martes, 15 de diciembre de 2015

Palabras: "Wicked problems"


Un "problema retorcido" (en inglés, "wicked problem") es un concepto utilizado en planificación social para describir un problema que es difícil o imposible de resolver dado que presenta requisitos incompletos, contradictorios y cambiantes que generalmente son difíciles de reconocer. El término "retorcido" no se utiliza en un sentido de malvado, sino antes bien como resistencia a la solución. Además, dada la existencia de complejas interdependencias en este tipo de problemas, los esfuerzos para resolver un aspecto de un problema retorcido podría revelar o crear nuevos problemas. 

C. West Churchman introdujo el concepto de problemas retorcidos en un "Guest Editorial" de la publicación Management Science (vol. 14, núm. 4, diciembre de 1967) al hacer referencia a "un seminario reciente" de Horst Rittel, discutiendo la responsabilidad moral de la investigación de operaciones "de informar al mánager en la medida en que nuestras "soluciones" han fallado en dominar los problemas retorcidos". Horst Rittel y Melvin M. Webber describieron formalmente el concepto de un problema retorcido en un tratado publicado en 1973, contrastando los problemas "retorcidos" frente a problemas relativamente "controlables" y solucionables que se pueden encontrar en las matemáticas, el ajedrez o la resolución de puzles. (Más)


The most authoritative and oft-cited view on how to approach wicked problems is in the work of Roberts, who suggested three possible routes. Described in the context of our market-led/ product-led problem, these are: (Ver)

  • -Revert to authority                                                                This approach would reduce the complexity of the question by reducing the number of people involved. In our example, a small, senior team would call the product development shots. One can immediately see the attraction of this streamlined approach but of course it depends on the small team having an excellent appreciation of a complex issue, which is not always the case. 
  • -Competing arguments                                                            This approach depends on encouraging the development of alternatives and enabling their competition against each other. In our example, competing productled and market-led initiatives would make their case. The merits of this approach - clarity and constructive confl ict - are attractive. However, it creates adversarial relationships and depends on an objective judging process, which is asking a lot of human beings. 
  • -Collaborative consensus                                                           This approach depends on enabling all stakeholders to share their thoughts constructively and move towards common agreement. In our example, technological innovation and customer needs would converge on an optimal product strategy. This approach sounds ideal in theory but is very time consuming, requires expert facilitation and is prone to infl uence by strong, not necessarily well-informed, egos. (Más)
Publicar un comentario en la entrada