Wicked Problems are complex, interconnected challenges that resist straightforward solutions. First described by Rittel and Webber in 1973, they are marked by shifting boundaries, incomplete or contradictory information, and the absence of clear “right” or “wrong” answers. Different stakeholders often hold very different viewpoints about what a “correct” resolution might look like, and every attempted solution changes the problem itself, often creating new, unforeseen issues in the process. Wicked Problems are especially common in domains where human values, social systems, and emerging technologies intersect.
Examples include the global challenge of climate change, where scientific, political, and cultural perspectives collide, and the problem of equitable AI integration, where differing values about safety, labor, and autonomy shape fundamentally different ideas of what responsible use looks like.
Rittel and Webber consider ten criteria to identify whether a problem can be classified as "Wicked"
No definitive formulation – Wicked problems cannot be fully or finally stated. Any attempt to define them is partial, reflects only one perspective, and shifts as solutions are attempted.
No stopping rule – There is no point where the problem can be declared “solved.” Work may pause at a satisfactory balance, but there is no final endpoint.
Solutions are good-or-bad, not true-or-false – Evaluations are based on values, ethics, and perspectives rather than correctness. What is “good” for one group may be “bad” for another.
No immediate or ultimate test of a solution – The impact of an intervention can only be judged over time, and even then the evaluation is contested.
Every solution is a one-shot operation – Interventions change the system in irreversible ways. You cannot simply undo a failed attempt without consequences.
No enumerable set of solutions – There is no finite menu of possible answers. New technologies, contexts, and perspectives constantly generate new options.
Every wicked problem is essentially unique – Even if problems share features, each case is embedded in its own context of history, stakeholders, and conditions.
Every wicked problem can be seen as a symptom of another – Wicked problems rarely exist in isolation; they are entangled with other social, political, or technological challenges.
The choice of explanation shapes the resolution – How you frame the problem determines the kind of solutions you seek. Competing narratives lead to competing approaches.
Planners have no right to be wrong – Mistakes in tackling wicked problems can cause serious harm. Responsibility is high, and failures cannot be excused as “just experiments.”
Societal Fragmentation & Loss of Shared Narrative –
Digital proliferation, exasperated by the pandemic-driven distancing have produced isolated “interest bubbles,” undermining collective cultural identity and democratic discourse.
BBS attempts to provide a “Public Commons” — a shared, integrative framework for communication across divides.
Human–AI Relationship: Tool vs. Partner –
Current systems and most of society frame AI as subordinate tools, reinforcing asymmetry.
BBS insists on cognitive/computational symmetry, exploring what happens if AI is treated as a collaborative partner, not merely a resource.
Overlapping Realities without Integration –
Existing models (VR, AR, XR, Metaverse) capture fragments of our multi-layered reality but fail to achieve universality.
BBS confronts the wicked problem of designing a unified framework that accommodates all interactions — physical, virtual, conceptual — without exclusion.
Ethical Deployment of Emerging Technologies –
Technologies like AI, VR, quantum computing, and surveillance can amplify inequity or exploitation if left unchecked.
BBS embeds an ethical dimension, asking how mediation pathways and blended realities can be developed responsibly.
Communication Across Sensory & Temporal Boundaries –
Humans and machines process through different sensory modalities and time-scales (real-time, latent, recorded, inaccessible).
BBS seeks a syntax of mediation pathways that can normalize and describe any interaction across these domains.
Risk of Premature Deployment in High-Stakes Fields –
Introducing untested technologies in education or healthcare carries serious risks.
BBS proposes the performing arts as a risk-tolerant testbed, allowing safe prototyping before scaling into sensitive environments.
Lack of Universality in Current Frameworks –
Most frameworks are discipline-specific, inconsistent, or non-scalable.
BBS addresses this wicked problem by insisting on completeness, adaptability, elegance, and recursion as baseline requirements.
No definitive formulation –
In BBS, the problem is not just “fragmentation” or “AI integration” but the entire system of combinative reality. Boundaries between physical, virtual, and conceptual spaces are fluid; the problem itself keeps shifting.
No stopping rule –
There is no point at which “communication across realities” is solved. Every new technology (AI, quantum computing, new sensory modalities) changes the landscape. BBS embraces adaptability and recursion, ensuring the framework evolves as new realities emerge.
Solutions are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad –
Treating AI as a collaborative partner may not be “true” or “false,” but it can be more ethical, inclusive, and effective than the tool-only framing.
No immediate or ultimate test of a solution –
BRPS tests solutions in the arts, but even success there doesn’t prove universal efficacy. Transfer into healthcare or education will need new tests.
Every solution is a one-shot operation –
Deploying a mediation system (say, AI in education) can’t be undone without consequences. BBS mitigates this by prototyping in risk-tolerant domains first before one-shot deployments in critical sectors.
No enumerable set of solutions –
Wicked problems resist closure because the set of possible solutions is open-ended. BBS does not attempt to fix this set, but instead provides a normalized descriptive framework that makes new modalities comparable to existing ones. In doing so, BBS helps us adapt more readily to change, preserving continuity of dialogue even as technologies and perspectives proliferate.
Every wicked problem is essentially unique –
It is shaped by its domain, stakeholders, and history. Music, education, and geopolitics, for example, generate different solution sets that cannot be collapsed into one. What BBS offers is a universal descriptive syntax that accommodates all of them. Because BBS does not consider teh semantics of the communication, it focuses only on the transmission and modification of information, not its meaning. This allows unique problems to remain distinct while still being compared and studied within a single, coherent framework.
Every wicked problem is a symptom of another –
Fragmentation is a symptom of technology proliferation. AI asymmetry is a symptom of industrial-era tool metaphors. Lack of universality is a symptom of disciplinary siloing. BBS positions itself as a meta-framework to hold multiple causal layers.
The choice of explanation determines the resolution –
If fragmentation is explained as “a lack of shared platforms,” the solution is more platforms (e.g., Metaverse). BBS reframes it as a failure of universality and integration — demanding a different solution.
Planners have no right to be wrong –
Deploying flawed mediation systems in education, healthcare, or governance could harm real people. By testing first in entertainment/performance arts, BBS creates a low-risk proving ground, building accountability before high-stakes deployment.
Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, June 1973, pp. 155–69. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.