Suchergebnisse

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to question the appropriateness of current lab types for addressing wicked problems. A new lab type, a Systemic Innovation Lab, is proposed which combines the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems.


Design/methodology/approach
Characteristics of initiatives that are considered appropriate for addressing wicked problems and existing lab types that contain any of these characteristics are identified. These lab types are Social Innovation Labs, Living Labs, Urban Living Labs, Urban Transition Labs and Public Sector Innovation Labs. The proposed new lab type is reasoned by combining the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems. How the new lab would work in practice is illustrated with a case study.


Findings
When addressing wicked problems, labs need to take a systemic design and not a service design approach. They also need to focus on addressing complex problems, take a place-based and transition approach, enable coherent action by diverse actors, involve users as co-creators, support a networked governance approach and recognize government as an enabler of change.


Practical implications
This paper provides a new lab type designed specifically for addressing wicked problems. This new lab supports practitioners that take a systemic design, solution ecosystem and systemic innovation approach. Systemic design is based on a core set of principles that are a crossover between design and complexity theory.


Originality/value
For the first time, this paper analyzes different lab types to determine their appropriateness for addressing wicked problems. It also proposes a new lab type whose sole purpose is addressing wicked problems.

We are, apparently, living in unprecedented times, an Age of Uncertainty, when wicked problems whirl all around as we struggle to cope with Covid-19, environmental catastrophe and the right-wing populism that threatens to unravel all kinds of international agreements. In this personal reflection, 15 years after I wrote an article on wicked problems and the social construction of leadership, I take a look back, and forward, to see whether there ever was an Age of Certainty when only tame problems temporarily troubled us, or whether our understanding of the world is itself a social construction, open to dispute and thus we have always lived in uncertain times. In the process of this evaluation, I consider whether collaborative leadership, often associated with wicked problems, is as ubiquitous and effective as some proponents make out, and if it isn't, what this says about our ability to address such problems.

In this introductory article to our PPA special issue we argue that the relation between wicked problems and collaborative governance is fraught with difficulties. Doing so, we take four steps: we maintain that wicked problems are better understood as wicked actor constellations; we delve into the collaborative governance-approach and posit that it is mainly concerned with wicked problems; we then argue that collaborative governance might not be the most feasible response to wicked problems; and after that we argue that an assumption instead of actors being engaged in actor positioning processes allows a clearer understanding of policy processes in wicked actor constellations. Following this discussion, we introduce the articles featured in the special issue and discuss implications for research.

The concept of "wicked problems" has attracted increasing focus in policy research, but the implications for public organizations have received less attention. This article examines the main organizational and cognitive dimensions emerging from the research literature on wicked problems. We identify several recent approaches to addressing problem complexity and stakeholder divergence based on the literatures on systems thinking, collaboration and coordination, and the adaptive leadership roles of public leaders and managers. We raise some challenges for public management in some key functional areas of government—strategy making, organizational design, people management, and performance measurement. We argue that provisional solutions can be developed, despite the difficulties of reforming governance processes to address wicked problems more effectively.

This paper addresses shortcomings in the scholarship about 'wicked problems', and suggests ways of tackling them. Firstly, accounts of these problems tend to 'totalise', regarding them as intractable masses of complexity, so conflict-prone and/or intractable that they defy definition and solution. By contrast, we put forward a more nuanced analysis, arguing that complex problems vary in the extent of their wickedness, via such dimensions as their cognitive complexity or the diversity and irreconcilability of the actors or institutions involved. We propose a typology of different forms of wicked problems. A second shortcoming, linked to intractability, is that the favoured means of tackling wicked problems has tended towards 'one best way' approaches, most commonly collaboration with key stakeholders. Moreover, particular forms of collaboration tend to be routinely applied in 'one-size-fits-all' fashion to a variety of situations – notably with a plethora of actors, and a focus on governance rather than implementation management. We put forward a contingency framework, based on our typology, proposing which types of collaboration are suitable for which types of problem. Finally, we argue for a more realistic standard of success in dealing with wicked problems, especially the most difficult ones. To call for the 'solving' of these problems is to set up a standard which is not only impossible but also perhaps unnecessary. We argue that we do not so much 'solve' wicked problems as make progress towards improvement or towards better managing them. We spell out a more realistic version of 'progress'.

This article explores an integrative approach for dealing with wicked problems. Wicked problems not only require alternative action strategies but also alternative ways of observing and enabling. Four governance capabilities are essential: (a) reflexivity, or the capability to deal with multiple frames; (b) resilience, or the capability to adjust actions to uncertain changes; (c) responsiveness, or the capability to respond to changing agendas and expectations; (d) revitalization, or the capability to unblock stagnations. These capabilities form the basis for achieving small wins in wicked problems. We illustrate our argument with examples from sustainable food production of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Front Cover -- About Island Press -- Subscribe -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Part 1: Roadmap for the Anthropocene -- Chapter 2: Challenges of the Anthropocene -- Chapter 3: Opportunities of the Anthropocene -- Part 2: Toolbox for Wicked Leadership -- Chapter 4: Leadership Basics -- Chapter 5: Connecting across Space and Time -- Chapter 6: Collaborating across Differences -- Chapter 7: Adapting to Change, Uncertainty, and Failure -- Part 3: Storybook: People Practicing Wicked Leadership -- Chapter 8: Introducing Leadership Stories -- Chapter 9: Changing Tastes: Influencing Identity and Choices for Sustainable Food -- Chapter 10: Leadership Is a Key Ingredient in Water -- Chapter 11: Collective Impact for Climate Mitigation -- Chapter 12: Innovating Carbon Farming -- Chapter 13: Accounting Makes Sustainability Profitable, Possible, and Boring -- Chapter 14: Fire Learning Network -- Chapter 15: Partnering for Clean Water and Community Benefit -- Chapter 16: Conclusion -- Notes -- Island Press | Board of Directors.