PLANNING PROBLEMS ARE WICKED PROBLEMS Horst W. J. Rittel, Melvin M. Webber (1973)
The text “Planning Problems are Wicked Problems” by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber explains the term “wicked problem” and elaborates on the differences between the approach to problem solving in scientific and social areas. This because they found, that you cannot apply the classical paradigm of science and engineering to the problems of open societal systems. They define scientific problems as distinguishable and definable with findable solutions. On the contrary problems in a social context are ill-defined and depend on the analyst’s judgement. Hence a social problem can never be solved, it can only be re-solved. Those problems they call wicked problems. Rittel and Webber use the term “wicked” meaning malignant, vicious, tricky and place them in social contexts in contrast to scientific problems which are tame and benign problems. In working with a wicked problem the analyst has to struggle with the paradox of understanding a problem through looking at ideas for solving it. Problem understanding and problem resolution are concomitant which means that finding the problem is the same thing as finding the solution. Working with wicked problems is especially tricky because there is not only one possible solution. The solution can always be improved. Due to the lack of objective criteria it is neither possible to determine the correctness in a wicked problem, nor is it possible to appraise all the waves and affects the solution has created. Furthermore there are many hidden factors in the causal chains in a wicked problem. Therefore the modes of reasoning when dealing with wicked problems are much richer and there are more ways of refuting a hypothesis than there are in science.
In science, there are no consequences if one postulates hypotheses that are later refuted. The planner in a social context doesn’t have this immunity, as his/her improvements affects people directly. Solutions to wicked problems are “one-shot operations” because ever y implemented solution has irreversible consequences. Attempts to correct the solution might lead to another wicked problem. Since every wicked problem is unique it is not possible to classify them and/or admit a certain set of rules and procedures to find and apply a solution. If anything, the attempt to transfer a solution from one problem to another can be very harmful. The analyst has to decide on the level of approaching the problem. He has to choose between a broad approach which makes the problem complicated and hard to solve and a approach on a lower level, taking small steps which makes the problem solving easier but also increases the risk to make the problem worse or create a new wicked problem. It is clear that in Rittels and Webbers model the analyst’s world view plays a crucial role in resolving the wicked problem. Reflection We think that the examples given by Rittel and Webber for why scientific solutions are not consequential are too simple and give a too narrow view on what a scientific solution can be and therefore limits the possible effects. It could be discussed further if it is always true that scientific solutin have no consequences and if scientific and social problems are completely different in all their characteristics? How does it relate to our design practice? How can we use this theory in Practic ? Is there a danger to use the theory of the “wicked” problem as an excuse, to release the analyst/designer from its responsibility?
12