In other words, SFRA gives more priority to the search for solutions at the cost of risk assessment (Robinson & Levey, 2011). Finkel defends this weakness by arguing that he does not entirely write-off risk assessment, but he proposes to have its depth reduced to impede the festering of the problem under analysis. However, jumping into the solution without the understanding of the problem could raise incompatible solutions because aspects of the problem were not analyzed in greater detail. Nevertheless, the traditional approach tends to spend more time than necessary on assessing the problem than on finding solutions. Consequently, it is recommendable for the relevant stakeholders to reach a middle ground between risk assessment and risk …show more content…
Since the implementation guideline is already fixed, it cannot be done in the context of SFRA.
Finkel proposes changes to the nature of questions which risk-assessors should answer. While the “Red Book” proposes that the risk assessors should study the problems and then let managers choose solutions from their analysis, Finkel proposes that they should reverse the process and find solutions to general problems and then map them backwards to the underlying causes.
The concept of SFRA is a promising approach to risk assessment, because of its exhaustive analysis of the solution as opposed to the problem. Indeed, the primary aim of analysis problems is to find suitable solutions to them. However, the traditional approach greatly focuses on problem analysis and that consumes the time which would have been allocated to solution-seeking. Noteworthy, SFRA has some limitations, such as the fact that is cannot uniformly be used in all problem contexts and all