8.2 Physical System Definition
107
8.2 Physical System Definition
Key to a world-class risk assessment endeavour, whether it is a ERM or a
project, or a tailings operating facility is the proper definition of the system
you are analysing (https://www.riskope.com/2015/02/19/one-of-ore-secrets-properdefinition-of-the-system-you-are-analyzing/). We all know that ISO and other International and National Risk Codes stress the fact that the context of the study—the
environment in which your system operates—has to be described. However, so many
times we have seen project teams and facilitators embarking in FMEAs or other riskrelated endeavours without taking the time to rigorously describe the system anatomy
and physiology. It may seem weird to use medical terms but let’s see why they are
appropriate.
8.2.1 Quick History
As discussed in various publications, blogpost (http://www.riskope.com/2013/12/
05/some-buzz-words-and-their-meaning/) (or here) (http://www.riskope.com/2015/
01/15/failure-modes-and-effects-analysis-fmea-risk-methodology/) most common
practice tools date from the years of WWII and the 1950s.
At the beginning, only weapons and very “scary” systems were studied
using those methodologies. Industry was still using the so-called “insurance
gals (http://www.riskope.com/2012/05/02/evolution-of-risk-management-and-riskmanagers/)”, if any, to transfer risk, without any serious evaluations, to insurance
companies willing to take a bet on them. Then, a series of mishaps, public outcry and political pressure, lead “risk” to become a buzz-word. Risk assessment
and risk management were nice words to say, and common practice percolated
down to the minimum common denominator to provide a “placebo” to society,
but accidents were still occurring, failures were still called “unforeseeable”, potential consequences were still looked at cursorily and in a compartmentalized way.
No one was carefully describing the system’s anatomy and physiology. It was the
time of open risk workshops (tribal gatherings?) gaining the status of “instant risk
assessment”. Actually most of the time participants were able to voice concerns
and fears, without having dissected the system under consideration, pretty much as
we used to do in medicine before understanding anatomy and physiology. Then
large scale terror acts (9-11-2001) occurred on US soil and in 2008 there was
a global recession (http://www.riskope.com/2011/06/14/black-swan-mania-usingbuzzwords-can-be-a-dangerous-habit/). All of a sudden new words were coined to
describe what we humans already knew very well: poorly made risk assessments do
not bring any value.
107
8.2 Physical System Definition
Key to a world-class risk assessment endeavour, whether it is a ERM or a
project, or a tailings operating facility is the proper definition of the system
you are analysing (https://www.riskope.com/2015/02/19/one-of-ore-secrets-properdefinition-of-the-system-you-are-analyzing/). We all know that ISO and other International and National Risk Codes stress the fact that the context of the study—the
environment in which your system operates—has to be described. However, so many
times we have seen project teams and facilitators embarking in FMEAs or other riskrelated endeavours without taking the time to rigorously describe the system anatomy
and physiology. It may seem weird to use medical terms but let’s see why they are
appropriate.
8.2.1 Quick History
As discussed in various publications, blogpost (http://www.riskope.com/2013/12/
05/some-buzz-words-and-their-meaning/) (or here) (http://www.riskope.com/2015/
01/15/failure-modes-and-effects-analysis-fmea-risk-methodology/) most common
practice tools date from the years of WWII and the 1950s.
At the beginning, only weapons and very “scary” systems were studied
using those methodologies. Industry was still using the so-called “insurance
gals (http://www.riskope.com/2012/05/02/evolution-of-risk-management-and-riskmanagers/)”, if any, to transfer risk, without any serious evaluations, to insurance
companies willing to take a bet on them. Then, a series of mishaps, public outcry and political pressure, lead “risk” to become a buzz-word. Risk assessment
and risk management were nice words to say, and common practice percolated
down to the minimum common denominator to provide a “placebo” to society,
but accidents were still occurring, failures were still called “unforeseeable”, potential consequences were still looked at cursorily and in a compartmentalized way.
No one was carefully describing the system’s anatomy and physiology. It was the
time of open risk workshops (tribal gatherings?) gaining the status of “instant risk
assessment”. Actually most of the time participants were able to voice concerns
and fears, without having dissected the system under consideration, pretty much as
we used to do in medicine before understanding anatomy and physiology. Then
large scale terror acts (9-11-2001) occurred on US soil and in 2008 there was
a global recession (http://www.riskope.com/2011/06/14/black-swan-mania-usingbuzzwords-can-be-a-dangerous-habit/). All of a sudden new words were coined to
describe what we humans already knew very well: poorly made risk assessments do
not bring any value.