Rights - Risk
Risk has been computed from a straight forward average (on this occasion) of the risks attached to each of the four numeric parameters used. A more detailed discussion of this can be found in the web resource.
The two knowledge nodes with the highest risk from the study are 'Sustainability of Rights' with a risk of 8/10 and 'Implications of a Right' with a risk of 7.75/10. It might seem odd at first glance that sustainability should feature as the highest risk knowledge, but this has emerged from an honest attempt to provide reflective values for each of the parameters associated with this knowledge. If this were a real study for an organisation, it would appear that the knowledge associated with sustainability of rights requires some urgent attention.
Likewise, the implication of rights may seem an odd contender for highest risk. However, if rights are granted without enough consideration for their implications, great harm could possibly be done.
Sustainability of rights has the highest average risk of the four main areas identified. Average risk is calculated by calculating the average risks of all of the knowledge nodes which are ultimately prerequisite of sustainability. However, 'social desirability of rights' is almost as high average risk but it has a much smaller knowledge prerequisite structure associated with it. This is of course, because of the very limited extent of this mini study.
The third and fourth highest risk knowledge items are also worth considering. These are 'Moral values of a society' and 'Typical reasons for Failure of Rights' respectively. Understanding moral values is really a very difficult subject and is rightly identified as high risk. However, if moral values are not properly understood within a society then the system of rights created by that society may be rather poor. Knowing why and how rights can fail is also an important knowledge element and its high risk means that it does deserve some special attention.
It would be a little pointless to attempt to develop options to deal with the findings of this mini experimental study based on risk and the study itself, since the study itself was only experimental. However, the knowledge study tool does attempt to derive automated Options for Action based on a simple rule set and on common internal parameters. The rules consider the map structure as well as the parameter values but there are many other ways for a human analyst to consider information to derive options for a full report. However, the automated options, which are really only worth considering in order to identify about 1 in 10 useful ones, are listed in the web resource and on each knowledge node page where rules have fired.