Home > Core Framework > Wickedness Scoring
The 5-Question Wickedness Scoring Tool provides an objective, quantitative method for assessing problem complexity. This assessment enables appropriate tier classification and guides Base-N model selection.
Score Range: 0-30 points
Questions: 5 dimensions of problem complexity
Output: Tier classification (1-5)
Time Required: 10-15 minutes per assessment
Dimension: Level of consensus among stakeholders
Scoring:
| Score | Description | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Complete agreement | All stakeholders agree on problem and solution |
| 1-2 | Minor disagreements | Small differences, easily resolved |
| 3-4 | Significant disagreements | Major but reconcilable differences |
| 5-6 | Fundamental disagreements | Irreconcilable worldviews, values conflicts |
Assessment Questions:
Examples:
Dimension: Availability and clarity of information
Scoring:
| Score | Description | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Complete information | All relevant data available and clear |
| 1-2 | Minor gaps | Some missing info, easily obtainable |
| 3-4 | Significant unknowns | Important information missing or unclear |
| 5-6 | Deep uncertainty | Fundamental unknowns, unknowable factors |
Assessment Questions:
Examples:
Dimension: Whether solutions are permanent or evolving
Scoring:
| Score | Description | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Permanent solution | Problem solved completely and permanently |
| 1-2 | Stable solution | Minor adjustments may be needed |
| 3-4 | Evolving solution | Requires ongoing adaptation |
| 5-6 | Never “solved” | Every action creates new problems |
Assessment Questions:
Examples:
Dimension: Role of learning and adaptation in solution
Scoring:
| Score | Description | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | No learning needed | Apply known procedures |
| 1-2 | Minimal learning | Some adaptation required |
| 3-4 | Significant learning | Continuous adaptation essential |
| 5-6 | Fundamental learning | Must learn while acting, high stakes |
Assessment Questions:
Examples:
Dimension: Urgency and temporal constraints
Scoring:
| Score | Description | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | No time pressure | Ample time for deliberation |
| 1-2 | Mild pressure | Reasonable deadlines |
| 3-4 | Significant pressure | Tight but manageable timelines |
| 5-6 | Critical urgency | Time running out, catastrophic if delayed |
Assessment Questions:
Examples:
Step 1: Score each question (0-6 points)
Step 2: Add all five scores together
Step 3: Match total to tier range
| Total Score | Tier Classification | Complexity Level |
|---|---|---|
| 0-9 | Tier 1 | Simple |
| 10-14 | Tier 2 | Complicated |
| 15-19 | Tier 3 | Complex |
| 20-24 | Tier 4 | Wicked |
| 25-30 | Tier 5 | Super-Wicked |
Q1: Stakeholder Agreement: 0 (owner agrees tire needs fixing)
Q2: Information Completeness: 0 (procedure well-known)
Q3: Solution Finality: 0 (tire fixed permanently)
Q4: Learning Dynamics: 0 (apply known procedure)
Q5: Time Pressure: 1 (might want to use bike soon)
Total: 1 point → Tier 1: Simple
Q1: Stakeholder Agreement: 2 (some resistance to change)
Q2: Information Completeness: 2 (vendor specs available, some unknowns)
Q3: Solution Finality: 3 (will need ongoing configuration)
Q4: Learning Dynamics: 4 (team must learn new system)
Q5: Time Pressure: 3 (business needs driving timeline)
Total: 14 points → Tier 2: Complicated
Q1: Stakeholder Agreement: 4 (different visions of culture)
Q2: Information Completeness: 4 (culture is hard to measure)
Q3: Solution Finality: 5 (ongoing process, never “done”)
Q4: Learning Dynamics: 5 (learn through experimentation)
Q5: Time Pressure: 2 (important but not urgent)
Total: 20 points → Tier 4: Wicked
Q1: Stakeholder Agreement: 6 (fundamental global disagreements)
Q2: Information Completeness: 5 (deep uncertainty about impacts)
Q3: Solution Finality: 6 (every action has unintended consequences)
Q4: Learning Dynamics: 6 (must act despite uncertainty)
Q5: Time Pressure: 6 (window of action closing rapidly)
Total: 29 points → Tier 5: Super-Wicked
Problem: _________________________________
Question 1 - Stakeholder Agreement:
□ 0: Complete agreement
□ 1-2: Minor disagreements
□ 3-4: Significant disagreements
□ 5-6: Fundamental disagreements
Score: ___
Question 2 - Information Completeness:
□ 0: Complete information
□ 1-2: Minor gaps
□ 3-4: Significant unknowns
□ 5-6: Deep uncertainty
Score: ___
Question 3 - Solution Finality:
□ 0: Permanent solution
□ 1-2: Stable solution
□ 3-4: Evolving solution
□ 5-6: Never "solved"
Score: ___
Question 4 - Learning Dynamics:
□ 0: No learning needed
□ 1-2: Minimal learning
□ 3-4: Significant learning
□ 5-6: Fundamental learning
Score: ___
Question 5 - Time Pressure:
□ 0: No time pressure
□ 1-2: Mild pressure
□ 3-4: Significant pressure
□ 5-6: Critical urgency
Score: ___
TOTAL SCORE: ___ / 30
TIER CLASSIFICATION: ___________
Characteristics:
Recommended Approach:
Characteristics:
Recommended Approach:
Characteristics:
Recommended Approach:
Characteristics:
Recommended Approach:
Characteristics:
Recommended Approach:
Issue: All questions get similar scores
Solution:
Issue: Different raters give different scores
Solution:
Issue: Score falls on tier boundary (9-10, 14-15, etc.)
Solution:
Issue: Problem complexity shifts
Solution:
✅ Gather stakeholder input
✅ Review problem history
✅ Identify information gaps
✅ Consider multiple perspectives
✅ Allow adequate assessment time
✅ Score honestly and independently first
✅ Provide specific evidence for scores
✅ Consider edge cases and exceptions
✅ Document reasoning for each score
✅ Invite challenge and discussion
✅ Share results with stakeholders
✅ Use tier to guide approach selection
✅ Choose appropriate Base-N level
✅ Revisit assessment periodically
✅ Learn from outcomes
Core Framework:
Application Guides:
Reference:
| ← Previous: Base-N Architecture | Up to Core Framework |
| *Part of the HUMMBL Unified Tier Framework v1.0 | License | Contributing* |