I see with amusement a recent discussion in safety about complexity complete with the mythical swiss-cheese, that some rule can ‘tame’ complexity.

All such discussion ignores research on ‘wicked-problems’ that has been about since the 1960s.

The idea of a ‘wicked problem’ first emerged from Churchman (1967) in the context of management theory but was later developed by Rittel and Webber (1973) into ten clearly definable characteristics, these being that:

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
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.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
10. The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).

And later Conklin (https://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf) shortened this list to six defining characteristics, being:

1. The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.
4. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one shot operation.’
6. Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.

Safety is such a wicked problem (http://www.peterwagner.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Safety-A-Wicked-Problem2.pdf). This research by Wegner and Associates has been about since 2010.

The idea that all problems can be ‘tamed’ by Safety is nonsense and using such language is dangerous.

Indeed, using the manufactured idea of a linear causality is also dangerous. The swiss-cheese is NOT science and has no scientific basis. It is a semiotic concoction by James Reason to suit a certain worldview and like Heinrich’s dominoes, has nothing to do with reality. Taking these semiotics to any investigation is a recipe for a disaster.

If one takes any of the assumptions contained in this blog by Cooper to an intractable wicked problem, will simply makes things worse. We have seen this well demonstrated by scholars such as Taleb and Amalberti.

Wicked problems cannot be ‘prevented’ (https://safetyrisk.net/preventing-mistakes-ooops-drops/). Fallible humans and systems (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/) are the reality. The denial of fallibility is the great Safety delusion (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) which we observe in the ideology of zero.

Affirming the reality of fallibility has nothing to do with ‘learned helplessness’ but rather is an ethical reality that is not assisted by silence or arrogance. There is no great benefit in maintaining ‘head in the sand safety’ (https://safetyrisk.net/consciously-safe-unconsciously-unsafe-or-head-in-the-sand-safety/).

A simple paradox such as ‘there is no learning without risk’ demonstrates that the pursuit of risk elimination is also the pathway that suppresses learning. Wisdom comes from being honest with the Radical Uncertainties of life (https://safetyrisk.net/radical-uncertainty/) not by denying them. For example:

Nowhere in the world has anyone come close to solving the nature of consciousness or any of the conundrums of Quantum Physics (Zukav – https://archive.org/details/TheDancingWuLiMasters). There are many such problems that demonstrate the naivety of the idea that any problem can be ‘solved’. Indeed, the delusions of faith in science (Dekker) and faith in data (Cooper) demonstrate more about the nature of faith and belief, than any hard evidence that tackles the challenges of ‘wickedity’.

Indeed, what the knowledge of wicked problems fosters is; wisdom, ethical honesty and a non-delusional approach to real world of ‘being’. Imposing order on disorder doesn’t make it so, despite all the imagination of the Safety worldview, locked in its own mono-disciplinary cocoon.

You can learn more about wicked problems here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

https://web.mit.edu/jrankin/www/engin_as_lib_art/Design_thinking.pdf

https://www.enablingchange.com.au/wickedproblems.pdf