Cindynics, The Science of Danger. Guy Planchette

      Hence, in addition to the scientific “aspects” represented by data and models, cindynics has added complementary qualifiers relating to the humanities, integrating the regulations or rules undergone or imposed, the values that guide actions towards goals and purposes that are the aims of the organization. Thanks to these five qualifying aspects, risk sources that have not been identified so far become accessible to the description⁷.

      Laws are acts passed by Parliament. Regulations emanate from the Executive and are expressions of laws. Their applications are imposed. By extension, within an organization, rules are the expression of a decision from different levels of management. It is understandable that these notions also apply to the term procedure.

      In contrast, standards are voluntary. Compliance is not mandatory.

      With respect to values, this term refers to attributes and perceptions that a person shares with members of his or her social or cultural group. Types of sociological values include moral and ethical, ideological (political), spiritual (religion), beliefs, for example, ecological beliefs, or aesthetic, open, individual and collective beliefs.

      As for the term purpose, it represents a set of statements, stemming from one or more ideas, which will come in the form of a goal to be reached. For an organization, the purpose is its raison d’être.

      It is important not to confuse the term purpose (or goal) with the term objective, because the latter is a step, a means to an end, to arrive at the purpose.

      In cindynics literature, this representation of qualification is called the hyperspace of danger [KER 95].

1.4. Processes

      Cindynics processes (see Chapters 2 and 3) integrate for an activity situation:

       – its characterization in order to fully understand all the dimensions of the context in which the history of the situation developed and the way in which the behaviors of the various stakeholders developed;

       – the qualification of hazardous areas within it; to qualify hazardous areas (see Chapter 2, section 2.3.2) is to practice as many observations as necessary on the five qualifiers of the “hyperspace of danger”. These observations are obtained through interviews and desk research, selected as the study progresses;

       – interviews are conducted with stakeholders8 identified as relevant to their role or function at the time of the study and/or before (whether internal or external to the observed situation); the documentary references cover all the horizons selected;

       – the structured description of the sources of potential risks; this is carried out through an analysis of the content (see Chapter 2, section 2.3.2) of the documents collected (interviews, documentary research and observations). This analysis enables the information to be grouped together by dividing it, according to its nature, by type of qualifier so as to reveal gaps between an organization taken as a reference and the one observed;

       – the identification, resulting from the analysis of these gaps, of the various deficits, whether systemic or individual, and of the dissonances, which are sources of tension between actors;

       – the establishment of matrices of these deficits and dissonances; these matrices (equivalent to the design structure matrix (DSM)), for use by the sponsors, summarize these gaps (deficits and dissonances);

       – the study of the relevance of the gaps observed; this is carried out with all the partners concerned in order to determine the extent to which these gaps constitute potential vulnerabilities or strengths.

      In conclusion, while cindynics was conceived through feedback from numerous accidents and disasters, it has currently succeeded in structuring a scientific approach a priori of risk sources.

      It now has the ability to diagnose, understand and assess the potential vulnerabilities of an organization before an accident. This diagnosis, informed by studies of relevance of the potentialities, then makes it possible to imagine and define with the decision-makers measures for prevention if the risk is future-based and for treatment if the risk has already manifested itself. These measures will consist of a plan to reduce or even eliminate the fragility of the organization.

      This plan must aim both to adapt the practices of the actors concerned and to adapt the organization that served as a hypothesis at the start of the study.

      1 1 The MADS–MOSAR method (Methodology for System Dysfunction Analysis – Organized Method of Systemic Risk Analysis) is a risk analysis method developed by [PÉR 00]. By referring to the words “system” and “subsystem”, the approach is deemed systemic.

      2 2 See the box on page 8 of [PÉR 00].

      3 3 The examples of accident and disaster studies, detailed in Chapter 8, illustrate the capabilities of cindynics to explore these complementary risk factors.

      4 4 See ISO 31000:2018.

      5 5 The development of quantum theory will be briefly discussed in Appendix 4.

      6 6 The use of the description method will be discussed at length in Chapter 8.

      7 7 The accessibility of the description is presented in Chapter 8.

      8 8 As defined in the Glossary.