Table Of ContentCindynics, The Science of Danger
We can’t solve problems by using the same
kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein
Reliability of Multiphysical Systems Set
coordinated by
Abdelkhalak El Hami
Volume 11
Cindynics,
The Science of Danger
A Wake-up Call
Guy Planchette
First published 2021 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2021
The rights of Guy Planchette to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021941729
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-728-6
Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Presentation of the Institut pour la Maîtrise des Risques
(French Institute for Risk Management) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
André LANNOY
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Chapter 1. Understanding Cindynics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. The approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. The method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. The tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter 2. The Usefulness of the Cindynics Approach and Method . . . . 9
2.1. The situation, the founding concept of cindynics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2. Characterizing an activity situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. Qualifying a dangerous situation within an activity situation . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.1. Notion of a dangerous situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.2. Qualifying the dangerousness of a situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chapter 3. The Usefulness of Cindynics Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1. Qualification grid for risk sources that are not easily identifiable . . . . . . . . 17
3.2. Describing this type of risk source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.1. At the global organization level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
vi Cindynics, The Science of Danger
3.2.2. At the level of stakeholder groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.3. At the level of the individual actor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Chapter 4. Reducing Risk Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Chapter 5. A Comparative View Between Dependability and Cindynics . . 29
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.1. Dependability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.2. The cindynics approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.3. Dependability and cindynics seem to ignore or even compete
with each other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2. What is a complex system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3. Dependability approach – its strengths and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.1. The scope of dependability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.2. Description of the system and its components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.3. Functional analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.4. Process hazard analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.5. Technological choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.6. Identification of failures – analyzing risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3.7. Strengths and limitations of the approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4. The cindynics approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4.1. The cindynic situation and its scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4.2. Strengths and limitations of the approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.5. Conflict or complementarity of the two approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Chapter 6. Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Examples of Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix 1. Current Risk Management and its Shortcomings . . . . . . . . 99
Appendix 2. Notions of Interaction and Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Appendix 3. The Grounded Theorization Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Appendix 4. Notions of Quantum Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Appendix 5. Summary of CSDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Appendix 6. Archeocindynic Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Contents vii
Appendix 7. Bhopal Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Appendix 8. More Information About Bhopal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Appendix 9. Collection of Information on the Queen Mary II
Gangway Accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Appendix 10. Queen Mary Accident Cause Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Appendix 11. Collection of Information on the Deepwater Horizon
Oil Rig Accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Appendix 12. Synthesis Note of the Work of IMdR–AFPCN: “Vulnerability
of Networks and Natural Disasters” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Appendix 13. The New Cindynics Concepts Training Course . . . . . . . . . 167
Postface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Acknowledgments
The work in this book was carried out by the “Cindyniques pour tous”
(“Cindynics For All”) Working and Reflection Group of the Institut pour la Maîtrise
des Risques (French Institute for Risk Management). The term Cindynics is used to
refer to the science of danger.
This group was facilitated by
Guy PLANCHETTE
Editors and Proofreaders Active members of the working group
Laurence BAILLIF Annie BERTRAND Pascal COHET
Claude HANSEN Nadia BONNET-HOUDETON Jean-Pierre CRESCIONI
Manuela TANCOGNE-DEJEAN Alizée NICOLINO Vincent DAUMAIL
Philippe HOUSSET Myriam MERAD Mohamed HAOUARI
André LANNOY Danièle TRAUMAN Jean-Paul LANGLOIS
Philippe LE POAC Marie-Hélène VERGOTE Rémi PAROUTY
Jean-Pierre PETIT Philippe BOULENGER Olivier POULAIN
Christophe POIRIER Yves CABROLIER Vincent RICHARD
Jean-François RAFFOUX
Thank you to all of these people.
Presentation of the Institut pour
la Maîtrise des Risques (French
Institute for Risk Management)
The Institut pour la Maîtrise des Risques et la Sûreté de Fonctionnement
(IMdR-SdF) was created with the support of 14 major industrial groups1,
succeeding the Institut pour la Sûreté de Fonctionnement on July 1, 2002.
In the summer of 2006, the European institute Institut Européen des Cindyniques
(IEC) joined the IMdR-SdF to form the IMdR, INSTITUT POUR LA MAÎTRISE
DES RISQUES – Sûreté de Fonctionnement-Management-Cindyniques.
As a key player, the Institute’s vocation is to help companies and public bodies
to adopt a preventive approach when studying situations where threats and
opportunities are intertwined. To do so, the Institute studies various methods and
tools to identify, evaluate, quantify, prioritize, control and manage feared events in
order to transform possible damage into benefits. This approach is intended to be
systemic and global: systemic, because the nature of the dysfunctions or deficits can
be technical, documentary, organizational, behavioral, environmental and so on;
global, because it must encompass all organizational functions (technical, financial,
legal, etc.).
Bringing together the skills of both associations, the IMdR now offers its
members a forum for exchange on risk management, from political and strategic
visions to concrete, everyday scientific tools.
1 Air Liquide, CEA, CNES, Dassault, EADS, EDF, Ligeron, PSA, RATP, Renault, SNCF,
Technicatome, Thales and Schneider.
