Kim Boal, responding to my posting...
>Fred Nickols writes, partially in response to an earlier comment of mind
>about "tame" versus "wicked" problems that he does not believe in "wicked"
>problems. All problems can be tamed according to Fred. Tame problems (for
>those who did not see the earlier comment) can be defined, structured, and
>solved through obtaining and or developing additional information and
>applying analytic techniques. Wicked problems are indeterminate and canot
>be definitively formulated, hence no agreed upon criteria can be developed
>to ascertain if or when a solution has been found. I would submit that
>many problems in the public sector arena are wicked, e.g, problems
>concerning the homeless, drugs, education. I would also submit that many
>problems in the private sector are also wicked in nature. They only appear
>tame when someone in power imposes their definition on the problem.
>Perhaps that is why so many solutions to problems in the private sector
>result in errors of the third kind (i.e., solving the wrong problem very
>percisely) or are iatragenic in their effects (ie., the solution causes
>more problems than it solves).
Kim: Can you say more about what you mean by "indeterminate"? In the
meantime, I'll proceed based on my own understanding.
My grasp of the language says that indeterminate refers to vague,
imprecise, inexact, uncertain. These are qualities that all problems
possess at the outset. Indeed, I believe I stated that a problem exists
when there is a requirement for action coupled with uncertainty regarding
the action to take. I believe I also wrote that the function of problem
solving is to reduce uncertainty regarding action. One of the chief aims
of problem solving is to formulate the problem in ways that make it
amenable to resolution. I will quickly agree that formulating a useful
statement of the problem is often a difficult, vexing and taxing task but,
then, that is what makes a problem problematic. I've also seen many
problems that, to one person, were seen as impossible yet, to another,
posed little difficulty at all. So, I'll agree that many problems are
vague or fuzzy at the outset, and that formulating a good, crisp statement
of the problem, including criteria for judging the efficacy of any proposed
solution, is a very difficult task. I still think it can be done--for any
problem.
I am also unclear as to what you mean by "solving the wrong problem."
Would you elaborate, please? It seems to me that if a problem has been
defined and solved, then, for someone, that was the right problem, not the
wrong problem.
It is, however, not uncommon for Person A to look at Person B's problem
solving efforts and assert that Person B has treated only the symptoms or
solved the wrong problem. One of the more common manifestations of this
occurs when Person A says of Person B, "He didn't solve the real problem."
This ties closely, I think, to your point about what you see depending on
where you sit--a point with which I wholeheartedly agree.
As for someone in power imposing his or her definition of the problem,
that's a common enough occurrence and one consistent with the governance
mechanisms under which we all live and work. That it doesn't work well all
the time doesn't come as a surprise to me. But I don't think that accounts
for what you call "iatragenic" effects (i.e., the solution creates more
problems than it solves).
By the way, "iatragenic" was a new one on me so I tried looking it up but
couldn't find it. I did find "iatrogenic," which means caused by medical
treatment, and I assume that is what you meant. Chester Barnard, writing
in "The Functions of the Executive" some 60 years ago, labeled as
"inefficient" solutions having side effects that outweighed the benefits of
solving the problem at hand. My opinion is that this unfortunate situation
occurs with great regularity. However, I see this as attributable to a)
our ignorance of the structure of the situation in which the problem is
embedded, and b) a tendency to not remedy that ignorance. When we
intervene without knowing how the change(s) made at the point(s) of
intervention will "ripple through" the structure of the situation, there
are bound to be unintended side effects, some of which sometimes make the
treatment worse than the cure. In any case, it is ignorance of structure
that leads to flawed interventions, not some mysterious thing called a
"wicked problem."
>As an academic, I have spent a considerable part of my life trying to solve
>problems.
As a practitioner, so have I.
>The result of which is that I think there are some
>questions/problems that I know the answer to, but there are some
>questions/problems that I don't think anyone knows the answer to.
I agree.
>The
>latter does not mean that people cannot or will not give you an
>answer/solution, but rather that the answer is at best only partially
>correct and also certainly partially wrong.
Lots of people are ready to prescribe at the drop of a hat and they are
often dead wrong--but not always. So I don't agree entirely that the
answers given are always only partially correct--sometimes they're right on.
>The image of the five blind
>men trying to describe an elephant based upon the small part they are each
>touching captures the limitations of our experiences and theories for
>solving many problems. It is often said that what you see depends upon
>where you sit. Perhaps the difference between learning and wisdom is that
>the wise person knows where the chair is.
Certainly knowing the perspective from which you view things is an element
of personal wisdom. It is also wise to vary your perspective. Even wiser
is the person who knows which perspective to take when.
Fred Nickols
Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service
Mail Stop 09-C
Princeton, NJ 08541
609.734.5077 Tel
609.734.5590 Fax
fnickols@ets.org
The views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author, not
ETS...