institutional codependency
“W I C K E D” P R O B L E M S
BETTER KNOWN AS A “CAPABILITY TRAP”
“FINDING OUR WAY”
“The certainty of cycles, the triumph of order over chaos, the diversity born from life’s creativity, the innate artistry of each of us, the enduring beauty of the human spirit — these are what I write about. From Minoan times until now, the story has not changed. But, it is important that we reclaim it and retell it before we are swept away by the eruptions of our own making (Margaret J. Wheatley 2005, p.8).”
“WICKED” PROBLEMS DEFINED
To offer a clear perspective, we begin by recognizing the phenomenological universe of Design and Planning that began to evolve after WWII. I recognize the expanded knowledge of biological “cybernetics” by (Norbert Wiener 1947) and the character of “management science” first described by (Herbert Simon 1947).
Page 1 — 1 —
Subsequently, a Sentinel Article that introduced the social-political concept underlying “Wicked” Problems appeared in 1973 as an article by Horst Rittel & Melvin Webber. It is entitled as: “Dilemmas In a General Theory of Planning.” Here are the first two (of 4) sentences of its: Abstract: “The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, because of the nature of these problems. They are “wicked” problems, whereas science had developed success for resolving “tame” problems…” A section of the (Rittel & Webber 1973, 160-7) article describes Wicked Problems as:
- “Proposition 1 There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
- Proposition 2 Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
- Proposition 3 Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false.
- Proposition 4 There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
- Proposition 5 Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
- Proposition 6 Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or exhaustively desirable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
- Proposition 7 Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
- Proposition 8 Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
- Proposition 9 The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of selection determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
- Proposition 10 The planner has no right to be wrong.”
The (Rittel & Webber 1973) article has been cited 29,994 times as of 02-28-2026. Most of these citations focused on an explanation of the Propositions. I recommend the analysis by (Kate Crowley & Brian W. Head 2017). Their article offers a sensible view given the continuously evolving phenomenology of contemporary Design and Planning and is entitled: “The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Webber.” Their analysis serves as the basis for viewing >1973 “Wicked Problems” as 2026< “Capability Traps.”
For a book that represents an introduction to a THEORY OF DESIGN AND PLANNING, I recommend the Book by (Jean-Pierre Protzen and David J. Harris 2010). It is entitled: “THE UNIVERSE OF DESIGN Horst Rittel’s THEORIES OF Design and Planning.” Its a sentinel reference.
CAPABILITY TRAPS DEFINED
Entitled as: “The Capability Trap: Prevalence in Human Systems (Landry & Sterman 2017)”, I cite the article’s full Abstract:
- “What do abused children, the fatal collapse of the I-35 bridge connecting Minneapolis and St. Paul, the disproportionately high costs of the United States healthcare system, and worsening maternal mortality [PJN edit] all have in common? We suggest that these examples arise from systems caught in a capability trap, in which pressures to boost short-run performance lead to greater work effort at the expense of investment in maintenance, process improvement, and learning. As an organization’s capabilities erode, performance falls further, leading to even greater pressure to work harder and even lower investment in capabilities. However, the theory of the capability trap (Repenning & Sterman, 2001, 2002) was originally formulated in the context of maintenance and process improvement in manufacturing and petrochemicals; and empirical work to date has centered on such systems. We hypothesize here that the capability trap is more prevalent and maps equally well onto various social systems.
- We provide an initial assessment of its operation in several domains — critical infrastructure such as water supplies, electric grids, and transportation; social services, focusing on foster care, education, crime and prisons; and healthcare.
- We also further develop the capability trap theory to include nested traps and traps with caseload dynamics, as well as offer insight into the unique characteristics of human systems that need to be taken into consideration when attempting to escape a capability trap. Rather than providing definitive evidence for each case, we seek to encourage deeper research into these capability trap dynamics and how they can be overcome [viz., see Design Epistemology] (Landry & Sterman 2017).” — 3 —
THE CAPABILITY TRAP: GENERIC STRUCTURE (PG 2-3, LANDRY & STERMAN 2017)
“Managers and workers in any process are constantly assessing performance against a target or desired level of performance, and face two fundamental options to close any performance shortfall: working harder or working smarter. Working harder generally consists of devoting more resources to production — working longer, working faster, cutting corners, skirting safety protocols, deferring maintenance — to boost performance quickly. These actions form the balancing Working Harder Loop, B1 (p3, Landry & Sterman 2017).
Alternately, resources could be reallocated to activities that build the organization’s capabilities, etc. — equipment quality, worker productivity, process quality, etc. Enhancing capabilities also increases performance and closes the performance gap, albeit usually with some delay, completing the balancing the Working Smarter loop, B2.
Capabilities are stocks that build up and erode over time as equipment wears and ages, personnel turn over, new requirements make existing skills obsolete, and so on. Because time and resources are limited, working harder comes at the expense of any improvement effort that can build capabilities. Thus, while working harder boosts performance in the short run, the reduction of the improvement effort can lead to erosion of organizational capabilities and a larger performance shortfall, leading to still more short-term adverse effects. The result is the reinforcing Reinvestment or Ruin loop, RI (P3, Landry & Sterman 2017).”a
“WICKED” CAPABILITY TRAPS
I. OUR NATION’S HEALTH SPENDING: FIRST OF TWO
WORSENING SINCE 1965
OUR NATION’S HEALTHCARE is largely directed by the “Antibiotic Model Of Disease.” This phenomenological Model focuses HEALTHCARE’s pragmatic abduction regimen to asses the possible occurrence of a discrete illness that is caused by one isolated fundamental process that can be eliminated by a safe, reliable, and curative therapeutic strategy. Unfortunately, this pragmatic abduction’s logic is also occasionally associated with a therapeutic trial as the basis to verify its validity. A Urinary Tract Infection in an otherwise healthy person may be based primarily on a person’s report of symptoms. The resolution of symptoms is used to verify the diagnosis. The onset of symptoms with treatment and possible return 3-4 days after ending their medication prescription may lead to a verity of potentially expensive hypothetical, pragmatic abduction problems.
To efficiently facilitate the escape from this aberrant current health spending as already identified by (p19-21, Landry & Sterman 2017), it will require the addition of stop-loss risk management attributes associated with a common pool resource per Elinor Ostrom (Ostrom 1990). It is likely that a 5-10 year introductory process would be required.