This seems right. I once conjured the following thought experiment: "what would the political economy dynamics look like of a problem that was *truly* unsolvable?" The answer I came to was that... the dynamics would look quite similar to those we see in general: large promises made; not delivered; opinion flips to the other side; large promises made...
I do think, however, one aspect of your note I'd like to pull on. In dynamically evolving complex systems, change — potentially even at the level of fundamental factors — is constantly happening.
So one useful prompt in the context of someone proposing they can tackle a wicked problem with such and such intervention is: "what is your theory about what has changed in the world [system] that now makes this work in a way it could not before?"
(Incidentally, this particular prompt comes from some spelunking around Techstartupland. It has been useful because that is an environment in which the same approach may be taken multiple times, but the time something works, it is often due to something in that point-in-time in the operating environment.)
yeah, that's an interesting perspective. One thing I keep meaning to write about (and to which this post is possibly introductory) is that for really big and complicated systems, "solution" is maybe the wrong concept. Like if you consider an artist, then most of them do not work by trying to optimise and produce the perfect work - they want to keep producing new things that they can be proud of. That's the sort of concept that underpins the "Viable Systems Model" in cybernetics, and it was one of the parts of Stafford Beer's system that was most influential on Brian Eno (I checked this with him!)
so moving on from that (and slightly in opposition to Malcolm Sparrow), maybe "problem solving" is the wrong way to think about things. A "problem" is something that's getting increasingly difficult to live with - rather than "solving" it, we want to make organisational adjustments to the system in such a way that it's happy again. And as you say, this might end up with a situation in which we're constantly reorganising and flopping from state to state but the problem remains, and as long as the oscillations don't shake the machine apart, this itself is the "solution"!
What I think you're gesturing towards is what I've heard aptly called "messes." From Russell Ackoff:
"Managers are not confronted with problems that are independent of each other, but with dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other. I call such situations messes. Problems are abstractions extracted from messes by analysis; they are to messes as atoms are to tables and chairs. We experience messes, tables, and chairs; not problems and atoms."
In my practical experience, the notion that a "problem" is an abstraction extracted by analysis has been very useful. For me, messes are the dynamic/multi-interaction thing. The problem is the thing you work out that you can actually do something about, here, at time t, and see where it goes next.
This seems right. I once conjured the following thought experiment: "what would the political economy dynamics look like of a problem that was *truly* unsolvable?" The answer I came to was that... the dynamics would look quite similar to those we see in general: large promises made; not delivered; opinion flips to the other side; large promises made...
I do think, however, one aspect of your note I'd like to pull on. In dynamically evolving complex systems, change — potentially even at the level of fundamental factors — is constantly happening.
So one useful prompt in the context of someone proposing they can tackle a wicked problem with such and such intervention is: "what is your theory about what has changed in the world [system] that now makes this work in a way it could not before?"
(Incidentally, this particular prompt comes from some spelunking around Techstartupland. It has been useful because that is an environment in which the same approach may be taken multiple times, but the time something works, it is often due to something in that point-in-time in the operating environment.)
yeah, that's an interesting perspective. One thing I keep meaning to write about (and to which this post is possibly introductory) is that for really big and complicated systems, "solution" is maybe the wrong concept. Like if you consider an artist, then most of them do not work by trying to optimise and produce the perfect work - they want to keep producing new things that they can be proud of. That's the sort of concept that underpins the "Viable Systems Model" in cybernetics, and it was one of the parts of Stafford Beer's system that was most influential on Brian Eno (I checked this with him!)
so moving on from that (and slightly in opposition to Malcolm Sparrow), maybe "problem solving" is the wrong way to think about things. A "problem" is something that's getting increasingly difficult to live with - rather than "solving" it, we want to make organisational adjustments to the system in such a way that it's happy again. And as you say, this might end up with a situation in which we're constantly reorganising and flopping from state to state but the problem remains, and as long as the oscillations don't shake the machine apart, this itself is the "solution"!
What I think you're gesturing towards is what I've heard aptly called "messes." From Russell Ackoff:
"Managers are not confronted with problems that are independent of each other, but with dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other. I call such situations messes. Problems are abstractions extracted from messes by analysis; they are to messes as atoms are to tables and chairs. We experience messes, tables, and chairs; not problems and atoms."
In my practical experience, the notion that a "problem" is an abstraction extracted by analysis has been very useful. For me, messes are the dynamic/multi-interaction thing. The problem is the thing you work out that you can actually do something about, here, at time t, and see where it goes next.
(Quoted in: https://surfingcomplexity.blog/2021/12/28/the-ambiguity-of-real-work/ )