Summary of the traits of a Wicked Problem as originally articulated in the 1970’s.
The following presents the typical traits of a wicked problem as identified by Rittel and Weber in their original paper.
| Trait | Description |
|---|---|
| There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem | The information needed to understand the problem depends upon who is asked and their idea for solving it. |
| Wicked problems have no stopping rule | Board games such as chess or a mathematical equation needing to be solved have a single distinct goal to achieve. Wicked problems have no definitive solution, for example, illicit drug use may never be completely solved. Typically end when some other constraint such as a deadline or resources are exhausted. |
| Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad | Due to the involvement of many parties with differing motivations or interests, their judgements with regard to outcome will likely differ widely. Their individual assessment will likely be “better or worse”; “satisfying”; or “good enough”. |
| There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem | Any implemented solution will generate waves of consequences including unintended and undesirable ones which may outweigh any intended and desirable outcomes. The consequences will propagate through many lives into the future with no way to trace all the waves. |
| 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 | Any implemented solution cannot be undone without consequences. Large public works cannot be corrected if found deficient in the future without large amounts of money and resources having to be spent. Attempting to reverse or correct for undesirable consequences faces another set of wicked problems. |
| 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 | There is no criteria to prove that all possible solutions to a wicked problem have been identified. How to deal with street crime could take many forms including extreme solutions or a combination of solutions in degrees. |
| Every wicked problem is essentially unique | Previous and current problems may have many similarities, but an additional property may have overriding importance. Contextual changes can play a major part in making it unique. |
| Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem | A wicked problem can be described in terms of another underlying problem. Street crime can be considered a symptom of moral decay, poverty, or deficient opportunity. And each of these could subsequently be considered a symptom of some other underlying problem. |
| 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 | Street crime could be explained by claiming lack of police, inadequate laws, too many guns, cultural deprivation or any combination. The worldview of the analyst will be the strongest determining factor along with action prospects that are available. |
| The planner has no right to be wrong | In scientific community if a hypotheses if formed and later refuted due to other evidence, this is considered scientific progress. For social issues aimed at improving society in some ways, planners are liable for any inadvertent consequences of their planned actions upon people who may be affected. |
References
- Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Science (4 (1973), 155-169).
Wicked Paths 