Rittle & Webber / Mountford on Wicked Problems

Rittle & Webber (1973) present the concept that due to the complex nature of human beings scientific answers fail because of the nature of the problems (in the context of Urban planning), such as hard to measure or soft things - societal concerns - which as stated:
“do not have a solution in terms of definitive and objective answer. ”

Mountford (1990) collects ideas from a variety of sources, and advises In effect doing the same thing for information system design - advising finding ways for artistic and scientific people to collaborate, approaching things from a variety of levels of human experience, stating:

“some of our new interface ideas will come from people who study thought, language, entertainment and communication, as well as from people who study hardware, algorithms, data structures. ”

However some wicked problems can only be resolved in granting end users rights and freedoms when it comes to information. Some problems are not served by direct end user participation because it won't help anything and it would not make sense for the many.

Take a WAP (wireless) phone application which has a GPS function (locator that knows where the end user is all the time), and a Search function, so if an end user wants to find a coffee shop within a short distance, they run a Search and the 5 closest coffee shops are returned.

What users may be interested in doing is setting their own preferences to Starbucks Only coffee houses, or only hotwired coffee houses which have computers available for rent. They may be interested in knowing how other people who went there rated the coffee, etc. They may also be planning to meet someone there for reasons other than coffee (but that is for an adult audience).

Google weighs query responses using a variety of ways, but one of them, perhaps the strongest, is by how many times someone clicks on it. This is just like voting - there is a good argument that personalization is the greatest contribution that the American post war baby boomers, with their large purchasing power have made and continue to make today. Companies, and other ensconced or older established organizations still experience enormous trouble facing these kinds of 1 to many, 1 to 1 individualization or personalization changes.

During today’s and yesterday’s job interviews I advised allowing end users to set their preferences on a Web site when they are at a full sized computer to help them find whatever they want on the smaller screen, even if some “father knows best” defaults must be present.

While there are things that the end user may wish to configure, the typical end user is not interested in exactly how the algorithm returned the Search sort to the database, and has no interest in writing it, or contributing to writing it, or even ever hearing the word "algorithm" -- users just want the results and fast.

One of the questions I was asked in a recent interview was a standard sort question for an algorithm, my response was true to that of a designer (or an end user) – “Find a database engineer, sorry that’s not how I think about or consider these problems.”

This remains a problem that inexperienced or less well educated technical or scientific approaches believe that individuals should know everything – most end user/customers can not function in this manner and should not be expected to think about how the machine runs to obtain the results they want, even if they have some kind of mental model.

Imagine if Google functioned only as well as the user’s understanding of search engines permitted – they wouldn’t find anything – they have to rely on Google’s code poets to figure out how to take Search from the functional status of a hammer and make it into a starship. Same goes for Live Search, in my humble option, but that’s a completely different subject.

The wicked quality of being human means that solving ill-defined and sticky problems should not be and can not be the domain of just one facet of thinking about a problem or a system, but as my recent interview demonstrates simplistic thinking about designers roles and customers needs still dominates the software industry.

One solution is everytime a designer uses the term BRAINSTORM and wants to use this technique they should define it so that all present understand that some wild and crazy ideas are likely to form, and just as likely they will go away later, leaving just the good stuff, it's all part of the process. If critics make their presence known immediately, the uber creative will find someplace friendlier to be.

Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. (1993). Making customer-centered design work for teams.Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 92-103. Retrieved 1 Dec 2004 from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/163430.164050.

Leonard, D., & Rayport, J. F. (1997). Spark innovation through emphatic design. Harvard Business Review, 75(6), 102-113.

Friedman, B. (2004). Value Sensitive Design. Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. (pp. 769-774). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group.