers and stakeholders have divergent or conflicting interests, including within each grouping
  • the relative power of the policy managers and the stakeholders

Stakeholder Types

1. Tractable: The most tractable possibility is where neither knowledge nor interests are fragmented between the managers and the stakeholders, and neither has a relative power advantage.
   • In this situation, it will be less difficult for the managers to access relevant knowledge and to reach agreements with external parties about appropriate actions for tackling wicked problems.
2. Moderately Intractable: A moderately intractable situation arises where knowledge is fragmented among various parties, and therefore takes time and effort to access, but the stakeholders are broadly in consensus or at least indifferent about the nature of the problem and the possible solutions.
3. Least Tractable: The least tractable alternative is where both knowledge and interests are fractured among the various actors.
   • In this situation, not only is the relevant knowledge about the problem spread across multiple actors, each with a different part of that knowledge, but also, their interests are such that they are reluctant to share understandings with others who may be perceived as rivals.

Combining Dimensions

• Putting the vertical and horizontal dimensions together in their present form (Figure 1), nine possibilities present themselves as a continuum.

Refining Understanding

• One particular feature of this framework is of special interest because of the possibilities it opens up for applying a contingent approach.
• Specifically, it enables recognition of differing kinds of underlying causes, and therefore assists selection of more tailored ways of both comprehending and tackling them.

Towards a More Finely Grained Typology

• The breadth of the typology limits its usefulness in two respects.
  • One is that actual causes may be subsumed under the broader categories.
  • The other limitation is that it does not necessarily unearth key causal linkages among entities or phenomena that are buried within the broader ones.

Two-Level Framework

• Adopt a two-level framework.
  • One level is the broad typology already described, which sets out alternative possibilities in two dimensions.
  • The other level looks within those alternatives, to consider the factors underlying them – in particular those relevant to the practical needs of decision-makers and managers.

Causal Factors

• The sub-categories drawn from the literature are designed to cover all the key factors in each dimension that might shape the degree and types of wickedness in a given problem (see Table 1).
• The more these factors are present, the more the problem can be described as 'wicked'.

Dimensions of Wicked Problems

• Vertical Dimension (Problem Itself): Complexities in the technical aspects of the situation – ie the relative tractability of the objective conditions, rather than complexities to do with the stakeholders (who are considered within the horizontal (stakeholder) dimension of Table 1).
• Focuses on the inherent structure of the problem, that is, the extent to which problem clarity allows for effective interventions, without simply generating other problems.
• Also on knowledge – that is, the extent to which the problem and its solution are in themselves understandable to a decision-maker or policy manager.
• Problems are more likely to be wicked where knowledge about them is hard to access, less visible or less tangible – in effect, where there is a deficit of knowledge.
• Horizontal Dimension (Stakeholders and Their Institutional Arrangements): Relative wickedness of problems can in part be understood by reference to the key features of the stakeholder environment: knowledge, interests and power.

Stakeholders and Knowledge

• Knowledge Aspect: Prone to factors which affect both the coherence and the salience of the knowledge available to decision-makers.
• Coherence Aspect: Concerns the degree of fragmentation of the relevant knowledge between individuals and groups.
• Institutional Framing Aspect: Concerns how much attention is given to the various pieces of knowledge, either by the decision-makers or the stakeholders.

Stakeholders and Interests

• Interests Factor: Affects the degree of conflict among and with stakeholders.

Stakeholders and Power

• Power Factor: Distorts, mediates and bridges the impact of the other factors.
• This power is in turn a function of both an ‘internal’ and an ‘external’ condition.
  • Internal (Power-Resources): The set of capacities the actors hold, such as money, positional power, legitimate authority, expertise or whatever (French & Raven, 1959; Lukes, 2005).
  • External (Power-Terrain): The context in which the actors operate, which affects the impact of its power-resources and its ability to wield them.

Conditions for Wicked Problems

A problem is more likely to be wicked if several conditions (or most of them) are present:

• Structural complexity: inherent intractability of the technical (ie non-stakeholder-related) aspects of the problem.
• Knowability: Not only is there little knowledge about the issue, but the nature of the problem or its solution is such that it is unknowable – that is: the relevant information is hidden, disguised or intangible; it comprises multiple complex variables; and/or its workings require taking action to discover causal links and probable outcomes.
• Knowledge fragmentation: the available knowledge is fragmented among multiple stakeholders, each holding some but not all of what is required to address the problem.
• Knowledge-framing: some of the knowledge receives either too much or too little attention because of the way it is framed, thereby distorting our understanding.
• Interest-differentiation: the various stakeholders have interests (or values) which are substantially in conflict with those of others.
• Power-distribution: There is a dysfunctional distribution of power among stakeholders, whereby very powerful actors can overwhelm less powerful ones, even if the latter constitute a majority consensus; or whereby sharply divided interests are matched by sharply divided power.

Conditions for Tame Problems

• A problem is more likely to be tame if it is knowable, the knowledge is publicly shared or accessible, there are no deep conflicts of interest among stakeholders, and power is well distributed.

Applying the Typology to the ‘War on Drugs’

• The example of formulating and implementing policies to control illicit drugs is highly complex.
• Its complexity rests on three factors that also make it a wicked problem.
  • The first is addiction, meaning that interventions assuming rational choice on the part of drug abusers are ineffectual or counter-productive.
  • The second is the criminality of the drug trade, which means that many of its actors and processes operate ‘underground’
  • The third factor is the multifarious nature of drug production and distribution.

Drug Policy Interventions

• Deterrence: Increasing either the penalties or enforcement efforts against illicit drug use."