Understanding Scale in Wicked Problems …
61
a solution before steps 1 through 5 have been finished carefully (even though this is
the typical approach in politics and current public discourse) (Ansar et al. 2014).
The amount of planning deemed necessary in projects has varied substantially over
time. These are changes to the outer technical aspects of the approach to problem
handling, but the core aspects never change and are extremely valuable skills:
• How to reach a consensus?
• How to generate sound but simple criteria, accessing the scale and urgency of a
problem and its possible repercussions into the system?
• How to generate good and new possible solutions?
Managing problems is often a better frame than solving them. However,
addressing our emerging problems needs more than just the problem solving competence; it still needs disciplinary expertise, the ability to visualize the invisible, hands
on knowledge of the living earth, understanding numeracy and scales as well as
interdisciplinary systems thinking, and imagination and self-knowledge (e.g. Buck
2019). This needs to be part of meaningful teaching for the future.
5 Creating a Hierarchy of Problems
Problems can be organised with respect to their scale and the complexity necessary
to manage them. No two problems are identical, even similar looking problems may
not be similar at all, or differences in the approach to manage them may lead to
different understanding and outcomes. Still there are indications for the severity and
complexity of specific problems, which can be used for creating a hierarchy. These
include:
• The scale of the problem. Is it local and constrained (e.g. by a building or fence)?
Is it affecting a larger area or community or is it global?
• The urgency of the problem. Is wait-and-see a good option to solve the problem?
This is often the case when the scale is limited and there are no effects affecting
relevant values like health or life. Or is action extremely urgent; would inaction
cause unacceptable loss.
• The environmental impacts connected to the problem (ISO 14001). Are the environmental impacts beneficial or acceptable? Will the environmental impacts create
losses? What is the scale of the losses and are they acceptable?
• The view from society. Who will benefit? Are impacts internalised or externalised
from the system boundary of the problem? Who is taking the risk and who will
experience losses? What is the scale of eventual losses and is this acceptable to
all affected or not?
• The frame of the problem. Where is the system boundary set? What are my values?
What is my willingness to accept losses elsewhere (other regions, the future)?
• The measures used for the assessment of solutions. As an example, in politics and
international business cost-benefit analysis is often used. By using cost-benefit
61
a solution before steps 1 through 5 have been finished carefully (even though this is
the typical approach in politics and current public discourse) (Ansar et al. 2014).
The amount of planning deemed necessary in projects has varied substantially over
time. These are changes to the outer technical aspects of the approach to problem
handling, but the core aspects never change and are extremely valuable skills:
• How to reach a consensus?
• How to generate sound but simple criteria, accessing the scale and urgency of a
problem and its possible repercussions into the system?
• How to generate good and new possible solutions?
Managing problems is often a better frame than solving them. However,
addressing our emerging problems needs more than just the problem solving competence; it still needs disciplinary expertise, the ability to visualize the invisible, hands
on knowledge of the living earth, understanding numeracy and scales as well as
interdisciplinary systems thinking, and imagination and self-knowledge (e.g. Buck
2019). This needs to be part of meaningful teaching for the future.
5 Creating a Hierarchy of Problems
Problems can be organised with respect to their scale and the complexity necessary
to manage them. No two problems are identical, even similar looking problems may
not be similar at all, or differences in the approach to manage them may lead to
different understanding and outcomes. Still there are indications for the severity and
complexity of specific problems, which can be used for creating a hierarchy. These
include:
• The scale of the problem. Is it local and constrained (e.g. by a building or fence)?
Is it affecting a larger area or community or is it global?
• The urgency of the problem. Is wait-and-see a good option to solve the problem?
This is often the case when the scale is limited and there are no effects affecting
relevant values like health or life. Or is action extremely urgent; would inaction
cause unacceptable loss.
• The environmental impacts connected to the problem (ISO 14001). Are the environmental impacts beneficial or acceptable? Will the environmental impacts create
losses? What is the scale of the losses and are they acceptable?
• The view from society. Who will benefit? Are impacts internalised or externalised
from the system boundary of the problem? Who is taking the risk and who will
experience losses? What is the scale of eventual losses and is this acceptable to
all affected or not?
• The frame of the problem. Where is the system boundary set? What are my values?
What is my willingness to accept losses elsewhere (other regions, the future)?
• The measures used for the assessment of solutions. As an example, in politics and
international business cost-benefit analysis is often used. By using cost-benefit