|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. systems-level tools and thinking, tackling counterterrorism problems will require the people who come out of other graduate programs to be exposed to a broad background of ideas. Graduates of law and public policy programs, for example, will need to be better prepared to apply their skills in areas with substantial scientific and technological content, while science and engineering professionals will have to learn how to identify policy constraints and possibilities and devise political strategies that take the interests of all stakeholders into account. The education of future leaders is important, but existing leaders will also need to embrace systems approaches to today’s problems in order to make deep contributions to the nation’s holistic responses to the threat of terrorism. Business and military leaders are traditionally required to engage in continuing education courses, which could provide opportunities to update them on advances in systems analysis and on the types of problems that will benefit from systems-level thinking and tools. Recommendation 10.6: Government agencies that fund university research should enhance their support of research projects that feature systems analysis and systems engineering, in part to help produce new integrative departments and future leaders who think across the traditional academic boundaries and who can address the complex scientific and technological issues discussed above. REFERENCESAdvisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (Gilmore Commission). 2001. Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress, prepared for the Department of Defense, RAND, Santa Monica, Calif., December 15. Available online at <www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/terror3-screen.pdf>. Axelrod, Robert, and Michael D. Cohen. 2000. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier, Free Press, New York. Carter, Ashton B. 2001-2002. “The Architecture of Government in the Face of Terrorism,” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 5-23, Winter. Casti, John L. 1996. Would-Be Worlds: How Simulation Is Changing the Face of Science, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Chankong, Vira, and Yacov Y. Haimes. 1983. Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology, Elsevier-North Holland, New York. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council. 1999. Trust in Cyberspace, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office. 1998. The Clinton Administration’s Policy on Critical Infrastructure Protection: Presidential Decision Directive 63, The White House, Washington, D.C., May 22. Available online at <http://www.info-sec.com/ciao/paper598.pdf>. Davis, Paul K. 2002. “Key Elements of a Framework for the ‘Influencing Component’ of Counter-Terrorism,” working paper in a project for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), RAND, Santa Monica, Calif., May 24. Davis, Paul K., James H. Bigelow, and Jimmie McEver. 2001. Exploratory Analysis and a Case History of Multiresolution, Multiperspective Modeling, RP-925, RAND, Santa Monica, Calif. (This is a volume of reprinted journal articles.)
|
|
|||||||||||||||
