That’s wicked - in more ways than one

“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking a new landscape, but in having new eyes” – Marcel Proust

The concept of tame and wicked problems as a means of defining what on the face of it are potentially solvable and what are so complex as not to have an immediate solution is core to systemic thinking. Wicked problems are akin to a wild bramble that endlessly grows from many roots culminating in many ends and that left untouched hide what was once there. Because what we see in front of us is so complex to unravel we approach these problems through a reductionist mindset, a piecemeal approach where low hanging fruit is identified and the prevailing worldview, the person with the secateurs, starts to chop away clearing areas, making a visible difference. The breaking down and up of problem solving has for many years garnered fans from business, me included. There is something quite satisfying in gaining clarity, especially in business where, as entrepreneurs, having relatively clear steps in tackling a problem, that is looking at the components of that problem and fixing an aspect, sit very comfortable with our do or die mindset. We identify those visible roots of the bramble, extricate the root if possible or if not cut the stems as low to the roots as we can. We pull the thorny trunks away, in doing so we temporarily rediscover what was once there. Satisfying it may be but this approach only deals with one aspect of the problem and is not a cure. Our actions change the nature of the environment, yesterday’s solution has helped us attain clarity but not change the inevitable outcome, left alone the problem will reoccur.

 As humans we love the idea that our intervention matters, that the new course of action, a modified procedure is an easy fix, yet all we end up doing is creating a new problem and a new set of frustrations. I am not suggesting that we leave things well alone in fear that taking one bad apple away will imbalance the whole applecart, far from it. We must learn how to approach the problem, first by rethinking if this is the right problem or an immediate manifestation of an outcome of a previously solved problem. Can the apple cart be stabilised so that the removal of one or more bad apples has no impact on the stability?

The World Economic Forum shared on LinkedIn a piece on violent crime “London wants to treat violent crime as a disease” This piece caught my eye for two reasons, first, here is by definition a wicked problem which in my mind, has ostensibly been treated with a reductionist mindset not helped by being talked about as though there is an attainable final utopian solution. Our approach to date has included actions such as limiting the availability of weapons (amnesties and new selling laws), increasing police powers in areas like stop and search as well as interventions from the community themselves, with ‘out-reach’ programmes trying to handle the problem from within and at source. Programmes that have sought to educate young people in the dangers of carrying weapons, including past offenders who openly share their own experiences and their self-realisation that this is not a way to live or die. Victim’s families communicating the pain of their loss in the hope that empathy will trigger a change in the street culture that is permeating our cities. Each approach , when added together, should have made an impact to reducing violent crime but it hasn’t. To date our response is more programmes, more of one aspect than another, dependent on what is fundable and what isn’t. We talk of ‘an end to violence’ as though it is attainable, that more of one programme or another can get us to a tipping point where a change in mindset means that young people put the knife back in the draw and not in their school bag.

In the aftermath of school shootings in the US, public remorse and rise in the calling for more gun control seems to be met with the paradox of rising gun ownership. Confused messages emanate from different factions as to the effect gun control measures will have; do we arm teachers, have greater access to guns in school to deter or do we limit supply, change the love affair that US citizens have with their gun culture? What drives the questions may well be the ease of implementation not the desired solution. The nuclear arms race eventually capitulated – but years on we still have nuclear weapons and live under the constant threat of dirty-bombs, yesterday’s solution is today’s new problem.

The approaches we suggest create more questions than answers. Will a greater police presence deter would-be perpetrators but will it also antagonise and alienate these groups? Will longer sentencing make people think twice – maybe, but does taking away one layer to simply expose the next layer really work? Those rising stars from within the culture, already immersed in a cycle of violence but also eager to prove themselves the next leaders get their chance to do so. Our deterrent may simply keep the pot moving. With promotion more likely it puts ‘waiting for dead man’s shoes’ in a wholly new context as a career in violence leads to rapid succession up the career pole. Every intervention, managed from different perspectives and all implemented with the best of intentions and always with the expectations of solving something that has plagued society for generations.

 The daily news of stabbings, of young people not getting home from school, horrifies me, as I am sure it horrifies you. To experience it and live with the aftermath that it brings must be one thing, to lose a relative, a son or daughter is an outcome that is too painful to even consider but consider it we must. The pain of losing someone too soon is an emotional hurricane for the entire family leaving a trail of devastation and destruction. The more families affected the more society becomes damaged.

This brings me to the second reason why this article resonated with me. It is that moment when reframing something brings in a whole different piece of thinking. Issues like this should inspire us to think differently. I consider a problem of this magnitude and importance worthy of every piece of consideration, layman, victim or expert, everyone’s viewpoint is relevant. So when we consider violent crime as a disease, it is as Proust states above, new thinking that starts with a fresh perspective, one perspective that can unify all of us to reconnect to an old problem in a new way.

The reframing of the problem as a disease comes from a place of implementation, testing and learning from the streets of big US cities to our own doorstep in Glasgow. Violence still exists in these places but perhaps a greater understanding is leading to changes that are improving things all the time?  If we are not to fail our youth, fail society and ultimately fail ourselves then we need a different approach to violent crime. Who wants to live in a world where the gated community is the norm, where affluence remains ringfenced and the bulk of society feels excluded? What does that say to those people on the outside? Isolation is the defence that perpetuates the problem rather than delivers a solution to it.

 By reframing the problem as a disease we start to ask a series of different questions, vital to discovering different approaches and ideas. In a pandemic how do we prevent infection? How do we stop contagion, ring fence the carriers, treat those who are not terminal but handle those who are with dignity? Disease prevention and containment are areas of significant insight and learning that can be repurposed and be the catalyst for a new approach to deal with something alien from its original purpose.  Up until this moment violent crime has been seen as a criminal act perpetrated by the few not a complex social disease with multiple benign-carriers who unknowingly spread a culture of violence.

Disease rarely truly discriminates, it may come from unhygienic environments, cultures that started out as benign but once contaminated, spread in a way that social barriers cannot prevent infection. The hardest part of rethinking and reframing an issue like this is that we are all under the microscope and some of what we see will be unpleasant. Is there a penicillin cure to the disease that is killing far too many and holding back the lives of others? The discovery of penicillin was an accident – what piece of serendipitous thinking could come by opening up our minds to this problem?

 In problem solving there has been for many years a linearity to the process. Most of our current models come from the work of A.F Osborn and the 7-Step Creative Problem Solving (CPS) approach. The approach:

1.    Orientation: frame the problem you want to solve and create a problem statement

2.    Preparation: collect data and insight

3.    Analysis: reductionist thinking often focused on one-stage causality

4.    Hypothesis: gather ideas

5.    Incubation: leave to ferment, engage with and revisit

6.    Synthesis: bring ideas together to be developed

7.    Verification: what works and why?

(Knell, 2018, P150)

This model has been enhanced to move it from a linear state to something more iterative and a set of stages, steps within those stages and purpose of each stage articulated. These steps are:

1.    Clarify – an exploration of a vision that can be supported by data and a notion of what success looks like. Sharpen the challenge to bring in new awareness of the situation so ideas can be accessed

2.    Ideation – the exploration of the ideas with a desire to create a whole array of questions that then need answers

3.    Develop – take the ideas and bring in thinking to help understand the impacts and reach of the idea. Engage with others, be diverse in the thinking to develop a solution that ‘best-fits’ the problem

4.    Implement – consider the change, what resources are needed to fully commit

This is in essence the ‘design thinking’ model that many of us engage with and utilise to help business map out a new future through innovation and purposeful change.

Design Thinking

I came across the notion of design when I was at school pursuing an art A-level (with not much success). I did though read about various design schools, and in particular the Bauhaus School whose leaning towards holism at a time when German society was fractured and dangerous, was a source of fascination. The Bauhaus philosophy brought together all artistic disciplines into a holistic approach to design. It, unknowingly at the time, was a big influence on my own approach to how I moved my life forward. I did not engage with this notion in a deliberate manner. There was no sense of  being aware but as soon as I transitioned from student to business person I was intent that my career would be about learning.  The concept of being on a ‘design thinking’ journey was not even considered but upon reflection, that is exactly what I was doing. Normality for me back then was about all I considered to be stable being blown apart. I dealt with a parental divorce, the loss of friends who went off to University and the establishment of a new circle of companions who became my family. Everything I associated with my former life I abandoned, including friendships and family. All of which led to a state of confusion over my personal direction. I can see now what resonated with me back then, was a desire to clarify who I was and explore who I could be, and my approach to this was shaped by my education and those concepts that I felt most connected to, design being one of them.

 Now, some 40 years later ‘design thinking’ has become integral in my language but also the language of business as we seek the means to grow and develop. The work of Liedtka and Ogilvie ‘Designing for Growth’ has inspired a whole new generation as well as the work of Osterwalder and Pigneur in the Business Model Canvas. Design thinking, with its holistic, iterative and creative mindset is augmented by a systems thinking approach. Understanding that in life all things are connected allows you to understand these relationships and their impacts on problem setting and solving, that entrepreneurs engage with daily.

Relocon is an agitator to the entrepreneurial community. Our approach is to stimulate new thinking, connect the different facets of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and in doing so uncover entrepreneurial opportunity for the benefit of our local region. We believe quality jobs are vital if we are to create a cohesive society, jobs that come from creative development and a culture of new found self-belief. If you would like to know more then please contact us at [email protected]