Solving "Wicked Problems"

Wicked Problems:

First introduced by theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973, the term “wicked problem” drew attention to complex problems that lacked clarity in both definition and solution.

Studied and written about much over the last 50-years, suffice here to say that characteristics of “wicked problems” include complexity, uncertainty, interdependent factors, and embedded constraints. Some call them “...chronic, beyond complex, with no clear boundaries or solutions,” and others “an ill-structured problem.”

Those familiar with Joseph Heller’s book might call them “Catch-22 problems.” Others may refer to a paralyzing problem – where it’s difficult to know where or how to even try to start to solve it.

Some examples of “wicked problems” include chronic homelessness, housing affordability, poverty reduction, Regional economic development, and environmental sustainability. For others, providing innovative health care, improving the educational system, innovating public services, beating inflationary pressures, combating human trafficking, business sector innovation, and improving a country’s productivity would meet the threshold of “wicked problem.”

When? Where? How? How Much?

In the case of the Town of Pelham (Population 18,000 in Niagara Region, Ontario), the provision of recreational and cultural services was a paralyzing problem for nearly 25-years.

The Town had tried everything to figure out how to “solve” the problem themselves. Staff and outside consultants had provided 14 reports to Council and the public. Each report attempted to analyze the desire for new recreational facilities and recommend solutions.

Residents intently argued they needed a twin pad arena, an indoor pool, fitness facilities, a walking track, community meeting rooms, multi-purpose spaces, etc. Other residents argued that they didn’t need a twin pad arena, an indoor pool, fitness facilities, a walking track, community meeting rooms, multi-purpose spaces, etc. A citizen-led and very enthusiastic committee even formed to try to advance the issue in the community themselves.

Residents argued about the location of where to build (or not build) a facility and also the costs to maintain whatever was constructed.

The Town couldn’t pinpoint whether a proposal was “affordable” because they didn’t know what to include in the calculations for building, land, and operating costs.

It felt paralyzing for the community. And, it frustrated the sports community who continued to use a small, dank, deteriorating single-pad arena with a small, inaccessible community room.

Involve All the “Players”:

What about even bigger “wicked problems,” you ask? What about problems that impact entire communities or regions? What about larger, interconnected problems?

We use a similar process: define the problem, understand the problem’s interconnectedness with a “challenge map,” identify the roadblocks, start clearing the roadblocks, revise the challenge map, and repeat.

Yet, for “wicked problems” one also needs to ensure that the “right people” are helping to solve the challenge and that those participants take ownership of their part of the overall problem.

Having the “right people” means including a diversity of participants. Just as taught in MBA programs and by engineering faculties, it’s the cross functional involvement and diversity of perspectives that help define and address the overall problem.

Let’s take chronic homelessness, for example.

First, a group would need to take the lead – perhaps a regional, county, or city government. Not only would the senior staff need to be involved, so would the Chair or Mayor and maybe a Councillor or two. We’d work together with this small group during a pre-consult planning meeting to decide who else should be involved in helping to solve the overall problem and how much time we might require.

Then that lead group would invite representatives involved in the overall problem to a facilitated Creative Problem Solving session.

 Participants might include representatives from nonprofits and charities providing shelter and support, the building community, the development community, federal and state/provincial governments, planners and planning consultants, the Chamber of Commerce / Board of Trade, economic development offices, and maybe researchers from local post-secondary institutions. We might also decide to invite the local police, emergency services, and fire services as well as addiction services and mental health providers. And, knowing that those who are chronically homeless repeatedly use emergency departments, we would suggest inviting health care providers and hospital representatives.

We would work with this large group to uncover and agree upon the most important facts and elements of the overall problem. Then, using those key facts, we’d define and map the overall challenge.

Together we would identify the one-to-three major roadblocks that were currently keeping the community from moving forward toward the overall goal. They might be aspirations like “How might we have a system in place to help people as they become homeless?” or “How might we address the lack of purpose built / government built housing?”

Then, we would encourage participants to take responsibility for helping to solve each of those key roadblocks. In one case, it might be the government representatives and the development community. In another, it might be the housing providers, the hospital, and EMS.

For each of the roadblocks, we would work with those participants who took ownership to develop the best ideas about removing that particular roadblock, evaluate those ideas, prepare an action plan, identify who else should understand or accept the solution, and then take action.

Then, every four-to-six weeks we would reconvene the larger group to review progress, update the overall challenge map, and begin the work to clear the next major roadblocks.