Showing posts with label complexity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complexity. Show all posts

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Wicked Problems, Complexity and Learning

Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well-informed just to be undecided about them. ~ Laurence J. Peter
Recently, while doing a keyword search for complexity, I stumbled across an article called Wicked ProblemsThe term was coined by Horst Rittel, the inventor of the Issue-Based Information System (IBIS) structure upon which Dialogue Mapping is based.

The first paragraph of the said article caught my attention. It defines wicked problems thus:

A wicked problem is one for which each attempt to create a solution changes the understanding of the problem. Wicked problems cannot be solved in a traditional linear fashion, because the problem definition evolves as new possible solutions are considered and/or implemented.
Wicked problems always occur in a social context -- the wickedness of the problem reflects the diversity among the stakeholders in the problem.

Most projects in organizations -- and virtually all technology-related projects these days -- are about wicked problems. Indeed, it is the social complexity of these problems, not their technical complexity, that overwhelms most current problem solving and project management approaches.

This description seemed cannily similar to the description of Complex problems in the Cynefin framework.

The article further elucidates the characteristics of wicked problems. I have listed down the characteristics verbatim but the interpretations are mine.

  1. You don't understand the problem until you have developed a solution: According to the Cynefin framework, a problem that falls in the realm of the complex or chaotic cannot be analyzed or categorized without first being acted upon. Only when one acts on the problem does a solution emerge.
  2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.**: By definition, a wicked problem arises out of a condition that cannot be clearly defined. Hence, it solution or end-point can’t be foreseen either.
  3. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong: These problems are unique, complex, and non-linear. There is no direct cause and effect relationship that exist when problems are simple. Without a one-on-one relationship between the cause and effect, it is not possible to have a single solution. There can only be better ways of solving it but never the best or the only way.
  4. Every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel: This is self-explanatory. That is precisely why they are called wicked.
  5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation,"
  6. Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions: At any given point of time, an approach to solving a wicked problem will lead to the problem morphing into something else—not necessarily a worse state but just a different one. This precludes the possibility of there being multiple ways of solving this problem at the outset. One needs to keep adapting and evolving solutions to address wicked problems. 
**By this definition, putting a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth was a tame problem albeit with a lot of complexity. It required complex heuristics and problem-solving approaches to come up with ways and means of achieving success; however, the problem per se had a definite end point and it was possible to know when the mission was accomplished.
Wicked problem is compounded or created out of fragmentation. The paper on Wicked Problems and Social Complexity defines fragmentation thus:

Fragmentation can be hidden, as when stakeholders don’t even realize that there are incompatible tacit assumptions about the problem, and each believes that his or her understandings are complete and shared by all.

Since wicked problems defy codification and clear articulation and yet they are the ones that plague the work environments today, a team working on a wicked problem often faces a major issue of collective understanding.

The following image depicts what typically happens:

 Image taken from: The Agile Warrior

This pain is one of fragmentation because the tools, methods, and approaches used are more suited for “tame” problems—what Cynefin framework slots as simple or, maybe, complicated at the most. What further compounds the problem is that people directly involved in the transactions fail to realize that their tools are inadequate for the issue at hand. 

The aforementioned article describes a “tame” problem thus:

A ‘tame problem’ is one for which the traditional linear process is sufficient to produce a workable solution in an acceptable time frame. A tame problem:
  1. Has a well-defined and stable problem statement
  2. Has a definite stopping point, i.e., when the solution is reached
  3. Has a solution which can be objectively evaluated as right or wrong
  4. Belongs to a class of similar problems which are all solved in the same similar way
  5. Has solutions which can be easily tried and abandoned
  6. Comes with a limited set of alternative solutions

The Traditional wisdom for solving problems follows a typical classic Waterfall model. It is linear, logical, and analytical.

But trying to solve a wicked problem using such tools is like trying to tame a tiger using a dog leash. Wicked problems require creativity, expertise, and sometimes that leap of faith to solve. It also requires adaptive thinking abilities

The Agile method of problem-solving with its iterative steps, continuous feedback, test driven development and retros come close to an ideal way of, if not solving, at least approaching wicked problem for the following reasons:
  1. It allows for self and course correction
  2. Mistakes are caught before they become too expensive
  3. Early detection of mistakes leads to prompt feedback and associated learning
  4. Iterative development process allows for application of that new learning
  5. The opportunity to apply the learning prevents the forgetting curve from becoming dominant
The approach, if plotted on a graph would look like this:

Image taken from:

The article describes this jagged line of opportunity-driven problem solving as a picture of learning. And as delineated above, it comes very close to the Agile approach.

To the non-initiated or the inexperienced, this looks chaotic and there appears to be little progress, but the experienced knows that this reflects the deeper order of a cognitive process and learning. The Waterfall method depicted above is a picture of already knowing where one applies pre-defined steps to solve simple or known problems following sequential steps.  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Adaptive Thinking, Deliberate Practice, and Complexity

In military parlance, the term Adaptive Thinking has been used to describe the cognitive behavior of an officer who is confronted by unanticipated circumstances during the execution of a planned military operation. It refers to the thinking a leader must do to adapt operations to the requirements of unfolding events and is thus a key component of competency in battle command. Adaptive Thinking is a behavior.
(Source: Think Like a Commander.PDF)  

I discussed the need for Adaptive Thinking in this earlier post as well. I mentioned that Adaptive Thinking that promotes adaptive expertise is what makes us learners, takes us out of our preconceived notions formed by our domain expertise, and allows us to probe and respond to changing situations with greater elasticity. In short, this helps us to deal with complex situations.

The article Think Like a Commander takes an in-depth look at Adaptive Thinking and how it can be “taught”. Here, by taught I am trying to imply that Adaptive Thinking can be acquired. It can be acquired through deliberate, focused practice. 

This post is a summary of the key learnings from the article. I have paraphrased liberally from the article. The interpretations, however, are mine and any errors in understanding associated with those are entirely mine.

The Adaptive Thinking Training Methodology (ATTM) and Think Like a Commander (TLAC) represent a method and tool for training adaptive leaders.
  1.   Adaptive Thinking focuses on training how to think rather than what to think.
  2. Adaptive Thinking is different from lateral, creative or out-of-the box thinking. It is defined by the conditions under which it occurs. The conditions or constraints need to be taken into account and a solution sought within that. This is also the hallmark of a creative problem-solver, one who is unfazed by constraints but adapts herself/himself to get the maximum benefit out of the situation.   
  3. Adaptive Thinking, as the term implies, indicates thinking while performing. This is different from thinking in an environment of calm reflection. This is why it becomes important to develop Adaptive Thinking skills through deliberation. Under conditions of stress, it is human nature to react automatically, using approaches that come most naturally and effortlessly.
Hence, the military where situations can change their course within the blink of an eye train leaders and decision-makers on Adaptive Thinking skills. Expertise in Adaptive Thinking develops out of deliberate practice, which is at the heart of ATTM. 

Deliberate practice has the following characteristics: 
(Source: Think Like a Commander.PDF)  
  1. Repetition: Task performance occurs repetitively rather than at its naturally occurring frequency. A goal of deliberate practice is to develop habits that operate expertly and automatically.
  2. Focused feedback: Coaches/trainers are at hand to provide corrective feedback and help the learners model their behaviors.
  3. Immediacy of performance: After corrective feedback on performance, there is an immediate repetition so that the task can be performed more in accordance with expert norms.
  4. Stop and start: Because of the repetition and feedback, deliberate practice is typically seen as a series of short performances rather than a continuous flow. This series of iterative, feedback-driven practice instills confidence and takes away the stress.
  5. Emphasis on difficult aspects: Deliberate practice will focus on more difficult aspects. E.g., rarely occurring emergencies can be exercised frequently in deliberate practice.  
  6. Focus on areas of weakness: Deliberate practice can be tailored to the individual and focus on areas of weakness.
  7. Conscious focus: In deliberate practice, the learner may consciously attend to the element because improving performance at the task is more important in this situation than performing one’s best.
  8. Work vs play: Characteristically, deliberate practice feels more like work and is more effortful than casual performance. The motivation generally comes from a sense that one is improving in skill.
  9. Active Coaching: Typically, a coach must be very active during deliberate practice, monitoring performance, assessing adequacy, and controlling the structure of training.
Therefore, it is characteristic of deliberate practice to focus on behavior on does not do well; while during actual performance such behaviors are avoided as far as possible.
Now the question remains, how will this help knowledge workers deal with complex and chaotic challenges that are unprecedented? 

This is precisely the aim of Adaptive Thinking. It focuses on training how to think and what to think about rather than what to think. By including deliberate practice, ATTM ensures that leaders become comfortable with the approach. The situations can and will change but someone trained to “think on their feet” will be able to handle complexity with greater ease. 

In today’s workplace where Knowledge Work is characterized by:
  • Complexity
  • Ambiguity
  • Novelty
  • Diversity (of opinions, people, issues, domains, technology, etc.)
  • Information overload coupled with “not exactly what I need” syndrome
  • Vanishing shelf-life of knowledge
Adaptive Thinking seems to be one of the keys to handling the onslaught. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please leave your response to the post.



Related Posts with Thumbnails