Читать книгу Cindynics, The Science of Danger - Guy Planchette - Страница 16

Kervern’s powerful and modern intuitions have allowed an understanding of the genesis of pathogens in numerous situations where many actors exist. However, his writings, changing thinking habits, were not easily assimilated, especially since the vocabulary that was used was unusual.

The Institut pour la Maîtrise des Risques (IMdR) therefore considered it essential to create a working and reflection group to make cindynics available to everyone in order to share their interest and usefulness, and to show that this approach is particularly well adapted to the complexity of today’s world.

Working group members with different professional backgrounds (engineers, safety professionals, teachers, researchers, etc.) pooled their experiences to achieve these objectives by meeting between 2013 and 2017 on five afternoons per year. The general idea of the participants was to put themselves in the position of someone who wanted to use the cindynics concepts without knowing how to do it.

Initially, the approach consisted of deciphering, simplifying and sharing the terminology used to define cindynics concepts, without distorting their spirit.

In a second step, the members of the working group applied risk analysis to an example of a disaster (Bhopal, see Chapter 8) and proceeded with an in-depth analysis of the approach.

This study first learned the need to have sufficient information to establish the context of an activity situation (see Chapter 2, section 2.2) to be analyzed, to identify the horizons that will characterize the scenario in which the drama unfolded, and to make a judicious choice about the actors shaping the situation.

During the various information collections, the learning process consisted of carrying out successive analyses of the content of the data collected (see Chapter 2, section 2.3.2). This work of qualitative data⁵ analysis used a research method from the social sciences “aiming to build theories, not from predetermined hypotheses, but from collected data” (see Appendix 3). This method allowed all of the elements of the activity situation to be progressively built in a more exhaustive way.

In addition, it has made it possible to specify the order of the stages of the cindynics process. The results obtained led to the understanding that before proceeding to the causal study of the event initiating the disaster, it is preferable to start from the study of a dangerous situation creating vulnerabilities, thus offering its fragilities to any disruptive event.

This exercise also highlighted the difficulty of being confronted with the complexity of the universe being studied and of going beyond the traditional framework of “cause tree” studies, starting from the event at the origin of the accident. This discovery was expressed by one of the participants: “in short, the cindynics approach appears to induce a particular posture of attention to the elements of the situation, beyond the physical system”. They became aware that the context in which the event occurs is as important to study as the event itself.

Faced with complexity where everything is the cause and vice versa, the group was confronted with a change in thinking: because this complexity requires a looped thinking process, taking into account the different levels of organization.

At the mid-point of the group’s work, it was deemed useful to reflect on what the participants had learned and retained during the working group meetings:

Ten responses were received to a questionnaire addressed to each of them. They were first processed using the content analysis method (see Appendix 3). This made it possible to draw up the following synthesis. This synthesis highlighted the differences in approaches and needs according to the length of participation in the working group and prior knowledge of cindynics concepts.

What was seen as important and rewarding:

 – Concerning the work of the group:- For five of us, the plurality of the points of view expressed appeared pleasant.- For four, it was the atmosphere: good mood, sustained exchanges (even if they were sometimes too long), freedom of speech.- For three, the methods used seemed effective: the principle of work in sub-groups, the use of tables and hyperspaces of danger (see Chapter 1, section 1.3), the definition of horizons and actors, regular reports, theoretical contributions, periodicity... and especially the work on real cases.- This approach stimulated personal work outside of the group, either as an extension of the group, by participating in other places of reflection, or by taking the theory further by consulting key works.- On the contrary, there was the impression that the group was venturing along several paths without really concretizing any of them, because the initial objective was to prepare a document to popularize cindynics, which seemed to have been abandoned.

 – Concerning the work on cindynics:- By focusing on the human and the organizational elements, the difficulties of interpreting the information to be classified on the five axes of the hyperspace of danger were great (4). They posed the problem of expertise that would be necessary.- The cindynics approach was reinforced (5), because it allowed in-depth work (3), widened the perception of risk by taking into account the notion of danger (3), emphasized the importance of the context – horizon or situation – (2), but above all by the fact that it proceeded by successive adjustments (2) by emphasizing the human and the organizational elements, which refined the understanding of past phenomena that have led to the sequence of causes of an accident.- Cindynics concepts thus made it possible to go beyond the only questioning on the reliability of the equipment.- Moreover, the analysis, established from the danger hyperspace, had the advantage of an organization testing the coherence existing between the five aspects of the danger hyperspace.- However, it involved difficulties: when studying complex systems (3), within which the actors themselves had complex relationships – implicit or unknown – (2), it required working on precise data with a clear delimitation of the scope of the study (2) and the actors to be taken into account (2). However, there were few real cases studied that could serve as reference (2).

 – What it seemed essential to take further:- The question of the production of work “outside” of the group was again raised (5), either in the form of a glossary, or by resuming the work done on Bhopal, or in the form of teaching students (initial or continuing education).- Conversely, the other question was working on a real case proposed to the group by an external authority (2), in order to question the predictive power of a cindynics study.

 – In the search for deeper knowledge:- A more precise study on deficits was requested.- A critical reading by the group of an article already written by one of the members.- The search for a computer tool to facilitate the task of data exploration and exploitation.

Subsequently, members of the group were interested in studying a case presenting dysfunctions, but not yet having caused an accident, with a view to using the approach in the field of prevention. However, this work could not be completed in the time allotted. Indeed, the insufficiency of the available information made it impossible to correctly establish the context of the activity situation and to thus study the deficits and dissonances that could exist within this chosen situation compared to the situation deemed satisfactory by the study’s sponsors. On the contrary, this example highlighted the real difficulty in choosing the “networks of actors” working within the situation or in integrating a team of cindynicians into a project from the design phase. It also showed the need to conduct interviews with the actors deemed relevant, in order to record their knowledge and perceptions of the situation.

Subsequently, other examples of accidents were studied and the results of the different experiments and work were compiled in a collective file (see Chapter 8). Even though the studies were sometimes incomplete, they nevertheless prove that cindynics concepts can provide a better response to our problems of dangers, threats, conflicts and risks. Hence, the members of the working group wished to disseminate their work in order to demystify cindynics concepts, which are neither an obscure science nor reserved for a few specialists, and to show that, on the contrary, cindynics are adapted to the complexity of today’s sociotechnical or societal systems.

In view of the difficulties encountered, it would seem that, more than the obstacles related to vocabulary, it is indeed the amplitude of this new discipline of thought that may have put off the very first aspirants to cindynics concepts, who tried to embark on the adventure without sufficient preparation or clarification of the process.

July 2021

1 1 Consult the IMdR website: https://www.imdr.eu/offres/doc_inline_src/818/Fiches_methodes_m2os.pdf.

2 2 See: http://www.patricklagadec.net.

3 3 Aviation security report, 2016: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/.../rapport_securite_aerienne_2016.pdf.

4 4 Founded in 1794, this scientific journal with an international audience is published in English, German, Spanish, Russian and French.

5 5 Grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), adapted by [PAI 94]. See: https://doi.org/10.7202/1002253ar.