Cindynics, The Science of Danger. Guy Planchette

Чтение книги онлайн.

      Foreword

      For many years now, the latest books on cindynics have been published by the publisher Economica: the French books "Cindyniques – Concepts et mode d’emploi” [KER 07], and an application to the health sector “Cindyniques et santé – Contributions des sciences du danger à la santé” [FES 09]. In other words, this book is welcome because, since the 2000s, cindynics have been the subject of numerous studies and research activities, both at the Institut pour la Maîtrise des Risques in the framework of the working and reflection groups “Les cindyniques à la portée de tous” and “Gestion des risques, cindyniques et nouvelles approches systémiques dans le secteur de la santé”,, and in the academic world, at the Université Paris 5 and the École des Mines de Paris, to mention a few.

      This book was written by experts from different sectors of industry, health and transport. It was an ambitious goal to achieve it and it has been achieved. We would like to thank them for this work and for its publication.

      The text includes a very useful glossary explaining the difficult words or expressions used in the vocabulary of cindynics, such as deficit, dissonance and activity situation, among many others.

Under the heading hazard, the book points out that the ISO 31000: 2018 standard uses the term risk source to qualify the hazard. In practice, the terms hazard and risk are often used interchangeably. However, they are two quite distinct terms. According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978, p. 278), hazard is the possibility of harm or loss, which can threaten safety/security. Hazard is a potential, it expresses a possibility, which may occur depending on conditions, depending on the context, which may not necessarily be realized, something virtual. Risk is the likelihood that exposure to a hazard will lead to a negative consequence. It is measured by the coupling of the values of the likelihood of a given danger and the seriousness of the consequences of this hazard. Quite simply, there is no risk if there is no exposure to a hazard. Risk therefore has a negative image. However, the standard has introduced the positive consequence aspects of risk. “To win you have to risk losing” (Jean-Claude Killy).

      The foreword is based on a curve of accident rate trends from 1987 to 2016, showing a decrease in accident rates until 2003–2004, followed by a seemingly asymptotic constant plateau, a tango on the asymptote [FRA 04]. Technical advances have allowed this rate to decrease over the years. Today’s accidents show that we have now reached a threshold that would be insurmountable, calling into question the organization of work. We can now see that all too often the failure to take into account feedback and the lack of understanding of physical phenomena are two deficits frequently revealed by analyses of recent technological accidents.

      The organization is a complex system and all vulnerabilities must be identified.

      The cindynics approach seems well armed to deal with this problem.

      Chapter 1 is devoted to the understanding of cindynics. It defines the notion of activity situation by its contexts and by the activity (a movement), characterizes it, detects evolutions, whether observed or not, and evaluates gaps or inconsistencies. In the end, we are very close to the practice of a HAZOP method or imaginative, but knowledge-based investigation, akin to Sherlock Holmes.

      The hazard hyperspace represents the five characteristics of risk sources: data, models, regulations, values and purposes. The process consists of conducting interviews with experts, consulting existing documentation or feedback, analyzing the content and structuring potential risk sources, identifying and analyzing gaps, and establishing a synthesis matrix known as the deficit and dissonance matrix. This is probably the strong feature of cindynics. Thanks to this analysis based on the five characteristics above, it is possible to highlight all of the sources of risk, particularly those related to the organization, which is not necessarily possible in the usual analyses.

      The applications at the end of the book show that the approach is fully applicable for a posteriori analyses. The authors believe that it is also applicable a priori. However, this may be more difficult. For example, for the analysis of an innovative product, regulations do not exist, few data are usable and models may be non-validated or non-existent.

      Chapter 2 describes the methodology:

      The authors believe that it is possible to limit situations in space-time. Therefore, this approach has an advantage over classical risk analysis, which is only a snapshot at a given moment; we are therefore obliged to redo the risk analysis periodically in view of changing conditions, context and functioning.

      Chapter 3, particularly well developed, presents the hazard hyperspace grid, which is the qualification tool. It contains the five characteristics mentioned above. The analysis of major accidents shows that there are several causal chains called SCDs or systemic cindynogenic deficits: four cultural (conviction of absence of peril, unfavorable to complexity, no-communication attitude, no-attention to the outside world), two organizational (production dominates risk management, dilution of responsibilities) and four managerial (absence of a feedback policy, no-risk management methodology, no training for risk management and safety personal, insufficient knowledge and lack of preparation for crisis management).

      Chapter 4 provides decision support. It builds the deficit matrix and the dissonance matrix from which a decision-maker will decide whether or not to mitigate hazards, with the aim of minimizing the consequences of deficits and dissonances. We are not sure that this is an optimization. СКАЧАТЬ