In planning and policy, a wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. It refers to an idea or problem that cannot be fixed, where there is no single solution to the problem; and "wicked" denotes resistance to resolution, rather than evil. Another definition is "a problem whose social complexity means that it has no determinable stopping point". Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems. Due to their complexity, wicked problems are often characterized by organized irresponsibility.
The phrase was originally used in social planning. Its modern sense was introduced in 1967 by C. West Churchman in a guest editorial Churchman wrote in the journal Management Science, either repeating his own coinage or responding to a previous use of the term by Horst Rittel—the origin is uncertain. Churchman discussed the moral responsibility of operations research "to inform the manager in what respect our 'solutions' have failed to tame his wicked problems." Rittel and Melvin M. Webber formally described the concept of wicked problems in a 1973 treatise, contrasting "wicked" problems with relatively "tame", solvable problems in mathematics, chess, or puzzle solving.
Characteristics
Rittel and Webber's 1973 formulation of wicked problems in social policy planning specified ten characteristics:
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).
Conklin later generalized the concept of problem wickedness to areas other than planning and policy; Conklin's defining characteristics are:
The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one shot operation". Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.
Examples
Classic examples of wicked problems include economic, environmental, and political issues. A problem whose solution requires a great number of people to change their mindsets and behavior is likely to be a wicked problem. Therefore, many standard examples of wicked problems come from the areas of public planning and policy. These include global climate change, natural hazards, healthcare, the AIDS epidemic, pandemic influenza, international drug trafficking, nuclear weapons, homelessness, and social injustice.
In recent years, problems in many areas have been identified as exhibiting elements of wickedness; examples range from aspects of design decision making and knowledge management to business strategy to space debris.
Background
Rittel and Webber coined the term in the context of problems of social policy, an arena in which a purely scientific-engineering approach cannot be applied because of the lack of a clear problem definition and differing perspectives of stakeholders. In their words,
Thus wicked problems are also characterised by the following:
The solution depends on how the problem is framed and vice versa (i.e., the problem definition depends on the solution) Stakeholders have radically different world views and different frames for understanding the problem. The constraints that the problem is subject to and the resources needed to solve it change over time. The problem is never solved definitively.