Paolo Magrassi 2010 - Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0

How Complexity Will Transform Enterprise Information Systems
Paolo Magrassi - March, 2010 – v4.1
info@magrassi.net

Abstract
One “problem” with the 21st century world, particularly the economic and business worlds, is the phenomenal and
increasing number of interconnections between economic agents (consumers, firms, banks, markets, national economies).
This implies that such agents are all interacting and consequently giving raise to enormous degrees of non-linearity, a.k.a.
complexity. Complexity often brings with it unexpected phenomena, such as chaos and emerging behaviour, that can become
challenges for the survival of economic agents and systems. Developing econophysics approaches are beginning to apply, to
the “economic web”, methods and models that have been used in physics and/or systems theory to tackle non-linear domains.
The paper gives an account of the research in progress in this field and shows its implications for enteprise information systems, anticipating the emergence of software that will allow to reflect the complexity of the business world, as holistic risk
management becomes a mandate for financial institutions and business organizations.
Keywords: Complexity – Nonlinearity – Econophysics – Rational Expectations – Risk – Business intelligence – corporate
performance management
Linearity
The “systems” and the “problems” that are encountered in nature are essentially non-linear. However,
to simplify the studies or for application purposes, one
often resorts to linearity as a first-order approximation:
if the effects of non-linearity can be considered negligible, a mathematical model can be built that represents
the system as if it were linear.
This approach is fecund in many situations. As
an example: an audio amplifier is intrinsically nonlinear but, within certain frequency limits, it will behave
in a linear fashion and be useful for hi-fi; hence, its description throughout audio and hi-fi literature will always be that of a linear system, even if in principle it is
not.
Linear models are useful because subject to the
hypothesis of linearity many natural systems resemble
one another: their behaviour can be described with the
same equations even if the contexts are very different,
such as mechanics, electronics, chemistry, biology, economics, and so on. A linear oscillator is a model described by the same mathematical equation, whether it
be a metal spring, an electric circuit or a standalone El
Niño. (Complex systems, on the contrary, each have
their own mathematical formalization and, in many
cases, not even that: equations are substituted by numerical computer simulations.)

Introduction
The word “complexity” can take many meanings, both in common parlance and in scientific or technological jargons. However, increasingly the most intriguing meaning is the one stemming from nonlinearity1.
A problem is linear if it can be broken into a
sum of mutually independent sub-problems. When, to
the contrary, the various components/aspects of a problem interact with each other so as to render impossible
their separation for solving the problem step by step or
in blocks, then the situation is non-linear.
Another way to express the same concept
(Feynman 1964) is to use the systems theory definition:
a system is linear if it responds with direct proportionality to inputs. This is a system that obeys the superposition principle: the response at a given place and time
caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually.
1

We are using the dynamic/systemic view of complexity. Another one is possible, i.e. the computational/structural one.
Ultimately related to Gödel incompleteness theorems, the
structural view is predominantly adopted in information theory and computer science, where it has to do with the computability of algorithms. The two views are ultimately connected,
although in subtle and convoluted ways, via the concept of
entropy.

1

Paolo Magrassi 2010 - Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0

The “preys – predators – food” system is intrinsically non-linear: none of its components may be
studied in isolation from the others. And indeed, the
Lotka-Volterra equations are a classical example of
simple non-linear model of an ecological situation. Purposely simplified, the Lotka-Volterra model may lead to
the formulation of the so-called logistic map (May
1976):
xn+1 = r xn (1 - xn)

Non-linearity
Gigantic scientific and technological advances
have been made using simplifying linearity assumptions, before computers started allowing to venture into
non-linear territory. This is how “complexity science”,
a.k.a. “complexity theory”, was born.
There had been, in fact, several explorations of
non-linear territory made by scholars since the 19th century. As an example, French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré was the first (Poincaré 1890) to discover and describe how an apparently simple system
subject to deterministic laws, such as that composed of
three orbiting celestial bodies (e.g., Sun, Earth and
Moon), can exhibit a complex (chaotic) behaviour.
Other scholars, including, e.g., Alexander Bogdanov,
Norbert Wiener and Warren Weaver, made advances
and contributed creating complex system thinking in the
first half of the 20th century (Weaver 1948).
However, the field has acquired new lymph
only with the advent of electronic computers, as they
allow to simulate whenever mathematics does not do
the job because equations are unknown.
Fundamental, in this respect, was the work of
mathematician and climatologist Edward Lorenz. Lorenz made apparent (Lorenz 1963) and formalized the
problem that Poincaré touched upon in his three-body
system: When observing the evolution of a complex
system (i.e., its trajectory in state space), finite variations may originate from infinitesimal variations in the
initial conditions.
In other words, even two infinitely similar beginnings will look different in the future, because the
evolution of the system will differ substantially in the
two cases, with a divergence ever-larger in time. If we
were to model the evolution of continental weather, it
may make a difference, to the effect of a probability of a
tornado in Texas, whether or not «a butterfly flaps its
wings in Brazil ». Making long-term forecasts becomes
impossible.

with x0 representing the initial condition, i.e. the initial
population at discrete time interval t0.

Figure 1: The logistic map
By varying the parameter r, a number of weird
things happen (see Figure 1), particularly for r equal or
greater than 3.57, when periodic oscillations (corresponding to the increases and decreases of a population
depending on ecological conditions) start being replaced
by pure chaos.
Thus, a “toy” ecological problem can, like
Poincaré’s three bodies, end in chaos. In addition to
sensitivity to the initial conditions, a second (and related) property of complex systems is indeed deterministic chaos: the underlying laws (physical, biological,
etc.) may be orderly and even deterministic, yet chaotic
behaviour is possible.

Examples of complexity
A striking exemplification of the above is to be
found in another small system such as the one composed of a population of predator animals, a population
of preys and the food available to the latter. A linear
model turns out simplistic and inadequate for the situation: the population of preys is a function of the predators’ population but, in turn, the latter will expand and
contract based on the availability of preys. These, on the
other hand, depend of the availability of food, and eating too much of it would cause the preys population to
contract, possibly beyond sustainability.

Complex systems can surprise
A third essential property of complexity is
emerging behaviour: even when the laws governing its
components are well-known, a complex system may
show a behaviour that cannot be explained on those
grounds.
Popular literature on complexity tends to furnish us with examples from the living world or other
high-level natural systems (flocks of birds and colonies
of ants behave in ways inexplicable based on what we
know of the capabilities of the individuals), however
emerging behaviour has been known to physicists since

2

Paolo Magrassi 2010 - Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0

Phil Anderson showed it in the case of groups of electrons in a semiconductor (Anderson 1972).
This observation, along with the chaotic behaviour seen in very small deterministic systems, shows
how intimately the natural world is permeated with
complexity. It also warns us that knowing “fundamental” laws (such as those concerning elementary particles
or individual economic agents) is insufficient to understand the systemic behaviour of interacting components,
because in non-linear systems a new behaviour may
emerge. We need to know both the fundamental laws
and the systemic ones.

Linearity dominates the current economic paradigm
This complexity compounds with mounting
debate around the dominant paradigm in economics, the
Rational Expectations Hypothesis (REH), which assumes that economic agents (workers, consumers,
firms, etc.) behave rationally and take all available information into account in forming expectations of economic events (such as the price of a stock). And firmly
on top of the REH rests the other dominating assumption, i.e. that markets are efficient, cannot be “fooled”,
and smooth out all imperfections in the large numbers
(Efficient Markets Hypothesis, EMH).
This paradigm is challenged on at least two
fronts. One is behavioural finance/economics (Kahneman 1979), where researchers have proved that homo
economicus is far from making rational choices, much
less to have rational expectations of future events. The
second front is indeed the complexity-driven camp.
The REH assumes that any market is always in
the surroundings of its equilibrium (a point, line, surface, volume or hypervolume in a state space), and that
perturbations around such state may only be small and
linear. The perturbations are small because the actual
price of a good (commodity, stock, …) is at any time
given by
P = P* + ε

The origins of complexity
What makes a system complex are the interactions between the components –the ultimate cause of
non-linearity (Bridgman 1927)–, not the number of
components themselves.
A system made of many non-interacting parts
is not complex (from Latin complector: to encircle, to
embrace firmly, to comprise, to unite under a single
thought and a single denomination) but merely complicated (from complico, to fold): it takes a long time to
unfold it, to solve it, but it can be done step by step.
A complex system/problem, instead, is hard to
tackle because, in addition to the laws governing the
components, we need to study the system’s overall behaviour: the analytic approach must be complemented
with the holistic one.
Clearly, though, an increasing number of interacting components will give raise to increasing complexity, possibly exponentially: complex and complicated makes things worse.

where P*=price expected and ε is an infinitely small
quantity. They are linear because ε is independent of P*
and, more importantly, because the resulting statistical
models assume that the risk of every individual investment/asset can be assessed in separation of the risk of
other investments/assets: each individual risk is a Gaussian distribution (of the values of the variable/asset under consideration) where the standard deviation is the
measure of the asset’s volatility.

Complexity and economics
This is why, in today’s economic world, we are
more and more often confronted with complexity: it is
caused by the number of interactions within (and between) the systems that surround us (Lo 2009), which
are complex and complicated at the same time. Sources
of complexity include:
• global financial systems;
• networks (such as the Internet, power grids or
transport networks);
• enteprises, as these are increasingly interconnected
in supply and demand chains, ecosystems, and
“clouds”;
• consumers, since their behaviours are mutually influencing due to connections of all sorts (TV, mobile communications, Web, social networks, email).

Need of an holistic approach
It follows that REH may be good at assessing
the risk of each and every individual investment, but the
assumption of zero interdependence between investments is an over-simplification that depicts an inherently complex domain as if it were a linear one, thereby
causing statistical models to underestimate –or miss altogether– systemic effects.
It can be argued (Bouchaud 2008) that markets
of the 21st century global world can no longer be modelled as linear systems. It is therefore not a surprise that
REH-based economics be clueless at anticipating
shocks such as the one in Asia 1997 or the subprime
crisis culminated in the 2008 financial meltdown.
(REH/EMH proponents counter-object that the 2008

3

Paolo Magrassi 2010 - Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0

densed matter) situations that resemble economic or financial contexts.

financial crash was not but the efficient-market anticipation of a to-be economic recession. According to this
view, finance was the victim, not the cause, of the
economy meltdown (Cassidy 2010)).
The non-linearity of the global financial system cannot be captured by most REH constructs, and in
the increasingly interconnected “economic web”
(Kauffman 1995) it is essential to have estimates of systemic, global risk, not just the many views of all individual variables: this is because chaos may originate
from the combined actions of different agents through
their interconnections. Emerging behaviour may take
place, it should be noted, whether or not the individual
economic agents are believed to be rational: all it takes
is that they interact and influence each others significantly.
It follows that an holistic approach to financial
markets or economic systems can hardly be based on
REH/EMH and that a radical new view of the world
may be needed. While economists are of course aware
of the limitations of the current paradigm (Scarf 1960)
(Sonnenschein 1972) (Stiglitz 1975) (Anderson 1988),
proposals for its radical reform seem to come more frequently from outside the economic community, or from
its outskirts.

Proposed new models
One such model is that of spin glasses (Parisi
1983) (Anderson 1988), a domain characterized by an
extreme fragility with respect to small changes in parameters and the de facto absence of equilibrium. Another one, and considered more promising by many
(Bouchaud 2009), is heterogeneous mean-field approximation (Mézard 2009), where the problem of N
interacting particles is treated as that of a single particle
immersed in a chosen field of forces. Yet another model
is the one presented in (De Laurentis 2009), where a
thermodynamics of non equilibrium approach is taken
to show the analogy between Prigogine’s dissipative
structures and financial markets.
A vast class of models are agent-based models:
here, the domain under investigation is explored via
computer-based simulation, a technique much more accepted in physics (and chemistry and biology) than in
economic research, where, according to many, it should
be pursued more actively.
Numerical investigation of a model does not
prove anything, yet provides a formidable tool, a «telescope of the mind multiplying human powers of analysis and insight just as a telescope does our powers of
vision» (Buchanan 2008).
In the case of econophysics studies, simulations often consist in defining economic agents (people,
firms, banks, regulators, …) and the rules of the game,
then letting the game run to study the possible outcomes. Agent-based simulations, sometimes also referred to as complex adaptive systems or cellular automata, were inaugurated by John H. Conway (Gardner
1970) and first formalized in (Holland 1975). It is impressive to notice how, given extremely simple “organisms” or “agents” and a few governing rules (1 organism and 4 simple rules in Conway’s game), rich and
complex forms of “life” can evolve over time.
Econophysics simulations of this sort often
lead to situations very different from the perpetual
quasi-equilibrium of efficient markets. For example,
catastrophic meltdowns can take place abruptedly,
something that in EMH models may happen only with
infinitely low probabilities (contrary to empirical evidence). Examples of this kind of simulations are to be
found in, e.g., (Thurner 2010), (Westerhoff 2004) or
(Macal 2004).

Econophysics
Radical new views are being attempted in
econophysics, a discipline born in the mid-1990’s that is
trying to a) import more elements of empirical research
in economics (a discipline currently resembling more
mathematics than physics) and b) have economics research adopt some of the methods devised in the natural
sciences for describing complex systems. (A broader, if
banal, view of econophysics describes it as a discipline
aimed at using in general the mathematical methods of
physics in the economy: however, this has been done all
the time since Leon Walras and Vilfredo Pareto, in the
19th century).
Non-linearity, systems operating far from equilibrium, and “organized disorder” (deterministic chaos,
emerging behaviour) are the tools of the trade in econophysics today: just about the opposite of what happens
in the REH/EMH paradigm, where markets have no internal dynamics (no interconnections between individual agents and choices) and chaos may only be stochastic, i.e., the “disorganized complexity” (Weaver 1948)
of brownian motion and equilibrium thermodynamics.
Some physicists and a few “maverick” economists are
increasingly recognizing in complex models of the
physical world (especially, although not only, con-

4

Paolo Magrassi 2010 - Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0

The “system”, in this case, is as simple to
name as is difficult to monitor and control: it is the firm
itself, in its whole entirety and complexity, immersed in
a wider ecosystem.
Even in financial companies, risk management
(RM) is traditionally split into separate concerns. Operational RM on one side, with the task of ensuring
process integrity, continuity of business and security;
and credit and market RM on the other, to protect and
exploit counterparty exposures and market developments.
All this has historically been limited to audit,
compliance, treasury and insurance areas, dominated by
a passive/reactive attitude, with little or no coordination
across the enterprise, a lack of analytical tools, and
modest information technology (IT) support (Gartner
2008).
As it is understood today, holistic (or “integrated”, or “systemic”) RM is to become a process that
permeates the entire firm and its ecosystem/supply
chain, spanning not just risk areas but also strategic
goals. From that perspective, there is a need to develop,
among other things:
• real-time predictive analysis and reporting of risk,
including agent-based simulation;
• infra- and inter-enterprise workflow connectivity
and sharing of information;
• common risk management processes through the
supply chain/ecosystem;
• XML-based standards for risk data definitions;
and possibly an integrated-risk data warehouse for the
enterprise.

The enterprise level: the challenge
As the world’s complexity increases, crises,
including nearly-catastrophic ones such as that of 2008,
can be expected to become more and more frequent.
Such crises may include sudden perturbations in financial markets or segments of the economy, or shocks in
increasingly complex supply chains and industrial ecosystems (Sodhi 2010).
Shocks can propagate in unexpected ways and
affect systems or subsystems deemed to be only very
loosely coupled with the one first hit. A sudden financial crisis may mean death for just about any financial
company and, for that matter, companies of any kind, as
we witnessed in 2008-2009 when all OECD countries
experienced sharp declines in Gross Domestic Products.
Although the final word rests on the economic
research community (econophysicists included), and
despite the fact that econophysics results seem a bit
overstated nowadays (Gallegati 2006), it seems plausible that there be a need for more-realistic economic
laws allowing us to achieve a better grasp of heavily
non-linear phenomena which we currently treat as if
they were linear and, presumably because of that, seem
not to conform to any known statistics.
If such laws are discovered, it will take a long
time, due to the intellectual challenges implied, the
scarcity of methods for tackling complexity even in the
natural sciences, the intricacies of interdisciplinary collaboration, the impossibility of controlled experiments
in macroeconomy and the consequent dominance of
axiomatic approaches and attitudes in economics, the
current limited participation of economists in econophysics research, and, last but not least, the inertia of
academia (it is easier to win a tenure or a PhD assignment by participating in a study that resonates with the
dominant paradigm than by venturing in distant and
subversive territories).

Conclusions: the opportunity
Therefore, the intrusion of complex thinking
and holistic/systemic risk management in the enterprise
will entail a) the acquisition and/or building of sophisticated software tools and b) the definition of adequate
processes and the integration of the new tools with the
enterprise’s information systems (IS).
Software tools will consist of a new generation
of business intelligence products which, we predict, will
be based on complexity technology, as complexity is
the driver of systemic risk.
Fields like electronics, optronics, avionics,
chemistry, biology, ecology and econophysics are providing plenty of examples where non-linear system dynamics models and simulation scenarios are used to
control, manage and exploit complex systems. Enterprises will use these “probes” to explore their environment searching for potential complexity peaks, as well

Systemic risk management and complexity as a
proxy of risk
While we wait for a “new paradigm for economics” to develop, whether from econophysics or out
of elsewhere, the increasing uncertainty of their environment will force businesses to implement holistic risk
management, i.e. the capability to assess the risk of an
entire system as opposed to just that of its components
(Lo 2009). This is a must for financial institutions, but a
requirement for corporations at large, too, since survival, not growth, may be the name of the game in the
future business atmosphere, dominated by uncertainty
and fragility (Marczyk 2009).

5

Paolo Magrassi 2010 - Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0

agement tools, but also for major enterprise software
(business intelligence, supply-chain management, etc.)
vendors to integrate their software with the former and
to provide sustainable human interfaces.
Growing economic complexity constitutes at
the same time a challenge and a blessing for IT researchers, practitioners and vendors.

as to assess their own (and their supply chains’) levels
of complexity, fragility and uncertainty.
Measuring complexity
Tools will need to
• know ways of communicating sophisticated system
concepts, variables and parameters to business people;
• provide quantitative measures/estimates of complexity (and consequent risk) that be simple, synthetic and actionable;
• effect what-if analyses, for example via agentbased simulation, of potentially chaotic situations;
• provide pictorial representations of complexity scenarios (e.g.: depict attractors in state space and the
expected probabilities for the system to hang
around them);
• analyse the enterprise’s complexity drivers, then its
partners’, then merge them all;
• analyse the entire world’s complexity drivers and
dynamics, using mash-up applications that leverage
various Web sources;
• proactively propose countermeasures aimed at reducing systemic risk.
One major challenge in view of developing
this class of tools is to decide how to assess/measure
complexity. Early approaches have already materialized
in industrial products. As an example, (Ontonix 2008)
presents a tool that quantifies complexity of both the
enterprise and its environment and provides simple and
manageable outputs: the underlying methodology is undisclosed, and personal communications received by
this author seem to indicate that the tool assesses complexity by looking at the degree of correlation between
up to hundreds of randomly selected parameters of an
enterprise’s performance.

A bigger picture?
But the systemic risk management transformation and the growing awareness of the role being played
by complexity will probably have an even bigger impact.
The accelerated shrinking of business planning
horizons, the increasing financial and economic turbulence, and the impending chaotic behaviour of ecosystems may create a situation where the primary business
goal will be survival. Keeping overall risk below a certain numeric level could then become as valuable, and
as much remunerated, as achieving EBITDA (earnings
before income tax, depreciation and amortization) targets, because risk is indeed the uncertainty of achieving
such goals.
If that happens, new methods of enterprise
success and valuation will emerge, and this would transform information systems radically. Today, information
systems are optimized for enterprise growth and profit:
but if these become secondary objectives and mastery in
uncertainty management rises to be the key performance indicator, a Copernican revolution may take place.

References
Anderson, P. W. (1972), “More Is Different”, Science,
New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4047, pp. 393-396
Anderson, P. W., Arrow, K. and Pines, D. (1988), The
Economy as an Evolving Complex System, Addison-Wesley
Bouchaud, J. P. (2008), “Economics Needs a Scientific
Revolution”, Nature, Vol. 455, p. 1181
Bouchaud, J. P. (2009), “The (unfortunate) complexity
of the economy”, arXiv.org, Quantitative Finance
> General Finance
Buchanan, M. (2008), “This economy does not compute”, The New York Times, 1 October 2008
Bridgman, P. (1927), The Logic of Modern Physics, The
MacMillan Company, New York, p.26
Cassidy, J. (2010), interview to Eugene Fama in “After
the Blowup”, The New Yorker, January 11, 2010,
p. 30
De Laurentis, G. (2009), “Ontologia applicata ai mercati
finanziari”, www.matematicamente.it

An emerging new class of software and market
In addition to complexity assessment tools,
which will be provided by specialized vendors (including, one would presume, the incumbent business intelligence companies), there will be a need to establish an
enterprise and an inter-enterprise architecture and integration framework allowing to monitor systemic risk.
This means that, in addition to ad-hoc processes, there
will be software spanning all or most of the enteprise’s
IS.
Therefore, the application of complexity-based
risk management technologies to enterprises in all industry sectors is a huge opportunity for the software industry. This will be a significant market not just for specialized and niche IT vendors providing new risk man-

6

Paolo Magrassi 2010 - Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0

May, R. M. (1976). "Simple mathematical models with
very complicated dynamics", Nature, Vol. 261, p.
459
Mézard, M. and Montanari, A. (2009), Information,
Physics & Computation, Oxford University Press
Ontonix (2008): www.ontonix.com (The underlying
methodology is undisclosed and unproven. This
citation therefore constitutes no endorsement or
scientific approval whatsoever)
Parisi, G. (1983), “Order Parameter for Spin-Glasses”,
Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 50, p. 1946
Poincaré, H. (1890), "Sur le problème des trois corps et
les équations de la dynamique", Acta Mathematica, Vol. 13, pp. 1–270
Scarf, H. (1960), "Some Examples of Global Instability
of the Competitive Equilibrium", IER
Sodhi, M., Tang, C. (2010), “Supply chain risk management” in James J. Cochran (Editor-in-Chief)
(ed.), Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research
and Management Science, Wiley
Sonnenschein, H. (1972), “Market Excess Demand
Functions”, Econometrica, Vol. 40, pp. 549-563
Stiglitz, J, (1975), “The Theory of «Screening», Education, and the Distribution of Income”, American
Economic Association
Thurner, S., Farmer, G. D. and Geanakoplos, J. (2010),
“Leverage Causes Fat Tails and Clustered Volatility”, arXiv, Quantitative Finance > Statistical
Finance
Weaver, W. (1948), “Science and Complexity”, American Scientist, Vol. 36, p. 536
Westerhoff, F. (2004), “The effectiveness of KeynesTobin transaction taxes when heterogeneous
agents can trade in different markets: A behavioral finance approach”, Scientific Commons

Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. and Sands, M. (1964),
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, AddisonWesley, Vol. 1, pp. 25-3
Gallegati, M., Keen, S., Lux, T and Ormerod, P (2006)
“Worrying Trends in Econophysics.” Physica A
370, 1-6
Gardner, M. (1970), “The fantastic combinations of
John Conway's new solitaire game «life»”, Scientific American, N.223, p.120
Gartner, various authors (2008), “A Risk Hierarchy for
Enterprise and IT Risk Managers”, Research Report No. G00156664
Holland, J. (1975), Adaptation in Natural and Artificial
Systems, University of Michigan Press
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.”
Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 263-291
Kauffman, S. (1995), At home in the universe: the
search for laws of self-organization and complexity, Oxford University Press, p. 281
Lo, A. (2009), “The Feasibility of Systemic Risk Measurement”, Written testimony prepared for the
U.S. House of Representatives, Financial Services Committee, October 19, 2009
Lorenz, E. (1963), “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”,
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 20, pp.
130-141
Macal, C. M. et al. (2004), “Modeling the Restructured
Illinois Electricity Market as a Complex Adaptive
System”, 24nd Annual North American Conference of the USAEE/IAEE Energy, Environment
and Economics in a New Era, July 8-10, 2004,
Washington, D.C.
Marczyk, J. (2009), A New Theory of Risk and Rating,
Uniservice

7

