The Upside of Clumsiness:

Clumsy Solutions for

Wicked Problems

Presented by Group 3 | Section A:

Madhusudan Thakur - MBA20037
Christopher Domai Tholou - MBA20298
Mitesh Billore - MBA20300
Chitalya Dilip Teja - MBA20383
Vikas Kanojia - MBA20364
 Wicked
Problems
In 1973 design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin
Webber introduced the term wicked problem in order to
draw attention to the complexities and challenges of
addressing planning and social policy problems

Examples:

1. Poverty
2. Income Inequality
3. Climate change
4. Covid 19
 Rittel and Webber’s Seminal
Publication
● Published in the year 1973, the field of Organizational Studies

● Rich reservoir of theory and practices to tackle wicked problem

How well do these approaches really help us to deal with wicked

problems?

And can we predict which approach is most likely to overcome

them?
Cultural Theory or Theory of Socio-Cultural
Variability
It postulates that four “ways of life” are the building blocks of social life:

● Individualism

● Hierarchy

● Egalitarianism

● Fatalism

Every social domain is ever changing mix of these four ways of organizing and
perceiving human relations.
 One way of dealing with Wicked
Problems
● Through forms of governance, creatively and flexibly
combining the four ways

● “Kernel of Truth”

● Any governance focusing on a single way of organizing,

perceiving and justifying on a social domain results to failure
 Clumsy
Solutions

● More effective form of governance mixing all possible ways of

organizing and thinking.

● Pluralist Solution called “Clumsy”

● Multifaceted Problem → Multifaceted Solution

 The 4 ways of approaching Wicked Problems

The Egalitarian Model The Hierarchical Path The Fatalistic Manner The Individualistic Path
Open, honest deliberation Paved by experts. Topics, Generate solution through Competitive process in which
among all individuals. time, place, participant are ‘chance’. Argues that stakeholders with different
Differences of ranks and regulated by experienced clumsy solution are not views have the freedom to
status are eliminated mediators willed or planned for, but implement their ideas.
longed for and occasionally
stumbled upon
 The Egalitarian Approach
Drawbacks
Emergence of collective will
may be slow

The Hierarchical Approach

Stakeholders involved might feel that their
opinions or views are no seriously considered

The Individualistic Approach

Goes against the spirit of
community and tolerance

The Fatalistic Approach

Counsel of despair
Cultural Bias

Hermit
The cultural prejudice that individuals adhere to in a
specific field derives from the social relationships in
which they participate in that field.

As result to overcome Cultural bias - People should live

reclusive life :
By withdrawing from all social relationships, people will
simultaneously tolerate all potential cultural prejudices.
The decision-making method would be clumsy if
individuals follow the strategy of living reclusive lives.
GENERATING CLUMSY SOLUTIONS:
 1. CITIZENS JURIES
process through which citizens develop and aggregate their views on a controversial topic and inform
the authorities - in full glare of the media - of their preferences

HIERARCHICAL:
Background group of experts and
interested parties
journalist
Neutral facilitators
Further experts
Appropriate authorities
EGALITARIAN:
Consists 12 to 18 people
May include several juries
Small group discussions
face to face search for agreement is
upheld

INDIVIDUALISTIC:
Jurors are paid for their time
Limiting the proceeding to 5 days
voting takes place
All results are published
FATALISM:
Random selection of citizens for jury
Hierarchy kicks back in
Stratified according to various aspects
 2. DELIBERATIVE POLLING
Similar to citizen juries, but much larger in size - Between 150 to 450 participants

HIERARCHICAL:
Briefing materials, expert panel, trained
moderators, and advisory groups, all
which ensure orderly proceedings
EGALITARIAN:
Deliberations and small group
discussions
Participants are treated equal
Not linked with special interests

INDIVIDUALISTIC: FATALISM:
Financial compensations that Random sampling to choose
participants receive participants
Timeframe of proceedings
Rule of no arguments
Opinion polls
 3. PLANNING CELLS:
Micro parliaments - 25 to 40 people from various backgrounds work together to develop a set of
solutions to a problem delegated to them by a commissioning body which are later assessed and final
recommendations are presented to commissioning body as a citizens report

HIERARCHICAL: EGALITARIAN: INDIVIDUALISTIC:

Selection of topics by commissioning Intense deliberations among equals Payment of participants
body within the breakout groups, consisting short duration (4-7 days)
Circulation of background material of 5 people only Insistence that consensus does not
Testimony of experts and interest need to be attained
groups
Division of process into three distinct
phases (Information gathering,
deliberation, and voting in small break
FATALISM:
out groups)
Random selection of participants
Ranking of various proposals
Frequent random redistribution of
participation across small groups
 4. Design Thinking
● Team based approach to generate user oriented solution
● Brings together individuals from wide range of
backgrounds

HIERARCHICAL: EGALITARIAN:
Provides a predetermined framework as The output of every phase of the
well as set of rules that regulate process is presented to a larger group
interactions for critical scrutiny

INDIVIDUALISTIC:
Individuals get assigned roles in team
not according to seniority pr formal
qualifications , but solely on the basis
of their performance.
FATALISM:
Teams works under immense time
pressure that often provokes failure.
 5. 21st Century Town Meetings
● Facilitated discussion for 500 to 5000 participants

HIERARCHICAL: EGALITARIAN:
Hierarchy is abundant Can be seen in the intense deliberation
and search for consensus that goes on
within small discussion groups of 10-
12 people.

INDIVIDUALISTIC: FATALISM:
Includes technologies that greatly Random assignment of seats
speed up the aggregation of proposals
and opinions
 6. Future Searches
● A participative process in which a group of 60-80 people
develop a set of a strategic goals and tactic action plans
HIERARCHICAL:
Entire process is divided up in three
phases - before, during, and after the
search
INDIVIDUALISTIC:
The creativity and boldness and that are
encouraged by facilitators and organizers,
and individual responsibility to implement
the plan that they agree on
EGALITARIAN:
Consists of its active leveling of pre-existing
status on rank differences among
participants
Egalitarian element is the intense
deliberation that takes place within small
groups
FATALISM:
A future search is explicitly designed to create
uncertainty, anxiety and confusion among the
participants which is seen as a necessary phase
on the way to consensus
CONCLUSION
● Finding a solution to wicked problem is very difficult and near
to impossible sometimes

● At present there are many wicked problems like poverty,

homelessness, Covid-19, food crisis, human rights crises,
ecological crises, etc.,

● If only a fraction of these wicked problems is solved, it will be

worthwhile to embrace the routes to solutions described herein

● The six methods provided here will be very helpful in deriving

solutions to the wicked problems
THANKS!