Of course, as soon as you think about these capacities, it\u2019s obvious why of most government agencies and local councils are hopeless at tackling difficult problems. The authors say this so much more diplomatically:<\/div>\n
\u201cA traditional bureaucracy, divided into vertical silos, in which most of the authority for resolving problems rests at the top of the organisation, is not well-adapted to support the kinds of process necessary for addressing the complexity and ambiguity of wicked problems. Bureaucracies tend to be risk averse, and are intolerant of messy processes. They excel at managing issues with clear boundaries rather than ambiguous, complex issues that may require experimental and innovative approaches.\u201d (p13)<\/div>\n
In short, if you want to change the world you can\u2019t afford be a traditional, hierarchically managed, value-free, service-delivery agency like a Department or local Council. You just can\u2019t. You need to be small, nimble, passionate, and happy to \u201cfail informatively\u201d. CMAs are one promising model; PCPs (Primary Care Partnerships in Victoria) are another; Alliancing is another (used for large infrastructure projects); outsourcing to NGOs like Landcare groups and local Environmental Centres is another.<\/div>\n
Here are some nice quotes from
Tackling Wicked Problems<\/em>:<\/div>\n\u201cBecause of social complexity, solving a wicked problem is fundamentally a social process. Having a few brilliant people or the latest project management technology is no longer sufficient.\u201d (p28, quoting Conklin, L. 2006)<\/div>\n
\u201cIt has been argued that the public sector needs to adopt more systematic approaches to social innovation as opposed to the current rather ad hoc approach: \u2018How many departments or agencies have a board level director responsible for innovation..? How many have significant budgets for innovation..? How many can point to the flow of new models in their service that are being cultivated, developed, improved and tested.\u2019\u201d (p13, quoting Mulgan G. 2006)<\/div>\n
\u201cA concomitant condition to increasing adaptability is a broad acceptance and understanding, including from governments and Ministers, that there are no quick fixes and that levels of uncertainty around the solutions to wicked problems need to be tolerated.\u201d (p15)<\/div>\n
\u201cCritically, tackling wicked problems also calls for high levels of systems thinking. This big picture thinking helps policy makers to make the connections between the multiple causes and interdependencies of wicked problems that are necessary in order to avoid a narrow approach and artificial taming of wicked problems\u2026A multi-disciplinary team approach is one practical way to garner all the required skills and knowledge for tackling any particular wicked problem.\u201d (p33)<\/div>\n
\u201cCollaborative strategies are the best approach to tackling wicked problems which require behavioural change as part of the solution.\u201d (p10)<\/div>\n
\u201cThe fact is that a true understanding of the problem generally requires the perspective of multiple organisations and stakeholders, and that any package of measures identified as a possible solution usually requires the involvement, commitment and coordination of multiple organisations and stakeholders to be delivered effectively.\u201d (p11)<\/div>\n
\u201cIs the requirement to tightly specify programme outputs and outcomes useful in an environment where even defining the problem and solution is difficult?\u201d (p23)<\/div>\n
\u201cThere is increasing evidence that some types of pre-set performance measures, especially lower-level indicators, may undermine the responsiveness of the delivery of complex services and could even distort or constrict the services by making the indicator (or the target) rather than the service the focus of provision. In the case of devolved services both service providers and service users can find themselves playing second fiddle to programme reporting regimes.\u201d (p24)<\/div>\n