Content deleted Content added
Add criticism section |
→Criticism: Add treachery of images issue. |
||
Line 2:
== Criticism ==
[[Charles Haddon-Cave]] in his review of the [[2006 Royal Air Force Nimrod crash|Nimrod accident]] commented that the top goal of a GSN argument can drive a conclusion that is already assumed, such as that a platform is deemed acceptably safe. This could lead to the safety case becoming a "self-fulfilling prophesy", giving a "warm sense of over-confidence" rather than highlighting uncertainties, gaps in knowledge or areas where the mitigation argument was not straightforward.<ref name=nimrod-review>{{cite |last=Haddon-Cave QC |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Haddon-Cave |title=The Nimrod Review |title-link=2006 Royal Air Force Nimrod crash#Nimrod Review |date=28 October 2009 |publisher=The Stationary Office |publication-place=London }}</ref> This had already been recognised by Habli and Kelly, who warned that a GSN diagram was just a depiction, not the safety case itself, and likened it to Magritte's painting [[The Treachery of Images]].<ref name=gsn-depictions>{{cite conference |last1=Habli |first1=Ibrahim |last2=Kelly |first2=Tim |title=Safety Case Depictions vs. Safety Cases – Would the Real Safety Case Please Stand Up? |conference=23rd International System Safety Conference |date=August 2007 |url=https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~tpk/iet2007.pdf }}</ref> Haddon-Cave also criticised the practice of consultants to produce "outsize GSN charts" that could be yards long and became an end in themselves rather than an aid to structured thinking.
== History ==
| |||