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. Haimes

1,2



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 the
foundations 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 represent
two distinct elds or disciplines, or in reality, do they
reinforce and add synergy to each other, and consti-
tute a unied approach to problem solving? Many
systems and risk analysts nd themselves perplexed by
these questions. The two entities have a common philo-
sophical approach to problem solving, but they differ in
their historical evolution and technical maturity. Both
groups aspire to the gestaltholistic philosophy in their
problem-solving approaches. In all of these, method-
ological frameworks, which build on a plethora of
theory, methods, tools, and techniques, constitute the
instruments with which problems are studied, as-
sessed, understood, managed, and solved, to the
greatest extent possible.
The

systems

concept has a long history.

3

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

theory of
forms

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

system

of the bodies that
move in a circle, and besides this four bodies owing
their existence to the four

principles

, the motion of
their latter bodies being of two kinds: either

from

the
centre or

to

the centre. These four bodies are re, air,
water, earth (as cited in Hutchins, 1952a, p. 445). In
1912, German psychologists Max Wertheimer, Kurt
Koffka, and Wolfgang Kohler founded the

gestalt

psy-

1

University of Virginia, 112A Olsson Hall, Charlottesville, VA
22903; haimes@virginia.edu.

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 Risk
Analysis (SRA) held in Arlington, Virginia. The speech was given
following Dr. Haimes acceptance of the SRA Distinguished
Achievement Award.

3

The terms system engineering and systems analysis, which
may have different connotations to some individuals, will be used
interchangeably here.

Perspectives
218 Haimes

chology, which emphasizes the study of experience as
a

unied whole.

The German word

gestalt

means pat-
tern, form, or shape.

Gestalt

psychologists believe
that

pattern

, or

form

, is the most important part of ex-
perience. The whole pattern gives meaning to each in-
dividual element of experience. In other words,

the
whole is more important than the sum of its parts.

In 1948, Norbert Wiener published his seminal
book,

Cybernetics

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

gen-
eral systems theory

around 1950. Kenneth Boulding
(1953), an economist, published work on

general em-
pirical theory

and claimed that it was the same as Ber-
talanffys theory. In 1954, the Society for General
Systems Research was organized by the American
Association 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 to
investigate the isomorphy of concepts, laws, and
models in various elds, and to help in useful trans-
fers from one eld to another.
Although the philosophy of risk analysis does
not enjoy the same formal, historical documentation
as does the systems concept, it has, nevertheless, an
even longer tradition. Ancient civilizations adhered
to structural strength, reliability, and safety, even if
they did not call their practice risk analysis. With-
out complying with the basic tenets that guide todays
approach 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 amalgamation
of the empirical and the normative, the quantitative
and the qualitative, and objective and subjective evi-
dence. It has been built on contributions of individu-
als from diverse disciplines. For example, many of the
theories, quantitative tools, and methods employed
by risk analysts today were developed primarily by
mathematicians, statisticians, biostatisticians, health
scientists, and engineers. At the same time, social, be-
havioral, and organizational scientists have markedly
contributed to our understanding and appreciation of
the human dimension of risk analysis, for example,
human perception, organizational and institutional
barriers, communication, trust, and conict resolu-
tion. Ultimately, in recognition of the evolving eld of
risk analysis and its growing constituencies, the Soci-
ety for Risk Analysis (SRA) was founded in 1980.
According to its charter, the SRA: brings together
individuals from diverse disciplines and from differ-
ent countries and provides them opportunities to ex-
change information, ideas, and methodologies for
risk analysis and risk problem-solving. Indeed, dur-
ing the last 2 decades, risk analysis has emerged as an
effective and comprehensive philosophical and meth-
odological framework that supplements and comple-
ments the overall management of almost all aspects
of our lives. Managers of health care, the environ-
ment, and physical infrastructure systems (e.g., water
resources, transportation, and electrical power, to cite
a few) all incorporate risk analysis in their decision-
making processes. The omnipresent adaptation of
risk analysis by many disciplines and its deployment
by industry and government agencies have led to an
unprecedented development of theory, methodology,
and practical tools.
One way to gain a greater understanding of the
commonality and synergy between systems and risk
analysis is to build on the sound and well-publicized
ideas of Stephen Covey in his best-selling book,

The
Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

(Covey, 1989).
It is possible to relate these Seven Habits to the basic
principles on which the philosophies of systems and risk
analysis are based. Indeed, Coveys journey of personal
development 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 the
bridge between the systems philosophy and the pleth-
ora of methodological frameworks in systems analysis
that have been developed over the years. Each frame-
work, which builds on appropriate methods, tech-
niques, and tools for solving a specic problem, is
either constructed or selected by the analyst or the
practitioner. Figure 1 displays the common precepts
that characterize all three philosophies, the guiding
principles for each of them, and a sample of a meth-
odological framework for risk analysis.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Systems analysis is distinguished by its practical
philosophy that advocates holistic cognition and de-
cision making (Haimes, 1977, 1998). This philosophy
is grounded on the arts, natural and behavioral sci-
ences, and engineering; it is supported by a comple-
ment of modeling methodologies, optimization and
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 its
environment;
2. Improve the decision-making process (e.g., in
planning, design, development, operation,
and management); and
3. Identify, quantify, and evaluate risks, uncer-
tainties, and variability within the decision-
making process.
The following universal guiding principles serve
as a critical bridge between systems philosophy and
the associated methodological frameworks that bring
about 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-making
structure (multiple decision makings, constitu-
encies, power brokers, etc.).
Focus on the centrality of multivision model-
ing in problem solving and on the roles played
in quantitative analysis by the building blocks
of mathematical models (e.g., state, random,
decision, and exogenous variables).
Appreciate the multiple objective nature of
most 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.
220 Haimes

Incorporate the culture, vision, mentality, and
interpersonal 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 number
of theories, methodological frameworks, methods,
techniques, and tools for systems analysis that have
been 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 practical
philosophy that advocates holism in assessing and
managing risk.

4



Risk management

is commonly dis-
tinguished from

risk assessment

, even though some
may use the term risk management to connote the
entire process of risk assessment and management.
Similar to systems analysis, this philosophy is also
grounded on the arts, natural and behavioral sciences,
and engineering, and is supported by a complement of
modeling methodologies, optimization and simulation
techniques, data-management procedures, and deci-
sion-making approaches. Indeed, the same principles
that guide systems analysis also guide risk analysis,
with the following specic addition: in risk assessment,
the analyst often attempts to answer the following
three questions (Kaplan & Garrick, 1981): (1) What
can go wrong? (2) What is the likelihood that it would
go wrong? and (3) What are the consequences?
Answers to these questions help risk analysts
identify, measure, quantify, and evaluate risks and
their consequences and impacts.
Risk management builds on the risk-assessment
process by seeking answers to a second set of three
questions (Haimes 1991): (1) What can be done and
what options are available? (2) What are the trade-
offs in terms of all costs, benets, and risks? and (3)
What are the impacts of current management deci-
sions on future options?
Note that the last question is the most critical
one in any managerial decision-making process. Pol-
icy decisions cannot be deemed optimal in any
sense 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 the
broader context of management. This means that all
costs, benets, risks, and impacts of all viable options
and their associated trade-offs are addressed within
the hierarchical organizational structure. A risk man-
agement approach that harmonizes with the overall
system management must also address the following
four sources of failure (Haimes, 1991): (a) hardware,
(b) software, (c) organizational, and (d) human (see
Fig. 2). This set of failure sources is intended to be in-
ternally comprehensive, that is, comprehensive within
the 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 difcult task.

COVEYS PARADIGM, SYSTEMS
ANALYSIS, 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 create
new and innovative solutions to our problems, it is es-
sential that we understand the elemental interrela-
tionships in the world that surrounds us. Thus, both
understanding the systemic nature of the universe
and dening the system that we need to address are
imperative requirements for problem solving, and
enable the shift to the paradigm of holistic thinking.
Just as the shift to Coveys Principle-Centered
Paradigm enables the adoption of his Seven Habits,
the shift to holistic thinking enables the success of
systems analysis and risk analysis.

Indeed, at their
core, the three entitiessystems analysis, risk analysis,
and Coveys Seven Habitsare unied by their com-
mon holistic vision and philosophy of the world and
of human and organizational behavior.

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

4

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

5

External sources of failures are not discussed here because they
are commonly system dependent.
Risk Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Coveys Seven Habits 221

Habit 1: Be proactive.
Habit 2: Begin with the end in mind.
Habit 3: Put rst things rst.
Habit 4: Think win/win (or no deal).
Habit 5: Seek rst to understand, then to be
understood.
Habit 6: Synergize.
Habit 7: Sharpen the saw.
Viewed in a problem-solving light, the rst three
habits make an essential contribution to the solution:
the rst habit frames the problem, the second deter-
mines the desired outcome, and the third organizes
time and effort toward eventual solution. From this
point, Habits 4 through 6 are guiding principles that
enable personal growth toward interdependence. They
stress 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 rst three habits. Habit 7 stresses constant
re-evaluation and improvement. This combination of
elements 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 and
to the six questions (discussed earlier) that constitute
the risk assessment and management process (Haimes,
1998; Haimes & Schneiter, 1996).

Habit 1: Be Proactive

The rst habit deals with how to view the problem
and where to focus ones energies. Coveys primary
tool for this is the set of concentric circles: the

circle of
concern

, which includes everything that concerns us;
and the

circle of inuence

, which includes the elements
that are under our control. From a systems standpoint,
this can relate to the denition of a system and its ele-
ments. The systems boundary denes the context
within which the problem will be addresseda subset
within the circle of concern that is to be studied. (It is
also possible that elements in the system lie outside the
circle of concern, e.g., externalities.) Successful deci-
sion making, problem solving, or risk analysis in gen-
eral requires understanding the elements within both
the circle of inuence 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 rst
habit, seeking to understand the sources of risk and
the 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 one
of the cornerstones of systems thinking. Often re-
ferred to as the top-down approach to problem
solving, it involves determining overall goals for a
system before beginning the design. For the space
agency, for example, this would mean determining
whether the goal of NASA is to undertake a few large
missions and ensure the likelihood of all succeeding,
or to launch a greater number of spacecraft with the
chance that some might fail.
Begin with the end in mind is also termed the
leadership habit. One means of applying it is by stating
the intended goal in the leaders mission statement. All
plans and future actions should follow from this mis-
sion statement.
Beginning with the end in mind, the risk analyst
is guided to seek a comprehensive understanding of
all sources of risk; managing these constitutes the ul-
timate goal (or end). The rst question, What can go
wrong? addresses this. Specically, through Hierar-
chical Holographic Modeling (Haimes, 1981, 1998),
one is able to identify the as-planned or success
scenario 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, the
preliminary steps of systems analysis provide a mis-
sion for the project by determining goals, require-
ments, specications, or criteria by which eventual
proposed solutions would be evaluated.

Habit 3: Put First Things First

This habit is designed to help concentrate efforts
toward more important activities in a less urgent
Fig. 2. System failure.
222 Haimes

atmosphere. Instead of trying to address the myriad
of problems that the rst two habits may bring to
light, Covey places the emphasis on time manage-
ment, leaving the eventual solution of the problem to
the individual. The extensive set of actions available
to help solve problems in the journey of personal
growth is analogous to the array of problem solving
approaches in engineering and risk analysis in general.
No specic approach is appropriate in every situation.
It should be left to the individual problem-solver to
use the best method in a particular application. The
key step is to follow the goal-oriented systems ap-
proach and use the most appropriate tools for the
specic problem. Habit 3 is imperative in the risk-
identication process, where multitudinous sources
of risks are identied, and a systemic process is re-
quired to identify, prioritize, assess, and manage risk
scenarios from multiple overlapping perspectives of a
system. Limited resources for the risk analysis must
be focused early on those scenarios that contribute
most to the overall risk in the system. Qualitative
screenings of scenarios and classes of scenarios are
appropriate initially, while quantitative assessments
may be applied once all scenarios have been priori-
tized. In addition, time management tools commonly
used in systems engineering that are analogous to
Coveys Time Management Matrix include the
Project Evaluation and Review Technique, the Critical
Path Method (Sage & Rouse, 1999), and the Software
Engineering 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 completion
times 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 both
parties should work together to nd a mutually ben-
ecial outcome. This concept can come into play in
the 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 conicting ob-
jectivescosts, benets, risks, and impacts. This habit
directly 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 that
the agency faces is achieving the proper balance
among these noncommensurate and often conicting
and competing objectives. Only when all viable op-
tions have been considered, and the trade-offs among
all associated costs, benets, risks, and impacts are
addressed, can a sound policy be formulated and its
impact 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 scientic community,
NASAs employees, and the public at large. In such
situations, win/lose alternatives are abundant, but
more can be gained by thinking win/win. On a per-
sonal level, in any endeavor, constructive coopera-
tion between group members is essential for the
eventual success of a group effort. Win/lose thinking
will erode the informal network of trust that is the
foundation of successful group interaction. A culture
that embodies win/win cooperation has a much
greater chance for success.
Indeed, a central tenet of the vision of successful
organizations is building and codifying trust that
transcends institutions, organizations, decision mak-
ers, professionals, and the public at large. Because a
holistic vision that charts the path for successful ac-
complishments must be built on and sustained by
trust, Davenport and Prusak (1998) advocate three
tenets for the establishment of trust: (1) trust must be
visible, (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 any
effective systems or risk analysis. Poor communica-
tion within institutional/organizational complexity is
at the heart of most sources of risk. Barriers such as
the pervasive culture of turf protection are impedi-
ments to effective communication. Because the turf
syndrome often blocks intra- and interagency coop-
eration and collaboration, it increases the sources of
risks. Turf preservation also prevents a holistic and

gestalt

-based approach to risk management, leading
to what is known as stove-piping. For example, in a
seminal book on organizational behavior entitled

The
Boundaryless Organization

, Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick,
and Kerr (1995) delineate four types of boundaries
that characterize most organizations and that impede
communication:
1. Vertical: the boundaries between levels and
ranks of people.
Risk Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Coveys Seven Habits 223

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 of
failures to communicate effectively. A variety of other
perspectives have been extensively adopted in past
studies. The challenge is to develop the leadership that
would enable such organizations and their partners
and customers to nd the right balance of boundary-
less behavior, to determine how permeable to make
the boundaries, and where to place them (Ashkenas

et
al.

, 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 an
environment conducive to active participation and col-
laboration. This means promoting knowledge manage-
ment and employee empowerment, attening the or-
ganizational hierarchy, and recognizing that the major
assets of the organization rest in the employees and in
their knowledge and experience.
In their book,

Working Knowledge

, Davenport
and Prusak (1998) share with the reader the following
knowledge-management principles:
Knowledge originates and resides in peoples
minds.
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 rst to understand, then to be under-
stood also highlights the importance of viewing ev-
ery process from the perspective of the customer. The
customer must always be satised, 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 5
to interpersonal communication are obvious as well.
Covey calls this empathic listening.

Habit 6: Synergize

Habit 6 builds on the two preceding habits. With
the ability to communicate openly and maturely, cre-
ative cooperation and problem solving become possi-
ble. The role of synergy in systems and risk analysis is
particularly important. According to Covey, synergy
means not only that the whole is greater than the sum
of the parts, but that the relationship between the
parts is an element in itself. By its nature, systems
analysis views systems or processes as the aggrega-
tion of multiple components. It is often helpful or in-
structive to understand a system by analyzing its
parts, but this does not necessarily ensure a compre-
hensive understanding of the entire process. Only
through studying the relations among components
can the true nature of the system be grasped.
Coveys discussion of synergy primarily deals
with relationships among people. This, of course, is
directly applicable to both systems and risk analysis,
because people with different backgrounds and posi-
tions are commonly teamed to solve a particular
problem. The more successful teams will exhibit syn-
ergistic traits: they will approach the problem with
open minds, communicate in a manner that encour-
ages creative interaction, and value the differences in
each others approaches to the problem. This will en-
able them to recognize and assess all possible ap-
proaches as solution options. Only by inspecting all
possibilities can success be achieved.

Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw

By concluding with this habit, Covey hopes that
people will continually re-evaluate their personal
progress, reshape their goals, and strive to improve.
These issues have become quite common in todays
engineering environment, where most successful
companies and organizations engage their personnel
in continuing education through seminars, workshops,
and focus groups. Iteration also plays a primary role in
systems and risk analysis. In client relationships, con-
stant feedback is necessary to assure correct under-
standing. As our knowledge about a system develops
throughout the problem-solving process, it is neces-
sary to re-evaluate the original goals.

Summary of the Seven Habits and
Their Implications

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

ysis. First the problem is dened, then the desired
outcome is envisioned, and time and effort are orga-
nized to achieve this desired outcome. Habits 4, 5,
and 6 are applicable throughout the problem-solving
process. To the extent that these steps promote com-
munication, the habits Think win/win and Seek
rst to understand . . . apply to almost every situa-
tion that involves group interaction. More speci-
cally, Think win/win can apply to creative problem
solving and the generation of ideas, and Seek rst to
understand . . . directs the interaction between a sys-
tems or risk analyst and a client. Synergize can also
be applied on numerous levels. Finally, Sharpen the
saw directly corresponds to the constant iteration
that is stressed throughout systems and risk analysis.
In sum, comparing the Seven Habits with the
principles upon which systems and risk analysis are
based serves to show that their elements correspond
and also complement each other. All three philoso-
phies stress problem denition, early determination
of the desired outcome, and an organized effort to
nd a solution. They also promote similar overriding
principles to better enable the decision-making and
problem-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 systems
management. Most important, comparing Coveys
guiding 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 risk
assessment and management to systems analysis.

EPILOGUE

It is imperative that practitioners in both systems
and risk analysis keep in mind the fundamental dis-
tinction between the holistic philosophical underpin-
nings that guide the practice of problem solving
through risk and systems analysis, which are universal
to all systems and problems; and the development of
methodological frameworks that are steered by these
philosophical principles, but are problem and system
specic.

The gestalt psychology/holistic philosophy
common to seemingly two separate crossdisciplinary
eldsrisk and systems analysisserves as a domi-
nant common denominator that imbues synergy to
both. It is hard to nd 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 editorial
assistance from Grace Zisk, the comments received
on an earlier draft from Stan Kaplan and Jim Lam-
bert, the graphical work on Fig. 1 by Joost Santos, and
the graphical work of Greg Lamm and Matt Dom-
broski for the presentation of this paper at the SRA
Annual 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.

New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998).

Working knowledge: How
organizations 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.

New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Haimes, Y. Y. (1981). Hierarchical holographic modeling.

IEEE
Transactions 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, and
Cybernetics, 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 denition
of risk.

Risk Analysis, 1

, 1127.
Lowrance, W. W. (1976).

Of acceptable risk.

Los Altos, CA: William
Kaufmann.
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.