Many times, as managers, we're called upon to deal with various organizational problems. Through experience we have typically become adept at solving these problems quickly and – all too often – unsuccessfully.

In the past I have used an approach that is familiar to many of us – diagnosing the problem and administering a solution. This traditional method of analytical thinking typically solves a problem by reducing it to pieces and studying or working with the pieces in attempting to solve the whole. This technique is an example of linear thinking. But this methodology does not always work and here's why: While this approach may be appropriate for simple or "tame" problems, another methodology has been proven to be more effective in dealing with complex problems that cannot be solved by linear thinking. Noted systems thinker and author Dr. Russell Ackoff defines these complex problems as "messes" while others have called them "wicked problems."

To understand the solution process to solving a wicked problem, let's first look at what systems thinking is. As an early successful example of applied systems thinking, I was told the story of the problem of recurring head-on accidents in the early days of the George Washington Bridge . The component parts (police, ambulance, and hospital emergency rooms) performed adequately and efficiently but the improvement of their performance did not resolve the problem of accidents. However, when the system was analyzed and approached as a whole, barriers were erected in the center of the bridge and head-on crashes ceased, thus “dissolving” the problem. This dissolution is one of the characteristics of successful systems thinking.

One of Ackoff's assumptions of a system is that "the performance of the whole is not the sum of its parts and that the total value is derived from the interactions of the parts." A system cannot be divided into independent parts and still keep the same integrity. For example, if you remove the engine from a car, the engine alone provides no benefit. But without it, the car (the system) cannot operate.

It is often necessary to reframe our mindsets if we are not accustomed to systems thinking. The risk is that when we assume we are dealing with tame problems we are lead to fixing only the component parts, often jumping to conclusions rapidly – which can be costly. One great danger is that such conclusions can undermine trust, and trust is a fundamental strategy for coping with messy problems.

Try taking this view: messes are puzzles. Rather than “solving” them, we need to first sort out their complexities. Messes demand a commitment to understanding how the system operates and how things going on now will affect things going on later. I believe our minds have been too often rewarded for behavior reinforced for solving simple puzzles, and that leads us to complacency.

A wicked problem is an evolving set of interlocking situations and constraints. A linear approach used in solving wicked problems simply will not work. Analytical thinking cannot be successfully applied to the following types of problems where systems thinking has proven valuable. Think if you have any of these:

* Complex problems
* Recurring problems
* Issues where an action affects the environment
* Problems whose solutions are not obvious.

Here are some ways to identify a wicked problem:

• You don't really understand the problem until you have developed a solution. Solving wicked problems is more qualitative than quantitative and has to do with what we are learning about both the system, the problem, and the solution at the same time.
  
• There are many stakeholders who have an interest in how the problem is solved.
  
• The constraints of the solution change over time.

• Since there is not a definitive problem, there is not an easy solution. The problem solving process ends when you run out of resources to deal with the problem, namely: time, money, or energy.

 

 

• A systems analysis – write a detailed description of how the system operates. Assess the current business model or business plan.
• An obstruction analysis - identify the characteristics and properties of the organization that obstructs the progress.
• Reference projections - projections of aspects of the organization’s future assuming: a) no change in its current plans, policies, or programs, and b) the future environment expected.
• Reference scenario - a description of how and why the organization would destroy itself if the assumptions made were true.