Like many engineers, Socrates is renowned for having inflicted his own death through drinking. Although in his case he was forced to imbibe hemlock (rather than the voluntary consumption of excessive alcohol as inferred by Monty Python in ‘The Philosopher’s Song’). Despite living nearly 2,500 years ago, he shares many attributes with some engineering professionals.
The Socratic Method or method of Elenchus is a cooperative, argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying assumptions. The methodology, credited to Socrates, takes many forms and is utilised in many professions (psychotherapy, law, clinical research, etc.). It is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry and some elements of engineering.
In process engineering and risk management Socratic questioning is critical to the success of techniques including HAZID (Hazard Identification), HAZOP (Hazard & Operability Study), ALARP demonstration (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) and risk assessment generally because it requires definition and challenge of underlying assumptions and forces exploration of alternatives through critical evaluation.
In HAZOP, the guidewords (e.g. MORE TEMPERATURE, LESS PRESSURE, REVERSE FLOW etc.) force participants to consider design and operational deviations outside of defined limits. But such Socratic questions are completely useless if the underlying definitions (e.g. upper and lower design and operating limits of flow, temperature, pressure and composition) are not first clearly identified and confirmed.
Unfortunately, carefully extracting such information and reaffirming design and operating parameters, prior to the Socratic challenge, is a task that is sometimes so poorly proceeded (or in certain cases ignored altogether) as to render the entire HAZOP a waste of time. Engineers will often revert to parameter data on P&ID’s that is incomplete or out-of-date or is missing key information necessary to ensure a thorough exploration of all of the guidewords. Sometimes the Basis of Design is modified after the original HAZOP or Equipment Data Sheets have not been checked for consistency. Management of change (or lack of) is often the culprit. On other occasions, what is procured and installed simply does not meet the design specifications.
A classic example is the guideword “LOW PRESSURE”. There are far too many examples of HAZOPs where vacuum conditions (below atmospheric pressures) have been ignored and the ability of equipment to withstand vacuum is not confirmed during HAZOP.
Another often overlooked or under-explored guideword is REVERSE FLOW. There are typically many mechanisms (causes) of reverse flow that go un-identified. Critically, proponents often think of reverse flow in only consequential terms (sometimes called “Consequence Fixation”) and fail to look at its root causes.
It is commonplace, when challenged in a HAZOP, for participants to have to go on a search to affirm a lower temperature limit of a piece of equipment or check recent instrument trends to determine the effect on operability of an alarm or trip set-point. Typically, documentation and drawings used during HAZOP workshops are not as up-to-date as they should be or “As-Built” status has never been confirmed. An absence of correlation with Cause & Effect Diagrams can only add to the confusion.
The cleverness of Socrates and the in-built effectiveness of Socratic questioning lie in the deliberate presumption of doubt. It asks “What If?” Facilitators, like forensic investigators, assume nothing and take on the guise of devils’ advocates aiming to prove to a high level of credibility that causes, consequences and safeguards are robust and defensible. Our goal is to minimise hazards and risks as objectively and thoroughly as possible. Preferably to eliminate causes altogether. Or is it?
I have met a small number of facilitators in recent years, and some clients, who haven’t the slightest clue about Socratic concepts and will sometimes cut corners in workshops for time or cost reasons, completely undermining the deliberacy of the technique. On very rare occasions, I have experienced active stonewalling, where finding out the correct answer may draw attention to a known failure of design, process or management. As facilitators whose credibility rests on proper application of Socratic Method and who, by virtue of the facilities we apply it to may very well have the lives and limbs of others in their hands during the process. A dim view should be taken of those who merely crank the handle of risk assessment or deliberately subvert diligent hazard identification processes.
The phrase “I told you so” is completely useless to the victims of industrial accidents.
To put it another way, a frustrated or agitated facilitator could be a clue that somewhere, someone is not being prudent. Socrates himself drank hemlock to show that he would put his life on the line for his belief in robust and thorough enquiry. He was put to death (or rather forced suicide) for heresy – essentially for thinking outside the box of accepted political edict. Today, Socrates legacy is vast. Few if any could name any of his accusers.
In the words of Monty Python:
“Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.”
