RETHINKING WICKED
- Admin
- Sep 25
- 11 min read
Updated: Oct 8
Making Sense of Everyday Complexity / In-Between Space
Making Sense of KNOWN / UNKNOWN
Undertaking this book provided our authorship team with an opportunity to question and rethink various aspects of Design for Complexity as a construction in progress. We did not want to become entangled in boiling the ocean but we could see several legacy design issues that could use some attention.
One of the wildly popular terms in the design community that got itself stuck to the notion of rising complexity of problems was the term “Wicked Problem”, that was tabled from the direction of Berkley by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973. Some of our readers will know, that was “Era 6” on the Innovation Process Models Timeline that we included in our first book; Innovation Methods Mapping.
Without getting into whether or not there was an equally adventuresome method attached to the bold term Wicked Problems, it was the terminology that stuck and has since been applied to zillions of problems, many of which did not, do not, fit the original 10 point definition *(see below). From a practice perspective, one of our small aha moments that occurred along the way in this book project, was realization that there was, there is, something a little odd, something missing from the two dimensional Wicked/Tame construct, created originally in the context of city planning.
We always felt it to be ironic/perplexing that the design community would so aggressively adopt the term when the vast majority of graduate design academic programs and practitioners were engaged with the scopes and operational logics of Arena 2; product, service and experience, which are not typically Wicked Problems. Unless we engage in bending the meaning of the term Wicked Problems, it does not exactly fit with the vast majority of Arena 1 or Arena 2 work. Holy unrecognized/ unacknowledged terminology/methodology mismatch..sitting in plain sight.
It was clear that as the years passed, the term Wicked Problems had become vastly overused, and watered down to the point where everything that was not a simple math equation was being depicted in the design community as “wicked”. Truth be told; that was primarily marketing brochure-ware rhetoric, not scholarship or practice reality.
Indeed, in the last decade several related articles have been published, including one that appeared in 2015 Harvard Business Review entitled “Design Thinking Comes of Age” heralding the arrival of Design Thinking essentially bending the term to fit the story the author wanted to tell, which was not wicked. In that bending much confusion reigned that remains in place today. In that one single high profile, widely read article an opportunity for clarity was missed and the terms “Design Thinking” and “Wicked Problems” became hopelessly intertwined. Many still swim in that odd juxtaposition picture.
Long story short; It occurred to us as practitioners, that the Wicked/Tame construct tends to set up expectations of a dual, either-or comparison which is in-itself misleading. If we take the various text definitions of Wicked Problems at face value, most contain 10 dimensions, then it seems highly possible/probable that another term for the vast problemscape between Wicked Space and Tame Space was needed. This was reinforced when we considered the kinds of challenges being faced everyday in complexity arena changemaking practice engaged with the real world.
Journalistically stepping back, we noticed that one part of this story was about the space between Wicked and Tame and the other part was about the designation of the notion “wicked,” a term that appeared among other terms of that era. What other terms were on the table then and are present now for Design for Complexity practitioners to consider? (See “WICKED” IN TIME-LINE CONTEXT below.)
THE SPACE BETWEEN
We wondered; Instead of *manipulating the term, Wicked Problems, bending it beyond recognition, (See APPENDIX 2) why not just more formally, more clearly point out that the vast majority of Design for Complexity practitioners active in Arenas 3&4, are most often NOT working on Wicked Problems but rather in the Everyday Complexity / In-Between Space with different attributes from those of Wicked Problems. Truth be told: It is that problem/challenge/opportunity space that is at the center of both Arena 3 and Arena 4 emerging practice.
Naturally we were curious to see what the depiction of “in-between” might be if we asked ChatGPT to generate such a picture in diagram form. What popped up was entitled “Spectrum of Problem Types”.
What we noted there is that in retrieval mode ChatGPT rounds up on-line accessible depictions that have been previously generated, whether they fit perfectly or not, whether they are factual or not. Of course “Ill-structured” is a term coming from Herbert Simon 1973, who did not differentiate between ill-structured and wicked so the picture gets complicated. Is wicked a particular type of ill-structure? Is “ill-structured” really the issue?
Many of our readers would be aware that several historic pioneers including Herbert Simon took a shot at their own formulations of complex problem descriptions, before and after the Wicked Problems formulation appeared. (See “WICKED” IN TIME-LINE CONTEXT below.)
Long story short; we arrived at a few additional realizations regarding the Wicked/Tame construct; Since challenges occurring in the Everyday Complexity / In-Between Space and in the Wicked Problems Space often first appear fuzzy and then can be evolved into constellations of interconnected challenges, not one problem the term “Wicked Problem” itself is a tad misleading. Anything wicked is going to contain multiple, multiple problems first expressed as challenges. Why not make that more clear?
KNOWN / UNKNOWN
With many emerging practice leaders NOT working on KNOWN Wicked Problems or KNOWN Organizational Challenges or KNOWN Societal Problems, inside the Everyday Complexity / In-Between Space UNKNOWN is the key ingredient, still not well-recognized in the historically brief-based design communities.
In the Everyday Complexity In-Between Space UNKNOWN becomes a simple construct to be aware of and a significant part of Design For Complexity practice, regardless which approach is preferred.
In real world practice, how to help move a team from an UNKNOWN fuzzy situation to a systemic constellation of KNOWNS becomes important. Even in Future Casting this eventually comes into play when the imagined future vision inevitably meets the imperfect present.
It’s not that KNOWN Wicked Problems such as poverty, inequality, world conflict become less important, but rather lets acknowledge that UNKNOWN is all around collective us, requiring different skills and tools, whether framed as Future Casting or Strategic Intervention. Of course numerous Wicked Problems have been known for many decades.
At the end of the day KNOWN and UNKNOWN are really two different operational modes that exist in both Arena 3 and Arena 4. None of that nuance, well known in practice, is acknowledged in the Wicked/Tame construct. Design for Complexity is not just about “Wicked Problems” as originally defined by Rittel and Webber in 1973 .
A lesson that can be learned from the long standing CPS (Creative Problem Solving) community is that in highly complex KNOWN problems it is Acceptance/Embrace that becomes a big part, if not THE big part of the heavy lift. In UNKNOWN problematic situations it is the open systemic challenge framing that is the heavy lift. Two very different skill sets, neither of which are found in traditional design methods.
“WICKED” IN TIME-LINE CONTEXT
As noted above, it is well known among innovation methods scholars that several pioneers took a shot at tabling their views regarding suitable terms intended to describe complex problems. Placing the Wicked Problems formulation in a broader time-line context helps us appreciate that other views were on the table during that period 1966-1978, and that those views represent other possible choices, for all of us today, depending on how they might fit in various emerging practices.
To a significant degree that terminology choice becomes a personal preference, but one that can be grounded in methods history. Worthy of note is that most of the terms tabled by various pioneers during the 1966-1978 era do not differentiate between complex and wicked problematics.
Pioneer Terminology Examples:
1966-67
Perplexing Situations / Problems initially appear as Perplexing Situations Formulation 1966-67:
Fuzzy Situations / Problems initially appear as Fuzzy Situations Formulation 1966-67:
Messy Situations / Problems initially appear as Messes Formulation 1966-67
Sid Parnes (1922-2013) (Creative Problem Solving / CPS)
1973
Ill-Structured Problems Formulation 1973: Herbert Simon (1916-2001) (Management/Decision-Making)
Wicked Problems Formulation 1973: Horst Rittel (1930-1990) / Melvin Webber (1920 -2006) (Architecture/Town Planning)
1974
Messy Situations / Problems as Messes Formulation 1974: Russ Ackoff (1919-2009) (Management/Decision-Making/Systems)
This is a list that can help each of us decide if the term “ill-structured”, “fuzzy”, “perplexing”, etc is the most accurate way to describe the complexity you are now facing.
Since this book is focused on methods, it seems only fair to point out that at the time, only Parnes tabled an actual process in which “MESS” resides. Known as the Spiral Model we included that 1967 process in our earlier Methods Mapping book. There is no “MESS” designation in either the Herbert Simon or Russ Ackoff process.
To the credit of Herbert Simon, he noted the aspect of time; “Ill-structured” intended to mean problems that can eventually be structured…but are at the start fuzzy.
Pointing out that what problematics look like initially in the fog of complexity proved to be important. Of course looking at and deciphering fog is very different from observing existing systems, something that often gets mixed up in various ambitious complexity matrices. One is not the other and revisiting the pioneer terms reminds us of the differences.
In that era, it was understood that the role of process was to help humans move through the fog, away from just thinking/talking and towards more deliberate visualized ways to share, learn together, investigate, unpack, sort out, bring order to, make sense of fuzzy/messy situations with the purpose of generating some kind of co-created, agreed up forward motion.
Not widely understood in the design or systems thinking communities; By 1966-67 the CPS community, via the work of Sid Parnes and his associates had “PERPLEXING”, “MESS” and “FUZZY” as well as an early version of systemic challenge framing all integrated into a sharable holistic visualized methodology.
Somewhat ironic considering the criteria for this book; It was methodology that made no challenge path or solution/evolution path assumptions up front.
Now here we are 50+ years later…:-) A difficult truth is that picture contradicts 99.9% of the depictions of CPS seen in current design community literature. Imagine how our friends in the CPS community must view such depictions.
We recognized that these small ahas, these small points of rethinking clarity are not earth shattering, but might prove to be useful to our readers. One does not have to be working on world peace to contribute to the evolution of Design for Complexity.
End. / This chapter is in draft form.
APPENDIX 1: WICKED PROBLEMS DEFINED
*The Original 1973 Rittel/Webber definition of Wicked Problems:
There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
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.
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.
Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another 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.
The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
SUGGESTED 2025 CLARIFICATION: A “Wicked Problem” appears, not as a problem, but rather in systemic constellations of interconnected challenges, defined by constituents.
APPENDIX 2: THE BENDING DEFINITION STRATEGY
Via posting this chapter-in-progress to various LinkedIn discussion groups we were reminded that there are folks around in the design community who believe the feel-good, easy-lift strategy of simply bending the definition of the term “Wicked Problems” to suit their existing service offerings is perfectly valid….the Bending Definition Strategy. Instead of acknowledging there is need for methods related change in graduate design education and elsewhere lets instead simply move the goal posts closer to what we are already doing...Then no change is needed...:-) That’s not about scholarship or making the definition more clear. That’s about manipulating the definition instead of acknowledging the need for change. Essentially that is yet another MAGICING trick serving to block and obscure recognition of need for methods related change in the design community. It is a strategy that we do not subscribe to in this book. The emerging practice community tends to be busy working on REINVENTING not EXTENDING and not MAGICING. See previous chapter; EXTENDING. MAGICING, REINVENTING: Making Sense of Metamorphic Design Narratives.
APPENDIX 3: OVERWRITING METHODS HISTORY CONCERN
An unfolding and concerning hiccup that we encountered while researching this chapter involves the apparent overwriting of innovation methods history that seems to be underway via Ai. We did not plan this discovery or have in mind including this phenomenon here, however as the pattern becomes more abundant and clear it seems like an appropriate moment to speak up.
As Ai vacuums up facts and fictions from various corners of the web and then represents that material as facts to its growing audience and users, what comes more clearly into focus is the notion that the creation of a false picture of innovation methods history is being accelerated. Not able to detect fact from fiction or omission from reality it’s an often misleading Ai firehose blasting both zillions of facts and fictions around the world everyday.
Truth be told; At that unfolding messes foundation is the various already existing misrepresented versions of innovation history that can be seen in the tribal literature of several disciplines, now resurfacing outside their tribe as part of being involved in this Design for Complexity subject, and in particular in Think Blending. What it begins to look like is an Ai version of the chickens coming home to roost.
If a tribal/disciplines innovation methods history is chock-full of truncation, overwriting, omission, self serving crediting and not acknowledged misrepresentation, all of that tends to end up in the ChatGPT vacuuming funnel without anyone pointing it out, without AI understanding what is happening. It could be said that Ai itself is often being manipulated by not accurate, self-serving legacy tribal literature.
Previously many professionals thought the many misrepresentations present on wikipedia did not, would not matter. Now that they are coming home to roost via Ai that consideration is worth revisiting. Right now there are numerous generations of folks locked into the new bells and whistles output of Ai whether it is factual or not.
Example 1: The origin of the term “Mess” as applied to problems has for years been miscredited in the systems thinking community, on wikipedia and elsewhere to Russ Ackoff. That has become among the most well recognized mischaracterization examples of what Ai is now vacuuming up from wikipedia and accelerating in redistribution.
Our original source materials show that the terms Mess and Fuzzy first appear in CPS community documents published by Sid Parnes in 1966-67.
Example 2: Today if we ask ChatGPT who was the original author of the term “Fuzzy Situation” in the context of problems this below is what appears.
Oddly a review of Checkland’s original 1981 “landmark” book entitled “Systems Thinking, Systems Practice” reveals there is NO mention and NO reference crediting the Creative Problem Solving community or CPS or Sid Parnes regarding the cross-community origins of “Fuzzy Situations” and “Mess”. Readers can decide if that is deliberate history truncation, innocent omission or something else.
Now imagine an entire generation of systems thinkers who have been schooled in that omission and have been walking around in that truncation for forty years, since 1981 until today. Little wonder there is so much confusion out there in several disciplines.
It was not our original intention to be pointing out that we collectively seem to be on the verge of having an entire history of methods evolution be overcome by misleading and factly incorrect depictions of various moments in the time line evolution but here we are.
Upshot: If you have original materials, hang on to them. The future of innovation methods history, of collective memory, is rocky and uncertain due to these competitive arena factors spanning decades and now being accelerated/exacerbated by Ai.
When researching anything to do with innovation methods origins lets be strategically awake and mindful out there readers. Such is the complex state of these subjects.
Hope this is helpful readers.
Related / Previously Published:
The Rittel “First Generation Process Model” 1972 was included in our first cross-community survey book Innovation Methods Mapping on pages 98 and 99.
The Parnes Spiral Process Model 1967 containing mess was included in Innovation Methods Mapping on pages 88 and 89.