62
S. Linow
analysis any problem will be framed as a discounted monetary value; this intends
to discount the future. Energy and Entropy are non-discountable and are very
robust leading measures as well (e.g. Hall and Klitgard 2018 argue that available
energy, not money is the relevant measure of economic value). Human or societal
benefit as well as justice, given in non-monetary terms are less simple but very
valuable measures.
A generic hierarchy of problems becomes possible when this is taken into account
(VDI 2221-1; Levin et al. 2012; Rittel and Webber 1973). Such a hierarchy is not
objective in the sense that there is one single measure that allows for unambiguous
comparison, it is rather an approach that will depend on the frames and values used
and may mirror the interest of a specific party. Different criteria or views will lead
to different arrangement of problems:
(a) A tame problem (Rittel and Webber 1973) can be solved individually and disciplinarily, as many disciplines have developed methods and standards that enable
the inclusion of relevant non-disciplinary aspects in a simplified way. Tame
problems are thus often approached as disciplinary even though they are not.
Designing a product may be received as a typical example of a highly disciplinary tamed problem, even when constraints from other disciplines are part of
the specification (e.g. safety, ergonomics, mode, brand identification, pricing,
environmental impact). Tame problems are well suited for disciplinary teaching
(but may be misinterpreted as overtly complex exercises).
(b) Wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) overwhelm a disciplinary approach
even when constraints from other disciplines are known and included in the
process of problem understanding. Wicked problems have relevant repercussions in society. Here most possible solutions will generate effects that are
unacceptable—at least in a sustainable development frame, as these solutions
create new and larger problems elsewhere (externalisation).
(c) Super-wicked problems (Levin et al. 2012) tend to overwhelm governments,
policy and states or the willingness and ability of elites to do what is necessary.
All problems given in the introduction are super-wicked.
This hierarchy provides some relevant insight when approaching a problem. For
example, it can be hard to get to a joint understanding or consensus of the severity of a
specific problem, as any comparison depends on personal understanding, expertise,
individually set systems boundaries, accepted externalisations, and one’s specific
belief system.
Teaching about real world problems needs to include teaching about scale in
different directions. Without grasping scale by using suitable measures, students are
unable to compare problems, or if working on a single problem, compare solutions in a
meaningful way. Choosing an adequate scale is part of the problem-solving process
itself (Table 2 line 4, Bardwell 1991) and is a separate competency in teaching.
Choices for scales will depend on the students or expert’s ability and expertise.
Calculating a scale can be a complex undertaking in itself. Approaches range from
using simple heuristics to complex methods like vulnerability assessment (GIZ 2017)
S. Linow
analysis any problem will be framed as a discounted monetary value; this intends
to discount the future. Energy and Entropy are non-discountable and are very
robust leading measures as well (e.g. Hall and Klitgard 2018 argue that available
energy, not money is the relevant measure of economic value). Human or societal
benefit as well as justice, given in non-monetary terms are less simple but very
valuable measures.
A generic hierarchy of problems becomes possible when this is taken into account
(VDI 2221-1; Levin et al. 2012; Rittel and Webber 1973). Such a hierarchy is not
objective in the sense that there is one single measure that allows for unambiguous
comparison, it is rather an approach that will depend on the frames and values used
and may mirror the interest of a specific party. Different criteria or views will lead
to different arrangement of problems:
(a) A tame problem (Rittel and Webber 1973) can be solved individually and disciplinarily, as many disciplines have developed methods and standards that enable
the inclusion of relevant non-disciplinary aspects in a simplified way. Tame
problems are thus often approached as disciplinary even though they are not.
Designing a product may be received as a typical example of a highly disciplinary tamed problem, even when constraints from other disciplines are part of
the specification (e.g. safety, ergonomics, mode, brand identification, pricing,
environmental impact). Tame problems are well suited for disciplinary teaching
(but may be misinterpreted as overtly complex exercises).
(b) Wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) overwhelm a disciplinary approach
even when constraints from other disciplines are known and included in the
process of problem understanding. Wicked problems have relevant repercussions in society. Here most possible solutions will generate effects that are
unacceptable—at least in a sustainable development frame, as these solutions
create new and larger problems elsewhere (externalisation).
(c) Super-wicked problems (Levin et al. 2012) tend to overwhelm governments,
policy and states or the willingness and ability of elites to do what is necessary.
All problems given in the introduction are super-wicked.
This hierarchy provides some relevant insight when approaching a problem. For
example, it can be hard to get to a joint understanding or consensus of the severity of a
specific problem, as any comparison depends on personal understanding, expertise,
individually set systems boundaries, accepted externalisations, and one’s specific
belief system.
Teaching about real world problems needs to include teaching about scale in
different directions. Without grasping scale by using suitable measures, students are
unable to compare problems, or if working on a single problem, compare solutions in a
meaningful way. Choosing an adequate scale is part of the problem-solving process
itself (Table 2 line 4, Bardwell 1991) and is a separate competency in teaching.
Choices for scales will depend on the students or expert’s ability and expertise.
Calculating a scale can be a complex undertaking in itself. Approaches range from
using simple heuristics to complex methods like vulnerability assessment (GIZ 2017)