Cindynics for all
Guy PLANCHETTE (IMdR)
From 1980 onwards, a huge work of hazard and risk notions conceptualization has been undertaken by Georges-Yves Kervern. From the analysis of accidents and technological disasters as well as natural, moral and financial risks, or diffuse risks such as occupational and domestic accidents, Georges-Yves Kervern created the so called “cindynics, hazard science”.This analysis, recalled in « L’Archipel du danger » (G-Y Kervern, P. Rubise – Editions Economica 1991) brings out the notion of hazard “of which man has increased the sources tenfold”. Consequently, before risks confronting, “hazard outlining, ie identifying as to be able to hopefully decrease negative issues” becomes necessary.
Further in their enquiry, the authors consider that three parameters can be evocated as accident origin cause : the product, the environment and the behaviour.As a rule, risk analysis deal easily with consequences linked to product or environment, whereas behaviour consequences are seldom analyzed. In fact the usual graphical model used to represent consequences generated by transformation of hazard into risk relies only upon two criteria:
- the observable event occurrence probability,
- the generated damage gravity.
By such a limitation, the behavioural factors remain hidden, the cindynicians will endeavor to describe every hazard aspect, being hidden or observable, relying on two approaches:
- thorough analysis of accidents and catastrophes reports which permit to deal with ethical, philosophical and deontological questions.
- deciphering the unobservable using description theory as outcoming from quantum mechanics sciences.
Owing to these approaches, the technical model of risk graphical representation can evolve. Progressively, technical criteria are enriched through goals, values and rules aspects contributions. Technical criteria become thus related to data and models.
It is generally believed that cindynics are only applicable to post accident analysis, hence misunderstood cindynics sciences have been often disparaged, or even rejected.
IMdR believes that such notions deserve to be better known and appreciated as they allow to describe imperceptible hazards linked to behaviour of each actors network within a system as well as their interconnections which intricate human societies.
Psychosocietal risks study should illustrate this purpose.
the working group endeavours to explore cindynic notions as to:
-train people who want to better evaluate importance of hazard potential existing within every type of organization,
- show that these notions can be used in a preventive way,
-carry on with the works of G-Y Kervern who considered that huge progress remain to be done namely in conceptualizing situation transformers or situation transformers operators whose trace may constitute unwishable events: incidents, accidents, catastrophes, apocalypse, a.s.o..
The working group also ambitions to:
-create an exchange place around cindynics sciences
-enhance relationship between sectors interested by cindynics approach,
-develop training to cindynics notion,
-incite to cindynics books publication.
Working tracks :
-establish state of the art in cindynics field
-examine examples where cindynics notions can be applied in a preventive way,
-make an inventory of fields where cindynics should bring solutions,
-conceptualize situation transformations from danger to risk position.
-study of tansformation from danger situations to risk situations: application to psychosocietal risks,
-performance of a IMdR working day,
-proposal of a training program.
This working group is open to every IMdR member, to join please contact:
G. PLANCHETTE (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Jean-Pierre PETIT (email@example.com Tél : 01 45 36 42 10)
The next meeting will be held : January 20th, 2014