Complex problems have no clear definition or boundaries; they can obviously not be solved easily, and the attempt to define the problem coincides with the attempt to define a solution. A typical example of a wicked problem is world-wide poverty. The distinction between "wicked" and "tame" seems to originate from Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
I think the choice of the word "wicked" is unfortunate, because it implies something evil in it. I prefer the word "complex." In the last decades a new field of research has emerged, called "complexity theory." This research will hopefully allow us to apply new strategies to wicked - or complex - problems.
Characteristics of complex problems.
According to Rittel and Webber, "wicked problems" have 10 characteristics:
Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. Formulating the problem and the solution is essentially the same task. Each attempt at creating a solution changes your understanding of the problem.
Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Since you can't define the problem in any single way, it's difficult to tell when it's resolved. The problem-solving process ends when resources are depleted, stakeholders lose interest or political realities change.
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is "good enough" can be a challenge, but getting to a “good enough” resolution may be the best we can do.
There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. Since there is no singular description of a wicked problem, and since the very act of intervention has at least the potential to change that which we deem to be “the problem,” there is no one way to test the success of the proposed resolution.
Every implemented solution to a wicked problem has consequences. Solutions to such problems generate waves of consequences, and it's impossible to know, in advance and completely, how these waves will eventually play out.
Wicked problems don't have a well-described set of potential solutions. Various stakeholders have differing views of acceptable solutions. It's a matter of judgment as to when enough potential solutions have emerged and which should be pursued.
Each wicked problem is essentially unique. There are no "classes" of solutions that can be applied, a priori, to a specific case. "Part of the art of dealing with wicked problems is the art of not knowing too early what type of solution to apply."
Each wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem. A wicked problem is a set of interlocking issues and constraints that change over time, embedded in a dynamic social context. But, more importantly, each proposed resolution of a particular description of “a problem” should be expected to generate its own set of unique problems.
The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. There are many stakeholders who will have various and changing ideas about what might be a problem, what might be causing it and how to resolve it. There is no way to sort these different explanations into sets of “correct/incorrect.”
The planner (designer) has no right to be wrong. Scientists are expected to formulate hypotheses, which may or may not be supportable by evidence. Designers don't have such a luxury—they're expected to get things right. People get hurt, when planners are “wrong.” Yet, there will always be some condition under which planners will be wrong.
Strategies for complex problems
Wicked problems cannot be tackled by the traditional approach in which problems are defined, analysed and solved in sequential steps. The main reason for this is that there is no clear problem definition of wicked problems. The following strategies exist to address this kind of problem:
(Source: Leadership. A Very Short Introduction.)
Authoritative: These strategies seek to tame wicked problems by vesting the responsibility for solving the problems in the hands of a few people. The reduction in the number of stakeholders reduces problem complexity, as many competing points of view are eliminated at the start. The disadvantage is that authorities and experts charged with solving the problem may not have an appreciation of all the perspectives needed to tackle the problem.
Competitive: These strategies attempt to solve wicked problems by pitting opposing points of view against each other, requiring parties that hold these views to come up with their preferred solutions. The advantage of this approach is that different solutions can be weighed up against each other and the best one chosen. The disadvantage is that this adversarial approach creates a confrontational environment in which knowledge sharing is discouraged. Consequently, the parties involved may not have an incentive to come up with their best possible solution.
Collaborative: These strategies aim to engage all stakeholders in order to find the best possible solution for all stakeholders. Typically these approaches involve meetings in which issues and ideas are discussed and a common, agreed approach is formulated.
