WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.020 Okay, let's untack this. Have you ever felt like 00:00:03.020 --> 00:00:06.519 you're grappling with a problem that, well, just 00:00:06.519 --> 00:00:10.539 won't stay put? trying to nail jelly to a wall, 00:00:10.679 --> 00:00:14.220 maybe. Or trying to solve an issue that seems 00:00:14.220 --> 00:00:16.800 to shape the closer you get. Oh, absolutely. 00:00:17.059 --> 00:00:19.079 That's a very familiar feeling for many people 00:00:19.079 --> 00:00:21.780 dealing with complex challenges. Right. So today, 00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:25.019 we're diving deep into precisely those kinds 00:00:25.019 --> 00:00:28.000 of challenges. Our source material calls them 00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:30.879 wicked problems. And we're looking at how we 00:00:30.879 --> 00:00:34.240 often try to tame them, sometimes without even 00:00:34.240 --> 00:00:36.649 realizing it. Our insights today, they're drawn 00:00:36.649 --> 00:00:38.909 from excerpts from Transparent Temming of Wicked 00:00:38.909 --> 00:00:41.909 Problems by Gary Ackerman, which was posted on 00:00:41.909 --> 00:00:44.229 hackscience .education. A really interesting 00:00:44.229 --> 00:00:46.750 piece. Yeah. And our mission today, it's to give 00:00:46.750 --> 00:00:48.630 you a shortcut, really, to understanding what 00:00:48.630 --> 00:00:50.770 makes these pervasive challenges so tough, why 00:00:50.770 --> 00:00:53.409 we're tempted to simplify them, and what actually 00:00:53.409 --> 00:00:55.670 happens when we do. What's truly fascinating 00:00:55.670 --> 00:00:58.049 here, I think, is how instinctively we reach 00:00:58.049 --> 00:01:01.369 for familiar tools. We try to fix problems that 00:01:01.369 --> 00:01:03.950 are anything but familiar using old methods. 00:01:04.370 --> 00:01:06.709 We often apply solutions designed for, let's 00:01:06.709 --> 00:01:10.269 say, one type of problem to a completely different 00:01:10.269 --> 00:01:13.090 kind. And understanding this core distinction, 00:01:13.390 --> 00:01:15.609 it can profoundly impact our decision making. 00:01:15.900 --> 00:01:18.260 Okay, so let's start right at the foundational 00:01:18.260 --> 00:01:22.140 level then. Our source introduces these two very 00:01:22.140 --> 00:01:24.799 different kinds of problems, tame and wicked. 00:01:25.340 --> 00:01:29.099 What makes them so fundamentally distinct? Well, 00:01:29.420 --> 00:01:31.319 tame problems are the ones we generally feel 00:01:31.319 --> 00:01:34.299 comfortable with. Think of them like a well -engineered 00:01:34.299 --> 00:01:36.879 machine, perhaps. They're definable. You can 00:01:36.879 --> 00:01:38.980 clearly identify the cause and effect. Pretty 00:01:38.980 --> 00:01:40.819 straightforward. OK. They're also understandable. 00:01:41.359 --> 00:01:43.379 The methods for resolving them are known, or 00:01:43.379 --> 00:01:46.560 they can be figured out. And crucially, they're 00:01:46.560 --> 00:01:48.780 consensual. Reasonable people will generally 00:01:48.780 --> 00:01:51.260 agree on the need to solve it, and importantly, 00:01:51.680 --> 00:01:53.620 what a solution actually looks like. Right. Like 00:01:53.620 --> 00:01:55.959 fixing a leaky faucet, maybe. Yeah. Or building 00:01:55.959 --> 00:01:59.180 a bridge. Exactly. Or even say, fixing a specific 00:01:59.180 --> 00:02:01.680 software bug. Those are classic examples. The 00:02:01.680 --> 00:02:04.260 problem's clear. The path to resolution is visible, 00:02:04.900 --> 00:02:07.260 and critically, the outcome is measurable. OK, 00:02:07.299 --> 00:02:09.719 that makes sense. And then we have the wicked 00:02:09.719 --> 00:02:12.319 problems, the ones that keep us up at night, 00:02:12.400 --> 00:02:15.400 the ones genuinely testing our abilities. Precisely. 00:02:15.840 --> 00:02:18.300 Wicked problems are, well, simply put, they're 00:02:18.300 --> 00:02:21.319 none of the above. They are ill -defined, they're 00:02:21.319 --> 00:02:23.639 resistant to clear -cut solutions, and they're 00:02:23.639 --> 00:02:25.699 often intertwined with other complex issues. 00:02:26.620 --> 00:02:29.580 What's especially tricky is that evaluating any 00:02:29.580 --> 00:02:33.340 solution depends heavily on your specific perspective, 00:02:34.020 --> 00:02:36.580 your view on the problem itself, and the solution 00:02:36.580 --> 00:02:39.439 you implemented. So how I see it might be totally 00:02:39.439 --> 00:02:41.020 different from how you see it, even if we look 00:02:41.020 --> 00:02:43.580 at the same solution. Exactly. And to add another 00:02:43.580 --> 00:02:46.819 layer of complexity, any solution can feel perpetually 00:02:46.819 --> 00:02:49.439 revisable. You can always tweak it, refine it. 00:02:49.800 --> 00:02:52.500 It makes them seem endless. Wow. Our source points 00:02:52.500 --> 00:02:54.840 to some powerful examples, things like 21st century 00:02:54.840 --> 00:02:58.080 education reform or tackling climate change or 00:02:58.080 --> 00:03:02.439 widespread poverty. Huge stuff. There's no single 00:03:02.439 --> 00:03:06.620 right answer. And every step you take fundamentally 00:03:06.620 --> 00:03:08.919 shifts the landscape. So if we connect this to 00:03:08.919 --> 00:03:11.460 the bigger picture, it sounds like many strategic 00:03:11.460 --> 00:03:13.580 planning efforts, maybe especially in fields 00:03:13.580 --> 00:03:16.680 like K -12 education, are often trying to fit 00:03:16.680 --> 00:03:19.939 a square peg in a round hole. They're trying 00:03:19.939 --> 00:03:22.620 to apply methods designed for those tame problems 00:03:22.620 --> 00:03:24.919 to issues that are actually far more wicked. 00:03:25.599 --> 00:03:27.500 Precisely. And this raises a really important 00:03:27.500 --> 00:03:30.719 question for all of us. Are we truly using the 00:03:30.719 --> 00:03:33.180 right tools for the job? Or are we maybe setting 00:03:33.180 --> 00:03:35.599 ourselves up for frustration? Exactly. Or just 00:03:35.599 --> 00:03:38.479 limited success, perhaps, because we're misidentifying 00:03:38.479 --> 00:03:40.340 the very nature of the challenge we're facing. 00:03:40.509 --> 00:03:43.009 OK, so if these problems are like trying to catch 00:03:43.009 --> 00:03:45.090 smoke, I mean, how do we even begin to get a 00:03:45.090 --> 00:03:47.750 handle on them? Our source reveals a surprising, 00:03:47.870 --> 00:03:50.569 almost counterintuitive first step. Gary Ackerman 00:03:50.569 --> 00:03:54.069 calls it transparent taming. That's right. Transparent 00:03:54.069 --> 00:03:56.629 taming. It involves consciously treating wicked 00:03:56.629 --> 00:04:00.389 problems as if they are tame. And yes, but, and 00:04:00.389 --> 00:04:02.250 this is the absolutely crucial part doing so 00:04:02.250 --> 00:04:05.430 in a completely transparent manner, leaders who 00:04:05.430 --> 00:04:07.770 use this strategy, they must ensure everyone 00:04:07.770 --> 00:04:11.240 involved understands they are making a strategic 00:04:11.240 --> 00:04:14.500 simplification. OK. The goal isn't to pretend 00:04:14.500 --> 00:04:17.240 the problem is tame. It's about creating temporary 00:04:17.240 --> 00:04:20.180 solutions. Ways to make progress until the problem 00:04:20.180 --> 00:04:23.620 can eventually be approached in a more comprehensive, 00:04:23.879 --> 00:04:28.579 wicked way, as the source puts it. Ah, so it's 00:04:28.579 --> 00:04:30.939 not about denying the complexity. It's more like 00:04:30.939 --> 00:04:33.339 saying, OK, this beast is just too big right 00:04:33.339 --> 00:04:35.680 now, so we're going to carve off a manageable 00:04:35.680 --> 00:04:38.670 piece. Fully knowing it's just a piece, not the 00:04:38.670 --> 00:04:40.709 whole thing. Exactly. That's a great way to phrase 00:04:40.709 --> 00:04:43.050 it. It's a pragmatic recognition that sometimes 00:04:43.050 --> 00:04:44.610 you just have to break down the overwhelming 00:04:44.610 --> 00:04:47.629 into something actionable. But the transparency, 00:04:47.730 --> 00:04:51.170 that's the key differentiator. It prevents misrepresentation 00:04:51.170 --> 00:04:53.970 and allows for an honest assessment of these, 00:04:54.029 --> 00:04:56.529 let's call them, provisional steps. It's a way 00:04:56.529 --> 00:04:59.310 to gain some traction then. Yes, to make progress, 00:04:59.350 --> 00:05:01.149 even if it's just a provisional step forward. 00:05:01.350 --> 00:05:04.290 So why does understanding these taming strategies 00:05:04.290 --> 00:05:06.980 actually matter? For you, the listener, whether 00:05:06.980 --> 00:05:09.360 you're a leader, an educator, or just navigating 00:05:09.360 --> 00:05:12.839 complex issues in life, why should you care if 00:05:12.839 --> 00:05:15.839 a wicked problem is being tamed? Well, this ability 00:05:15.839 --> 00:05:18.779 to spot taming in action is crucial, for several 00:05:18.779 --> 00:05:21.680 reasons. Really practical reasons. First, it 00:05:21.680 --> 00:05:23.740 helps you dodge hidden landmines, so to speak. 00:05:23.759 --> 00:05:27.199 OK. If you recognize a tame approach being applied 00:05:27.199 --> 00:05:30.360 to what is clearly a wicked problem, you're immediately 00:05:30.360 --> 00:05:33.259 empowered to ask, OK, wait, what unintended side 00:05:33.259 --> 00:05:35.660 effects might we be creating here? That's a huge 00:05:35.660 --> 00:05:38.160 advantage. It is. It helps minimize adverse effects 00:05:38.160 --> 00:05:40.319 down the road. Second, it gives you informed 00:05:40.319 --> 00:05:42.980 choice. You can better discern if others are 00:05:42.980 --> 00:05:45.339 genuinely trying to pursue a complete, maybe 00:05:45.339 --> 00:05:48.500 a non -zero -sum solution or if they're actively 00:05:48.500 --> 00:05:51.569 tamed. the problem, which means they're intentionally 00:05:51.569 --> 00:05:54.449 designing less than optimal, perhaps partial, 00:05:54.689 --> 00:05:56.629 approaches. So you know what kind of game is 00:05:56.629 --> 00:05:59.550 being played. Kind of, yeah. Third, it fosters 00:05:59.550 --> 00:06:02.509 a healthy skepticism of results. You'll be better 00:06:02.509 --> 00:06:04.290 prepared to question things when results from 00:06:04.290 --> 00:06:06.930 these tamed solutions are presented as definitive 00:06:06.930 --> 00:06:10.170 proof. Like, we solved it. Right. When maybe 00:06:10.170 --> 00:06:12.000 they just solved the simplified version. They 00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:14.399 might show progress, sure, but it's progress 00:06:14.399 --> 00:06:17.420 within a bounded, often artificially simplified 00:06:17.420 --> 00:06:20.579 context. And finally, it highlights a crucial 00:06:20.579 --> 00:06:23.480 responsibility we all have to ensure that these 00:06:23.480 --> 00:06:26.459 taming methods don't inadvertently create new 00:06:26.459 --> 00:06:29.420 problems. Or make the original one worse in some 00:06:29.420 --> 00:06:33.699 unexpected way. Precisely. All because we oversimplified 00:06:33.699 --> 00:06:36.439 things at the start. So recognizing these strategies 00:06:36.439 --> 00:06:39.040 isn't just some, you know, academic exercise. 00:06:39.240 --> 00:06:41.379 Not at all. It's about being more discerning, 00:06:41.579 --> 00:06:44.339 more responsible, and more critically engaged 00:06:44.339 --> 00:06:46.420 with the solutions we encounter, or maybe even 00:06:46.420 --> 00:06:49.199 help implement. It's about not being fooled by 00:06:49.199 --> 00:06:51.759 a superficial fix. That sums it up well. Okay, 00:06:51.819 --> 00:06:54.040 so our sources mention a consultant, Jeff Conklin. 00:06:54.620 --> 00:06:56.480 He observed that when people are faced with these 00:06:56.480 --> 00:06:59.459 really wicked problems, planners often try to 00:06:59.459 --> 00:07:02.139 solve them as if they were tame. Mm -hmm. A common 00:07:02.139 --> 00:07:06.149 pattern. And he identified six core ways, six 00:07:06.149 --> 00:07:08.629 recognizable approaches that we commonly use 00:07:08.629 --> 00:07:12.050 to try and tame these complex beasts. I suspect 00:07:12.050 --> 00:07:14.769 we've all probably seen these tactics in action, 00:07:14.990 --> 00:07:16.930 maybe even used them ourselves without quite 00:07:16.930 --> 00:07:19.970 labeling them. Oh, absolutely. Conklin's observations 00:07:19.970 --> 00:07:22.430 really highlight these common human tendencies 00:07:22.430 --> 00:07:24.970 when we're faced with overwhelming complexity. 00:07:25.290 --> 00:07:28.389 When a problem just feels too big, too messy 00:07:28.389 --> 00:07:31.449 to tackle head on, our natural inclination is 00:07:31.449 --> 00:07:34.029 to look for ways to make it smaller. To put boundaries 00:07:34.029 --> 00:07:36.350 around it. Exactly, to put boundaries around 00:07:36.350 --> 00:07:38.610 it. Even if that means simplifying things quite 00:07:38.610 --> 00:07:40.949 a bit. So what's the first tactic we often reach 00:07:40.949 --> 00:07:43.910 for? The first one Conklin identified is locking 00:07:43.910 --> 00:07:46.649 down the problem definition. Okay. This basically 00:07:46.649 --> 00:07:50.009 involves reducing a vast complex wicked problem 00:07:50.009 --> 00:07:53.790 down to a smaller, more easily definable, and 00:07:53.790 --> 00:07:56.500 bounded one. Remember, wicked problems have many 00:07:56.500 --> 00:07:59.600 ill -defined causes, right? But when taming through 00:07:59.600 --> 00:08:02.120 problem lockdown, planners will often just pick 00:08:02.120 --> 00:08:04.740 one cause, maybe assume it's the primary one, 00:08:05.040 --> 00:08:07.519 sometimes correctly, sometimes not, and focus 00:08:07.519 --> 00:08:10.100 all their efforts there. So boiling it down to 00:08:10.100 --> 00:08:12.300 just one piece, maybe ignoring the wider web 00:08:12.300 --> 00:08:17.019 of issues. If a school is facing declining student 00:08:17.019 --> 00:08:21.019 performance across lots of areas, locking down 00:08:21.019 --> 00:08:23.939 the problem might mean focusing solely on, say, 00:08:24.220 --> 00:08:27.240 low scores in math and maybe ignoring systemic 00:08:27.240 --> 00:08:29.839 issues like teacher morale or community resources 00:08:29.839 --> 00:08:31.959 that are probably contributing to the whole picture. 00:08:32.259 --> 00:08:34.299 Exactly. It makes the problem seem actionable, 00:08:34.299 --> 00:08:37.179 but you risk missing the true scope, the real 00:08:37.179 --> 00:08:40.240 underlying dynamics. OK. Now, what happens when 00:08:40.240 --> 00:08:42.539 the pressure mounts? You know, we need to show 00:08:42.539 --> 00:08:44.960 progress, even if the problem isn't truly solved 00:08:44.960 --> 00:08:47.620 yet. Ah, well then we often see the second tactic, 00:08:48.059 --> 00:08:50.419 asserting the problem is solved. Ah, that feels 00:08:50.419 --> 00:08:53.480 like a very human response, doesn't it? Just 00:08:53.480 --> 00:08:55.620 declare victory, even if it's partial, just to 00:08:55.620 --> 00:08:58.139 move on. It really is. Recognizing that wicked 00:08:58.139 --> 00:09:00.419 problem solutions are always open to interpretation, 00:09:00.879 --> 00:09:04.019 always revisable, this tactic basically concludes 00:09:04.019 --> 00:09:06.779 that the current, perhaps partial solution is 00:09:06.779 --> 00:09:09.080 sufficient. Good enough. And there's a practical 00:09:09.080 --> 00:09:11.399 reason for that. Yes, the rationale is often 00:09:11.399 --> 00:09:13.799 quite practical. It allows planners to avoid 00:09:13.799 --> 00:09:16.879 situations where one wicked problem just consumes 00:09:16.879 --> 00:09:19.080 a disproportionate amount of limited resources. 00:09:19.539 --> 00:09:23.240 Time, money, attention. Or sometimes, where failing 00:09:23.240 --> 00:09:25.740 to implement even a partially sufficient solution 00:09:25.740 --> 00:09:27.879 might actually make the original problem worse. 00:09:28.179 --> 00:09:30.740 Okay. Can you give an example? Sure. Think about 00:09:30.740 --> 00:09:33.389 implementing a new school curriculum. Maybe it 00:09:33.389 --> 00:09:35.889 shows some improvement in test scores? Not perfect, 00:09:35.929 --> 00:09:39.129 but some. Declaring the educational problem solved 00:09:39.129 --> 00:09:41.970 at that point allows the school to avoid endless 00:09:41.970 --> 00:09:45.029 revision cycles and move focus elsewhere. Even 00:09:45.029 --> 00:09:47.490 if the solution wasn't the ultimate fix, it's 00:09:47.490 --> 00:09:50.169 a kind of strategic exit. Right, drawing a line 00:09:50.169 --> 00:09:53.269 under it. Okay. And sometimes we're a bit more 00:09:53.269 --> 00:09:55.710 proactive in our taming. This next one feels 00:09:55.710 --> 00:09:59.029 very familiar, often seems quite practical. Specify 00:09:59.029 --> 00:10:01.450 objectives to measure success. Indeed, this one's 00:10:01.450 --> 00:10:04.320 very common. It involved defining clear, measurable 00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:06.980 criteria that will signal an acceptable solution 00:10:06.980 --> 00:10:10.000 before any solution design even begins. Ah, setting 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:13.899 the goalposts first. Exactly. And then, crucially... 00:10:14.190 --> 00:10:16.710 ending the effort when those conditions are met. 00:10:17.070 --> 00:10:19.470 It's a proactive form of taming. For instance, 00:10:19.889 --> 00:10:23.769 a school wanting to improve scores on a specific 00:10:23.769 --> 00:10:27.029 standardized test might define an expected improvement 00:10:27.029 --> 00:10:29.990 level, say a 5 % increase, before they start 00:10:29.990 --> 00:10:32.210 any new programs. And once they hit that 5%. 00:10:32.269 --> 00:10:35.149 Once that level is achieved, improvement efforts 00:10:35.149 --> 00:10:37.629 can then shift focus to a different problem rather 00:10:37.629 --> 00:10:39.909 than continuing to iterate indefinitely on the 00:10:39.909 --> 00:10:42.769 original test score issue. OK. Now, I think we've 00:10:42.769 --> 00:10:44.710 all heard someone say this when a new problem 00:10:44.710 --> 00:10:46.929 arises. Oh, this is just like that other situation 00:10:46.929 --> 00:10:49.370 we had. That brings us to the next taming approach. 00:10:49.870 --> 00:10:52.129 Cast the problem as just like another. That's 00:10:52.129 --> 00:10:54.940 a classic move, the very common heuristic. Despite 00:10:54.940 --> 00:10:57.879 wicked problems and their solutions often being 00:10:57.879 --> 00:11:00.419 quite unique, planners might decide that a new 00:11:00.419 --> 00:11:03.000 problem is sufficiently similar to an old one 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:05.639 or one faced elsewhere. So they use a previous 00:11:05.639 --> 00:11:08.240 solution or one from a different setting as a 00:11:08.240 --> 00:11:11.080 model. That sounds potentially useful but risky. 00:11:11.370 --> 00:11:13.429 Exactly. It offers the advantage of a quicker 00:11:13.429 --> 00:11:15.809 start, right? You can implement something known 00:11:15.809 --> 00:11:18.929 and then maybe modify it. But the risk is that 00:11:18.929 --> 00:11:21.750 such taming might fail because of unforeseen 00:11:21.750 --> 00:11:24.509 factors or unknown assumptions that make the 00:11:24.509 --> 00:11:27.330 two situations actually fundamentally different. 00:11:27.629 --> 00:11:30.129 Like taking a teacher attention solution that 00:11:30.129 --> 00:11:32.889 worked in a wealthy suburban district and applying 00:11:32.889 --> 00:11:35.669 it directly to an underfunded urban school district 00:11:35.669 --> 00:11:39.019 without really considering the unique very different 00:11:39.019 --> 00:11:41.299 challenges the urban district faces. That's a 00:11:41.299 --> 00:11:43.379 perfect example of the potential pitfalls. OK, 00:11:43.519 --> 00:11:46.799 this next one sounds a bit, well, defeatist, 00:11:46.980 --> 00:11:50.519 maybe. But it's listed as a real strategy, giving 00:11:50.519 --> 00:11:52.740 up on trying to get a good solution. It sounds 00:11:52.740 --> 00:11:55.299 defeatist, but it's often a pragmatic response 00:11:55.299 --> 00:11:58.200 to organizational reality. This typically occurs 00:11:58.200 --> 00:12:00.720 when a planner realizes that key factors affecting 00:12:00.720 --> 00:12:03.820 the problem or the potential solutions emerge 00:12:03.820 --> 00:12:05.799 from levels within the organization where they 00:12:05.799 --> 00:12:08.299 have absolute no control. Ah, like decisions 00:12:08.299 --> 00:12:11.820 coming from way above. Precisely. So instead 00:12:11.820 --> 00:12:15.679 of trying to solve the core problem itself, which 00:12:15.679 --> 00:12:18.799 they can't influence, planners develop strategies 00:12:18.799 --> 00:12:21.120 for accommodating the influences of those problems 00:12:21.120 --> 00:12:23.909 on their own work. or they develop methods to 00:12:23.909 --> 00:12:26.490 simply work around the difficulties aiming to 00:12:26.490 --> 00:12:28.750 minimize disruption to their own team's performance. 00:12:29.009 --> 00:12:31.809 Right. I've definitely seen that firsthand. It's 00:12:31.809 --> 00:12:34.899 less about Solving the big storm and more about 00:12:34.899 --> 00:12:37.220 building a sturdy umbrella for your team. That's 00:12:37.220 --> 00:12:39.259 a good analogy. Like a department head dealing 00:12:39.259 --> 00:12:42.600 with constant, unavoidable, seemingly arbitrary 00:12:42.600 --> 00:12:45.440 policy changes from upper management. They might 00:12:45.440 --> 00:12:47.480 just stop trying to fix the policies themselves 00:12:47.480 --> 00:12:50.440 and instead develop internal team processes to 00:12:50.440 --> 00:12:52.620 adapt quickly and shield their team from the 00:12:52.620 --> 00:12:55.580 constant fluctuations. It's a pragmatic, if maybe 00:12:55.580 --> 00:12:57.960 a bit resigned, coping mechanism. It's about 00:12:57.960 --> 00:13:00.200 controlling what you can control. Makes sense. 00:13:00.480 --> 00:13:03.259 And finally, The last one. The sixth approach 00:13:03.259 --> 00:13:05.919 Conklin identified is framing the problem as 00:13:05.919 --> 00:13:08.500 limited choices. This one feels like it happens 00:13:08.500 --> 00:13:10.580 when the decision makers have already kind of 00:13:10.580 --> 00:13:12.580 narrowed down the options before they even bring 00:13:12.580 --> 00:13:15.679 it to a wider group. Exactly. It involves defining 00:13:15.679 --> 00:13:18.399 several acceptable solutions up front, maybe 00:13:18.399 --> 00:13:21.299 just two or three, and presenting those as the 00:13:21.299 --> 00:13:24.360 only choices available. The task then becomes 00:13:24.360 --> 00:13:26.659 deciding which one of these preselected options 00:13:26.659 --> 00:13:30.220 is best for the particular situation. So it's 00:13:30.220 --> 00:13:32.899 similar to specifying objectives, but the options 00:13:32.899 --> 00:13:36.840 are imposed. Yes, similar in that the measures, 00:13:37.059 --> 00:13:39.019 or in this case the options, are often imposed 00:13:39.019 --> 00:13:43.090 from outside sources or by leadership. The potential 00:13:43.090 --> 00:13:45.590 drawback, as you hinted, is that these imposed 00:13:45.590 --> 00:13:47.950 solutions might actually be solving a slightly 00:13:47.950 --> 00:13:50.570 different problem than the original wicked one. 00:13:50.870 --> 00:13:53.350 Or they might miss a truly innovative solution 00:13:53.350 --> 00:13:55.590 that could have emerged if the discussion was 00:13:55.590 --> 00:13:57.490 broader. Correct. Think of it like presenting 00:13:57.490 --> 00:13:59.809 a community with only three pre -selected, pre 00:13:59.809 --> 00:14:02.210 -vetted options for new public transportation 00:14:02.210 --> 00:14:05.049 systems. Without exploring other... potentially 00:14:05.049 --> 00:14:06.990 more suitable or creative solutions that might 00:14:06.990 --> 00:14:09.110 have come up from a broader, more wicked approach 00:14:09.110 --> 00:14:10.769 that involved the community more deeply from 00:14:10.769 --> 00:14:13.590 the start. Exactly. The frame limits the possibilities. 00:14:14.009 --> 00:14:16.830 Looking at all six, what's the common thread 00:14:16.830 --> 00:14:19.320 here? It really seems like in most of these taming 00:14:19.320 --> 00:14:22.000 strategies, we're simplifying, we're bounding, 00:14:22.059 --> 00:14:25.139 we're imposing external limits on problems that 00:14:25.139 --> 00:14:28.340 are inherently unbounded, complex, and deeply 00:14:28.340 --> 00:14:31.139 interconnected. We're basically forcing a fluid, 00:14:31.320 --> 00:14:33.600 open -ended challenge into a more manageable 00:14:33.600 --> 00:14:37.529 box. But often at a cost. Yeah. Seems like it. 00:14:37.669 --> 00:14:39.830 That's the core insight, I think. We're making 00:14:39.830 --> 00:14:42.330 a trade -off. We gain manageability, a sense 00:14:42.330 --> 00:14:45.409 of control, maybe faster action. But we potentially 00:14:45.409 --> 00:14:48.690 lose a more comprehensive understanding, or risk 00:14:48.690 --> 00:14:51.549 missing a truly sustainable resolution, or even 00:14:51.549 --> 00:14:53.750 create those unintended consequences we talked 00:14:53.750 --> 00:14:56.909 about. Wow. OK, what a deep dive into how we 00:14:56.909 --> 00:14:59.230 try, at least, to tackle these really tough problems 00:14:59.230 --> 00:15:01.490 out there, from things like reforming education 00:15:01.490 --> 00:15:03.950 to navigating complex organizational changes. 00:15:04.789 --> 00:15:06.870 Understanding this fundamental difference between 00:15:06.870 --> 00:15:09.629 tame and wicked problems and how we attempt to 00:15:09.629 --> 00:15:12.210 manage the wicked ones, it feels incredibly insightful. 00:15:12.629 --> 00:15:14.210 It really is. It highlights something crucial. 00:15:15.110 --> 00:15:18.789 That the success or even the perception of success, 00:15:19.169 --> 00:15:21.950 of a solution, often depends entirely on how 00:15:21.950 --> 00:15:25.029 we first define the problem. And that definition, 00:15:25.049 --> 00:15:28.330 as we've seen, is rarely universally agreed upon 00:15:28.330 --> 00:15:31.389 when you're facing something truly wicked. Being 00:15:31.389 --> 00:15:33.809 able to spot these caming tactics, it gives you, 00:15:33.830 --> 00:15:36.830 the listener, a really powerful lens, a lens 00:15:36.830 --> 00:15:38.870 to view the world, not just the solutions being 00:15:38.870 --> 00:15:41.509 proposed, but the underlying assumptions behind 00:15:41.509 --> 00:15:44.029 them. So what's the practical upshot here for 00:15:44.029 --> 00:15:45.830 you listening? I guess the next time you encounter 00:15:45.830 --> 00:15:48.210 a really complex challenge or you hear a solution 00:15:48.210 --> 00:15:50.769 being presented with a lot of confidence, maybe 00:15:50.769 --> 00:15:53.460 pause and ask yourself. Is this truly a tame 00:15:53.460 --> 00:15:56.620 problem that's been definitively solved? Or is 00:15:56.620 --> 00:15:59.019 someone, perhaps transparently, perhaps not so 00:15:59.019 --> 00:16:02.159 transparently, taming a wicked one? And if they 00:16:02.159 --> 00:16:04.539 are taming it, maybe for very practical reasons, 00:16:04.960 --> 00:16:06.799 what are the implicit trade -offs being made? 00:16:06.840 --> 00:16:08.539 What's being left out of the box? That's the 00:16:08.539 --> 00:16:11.799 critical question to ask. And just to leave you 00:16:11.799 --> 00:16:14.629 with something to think about. If every solution 00:16:14.629 --> 00:16:17.549 to a wicked problem is genuinely open to interpretation, 00:16:17.889 --> 00:16:20.490 if it depends on perspective and if it's perpetually 00:16:20.490 --> 00:16:24.009 revisable, how might that change the way we approach 00:16:24.009 --> 00:16:26.210 long -term planning, whether that's in schools 00:16:26.210 --> 00:16:28.690 or businesses or even, you know, in our personal 00:16:28.690 --> 00:16:31.809 lives? How might we learn to embrace the ongoing 00:16:31.809 --> 00:16:34.070 nature of solving these problems rather than 00:16:34.070 --> 00:16:37.750 always seeking that final definitive, maybe illusory 00:16:37.750 --> 00:16:40.210 answer? A profound thought to consider. Indeed. 00:16:40.429 --> 00:16:41.789 Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.