1) The document discusses wicked problems, which are novel problems with no clear solutions that require learning through attempts to solve them. 2) It presents collaborative problem solving as most effective for wicked problems, involving all stakeholders to develop shared understanding through dialogue. 3) Developing shared understanding of the problem, stakeholders, and potential solutions is essential for reaching shared commitment needed for effective collaboration.

1. 1Creating shared commitmentin the political contextDr. Jeff ConklinCogNexus Institutecognexus.org

2. © 2010 CogNexus Institute2OverviewWicked ProblemsOpportunity Driven Problem SolvingSocial ComplexityTaming the ProblemTackling the ProblemDialogueShared Understanding

3. © 2010 CogNexus Institute3Utah History Fair, Utah State University

4. © 2010 CogNexus Institute4History“Wicked problems” introduced by Horst Rittel“On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the ‘First and Second Generations”, 1972“Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”, 1973 (with M. Webber)10 defining characteristicsE.g. “1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem”‘Wicked’ = malignant, vicious, tricky, aggressive‘Tame’ = benign, stable, straightforward, docile

5. © 2010 CogNexus Institute5History“Wicked” reflects Rittel’s concern with ethics. “[It is unethical] for the planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.” (Rittel & Webber, Dilemmas, p. 161)

6. © 2010 CogNexus Institute6Definition of Wicked ProblemsEach potential solution illuminates new aspects of the wicked problem.Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.Every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation".Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.

7. © 2010 CogNexus Institute7

8. © 2010 CogNexus Institute8Gather data about the problemAnalyze the dataFormulate a solutionImplement itProgress is viewed as a linear process …ProblemSolutionTime

9. © 2010 CogNexus Institute9

10. © 2010 CogNexus Institute10… but reality is non-linear.Guindon, R. (1990) “Designing the Design Process: Exploiting Opportunistic Thoughts”, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5, pp. 305-344.Problem“Opportunity Driven” Problem SolvingSolutionTime

11. © 2010 CogNexus Institute11 Late efforts to understand the real problem

12. Early attempts at solutions

13. Experiments

14. Prototypes

15. HunchesHow We Humans Actually Approach Novel Problems Design process is non-linear, ‘Opportunity-Driven’© 2010 CogNexus Institute12What is the problem? …What are the objectives? …What does ‘X’ mean? …What should we do? …What are the facts? …How should we do X? …Non-linear cognition means jumping around between issuesProblemSolutionTime

16. © 2010 CogNexus Institute13Key Characteristic of “Wicked” ProblemsThe red line fails on wicked problems!Conklin, J. (2006) “Wicked Problems and Social Complexity”, white paper, Chapter 1 of Dialogue Mapping bookVersus "Tame Problems"Every proposed solution …… exposes new aspects of the problem.You have to “do” to “plan”.

17. © 2010 CogNexus Institute14Social Complexity:A multiplier of problem wickednessProblemSolution

18. © 2010 CogNexus Institute15Approaching a wicked problem: Evasion tactics“It’s not really a problem.”(Denial)

19. © 2010 CogNexus Institute16Approaching a wicked problem: Evasion tactics“It’s not my job.”“It’s not in our charter.”(Avoidance)

20. © 2010 CogNexus Institute17Approaching a wicked problem: Evasion tactics“We understand the problem, and we’ve already solved it!”(Engineering)

21. © 2010 CogNexus Institute18Approaching a wicked problem: Taming tactics Freeze the problem definitionGet agreement on the problem statement, then block any further discussion about the problemDrawback: Blocks learningDrawback: Frustrates innovation

22. © 2010 CogNexus Institute19Approaching a wicked problem: Taming tacticsNarrow the optionsStart all meetings with a list of solutions that are “off the table”Drawback: Likely to eliminate robust solutions

23. © 2010 CogNexus Institute20Approaching a wicked problem: Taming tactics Exclude difficult stakeholdersKeep tight control on the meeting invitation process (for the sake of “progress”)Drawback: Don’t be surprised if the final solution gets blocked or sabotaged

24. © 2010 CogNexus Institute21Approaching a wicked problem: Taming tacticsRefocus on a smaller tame problemPick a sub-problem that you’re confident you can solveDrawback: Early success, followed by ugly unintended consequencesDrawback: The problem becomes more wicked

25. © 2010 CogNexus Institute22Approaching a wicked problem: Taming tactics Outsource the problem-solving processHire consultants who are experts on the problemDrawback: Don’t expect much buy-in … except from the consultants!Drawback: Beware Rittel’s “symmetry of ignorance”

26. © 2010 CogNexus Institute23Tackling Wicked Problems

27. © 2010 CogNexus Institute24How to approach a wicked problem?Three strategies (Roberts):Authoritative: Power is given to individual or small groupCompetitive:Stakeholders compete for power and resourcesCollaborative:Alliance among stakeholders for win-win solutions

28. © 2010 CogNexus Institute25Three strategies for wicked problemsAuthoritative: Power is given to individual or small group Examples: an executive, a courtPro: Efficient, TimelyCon: Brittle solutions that can ignore key issues

29. © 2010 CogNexus Institute26Three strategies for wicked problemsCompetitive: Stakeholders compete for power and resourcesExample: When states compete for foreign and local investmentPro: InnovationPro: FlexibilityCon: Conflict and stalematesCon: Win-lose. Does not create shared commitment among stakeholderswww.malaysiainfocus.com

30. © 2010 CogNexus Institute27Three strategies for wicked problemsCollaborative:Alliance among stakeholders for win-win solutions“Make those people who are being affected into participants of the planning process” (Rittel)Example: Partnerships, joint venturesPro: More comprehensive solutionsPro: Higher stakeholder commitmentCon: Increased transaction costsCon: Slow, unpredictable, time consumingwww.mat.uc.pt

31. © 2010 CogNexus Institute28Shared UnderstandingThe Holy Grail of CollaborationShared understanding is the bridgeCollaboration and unityFragmentation and conflict www.balsabridge.com

32. © 2010 CogNexus Institute29Shared UnderstandingShared understanding … of what?Purpose and objectivesWho the stakeholders areWhat the problem isWhat the options areConstraints on the solutionDeliberation and decision process

33. © 2010 CogNexus Institute30Shared UnderstandingShared understanding is *not* …agreementconsensusgroup thinkwww.danaellyn.com

34. © 2010 CogNexus Institute31Shared UnderstandingWhat is shared is the range of perspectives among the stakeholdersStakeholders understand what the others needEach perspective is held as valid (if not “correct”)We agree to disagree

35. © 2010 CogNexus Institute32How to Create Shared UnderstandingDialogueListeningTransparency

36. © 2010 CogNexus Institute33The Physics of Shared UnderstandingShared display creates shared understandinghttp://bama.ua.edu

37. SummaryWicked problems (novelty)Learning is non-linearOpportunity Driven Problem SolvingSequential approaches failTaming the problem (ultimately) failsShared understanding is essentialPrecursor to shared commitmentCollaboration and dialogue are necessary but slow© 2010 CogNexus Institute34

38. SummaryWanted: A way to conduct dialogue (i.e. meetings) that…Is more efficient (avoids repetition, grand-standing, hand waving, etc.)Supports listeningTracks multiple perspectivesAllows multiple issues to be explored in parallel© 2010 CogNexus Institute35

39. © 2010 CogNexus Institute36Dialogue Mapping