Sustainability: a Wicked Problem - Sustainable Animal Agriculture - page 5

establishing goals for both types of outcome. On
the systems side, the goals should clearly indi-
cate what movements in profit, people and
planet are targeted in the system. On the process
side, the goals should specify who is at the table
and how they will engage together.
Even if this simultaneity of system and pro-
cess outcomes is a necessary condition for man-
aging wicked problems, it is not a sufficient
condition. The roles of new knowledge and inno-
vation management are argued to be the other
two necessary conditions. New knowledge and
innovation management are critical to resolving
(at least to the extent needed for change) stake-
holder conflicts and system ambiguity - the
other two major concerns arising from the four
criteria of a wicked problem.

The existing knowledge that each stake-
holder brings to the management of a wicked
problem sets up the process for failure. Existing
knowledge is deficient to support the manage-
ment process in two respects. This first deficiency
with existing knowledge is the issue knowledge
legitimacy. Each set of stakeholders will suspect
the knowledge being brought by the other stake-
holders because of issues arising from trust,
transparency and credibility of sources. On the
one hand, each set of stakeholders would likely
claim that its explicit knowledge is enough in
itself to solve the dilemma - the problem is in
fact not wicked. Each stakeholder asks the others
to accept their solution, and the problem is
solved. Invoking 'good science' (the ultimate
authoritative explicit knowledge in the western
world) is an example of this approach. There is
much anecdotal evidence that this approach
rarely works with wicked problems. Stalemate
with duelling scientists is the much more likely
outcome. On the other hand, if existing explicit
knowledge is not invoked or is repudiated, then
one would expect a similar claim that existing
tacit knowledge is somehow enough to solve the
problem. Various cases or archetypal examples
of sustainable or potentially sustainable prac-
tices would be invoked by one or another stake-
holder. The problem here with sustainability is
that common knowledge of such practices is
not broadly held and would again be suspected
by other stakeholders. There are examples of
conservation practices, co-generation-of-energy
practices, organic practices, benign environmen-
tal practices or fair-trade-for-social-justice prac-
tices. But none of these has been shown to be
sustainable in regard to the 3Ps or any robust
notion of sustainability. Existing tacit knowledge
is woefully lacking.
The second deficiency with existing knowl-
edge is the issue of fixed or frozen trade-offs.
Existing knowledge, explicit or tacit, has funda-
mentally led to the value conflicts that separate
the stakeholders in the first place. Existing
knowledge of the system in question and its use
in practice has resulted in the unfavourable
trade-offs in profit, planet and people that set the
various stakeholders at odds with each other.
If the process of managing sustainability simply
trades on existing knowledge, then little positive
change can be achieved. Based on existing know-
ledge, one might make minor improvements in

The Role of New Knowledge

The next step in the analysis begins with an
exploration of the meaning of knowledge in this
context. The knowledge management literature
is especially useful here, particularly the classic
work by Takeuchi and Nonaka (2000). Based on
this literature, knowledge is about beliefs and
commitments, action toward some end, and
meaning that is context-specific and relational.
In this sense, knowledge is justified true belief on
which an individual or individuals are willing to act.
This concept of knowledge is more Eastern than
classic Western, which defines knowledge as
truth in some objective, abstract sense. It is rele-
vant to wicked problems because it better
explains the relationship that each stakeholder
has with existing knowledge that they bring to
a situation. Each set of stakeholders view
their knowledge as true - justified true belief -
and will take action (to enable or to veto).
Existing knowledge can be further divided into:
(i) tacit knowledge , which is justified by being
embedded in experience and specific context
arising from practice; and (ii) explicit knowledge ,
which is justified by formal documentation and
testing (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2000). Scientific
knowledge is an excellent example of explicit
knowledge while the knowledge of a long-term,
experienced dairy farmer is a classic example
of tacit knowledge. Note how the justification
of true belief differs between the two types of
knowledge.