Risk Analysis-systems Analysis and Covey 7 Habits

8/11/2019 Risk Analysis-systems Analysis and Covey 7 Habits

1/10

Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2001

217 0272-4332/01/0400-0217$16.00/1 2001 Society for Risk Analysis

Risk Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Coveys Seven Habits

Yacov Y. Haimes1,2

This article relates problem solving to the common approaches of the gestaltholistic philos-ophies of systems analysis, risk analysis, and Stephen Coveys Seven Habits of Highly Effec-tive People.

Guiding principles developed on the basis of these philosophies provide thefoundations for methodological frameworks that build on a plethora of theory, methods,tools, and techniques. Although systems analysis and risk analysis differ in their historical

evolution and technical maturity, both study and solve problems using methodological

frameworks that share a holistic vision.

KEY WORDS:

Risk analysis; systems analysis; Coveys Seven Habits; holism; risk management

INTRODUCTION

Are engineering-systems analysis and risk analy-sis grounded on similar principles? Do they representtwo distinct fields or disciplines, or in reality, do they

reinforce and add synergy to each other, and consti-tute a unified approach to problem solving? Manysystems and risk analysts find themselves perplexed bythese questions. The two entities have a common philo-sophical approach to problem solving, but they differ intheir historical evolution and technical maturity. Bothgroups aspire to the gestaltholistic philosophy in theirproblem-solving approaches. In all of these, method-ological frameworks, which build on a plethora oftheory, methods, tools, and techniques, constitute theinstruments with which problems are studied, as-

sessed, understood, managed, and solved, to thegreatest extent possible.

The systems

concept has a long history.

3

Al-though the term system itself was not emphasized inearlier writings, the history of this concept includesmany illustrious names. As a natural philosophy, wecan trace it back to the Greek philosophers. The dia-logues of Plato (as cited in Hutchins, 1952b), one ofthe most important thinkers and writers in the historyof Western culture, are actually dramas that are pri-marily concerned with the presentation, criticism,and conflict of philosophical ideas. His theory offorms

constitutes early systems thinking. From thephilosophy of Aristotle (384322 B.C.) we read: Wehave already laid down that there is one physical ele-ment which makes up the system

of the bodies thatmove in a circle, and besides this four bodies owing

their existence to the four principles

, the motion oftheir latter bodies being of two kinds: eitherfrom

thecentre or to

the centre. These four bodies are fire, air,water, earth (as cited in Hutchins, 1952a, p. 445). In1912, German psychologists Max Wertheimer, KurtKoffka, and Wolfgang Kohler founded thegestalt

psy-

1

University of Virginia, 112A Olsson Hall, Charlottesville, VA22903; [email protected].

2

Dr. Yacov Y. Haimes is Quarles Professor of Engineering and Ap-plied Science, and Founding Director of the Center for Risk Man-agement of Engineering Systems, at the University of Virginia.This article is the text from a speech given by Dr. Haimes on De-cember 4, 2000, at the annual meeting of the Society for RiskAnalysis (SRA) held in Arlington, Virginia. The speech was givenfollowing Dr. Haimes acceptance of the SRA DistinguishedAchievement Award.

3

The terms system engineering and systems analysis, whichmay have different connotations to some individuals, will be usedinterchangeably here.

Perspectives


2/10

218 Haimes

chology, which emphasizes the study of experience asa unified whole.

The German wordgestalt

means pat-tern, form, or shape. Gestalt

psychologists believethatpattern

, orform

, is the most important part of ex-perience. The whole pattern gives meaning to each in-

dividual element of experience. In other words, thewhole is more important than the sum of its parts.

In 1948, Norbert Wiener published his seminalbook, Cybernetics

(Wiener, 1961). His work was thebasis for the outgrowth of computer technology, in-formation theory, self-regulating machines, and feed-back control. Bertalanffy (1968) coined the termgen-eral systems theory

around 1950. Kenneth Boulding(1953), an economist, published work ongeneral em-pirical theory

and claimed that it was the same as Ber-talanffys theory. In 1954, the Society for GeneralSystems Research was organized by the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science. The So-cietys central mission was the development of theo-retical systems applicable to more than one tradi-tional department of knowledge. Other goals were toinvestigate the isomorphy of concepts, laws, andmodels in various fields, and to help in useful trans-fers from one field to another.

Although the philosophy of risk analysis doesnot enjoy the same formal, historical documentationas does the systems concept, it has, nevertheless, aneven longer tradition. Ancient civilizations adheredto structural strength, reliability, and safety, even ifthey did not call their practice risk analysis. With-

out complying with the basic tenets that guide todaysapproach to risk analysis, how can we explain, for ex-ample, the durability of such structures as the pyra-mids in Egypt and Mexico?

The entire process of risk assessment and man-agement is essentially a synthesis and amalgamationof the empirical and the normative, the quantitativeand the qualitative, and objective and subjective evi-dence. It has been built on contributions of individu-als from diverse disciplines. For example, many of thetheories, quantitative tools, and methods employedby risk analysts today were developed primarily by

mathematicians, statisticians, biostatisticians, healthscientists, and engineers. At the same time, social, be-havioral, and organizational scientists have markedlycontributed to our understanding and appreciation ofthe human dimension of risk analysis, for example,human perception, organizational and institutionalbarriers, communication, trust, and conflict resolu-tion. Ultimately, in recognition of the evolving field ofrisk analysis and its growing constituencies, the Soci-ety for Risk Analysis (SRA) was founded in 1980.

According to its charter, the SRA: brings togetherindividuals from diverse disciplines and from differ-ent countries and provides them opportunities to ex-change information, ideas, and methodologies forrisk analysis and risk problem-solving. Indeed, dur-

ing the last 2 decades, risk analysis has emerged as aneffective and comprehensive philosophical and meth-odological framework that supplements and comple-ments the overall management of almost all aspectsof our lives. Managers of health care, the environ-ment, and physical infrastructure systems (e.g., waterresources, transportation, and electrical power, to citea few) all incorporate risk analysis in their decision-making processes. The omnipresent adaptation ofrisk analysis by many disciplines and its deploymentby industry and government agencies have led to anunprecedented development of theory, methodology,and practical tools.

One way to gain a greater understanding of thecommonality and synergy between systems and riskanalysis is to build on the sound and well-publicizedideas of Stephen Covey in his best-selling book, TheSeven Habits of Highly Effective People

(Covey, 1989).It is possible to relate these Seven Habits to the basicprinciples on which the philosophies of systems and riskanalysis are based. Indeed, Coveys journey of personaldevelopment as detailed in his book has much in com-mon with the holistic systems concept in risk analysis.

Viewed in parallel, the three philosophies, sys-tems analysis, risk analysis and Coveyshave a lot in

common. Each is driven by philosophical underpin-nings that are translated into universal guiding prin-ciples. The following guiding principles constitute thebridge between the systems philosophy and the pleth-ora of methodological frameworks in systems analysisthat have been developed over the years. Each frame-work, which builds on appropriate methods, tech-niques, and tools for solving a specific problem, iseither constructed or selected by the analyst or thepractitioner. Figure 1 displays the common preceptsthat characterize all three philosophies, the guidingprinciples for each of them, and a sample of a meth-

odological framework for risk analysis.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Systems analysis is distinguished by its practicalphilosophy that advocates holistic cognition and de-cision making (Haimes, 1977, 1998). This philosophyis grounded on the arts, natural and behavioral sci-ences, and engineering; it is supported by a comple-ment of modeling methodologies, optimization and


3/10

Risk Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Coveys Seven Habits 219

simulation techniques, data management procedures,and decision-making approaches. The ultimate pur-pose is to:

1. Build understanding of the systems nature,functional behavior, and interaction with itsenvironment;

2. Improve the decision-making process (e.g., inplanning, design, development, operation,

and management); and3. Identify, quantify, and evaluate risks, uncer-

tainties, and variability within the decision-making process.

The following universal guiding principles serveas a critical bridge between systems philosophy andthe associated methodological frameworks that bringabout a successful systems analysis:

Adhere to the systemic philosophy of holism.

Establish systems theories upon which to de-velop appropriate methodologies, techniques,and tools.

Recognize the hierarchical decision-makingstructure (multiple decision makings, constitu-encies, power brokers, etc.).

Focus on the centrality of multivision model-ing in problem solving and on the roles playedin quantitative analysis by the building blocksof mathematical models (e.g., state, random,decision, and exogenous variables).

Appreciate the multiple objective nature ofmost systems:

(a) There is no single solution to most real-world problems.

(b) There are choices and trade-offs.

Respond to the temporal domain: past, present,future.

Fig. 1. The holistic philosophy of risk analysis, systems analysis, and Coveys Seven Habits.


4/10

220 Haimes

Incorporate the culture, vision, mentality, andinterpersonal relationships, among the multi-ple decision makers to build an informal net-work of trust.

Address the uncertain world.

Strive for continuous improvement of quality. Honor the cross-disciplinary nature of effec-

tive problem solving. Focus on the centrality of human emotional

intelligence and interpersonal relationships.

It is impractical to list here the very large numberof theories, methodological frameworks, methods,techniques, and tools for systems analysis that havebeen developed during the last 50 years (see e.g., Hall[1989], Sage [1992], and Sage & Rouse [1999]).

RISK ANALYSIS

Risk analysis is also distinguished by its practicalphilosophy that advocates holism in assessing andmanaging risk.

4

Risk management

is commonly dis-tinguished from risk assessment

, even though somemay use the term risk management to connote theentire process of risk assessment and management.Similar to systems analysis, this philosophy is alsogrounded on the arts, natural and behavioral sciences,and engineering, and is supported by a complement ofmodeling methodologies, optimization and simulationtechniques, data-management procedures, and deci-

sion-making approaches. Indeed, the same principlesthat guide systems analysis also guide risk analysis,with the following specific addition: in risk assessment,the analyst often attempts to answer the followingthree questions (Kaplan & Garrick, 1981): (1) Whatcan go wrong? (2) What is the likelihood that it wouldgo wrong? and (3) What are the consequences?

Answers to these questions help risk analystsidentify, measure, quantify, and evaluate risks andtheir consequences and impacts.

Risk management builds on the risk-assessmentprocess by seeking answers to a second set of threequestions (Haimes 1991): (1) What can be done and

what options are available? (2) What are the trade-offs in terms of all costs, benefits, and risks? and (3)What are the impacts of current management deci-sions on future options?

Note that the last question is the most criticalone in any managerial decision-making process. Pol-

icy decisions cannot be deemed optimal in anysense of the word unless the negative and positive im-pacts of current decisions on future options are as-sessed and evaluated (to the greatest extent pos-sible). Holistic risk management can be realized only

when the above questions are addressed in thebroader context of management. This means that allcosts, benefits, risks, and impacts of all viable optionsand their associated trade-offs are addressed withinthe hierarchical organizational structure. A risk man-agement approach that harmonizes with the overallsystem management must also address the followingfour sources of failure (Haimes, 1991): (a) hardware,(b) software, (c) organizational, and (d) human (seeFig. 2). This set of failure sources is intended to be in-ternally comprehensive, that is, comprehensive withinthe systems own internal environment.

5

These four el-ements are not necessarily independent of each other,however. The distinction between software and hard-ware is not always straightforward, and separating hu-man and organizational failure is often a difficult task.

COVEYS PARADIGM, SYSTEMSANALYSIS, AND RISK ANALYSIS

From the outset, Covey stresses understanding

paradigms

the lenses through which we see the uni-verse. Furthermore, he states that it is not what hap-pens to us that affects our behavior; rather, it is our

interpretation of what happens. Since our interpreta-tion of the world we live in determines how we createnew and innovative solutions to our problems, it is es-sential that we understand the elemental interrela-tionships in the world that surrounds us. Thus, bothunderstanding the systemic nature of the universeand defining the system that we need to address areimperative requirements for problem solving, andenable the shift to the paradigm of holistic thinking.

Just as the shift to Coveys Principle-CenteredParadigm enables the adoption of his Seven Habits,the shift to holistic thinking enables the success ofsystems analysis and risk analysis. Indeed, at theircore, the three entitiessystems analysis, risk analysis,and Coveys Seven Habitsare unified by their com-

mon holistic vision and philosophy of the world and

of human and organizational behavior.

The guidingprinciples underpinning Coveys philosophy are rep-resented by the following Seven Habits:

4

Risk is defined here as a measure of the probability and severityof adverse effects (Lowrance, 1976).

5

External sources of failures are not discussed here because theyare commonly system dependent.


5/10


Habit 1: Be proactive. Habit 2: Begin with the end in mind. Habit 3: Put first things first. Habit 4: Think win/win (or no deal). Habit 5: Seek first to understand, then to be

understood. Habit 6: Synergize. Habit 7: Sharpen the saw.

Viewed in a problem-solving light, the first threehabits make an essential contribution to the solution:the first habit frames the problem, the second deter-mines the desired outcome, and the third organizes

time and effort toward eventual solution. From thispoint, Habits 4 through 6 are guiding principles thatenable personal growth toward interdependence. Theystress communication and understanding in relation-ships, and teamwork and creativity in the problem-solving process. Thus, they help direct

the efforts mobi-lized in the first three habits. Habit 7 stresses constantre-evaluation and improvement. This combination ofelements is very similar to those necessary for success-ful systems and risk analyses. The following section re-lates the Seven Habits to holistic-systems thinking andto the six questions (discussed earlier) that constitute

the risk assessment and management process (Haimes,1998; Haimes & Schneiter, 1996).

Habit 1: Be Proactive

The first habit deals with how to view the problemand where to focus ones energies. Coveys primarytool for this is the set of concentric circles: the circle ofconcern

, which includes everything that concerns us;and the circle of influence

, which includes the elements

that are under our control. From a systems standpoint,this can relate to the definition of a system and its ele-ments. The systems boundary defines the contextwithin which the problem will be addresseda subsetwithin the circle of concern that is to be studied. (It is

also possible that elements in the system lie outside thecircle of concern, e.g., externalities.) Successful deci-sion making, problem solving, or risk analysis in gen-eral requires understanding the elements within boththe circle of influence and the circle of concern. For ex-ample, almost all of the six basic questions in risk as-sessment and management are driven by the firsthabit, seeking to understand the sources of risk andthe ways that they can be managed.

Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind

In Coveys context, this habit involves mentally

creating a solution to problems, or developing a mis-sion statement. Beginning with the end in mind is oneof the cornerstones of systems thinking. Often re-ferred to as the top-down approach to problemsolving, it involves determining overall goals for asystem before beginning the design. For the spaceagency, for example, this would mean determiningwhether the goal of NASA is to undertake a few largemissions and ensure the likelihood of all succeeding,or to launch a greater number of spacecraft with thechance that some might fail.

Begin with the end in mind is also termed the

leadership habit. One means of applying it is by statingthe intended goal in the leaders mission statement. Allplans and future actions should follow from this mis-sion statement.

Beginning with the end in mind, the risk analystis guided to seek a comprehensive understanding ofall sources of risk; managing these constitutes the ul-timate goal (or end). The first question, What can gowrong? addresses this. Specifically, through Hierar-chical Holographic Modeling (Haimes, 1981, 1998),one is able to identify the as-planned or successscenario of the system, that is, all the sources of risk,which if properly controlled or managed, would lead

to the successful mission (or project). Likewise, thepreliminary steps of systems analysis provide a mis-sion for the project by determining goals, require-ments, specifications, or criteria by which eventualproposed solutions would be evaluated.

Habit 3: Put First Things First

This habit is designed to help concentrate effortstoward more important activities in a less urgent

Fig. 2. System failure.


6/10

222 Haimes

atmosphere. Instead of trying to address the myriadof problems that the first two habits may bring tolight, Covey places the emphasis on time manage-ment, leaving the eventual solution of the problem tothe individual. The extensive set of actions available

to help solve problems in the journey of personalgrowth is analogous to the array of problem solvingapproaches in engineering and risk analysis in general.No specific approach is appropriate in every situation.It should be left to the individual problem-solver touse the best method in a particular application. Thekey step is to follow the goal-oriented systems ap-proach and use the most appropriate tools for thespecific problem. Habit 3 is imperative in the risk-identification process, where multitudinous sourcesof risks are identified, and a systemic process is re-quired to identify, prioritize, assess, and manage riskscenarios from multiple overlapping perspectives of asystem. Limited resources for the risk analysis mustbe focused early on those scenarios that contributemost to the overall risk in the system. Qualitativescreenings of scenarios and classes of scenarios areappropriate initially, while quantitative assessmentsmay be applied once all scenarios have been priori-tized. In addition, time management tools commonlyused in systems engineering that are analogous toCoveys Time Management Matrix include theProject Evaluation and Review Technique, the CriticalPath Method (Sage & Rouse, 1999), and the SoftwareEngineering Institutes Continuous Risk Manage-

ment (Higuera & Haimes, 1996). These help orga-nize the order of events and assist in time manage-ment by indicating those activities whose completiontimes directly affect the total project time.

Habit 4: Think Win/Win (or No Deal)

Instead of focusing on outsmarting or out ma-neuvering the opponent, Habit 4 stresses that bothparties should work together to find a mutually ben-eficial outcome. This concept can come into play inthe systems analysis process in the area of creating

alternative solutions, and in the working relation-ships of group members. Furthermore, problem solv-ing always involves trade-offs among conflicting ob-jectivescosts, benefits, risks, and impacts. This habitdirectly relates to the three questions in risk manage-ment. For example, NASAs current mission state-ment calls for four objectives: faster, cheaper, better,and safer. However laudable this is, the dilemma thatthe agency faces is achieving the proper balanceamong these noncommensurate and often conflicting

and competing objectives. Only when all viable op-tions have been considered, and the trade-offs amongall associated costs, benefits, risks, and impacts areaddressed, can a sound policy be formulated and itsimpact on future options be assessed. Furthermore,

the space agency must consider its multiple constitu-encies in the decision-making process: the U.S. Con-gress and Administration, the scientific community,NASAs employees, and the public at large. In suchsituations, win/lose alternatives are abundant, butmore can be gained by thinking win/win. On a per-sonal level, in any endeavor, constructive coopera-tion between group members is essential for theeventual success of a group effort. Win/lose thinkingwill erode the informal network of trust that is thefoundation of successful group interaction. A culturethat embodies win/win cooperation has a muchgreater chance for success.

Indeed, a central tenet of the vision of successfulorganizations is building and codifying trust thattranscends institutions, organizations, decision mak-ers, professionals, and the public at large. Because aholistic vision that charts the path for successful ac-complishments must be built on and sustained bytrust, Davenport and Prusak (1998) advocate threetenets for the establishment of trust: (1) trust must bevisible, (2) trust must be ubiquitous, and (3) trust-worthiness must start at the top.

Habit 5: Seek First to Understand,Then to Be Understood

This habit is central to proper communication;the lack of which constitutes an Achilles heel for anyeffective systems or risk analysis. Poor communica-tion within institutional/organizational complexity isat the heart of most sources of risk. Barriers such asthe pervasive culture of turf protection are impedi-ments to effective communication. Because the turfsyndrome often blocks intra- and interagency coop-eration and collaboration, it increases the sources ofrisks. Turf preservation also prevents a holistic and

gestalt

-based approach to risk management, leadingto what is known as stove-piping. For example, in aseminal book on organizational behavior entitled TheBoundaryless Organization

, Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick,and Kerr (1995) delineate four types of boundariesthat characterize most organizations and that impedecommunication:

1. Vertical: the boundaries between levels andranks of people.


7/10


2. Horizontal: the boundaries between func-tions and disciplines.

3. External: the boundaries between the organi-zation and its suppliers, customers, and regu-lators.

4. Geographic: the boundaries between nations,cultures, and markets.

These organizational boundaries are at the heart offailures to communicate effectively. A variety of otherperspectives have been extensively adopted in paststudies. The challenge is to develop the leadership thatwould enable such organizations and their partnersand customers to find the right balance of boundary-less behavior, to determine how permeable to makethe boundaries, and where to place them (Ashkenas etal.

, 1995). The best way to address all of these impedi-ments is to build on a sustained organizational trust

that is visible, ubiquitous, and starts at the top. Clearly,this demands the participation, commitment, and ded-ication of all members, at all levels, and across all orga-nizational boundaries. Trust can be achieved by nour-ishing an organizational culture that implants anenvironment conducive to active participation and col-laboration. This means promoting knowledge manage-ment and employee empowerment, flattening the or-ganizational hierarchy, and recognizing that the majorassets of the organization rest in the employees and intheir knowledge and experience.

In their book, Working Knowledge

, Davenport

and Prusak (1998) share with the reader the followingknowledge-management principles:

Knowledge originates and resides in peoplesminds.

Knowledge sharing requires trust. Technology enables new knowledge behaviors. Knowledge sharing must be encouraged and

rewarded. Management support and resources are es-

sential. Knowledge is creative and should be encour-

aged to develop in unexpected ways.

Seek first to understand, then to be under-stood also highlights the importance of viewing ev-ery process from the perspective of the customer. Thecustomer must always be satisfied, whether it is a con-sumer or the next workstation in an assembly pro-cess. Again, understanding the customers perspec-tive is essential. The advantages of applying Habit 5to interpersonal communication are obvious as well.Covey calls this empathic listening.

Habit 6: Synergize

Habit 6 builds on the two preceding habits. Withthe ability to communicate openly and maturely, cre-ative cooperation and problem solving become possi-ble. The role of synergy in systems and risk analysis isparticularly important. According to Covey, synergymeans not only that the whole is greater than the sumof the parts, but that the relationship between theparts is an element in itself. By its nature, systemsanalysis views systems or processes as the aggrega-tion of multiple components. It is often helpful or in-structive to understand a system by analyzing itsparts, but this does not necessarily ensure a compre-hensive understanding of the entire process. Onlythrough studying the relations among componentscan the true nature of the system be grasped.

Coveys discussion of synergy primarily deals

with relationships among people. This, of course, isdirectly applicable to both systems and risk analysis,because people with different backgrounds and posi-tions are commonly teamed to solve a particularproblem. The more successful teams will exhibit syn-ergistic traits: they will approach the problem withopen minds, communicate in a manner that encour-ages creative interaction, and value the differences ineach others approaches to the problem. This will en-able them to recognize and assess all possible ap-proaches as solution options. Only by inspecting allpossibilities can success be achieved.

Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw

By concluding with this habit, Covey hopes thatpeople will continually re-evaluate their personalprogress, reshape their goals, and strive to improve.These issues have become quite common in todaysengineering environment, where most successfulcompanies and organizations engage their personnelin continuing education through seminars, workshops,and focus groups. Iteration also plays a primary role insystems and risk analysis. In client relationships, con-

stant feedback is necessary to assure correct under-standing. As our knowledge about a system developsthroughout the problem-solving process, it is neces-sary to re-evaluate the original goals.

Summary of the Seven Habits andTheir Implications

Coveys first three habits correspond to the or-der of problem solving in both systems and risk anal-


8/10

224 Haimes

ysis. First the problem is defined, then the desiredoutcome is envisioned, and time and effort are orga-nized to achieve this desired outcome. Habits 4, 5,and 6 are applicable throughout the problem-solvingprocess. To the extent that these steps promote com-

munication, the habits Think win/win and Seekfirst to understand . . . apply to almost every situa-tion that involves group interaction. More specifi-cally, Think win/win can apply to creative problemsolving and the generation of ideas, and Seek first tounderstand . . . directs the interaction between a sys-tems or risk analyst and a client. Synergize can alsobe applied on numerous levels. Finally, Sharpen thesaw directly corresponds to the constant iterationthat is stressed throughout systems and risk analysis.

In sum, comparing the Seven Habits with theprinciples upon which systems and risk analysis arebased serves to show that their elements correspondand also complement each other. All three philoso-phies stress problem definition, early determinationof the desired outcome, and an organized effort tofind a solution. They also promote similar overridingprinciples to better enable the decision-making andproblem-solving processes. This similarity is remark-able given that the Seven Habits are a guide to per-sonal development, whereas systems and risk analy-sis are geared, in the broadest sense, to systemsmanagement. Most important, comparing Coveysguiding principles to those of systems and risk analy-sis can help to improve our understanding of risk

analysis, and thus better relate the processes of riskassessment and management to systems analysis.

EPILOGUE

It is imperative that practitioners in both systemsand risk analysis keep in mind the fundamental dis-tinction between the holistic philosophical underpin-nings that guide the practice of problem solvingthrough risk and systems analysis, which are universalto all systems and problems; and the development ofmethodological frameworks that are steered by these

philosophical principles, but are problem and systemspecific. The gestalt psychology/holistic philosophycommon to seemingly two separate crossdisciplinary

fieldsrisk and systems analysisserves as a domi-

nant common denominator that imbues synergy to

both. It is hard to find two other disciplines that share

the distinction of spanning the arts; the humanities; the

natural, social, behavioral, and organizational sci-

ences; law; medicine; and engineering. Finding com-

mon ground among these diverse professions does not

happen by chance. Rather, it has become obvious that

our large-scale and complex technological and societal

systems, and their associated problems, must be ad-

dressed by considering all of their relevant dimensions

and perspectives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is most appreciative of the editorialassistance from Grace Zisk, the comments receivedon an earlier draft from Stan Kaplan and Jim Lam-bert, the graphical work on Fig. 1 by Joost Santos, andthe graphical work of Greg Lamm and Matt Dom-broski for the presentation of this paper at the SRAAnnual Meeting.

REFERENCES

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (1995). The boundary-less organization: Breaking the chains of organizational struc-ture.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations,

development, applications.

New York: George Braziller.Boulding, K. E. (1953). The organizational revolution.

New York:Harper and Row.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people.

NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: Howorganizations manage what they know.

Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.

Haimes, Y. Y. (1977). Hierarchical analyses of water resources sys-tems: Modeling and optimization of large-scale systems.

NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Haimes, Y. Y. (1981). Hierarchical holographic modeling. IEEETransactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 11

, 606617.Haimes, Y. Y. (1991). Total risk management. Risk Analysis, 11

,169171.

Haimes, Y. Y. (1998). Risk modeling, assessment, and management.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.Haimes, Y. Y., & Schneiter, C. (1996). Coveys seven habits and the

systems approach. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, andCybernetics, 26

, 483487.Hall, A. D., III. (1989). Metasystems methodology

. New York: Per-gamon Press.

Higuera, R. P., & Haimes, Y. Y. (1996, June). Software risk manage-ment

(Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-96-012). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute.

Hutchins, R. M. (Ed.). (1952a). Great Books of the Western World:Vol 9. Aristotle I.

Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.Hutchins, R. M. (Ed.). (1952b). Great Books of the Western World:

Vol. 7. Plato

. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition

of risk. Risk Analysis, 1

, 1127.Lowrance, W. W. (1976). Of acceptable risk.

Los Altos, CA: WilliamKaufmann.

Sage, A. P. (1992). Systems engineering

. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Sage A. P., & Rouse, W. B. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of systems en-gineering and management

. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics

(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


9/10


10/10

Documents

Risk Analysis-systems Analysis and Covey 7 Habits