Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping

Proventive Solutions

Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Mapping the flow of cause to outcome in problem situations
David Alman

Version 3
November 2013

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


Page 2

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.


Page 3

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.


Page 4


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.

Problem situations as HAS Map “flows”
Characteristics

The problem situation provides the Purpose or aim for HAS Maps

The Cause factors are identified using different Perspectives in HAS Maps

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

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

Problem situations have symptoms that are HAS Map Outcomes

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...”.


Page 5



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.

Purpose – to
describe the aim of
the HAS Map
situation

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

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

Outcomes of
the problem
situation
Material

Environment
(Natural & Built)
Including fuel, water,
temperature, lighting, work
space, building conditions

Human Design
(Means)
Management systems, practices,
processes, standards, procedures,
reporting structures, policies, rules,
roles, competencies

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.


Page 6

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


Page 7

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.

Human Activity System (HAS) Map
Purpose:

Flow
direction

Referential
Level

Meaning
Such as the values, assumptions, and beliefs that
cause appreciation of particular priorities and
intentions and not others

Governance
Level

Means
How things are organised, directed, structured
such as plans, organisation structures,
accountability reporting

Transactional
Level
Outcomes

Social relations and Material
How people and processes and the physical
environment interact

Outcomes
Consequential 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.


Page 8

The theoretical HAS Map model in Diagram 3 is exampled in Diagram 4. Diagram 4 examples a
performance issue: Delays in processing payments.

Human Activity System Map
Purpose: Identify causes of delays in processing payments

Referential
Level
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”

Governance
Level
Poor selection &
performance
management

Lack of role
accountability

Basis of Product
 Selection
 Reliability
 Testing

Inefficient
processing system
 Manual practices
 Computer system

Poor “on boarding”,
role induction,
training programs

Transactional
Level
Supervisor
behaviour

Customer
complaints

Increased return
of defective goods

Group
behaviour

Loss of staff

Work overload

Lack of
training
Staff incompetence

Inefficient work practices

Outcomes
Delays in processing payments
Diagram 4. HAS Map Example


Page 9

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]


Page 10

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.


Page 11

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

Page 12



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
Purposes
Priorities
General work activities &
functions
Specific work processes
Physical objects

Purpose
Referential

Perspective Levels
e.g. aim or goal of the HAS Map
e.g. values, priorities

Governance

e.g. how resources are organised

Transactional

e.g. activities and physical causes

[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,


Page 13

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.


Page 14

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). Culturalhistorical 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


Page 15

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


Page 16

Performance Issue: Causes of client service dissatisfaction

Purpose: Identify causes of client service dissatisfaction

Referential
Level
Executive emphasis on
maintaining existing
processes & practices over
continuous improvement

Changes based on
seeking efficiencies
from IT software
improvement

Governance
Level

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

Transactional
Level

Management decide to terminate staff based on
anticipated IT Software efficiencies

from IT sofware

Increased
workloads

Implementation problems and delays before
management action redundancies

Outcomes
Employees sense lack of management support
Staff stress
claims increase


Increased
staff absences

Drop in
productivity

Loss of clients &
client dissatisfaction

Page 17

Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues

Purpose: Identify Customer Contact Centre Issues
Referential
Level

Update of Customer Contact
Centre information by “back
end” a low priority

Run Customer
Contact Centre at
minimal cost
Governance
Level

Customer Contact Centre
standards and practices
not up to date
Lack of Interpersonal
customer skills training
& refresher training

Customer feedback
system in place but not
effectively applied

“Back end” policy
and information not
up to date

Transactional
Level

Negative feedback not recognised
in comments, nor fedback in
Customer Contact Centre
Initial customer
contact

Enquiry
Process

Specific responses
to customer
queries

Enquiry
completion

Outcomes
Negative customer
feedback

Positive customer feedback


Page 18

Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury

Human Activity System (HAS) Map
Purpose: Accident investigation
Referential
Level
H&S risk management
practices not reinforced

Priority on efficiency &
cost cutting

Management priority
on production
outcomes

Governance
Level
Machine maintenance
schedules affected by cost
cutting decisions

H&S checks not
carried out

Delays in routine
machine maintenance
schedules

Transactional
Level
Machine guard sensor
not operating

Machine guard not
functioning

Slip on oil leak on
machine platform

Employee rushing to
complete job

Outcomes

Press operator injured by
machine


Time off on
Workers
Compensation

Injury subject
to external
investigation and
penalty

Page 19

Employee Grievance – Employment entitlement

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

Management

Referential
Level

HR policy based on
Enterprise
Agreement (Union
priority, supported
by management)

Importance of supporting
young child with no family
support available

Executive concern
over loss of
customers – service
delivery issues in
competitive market

Governance
Level

Employee shift work conflicts
with school policy on pick up
and drop off times

HR Work and Family
Balance policy
Management Time Off policy
provisions subject to employer
discretion

Transactional
Level

Line manager under
pressure to improve
service delivery
performance

Employee requests
application of time
off arrangements
1
2

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

3
Outcomes

Employee raises
formal grievance


Page 20


Purpose: Identify causes of workplace harassment complaint
Work Group

Employee

Management

Referential Level
Long term employees in an
established team, providing
consistent service

New employee to
team with history of
providing new ideas
that improve services

Inexperienced manager
with attention on senior
management relationships

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

Transactional Level

Work group rejects
suggestion

Employee raises a
suggested improvement
to group work practices

New idea implemented into
work group by manager

Work group criticises
employee and makes
repeated fun of a
disfigurement

Employee informally raises
harassment concerns

Employee improvement
suggestion raised with
manager in front of an
executive, who
supports the idea.

Manager dismisses and
ignores employee
concerns

Outcomes
Employee raises formal
harassment complaint


Page 21

Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues

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.

Purpose: Identify IT Division performance issues in meeting customer commitments

Operations
Key Outcome issues:
Misalignment of IT to
Customer priorities

Help Desk
Key Outcome issues:
Repeated complaints
unaddressed
Referential

Governance
Referential
Transactional
Governance
Outcomes
Transactional

Outcomes

Projects
Key Outcome issues:
Project backlogs
Referential

Client Services
Key Outcome
issues: Inability to
support customer
Referential

Governance

Customer
Key Outcome
issues: Delivery
delays

Referential

Governance

Governance
Transactional
Transactional

Outcomes

Transactional

Outcomes

Outcomes


Page 22


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-systemapproaches 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


Page 23

Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping

Ähnlich wie Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping (20)

Mehr von David Alman

Mehr von David Alman (16)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping