Re: [projectvrm] Wicked problems vs. tame ones

[Doc Searls < >]

That's good. I like "rugged landscape."

Links:

<http://www.lsa.umich.edu/polisci/people/faculty/ci.pagescott_ci.detail>
<http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~spage/>
<http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/complexadaptivesystems/>
<http://knackeredhack.com/2007/04/30/how-chippy-do-you-like-your-ice-cream/#more-166>
<https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=4758>
<http://bit.ly/19FstmJ>



On Jan 19, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Guy Higgins 
<
 >
 wrote:

> It strikes me that this set of bullets describing wicked problems also
> applies to problems involving complex adaptive systems.  Inherently, VRM
> is dealing with complex adaptive systems involving players who want to
> control their private data and players who want to make use of other
> player¹s private data.  Scott Page uses the term ³rugged landscape² to
> create an image of a solution space in which there are numerous potential
> solutions (peaks) and it is not obvious nor easy to determine which
> solution is optimal.  Scott goes on from that image to one he calls
> ³dancing landscapes² in which the attributes of a rugged landscape apply
> but the peaks and valleys all change in response to the actions of players
> in the solutions space and even in response to externalities.  This latter
> solution space of dancing landscapes is where complex adaptive solutions
> and wicked problems dwell.
> 
> Don¹t know if this perspective is helpful or not ‹ but fer what it¹s worth
> Š
> 
> Guy
> 
> On 1/19/14, 10:04 , "Doc Searls" 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
>> The quoted passage below showed up in another list. It looked to me like
>> it might be relevant to VRM, so I'm sharing it.
>> 
>> Here is the original:
>> <http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Plan
>> ning.pdf>
>> 
>> While the excerpt below lays out what "wicked" problems are, what
>> intrigues me is that it poses them against "tame" ones.
>> 
>> I think the problem of customer captivity is not the captivity itself,
>> but the valuing of it ‹ and the normative nature of value systems, even
>> when those systems later fall into discredit and abandonment. And I think
>> my problem with marketing-framed answers to the questions raised by VRM
>> ambitions is that they strike me ‹ in the context posed by this piece ‹
>> as tame. I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean it in the sense that
>> marketing is a mature, deep and well-understood field. What VRM poses is
>> the idea of free customers, which marketing on the whole doesn't care a
>> lot about or would rather not see. (Perhaps Graham can correct me on
>> that, or shed more light on the matter.) In any case, marketing is a
>> corporate practice, and VRM is about personal ones. Today we have a
>> limited box of tools at customers' disposal. VRM seeks to add more tools
>> to that box.
>> 
>> I suggest that liberating customers from systems that value holding them
>> captive is the core challenge of VRM. There are other challenges in the
>> shaft behind that arrowhead, such as making VRM work. But liberation is
>> key. I think doing that is a wicked problem.
>> 
>> Einstein said (or is said to have said ‹ it's not clear), "You cannot
>> solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it." I
>> suggest that a corollary might be, "Wicked problems are ones that cannot
>> be solved from any level place," meaning any tame (mature,
>> well-understood) place.
>> 
>> Obviously, those places don't go away. Newton's proven theories did not
>> cease to apply when those of relativity theory and quantum mechanics came
>> along. But the thinking that yielded the latter was not Newtonian. It was
>> different. Einstein credited "the gift of fantasy" for his own insights.
>> 
>> Anyway, those are some digressive thoughts on a Sunday morning. I'd
>> tighten them up if we didn't have guests. But we do, so there ya go.
>> 
>> Doc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Excerpted from:
>>> Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). ³Dilemmas in a General Theory of
>>> Planning,² Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
>>> 
>>> Wicked Problems
>>> According to Rittel and Webber, wicked problems have 10 characteristics:
>>>     € Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. Formulating the
>>> problem and the solution is essentially the same task. Each attempt at
>>> creating a solution changes your understanding of the problem.
>>>     € Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Since you can't define the
>>> problem in any single way, it's difficult to tell when it's resolved.
>>> The problem-solving process ends when resources are depleted,
>>> stakeholders lose interest or political realities change.
>>>     € Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad.
>>> Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is
>>> resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is "good
>>> enough" can be a challenge, but getting to a ³good enough² resolution
>>> may be the best we can do.
>>>     € There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked
>>> problem. Since there is no singular description of a wicked problem, and
>>> since the very act of intervention has at least the potential to change
>>> that which we deem to be ³the problem,² there is no one way to test the
>>> success of the proposed resolution.
>>>     € Every implemented solution to a wicked problem has consequences.
>>> Solutions to such problems generate waves of consequences, and it's
>>> impossible to know, in advance and completely, how these waves will
>>> eventually play out.
>>>     € Wicked problems don't have a well-described set of potential
>>> solutions. Various stakeholders have differing views of acceptable
>>> solutions. It's a matter of judgment as to when enough potential
>>> solutions have emerged and which should be pursued.
>>>     € Each wicked problem is essentially unique. There are no "classes" of
>>> solutions that can be applied, a priori, to a specific case. "Part of
>>> the art of dealing with wicked problems is the art of not knowing too
>>> early what type of solution to apply."
>>>     € Each wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem.
>>> A wicked problem is a set of interlocking issues and constraints that
>>> change over time, embedded in a dynamic social context. But, more
>>> importantly, each proposed resolution of a particular description of ³a
>>> problem² should be expected to generate its own set of unique problems.
>>>     € The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways.
>>> There are many stakeholders who will have various and changing ideas
>>> about what might be a problem, what might be causing it and how to
>>> resolve it. There is no way to sort these different explanations into
>>> sets of ³correct/incorrect.²
>>>     € The planner (designer) has no right to be wrong. Scientists are
>>> expected to formulate hypotheses, which may or may not be supportable by
>>> evidence. Designers don't have such a luxury‹they're expected to get
>>> things right. People get hurt, when planners are ³wrong.² Yet, there
>>> will always be some condition under which planners will be wrong.
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>