Last updated: 2026-11-06
Lab 3: Wicked Problem Framing
Some problems have a test that proves when they're solved. Others don't, and treating the second kind as the first is how a requirements process quietly builds the wrong thing with total internal confidence. This lab takes a genuinely wicked problem in computing and asks you to work it the way it actually has to be worked — without reaching for a stopping rule that doesn't exist.
Learning Objectives FoundationalKnowledge that endures for decades — core principles
- Apply Rittel and Webber's tame/wicked distinction to a real problem in computing, not an abstract example.
- Build and compare CATWOE tables from genuinely conflicting stakeholder worldviews.
- Recognise when a group is trying to "solve" a wicked problem the way it would solve a tame one — and correct course.
Pre-Lab Reading FoundationalKnowledge that endures for decades — core principles
Read Wicked Problems and Assumptions and the "Wicked Problems" section of Software Meets Reality.
Materials
- A choice of wicked problems, one per group: academic integrity in an age of generative text, AI governance for a university, online harms moderation, student engagement and attendance monitoring, or cybersecurity disclosure policy.
- Two CATWOE templates per group.
Session Plan (120 minutes) Applied / MethodologicalKnowledge with a 5–10 year half-life — stable practice
| Time | Block | Activity |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00–0:15 | Briefing | Recap tame vs. wicked; groups pick a problem. |
| 0:15–0:40 | Formulation exercise | Each group member writes, independently, one sentence stating what the problem is. Compare sentences: do any two genuinely agree, or does each one already point toward a different fix? |
| 0:40–0:50 | Break | — |
| 0:50–1:30 | Dual CATWOE | Build two full CATWOE tables and root definitions for the chosen problem, from two stakeholders who would genuinely disagree about what's going on (for academic integrity: a student under pressure near a deadline, and an exam board protecting the value of every other student's degree). |
| 1:30–1:50 | No stopping rule | For your preferred root definition, write the single next action your group would actually take. Then answer honestly: would taking that action make this problem solved, or just move it to its next, different shape? Name what the next shape probably looks like. |
| 1:50–2:00 | Try to close the register row | Attempt, deliberately, to write your chosen problem as a single risk-register row — likelihood, impact, an Avoid/Reduce/Transfer/Accept decision, a status that can eventually say closed — the way Risk Management & Mitigation treats an ordinary technical or project risk. Write down specifically where the attempt breaks down. |
Deliverable Applied / MethodologicalKnowledge with a 5–10 year half-life — stable practice
The two root-definition sentences, the two CATWOE tables, the "no stopping rule" paragraph, and the note on where the risk-register attempt broke down. Mark clearly which CATWOE elements changed between the two tables and which stayed constant.
Related Topics
- Software Meets Reality: Systems Thinking, Frame Analysis, and the Future Software Engineer — the argument this lab puts into practice.
- Wicked Problems and Assumptions — the full account of why CATWOE doesn't tame a wicked problem, only takes one provisional turn of its cycle.
- Soft Systems Methodology — the CATWOE method itself, worked through in full.
- Risk Management & Mitigation — the register format and closure assumption this lab's final block deliberately tries, and fails, to apply to a wicked problem.
- Lab 2: Feedback Loop Mapping — previous in the series.
- Lab 4: Emergence Hunting — next in the series.
References
-
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
-
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons. Held by the University of Reading Library.
Graduate Attributes
Directly developed
- Critical Thinker: Readers compare two CATWOE tables to identify which elements changed and which remained constant.
- Reflective: Readers write a paragraph explaining why no stopping rule exists for the problem.
Modelled on this page
- Subject Specialist: Discipline-specific tools like root definitions and CATWOE tables are applied to a computing problem.
- Confident Communicator: Complex methodological concepts are expressed in plain language without jargon.
University of Reading Graduate Attributes framework.