Opinion

Define common meanings to solve ‘wicked problems’

Richard Hill, ACO Technologies

Nowadays there mere use of the term SuDS in a title is of concern – some might quickly move to another more alluring article having grown tired of the tedious rhetoric that pervades the press.

Indeed the ‘movement’ itself lurches forward and backward with alarming regularity – the latest from Defra reporting yet more delays in the required implementation.

For those with a formal business education the whole topic is well described by the notion of ‘wicked problem’ – those that we are all increasingly involved in given the potential for complexity introduced by communication ease.

Indeed the water resource issue demands we get better and move beyond even greenfield runoff as a target. Regarding pollution a greenfield response to anthropogenic activity will be sub optimal.

Such problems are often difficult to adequately define making immediate solutions hardly plausible, they rest in complex interrelationships, with competing agendas and varying levels of sophistication – the result are all too similar – protracted discourse, mostly non-productive, much resource used and little payback at any level.

A central theme in arriving at tenable solutions often involves language itself, more specifically creating a common meaning, and in the case of SuDS updating ‘legacy’ meanings that might otherwise hinder progress. This is important to the extent that the SuDS ‘industry’ itself has long recognised the complexities inherent in multi-discipline / trans-disciplinary design of SuDS schemes. Even at the locus of SuDS implementation – the SAB, Local authority two tier arrangements will require strategic consideration of communications if, what is in effect a dual planning process, is to be executed efficiently – with no impact on commercial England.

Fortunately hints on ways forward can be obtained from the social science academia that relates to ‘communities of practice’ – hubs of expertise – we all have them, they are the foundation of any real progress as their language provides efficiency – meaning is conveyed instantly to an insider, less so to those outside.

SuDS has grown out of a ‘community of practice’ and to achieve its intended paradigm shift it must acknowledge not only the need to define its language but moreso modify it – ask a group of SuDS interested parties what is meant by treatment train and you are likely to get different answers. And Herein lies the problem.

SuDS has grown out of a ‘community of practice’ and to achieve its intended paradigm shift it must acknowledge not only the need to define its language but moreso modify it – ask a group of SuDS interested parties what is meant by treatment train and you are likely to get different answers. And Herein lies the problem.

Not only is there no common definition, the once useful legacy meanings might actually perpetuate polarisation. Taking two simplified examples; ‘mimic natural / greenfield responses’ & ‘treatment (train)’, the former served well to describe a philosophical approach – but how relevant is it in dense urban development.

Indeed the water resource issue demands we get better and move beyond even greenfield runoff as a target. Regarding pollution a greenfield response to anthropogenic activity will be sub optimal.

The concept of treatment train must be revisited again in context of dense urban Britain – useful at regional, catchment, or even large development level, question must be asked at site level – commercial business often occupies sub 5 ha areas, gravity based ‘treatment trains’ become difficult to implement especially if the notion of ‘improvement’ in run off quality is to be qualified: what size swale, and what other variables affect performance and how? These are the sorts of questions that practitioners must demand answers to.

That part of the industry manufacturing solutions to address the pollution issues would hope that such products gain entry and recognition in the practitioners vocabulary – so far progress is being made but some will still qualify SuD by reference to colour!

The wider European context lends a hand – Germany have invested much time and effort in arriving at sensible and achievable test protocols for manufactured products – the DiBT standards present a challenge – as so they should – more importantly despite over a decade of development – they remain fluid and open to new information. Just as any solution to a ‘Wicked problem’ should.

Richard Hill is managing director of ACO Technologies