Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping

Proventive Solutions

Version 3

November 2013

Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping

Mapping the flow of cause to outcome in problem situations David Alman


Proventive Solutions Page 2

Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. What are HAS Maps? ......................................................................................................................... 4

2 Characteristics of HAS Maps ............................................................................................................... 4

2.1 HAS Maps are “system” maps ...................................................................................................... 4

2.2 HAS Factors in HAS Maps .............................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Perspective levels in HAS Maps .................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Integrating HAS Factors and Perspective Levels to form HAS Maps. ........................................... 7

3. Capturing the problem situation in HAS Maps ................................................................................ 10

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 11

Notations............................................................................................................................................... 12

References ............................................................................................................................................ 15

Attachment 1 HAS Maps showing how the template adapts to differing problem situations ............ 16

Performance Issue: Causes of client service dissatisfaction ............................................................ 17

Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues ...................................................................... 18

Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury.......................................................................................... 19

Employee Grievance – Employment entitlement ............................................................................. 20

Employee Grievance: Workplace Harassment complaint................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues ........................................................................ 22



Abstract

Human Activity System (HAS) Maps visually illustrate and capture the “flow” of causes and outcomes

in a problem situation.

In HAS Mapping a problem situation is viewed as occurring within a “system”, a Human Activity

System (HAS), where the “system” allows a problem situation’s causes and effects to be identified

and shaped into a causal relationship flow map, so underlying issues and their interrelationships can

be better recognised and addressed.

The flow of causes to outcomes within a problem situation can be developed, for example, based on

using, for example, “but-for” analysis (i.e. “but for an act or omission of X, Y would not have

occurred”), and “Why- Because” analysis.

HAS Maps are versatile and can be applied to investigating, assessing, and addressing a wide range

of problem situations.



1. What are HAS Maps?

Human Activity System (HAS) Maps [1] capture causes of organisational problem situations, and

their outcomes, in “flow” maps.

HAS Maps are:

Visual and an easy to grasp way to explain what is involved in a problem situation.

Flexible and can be applied to a range of problem situations.

Able to identify and focus on core issues and key points for improvement.

Able to express a problem situation in a way that lends insight and understanding to causes

involved, and how they interrelate.

A wide variety of problem situations can be explored using HAS Maps, and in this paper examples of

workplace performance; employee complaints; workplace Health & Safety; and work unit

performance are provided to illustrate their versatility.

2 Characteristics of HAS Maps

2.1 HAS Maps are “system” maps

HAS Maps are “system” maps in that they capture problem situations through “system”

characteristics [2]. This in turn means that HAS Maps view and treat problem situations as

problemed “systems”.

In this respect HAS Maps use system characteristics when assessing problem situations, such as:

Identifying the Purpose that describes the aim or goal of HAS Maps, which is the basis for;

Identifying the interacting causes and outcome factors within problem situations; using

Different lenses or perspective levels [3] to identify causes and outcome factors within problem situations;

Recognising the context within which problem situations and the factors involved; and

That HAS Maps form a boundary around problem situations in terms of what is included and excluded; and

“Symptoms”, also described as “System conditions” or “events”, are shown as the outcomes of both problem situations and HAS Maps.



In Diagram 1 this “system” is put together to show how they “nest”, interrelate, and interact as a

whole to form a “flow” model in HAS Maps.

Diagram 1 Problem Situations as HAS Map flows.

2.2 HAS Factors in HAS Maps

In organisation settings Human Activity System (HAS) factors are a useful guide in terms of what to

look for, and can provide the breadth-range – of cause factors could be considered around a

problem situation [4].

HAS factors can include:

A Purpose that describes the aim or goal of a Human Activity System. In HAS Maps the

purpose describes the aim or goal to describe problem situations as HAS Maps. For

example “To identify...”; To investigate...”.

Problem situations as HAS Map “flows”

Characteristics

What is covered in problem situations form the Boundary for HAS Maps

The Context is relevant to both problem situation and HAS Map content

The problem situation provides the Purpose or aim for HAS Maps

Problem situations have symptoms that are HAS Map Outcomes

The Cause factors are identified using different Perspectives in HAS Maps



The Meaning contained within problem situations such as values, beliefs, norms, attitudes,

assumptions, rights etc;

Social relations including conflicts, leadership styles, use of power, social networks;

Material factors such as:

o Human Design (e.g. technology, policies, rules, roles, competencies, processes,

reporting standards, accountability structures); and

o Environment, both built and natural.

The HAS Model factors in Diagram 2 shows examples of interacting causes in problem situations.

Diagram 2. HAS Model factors with example causes

2.3 Perspective levels in HAS Maps

HAS Maps include different perspectives, lenses, or “ways of seeing” a problem situation [5]. This

allows a problem situation to be explored from different angles, and for cause factors involved to be

better recognised and understood. Perspective Levels provide a “depth” to the range of causes

recognised as involved in problem situations. These Perspective Levels are listed in Table 1.

Meaning Values, Beliefs, Attitudes, Assumptions, Norms, Culture, “Rights”

Human Design (Means)

Management systems, practices, processes, standards, procedures, reporting structures, policies, rules, roles, competencies

Outcomes of the problem situation

Social Relations Leadership styles, behaviours, relationships, conflicts, disputes, collaborations, power, influence, social networks.

Environment (Natural & Built)

Including fuel, water, temperature, lighting, work space, building conditions

Purpose – to describe the aim of the HAS Map situation

Material



Perspective Level Explanation

Purpose Aim or Goal

Referential Values, priorities, intentions that provide meaning and a basis for assessment, judgement, measurement.

Governance How resources are organised, directed, coordinated, structured, such as management systems, organisational structures.

Transactional Interactions covering, for example: Designed work processes, practices, activities, behaviours, and social relations.

Transactions can also include human interaction with;

Physical conditions such as built and natural environments such as building configurations and conditions, and eco-systems.

Table 1 HAS Map Perspective Level Framework

HAS Maps “flow” through each of these Perspective Levels. Where Perspective Levels allow for

consideration of different ways of seeing and understanding the causes involved in problem

situation. Causes are traced in a consequential “flow” form through these Perspective Levels in a

linked and interrelated way to outcomes [6].

2.4 Integrating HAS Factors and Perspective Levels to form HAS Maps.

There is an alignment between HAS Factors, as exampled in Diagram 2, and Perspective Levels, as

exampled in Table 1. This alignment is illustrated in Diagram 3 in the following way:

Purpose: Both the HAS model and Perspective Level Framework include a Purpose.

Referential: Referential Perspective Level and Meaning are equivalent terms providing

underlying sources of self reference that influence how we see and do things.

Governance: Refers to how things are organised or arranged providing rules and constraints and

control on how things are or expected to be done. This can include issues relating to Human

Designed factors such as reporting arrangements, production and service delivery system design,

role design.

Transactional: covers two aspects:

o Human Designed processes, procedures, practices within, for example, production and

service control systems. As well as interactions between people (Social relations) such

as behaviours and practices. Such transactions include interactions between the Human



Designed and people, for example how people and the computer systems and

equipment they use to do their work. Transactions can include the interaction of people

with:

o Physical surroundings such as the built and natural environments. This can include

building conditions; and other physical aspects of a human designed environment such

as chemicals, and machinery, as well as the natural environment like eco-systems, and

biohazards.

In HAS mapping we are looking across different Perspective Levels for the causes of a problem

situation, referencing HAS factors as prompts, and tracing them in cause “flows” to work out what

causes are involved; how they interact; and how they affect outcomes.

Diagram 3. HAS Map showing flow direction of cause factors across Perspective Levels

HAS Maps therefore have the potential to identify both immediate issues for improvement, and

underlying key issues relevant for significant sustainable change.

Purpose:

Human Activity System (HAS) Map

Referential

Level

Governance

Level

Transactional

Level

Outcomes

Flow direction

Meaning Such as the values, assumptions, and beliefs that

cause appreciation of particular priorities and intentions and not others

Means How things are organised, directed, structured

such as plans, organisation structures, accountability reporting

Social relations and Material How people and processes and the physical

environment interact

Outcomes Consequential outcomes



The theoretical HAS Map model in Diagram 3 is exampled in Diagram 4. Diagram 4 examples a

performance issue: Delays in processing payments.

Diagram 4. HAS Map Example

Human Activity System Map

Purpose: Identify causes of delays in processing payments

Delays in processing payments

Inefficient work practices

Loss of staff Staff incompetence Increased return

of defective goods

Supervisor behaviour

Lack of training

Basis of Product Selection Reliability Testing

Poor “on boarding”, role induction,

training programs

Poor selection & performance management

Inefficient processing system

Manual practices Computer system

Lack of role accountability

Belief in a low cost / high volume

marketing strategy

Senior management attitudes influence a culture of conflict

Senior management focus on an efficiency organisation,

not “capability”

Customer complaints

Group behaviour

Transactional Level

Governance Level

Referential Level

Work overload

Outcomes



Additional HAS Mapping examples are provided in Attachment 1 and cover:

Performance Issue: Client service dissatisfaction

Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues

Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury

Employee Grievance: Employment entitlement

Employee Grievance: Workplace Harassment complaint

Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues

These HAS Map examples diagrammatically show problem situation causes and their relationships,

flowing through different Perspective Levels, to understand problem situation causes to their

outcomes.

In practice more detail could be, and may be, required to satisfactorily complete a HAS Map. For

this reason the HAS Map examples in Attachment 1 should be viewed as illustrative of how a

problem situation can be captured.

3. Capturing the problem situation in HAS Maps

A Narrative approach can be used to gather information and contributions from those involved in

the problem situation through discussions, stories, conversations, examples, and explanations of

issues, along with supporting qualitative and quantitative material.

Narratives can take place, for example, through interviews, facilitated workshops, and Open Surveys.

Maintaining participant and stakeholder confidence and trust in what is shared is important and

therefore HAS Mapping occurs in an environment where confidentiality and privacy are conscious

matters for consideration and are respected. Addressing confidentiality and privacy issues are

important in also encouraging openness and the sharing of information and viewpoints on causes

involved in problem situations.

Through the consolidation, or “convergence”, of material from narratives and other sources,

material is integrated and “streamed” into a flow of interacting and interdependent causes using a

HAS Map “model” template. The cause and outcome flows in a HAS Map should be unforced and

“fit & work”, that is demonstrate both construct and face validity [7]



A “but-for” test can be used in the development of HAS Maps. The “but-for” test, for example, can

be based on a “balance of probability” to develop a cause and outcome flow. That is, “but-for an act

or omission of X, Y would not have occurred”. Alternatively other forms of analysis can be applied

such as using a “Why-because” analysis [8].

Conclusion

HAS Mapping offers versatile and visual means of identifying and understanding the causes of

problem situations, and also shows how these causes and their outcomes are interconnected within

problem situations.

These problem situation causes involve Human Activity System (HAS) factors, and described as a

Human Activity System (HAS). Problem situation causes are identified by using HAS factors as

prompts, or checks, and by progressively taking different Perspective Levels through which to

identify the causes involved. There are options available in how to analyse causal relationships and

develop HAS Map flows, such as applying “but-for” and “Why-Because” sequences.

A HAS Map Model template provides guidance in how to structure and sequence causes to

outcomes that may include linear and non linear interactions that also result in flow lines that form

HAS Map flow diagrams.

Once such HAS Maps are developed, because they intend to illustrate a whole problem situation’s

causes and outcomes, it is believed to assist better understanding and ways to address problem

issues.

A range of HAS Maps are exampled in the Attachment to example how a HAS template can be

developed; how HAS Mapping is versatile; and how to investigate and assess a wide range of

problem situations.



Notations

[1] HAS Maps are based on integrating several Systems Thinking (ST) concepts and models. This theoretical foundation includes:

A Human Activity System (HAS) that contains “system” characteristics. This is explained further in Notation [2].

An analysis of a HAS, as a system, that involves considering points of view at different Perspective Levels. Refer to Notation [3].

HAS factors relevant to organisations as a system. This is explained further in Notation [4].

Perspective Levels, as Levels of Abstraction, that contain causes that interact and influence each other, varying from purposeful at the Referential Level to physical at the Transactional Level. This is explained in Notation [5].

HAS Maps that summarise and visually construct a flow model of a problem situation. Refer to Notation [6].

Developing HAS maps that involve qualitative analysis with similar needs of validation, and checking. Refer to Notation [7]

HAS Maps as causal flows of cause to outcomes, and can be developed and checked using techniques such as “But-why” and “Why-because”. See Notation [8].

[2] Rosalind Armson in “Growing wings on the way” (p136,137) describes fundamental features of systems:

1. A boundary defines the system as separate; 2. An environment is not part of the system, but influences the system and what the system

influences; 3. Subsystems are part of the system; 4. Subsystems and system are part of a connected hierarchical structure; 5. Subsystems have specific relationships with other subsystems, and changes to these affect

the behaviour of the system as a whole; 6. It has a purpose; 7. A system shows emergence- it is an entity in its own right, not a collection of parts.

In this article these system features are addressed as follows: 1. The HAS Map defines its boundary 2. The environment is that which is excluded from the HAS Map, but within which the HAS Map

occurs and therefore provides context; 3, 4 & 5. The subsystem characteristics and their relationships are expressed through:

a. Factors in a Human Activity System (HAS) Model, see Notation [4]. These HAS factors provide a checklist of subject issues that could be involved, and are linked to three Perspective Levels.

b. Perspective Levels are “Levels of abstraction”. That is they are multi-level structures that describe issues or activities at different levels. See Notation [5].

6. The HAS Map, as a bounded system, has a purpose upon which it is based. 7. The HAS Map may be viewed as an “entity” in its own right.

[3] Federica Russo in “Are causal analysis and system analysis compatible approaches?” (p7) cites Bunge that in carrying out a systems analysis, a HAS Mapping is a system causal analysis, that such an analysis “studies many-sides and multi-level systems and for doing so must adopt various points of view on different levels”. [4] Factors in a Human Activity System (HAS) are drawn from two sources:

“Cultural-historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Developmental Work Research (DWR)”; and



Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), specifically David Patching in “Practical Soft Systems Analysis” (p8,9), where a Human Activity system is described as “systems where human beings are undertaking activities that achieve some purpose. These systems would normally include [characteristics of] other types, such as social, man-made, and natural systems”.

[5] Rasmussen, Pejtersen, and Schmidt in “Taxonomy for Cognitive Work Analysis”, describe in Figure 10 (p43) Levels of Abstraction. This Levels of Abstraction is moderated using that found in Naikar, Hopcroft, & Moylan in “Work Domain Analysis” in Table 2 (p9). Levels of Abstraction are equated in the following Table to Perspective Levels as referenced in this paper, and result in HAS Map outcomes.

Levels of Abstraction Perspective Levels

Purposes Purpose e.g. aim or goal of the HAS Map

Priorities Referential e.g. values, priorities

General work activities & functions

Governance e.g. how resources are organised

Specific work processes Transactional e.g. activities and physical causes

Physical objects

[6] HAS Maps, as flow models, draw from both the Risk Management Framework (RMF), sometimes referred to as ActorMaps, and AcciMap methodologies of Rasmussen. These are outlined in Waterson & Jenkins in “Methodological considerations in using AcciMaps and the Risk Management Framework to analyse large-scale systemic failure”. From the RMF are drawn its two main components:

A structural hierarchy to describe actors actions at different Perspective Levels; and

Description of the contextual factors influencing the activities of actors. From AcciMaps, the flow mapping vertically integrates causal relationships across Perspective Levels. These Perspective Levels, as explained in Notation 5, as Levels of abstraction. [7] David Alman in “Open surveys and their analysis” provides an explanation of a process of capturing confidential narrative and the “convergence” involved in qualitative analysis from data to (system) model. That such an analysis also involves checking validity. The blog provides an introduction to “Fit & Work”, otherwise explained in the Notation in terms of Construct and Face Validity. [8] Anthony Hopkins in An AcciMap of the Esso Australia Gas Plant Explosion uses a strict “but for” logic to construct an AcciMap where breaking any one link in a causation flow could avert unwanted outcomes. Working through causation flows can offer a wide variety of ways in which unwanted outcomes could be addressed. This “but for” logic can also be applied in the development of HAS Maps. Such causal flow maps show the complexity involved in a problem situation, a complexity that also show how unwanted outcomes are preventable. The “but for” logic can be used for constructing a HAS Map The But-for definition is explained by Duhaime in terms of the law of Tort where, on the “balance of probability” (in civil law cases), a chain of causation is followed where in effect “but for the act or omission of X, Y outcome would not have occurred”. Peter Ladkin in “Why-Because Analysis of the Glenbrook, NSW Rail Accident and Comparison with Hopkins’s AcciMap”, examples the application of “Why-Because Analysis” on a “But-for” AcciMap,



and provides two methodologies to cross check the accuracy and adequacy of HAS Maps. In effect this means that on a HAS Map one could:

Apply a Why-Because Analysis approach to Governance and Transactional Perspective Levels;

Apply, subsequently, a Cultural – Causal Analysis to the Referential Perspective Level.



References

Alman, D. Open surveys and their analysis Website: http://proventivesolutions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/open-surveys-and-their-analysis/ Armson, R. (2011). Growing wings on the way: Systems Thinking for messy situations. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press.

But-for definition from Duhaime.org. Website: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/ButFor.aspx Helsinki University. Centre for Research Activity Development and Learning (CRADLE). Cultural-historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Developmental Work Research (DWR). Website: http://www.helsinki.fi/cradle/chat.htm Hopkins, A. An AcciMap of the Esso Australia Gas Plant Explosion Website: http://www.qrc.org.au/conference/_dbase_upl/03_spk003_Hopkins.pdf Ladkin, P. Why-Because Analysis of the Glenbrook, NSW Rail Accident and comparison with Hopkin’s Accimap Website: http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Papers/Ladkin-Glenbrook.pdf Neelam, Hopcroft, & Moylan Work Domain Analysis: Theoretical Concepts and Methodology Website: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA449707 Patching, D. (1995). Practical Soft Systems Analysis. London: Pitman Publishing. Rassmusen, Pejtersen, & Schmidt Taxonomy for Cognitive Work Analysis Website: http://www.risoe.dtu.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-m-2871.pdf Russo, F. Are causal analysis and system analysis compatible approaches? Website http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/federica/files/2009/11/Russo_CausalAnalysis-SystemAnalysis.pdf

Waterson, P.E. & Jenkins, D.P. Methodological considerations in using AcciMaps and the Risk Management Framework to analyse large-scale systemic failures. Website: http://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/7944

http://proventivesolutions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/open-surveys-and-their-analysis/

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/ButFor.aspx

http://www.helsinki.fi/cradle/chat.htm

http://www.qrc.org.au/conference/_dbase_upl/03_spk003_Hopkins.pdf

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Papers/Ladkin-Glenbrook.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA449707

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=David%20Patching&search-alias=books&sort=relevancerank

http://www.risoe.dtu.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-m-2871.pdf

http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/federica/files/2009/11/Russo_CausalAnalysis-SystemAnalysis.pdf

http://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/7944



Attachment 1 HAS Maps showing how the template adapts to differing problem situations

HAS Map of a Performance Issue: Causes of client service dissatisfaction

HAS Map of a Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues

HAS Map of an Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury

HAS Map of an Employee Grievance : Employment entitlement

HAS Map of an Employee Grievance: Workplace Harassment complaint

HAS Map of a Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues



Performance Issue: Causes of client service dissatisfaction

from IT sofware


Purpose: Identify causes of client service dissatisfaction

Transactional Level

Referential Level

Executive emphasis on maintaining existing

processes & practices over continuous improvement

Changes based on seeking efficiencies from IT software

improvement

No operational improvement plan

Customer complaints not

investigated: No “root cause”

investigations

No management system for balancing workloads or staff

rotation.

Insufficient training in role

standards

Management decide to terminate staff based on anticipated IT Software efficiencies

Governance Level

Implementation problems and delays before management action redundancies

Increased workloads

Employees sense lack of management support

Staff stress claims increase

Increased staff absences

Drop in productivity

Loss of clients & client dissatisfaction

Outcomes



Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues


Purpose: Identify Customer Contact Centre Issues

Outcomes

Transactional Level

Governance Level

Referential Level

Run Customer Contact Centre at

minimal cost

Update of Customer Contact Centre information by “back

end” a low priority

Customer Contact Centre standards and practices

not up to date

“Back end” policy and information not

up to date

Initial customer contact

Enquiry Process

Specific responses to customer

queries

Enquiry completion

Negative feedback not recognised in comments, nor fedback in

Customer Contact Centre

Positive customer feedback

Negative customer

feedback

Customer feedback system in place but not

effectively applied

Lack of Interpersonal customer skills training

& refresher training



Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury

Human Activity System (HAS) Map

Purpose: Accident investigation

Outcomes

Transactional Level

Governance Level

Referential Level

Priority on efficiency & cost cutting

H&S risk management practices not reinforced

Management priority on production

outcomes

Machine maintenance schedules affected by cost

cutting decisions H&S checks not carried out

Delays in routine machine maintenance

schedules

Machine guard sensor not operating

Machine guard not functioning

Employee rushing to complete job

Slip on oil leak on machine platform

Press operator injured by machine

Time off on Workers

Compensation

Injury subject to external

investigation and penalty



Employee Grievance – Employment entitlement


Purpose: Conflict analysis of a grievance – Application of time-off provisions.

Outcomes

Transactional Level

Governance Level

Referential Level

Employee Management

Importance of supporting young child with no family

support available

Employee shift work conflicts with school policy on pick up

and drop off times

Employee requests application of time off arrangements

Employee raises formal grievance

HR policy based on Enterprise

Agreement (Union priority, supported

by management)

Executive concern over loss of

customers – service delivery issues in

competitive market

HR Work and Family Balance policy

Management Time Off policy provisions subject to employer

discretion

Line manager under pressure to improve

service delivery performance

Line manager refuses time off request of employee based on excessive workload demands do not permit

1

2

3




Purpose: Identify causes of workplace harassment complaint

Outcomes

Transactional Level

Governance Level

Referential Level

Management Employee Work Group

Long term employees in an established team, providing

consistent service

Inexperienced manager with attention on senior

management relationships

Work group rejects suggestion

Employee raises a suggested improvement to group work practices

Work group criticises employee and makes repeated fun of a

disfigurement

Employee improvement suggestion raised with manager in front of an

executive, who supports the idea.

New idea implemented into work group by manager

Employee informally raises harassment concerns

Manager dismisses and ignores employee

concerns

Employee raises formal harassment complaint

No regular meetings or planning meetings with work group to address work issues

New employee to team with history of providing new ideas

that improve services



Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues

Purpose: Identify IT Division performance issues in meeting customer commitments

Customer Key Outcome

issues: Delivery delays

Help Desk Key Outcome issues: Repeated complaints

unaddressed

Client Services Key Outcome

issues: Inability to support customer Projects

Key Outcome issues: Project backlogs

Operations Key Outcome issues:

Misalignment of IT to Customer priorities

Steps: 1. Draw a “Macro Level” map of the process level, showing only the main steps or roles involved; 2. Develop HAS Maps around each step or role to identify causes and their outcomes that affect performance. This should include both ‘lateral” transaction causes, and “vertical” structural causes. 3.Develop “what should be” HAS Maps to identify the system changes that could improve performance.


Outcomes

Transactional

Governance

Referential

Outcomes

Transactional

Governance

Referential

Outcomes

Transactional

Governance

Referential

Outcomes

Transactional

Governance

Referential

Outcomes

Transactional

Governance

Referential



About the author

David Alman lives in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and is the business owner of Proventive Solutions, which offers services in Organisational Health. Organisational Health is a broad overview term that refers to assessing and improving performance and well being of both an organisation and its employees, recognising there is a nexus between the two.

Further explanation through various articles, blogs, slides, on different subjects can be found on Proventive Solutions at WordPress, along with contact details. Please refer to: http://proventivesolutions.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/about-proventive-solutions/ This article is part of a body of work on Systems Thinking with a common base around the idea of looking at, and addressing, situations through different “Perspective Levels”. Other articles in this body of work include: Health & Safety System Approaches at http://www.slideshare.net/davidalman/health-safety-system-approaches and http://en.calameo.com/read/001450934d63ceedb3266 Multilevel System Analysis : An introduction to Systems Thinking http://www.slideshare.net/davidalman/multilevel-system-analysis and http://en.calameo.com/read/001450934d8a5a5d9b090

http://proventivesolutions.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/about-proventive-solutions/

http://www.slideshare.net/davidalman/health-safety-system-approaches

http://www.slideshare.net/davidalman/health-safety-system-approaches

http://en.calameo.com/read/001450934d63ceedb3266

http://www.slideshare.net/davidalman/multilevel-system-analysis

http://en.calameo.com/read/001450934d8a5a5d9b090

Business

Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping