Goal structuring notation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:00, 26 February 2022

Latest revision as of 15:09, 1 February 2025

(13 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Graphical diagram notation}}

'''Goal structuring notation''' is a graphical argument used to document and present proof that [[Safety engineering|safety]] goals have been achieved, in a clearer format than plain text.<ref>Ge, Xiaocheng ''et al'' (2012), "[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212017312005075 Introducing Goal Structuring Notation to Explain Decisions in Clinical Practice]," ''Procedia Technology'' vol 5, p686-695. Retrieved June 21, 2018</ref> The notation is a diagram that builds its [[safety case]] through logic-based maps.<ref>Rich, K.j.n.c, ''et al'' (October 22, 2007), "[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4399936/ The Use of Goal Structuring Notation as a Method for Ensuring that Human Factors is Represented in a Safety Case ]," ''IEEE Xplore''. Retrieved June 21, 2018</ref> Originally developed at the University of York during the 1990s,<ref>The Assurance Case Working Group (January 2018), "[https://scsc.uk/r141B:1 Goal Structuring Notation Community Standard Version 2]," Retrieved June 25, 2018</ref> it gained popularity in 2012 and has been used to track safety assurances in industries such as traffic management and nuclear power.<ref>Spriggs, John (2012), ''[https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781447123118 GSN - The Goal Structuring Notation]''. Retrieved June 21, 2018</ref> By 2014, it had become the standard{{cn}} format for graphic documentation of safety cases and was being used in other contexts such as [[patent claim]]s, [[ Debate team|debate strategy]], and legal arguments.<ref>Cabot, Jordi (February 12, 2014), "[https://modeling-languages.com/goal-structuring-notation-introduction/ Goal Structuring Notation – a short introduction]," ''Modeling Languages''. Retrieved June 21, 2018</ref>

'''Goal structuring notation''' (GSN) is a graphical diagram notation used to show the elements of an [[argument]] and the relationships between those elements in a clearer format than plain text.<ref name="gsn3" /> Often used in [[safety engineering]], GSN was developed at the University of York during the 1990s to present [[safety case]]s.<ref name="Kelly1998" /> The notation gained popularity as a method of presenting safety assurances but can be applied to any type of argument and was standardized in 2011.<ref name="gsn3" />

GSN has been used to track safety assurances in industries such as clinical care<ref name="GeRijoPaige2012">{{cite journal | last1 = Ge | first1 = Xiaocheng | last2 = Rijo | first2 = Rui | last3 = Paige | first3 = Richard F. | last4 = Kelly | first4 = Tim P. | last5 = McDermid | first5 = John A. | title = Introducing Goal Structuring Notation to Explain Decisions in Clinical Practice | journal = Procedia Technology | date = 2012 | volume = 5 | pages = 686–695 | issn = 2212-0173 | doi = 10.1016/j.protcy.2012.09.076 | pmid = | url = | doi-access = free }}</ref> aviation,<ref name="nimrod-review" /> automotive, rail,<ref name="GSNinfo">{{cite web |last=Cabot |first=Jordi |date=12 February 2014 |url=https://modeling-languages.com/goal-structuring-notation-introduction/ |title=Goal Structuring Notation – a short introduction |website=Modeling Languages |access-date=21 June 2018}}</ref> traffic management, and nuclear power<ref name="Spriggs2012">{{cite book |last=Spriggs |first=John |title=GSN - The Goal Structuring Notation |date=2012 |publisher=Springer London |doi=10.1007/978-1-4471-2312-5 |isbn=978-1-4471-2311-8 |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4471-2312-5}}</ref> and has been used in other contexts such as security cases, [[patent claim]]s, [[Debate team|debate strategy]], and legal arguments.<ref name="GSNinfo" />

== History ==

The goal structuring notation was first developed at the [[University of York]] during the ASAM-II (A Safety Argument Manager II) project in the early 1990s, to overcome perceived issues in expressing safety arguments using the [[Toulmin method]]. The notation was further developed and expanded by Tim Kelly, whose PhD thesis contributed systematic methods for constructing and maintaining GSN diagrams, and the concept of ′safety case patterns′ to promote the re-use of argument fragments.<ref name=Kelly1998>{{cite thesis |last=Kelly |first=Timothy Patrick |date=September 1998 |degree=PhD |publisher=University of York |url=https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/tpk/tpkthesis.pdf |title=Arguing Safety – A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases}}</ref> During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the GSN methodology was taught in the Safety Critical Systems Engineering course at York, and various extensions to the GSN methodology were proposed by Kelly and other members of the university's High Integrity Systems Engineering group,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hawkins |first1=R.D. |last2=Kelly |first2=T.P. |title=A Systematic Approach for Developing Software Safety Arguments |date=July 2010 |journal=Journal of System Safety |volume=46 |issue=4 |pages=25–33 |issn=0743-8826}}</ref> led by [[John A. McDermid|Prof John McDermid]].

By 2007, goal structuring notation was sufficiently popular that a group of industry and academic users came together to standardise the notation and its surrounding methodology, resulting in the publication of the GSN Community Standard in 2011. From 2014, maintenance of the GSN standard moved under the auspices of the [[Safety-Critical Systems Club|SCSC's]] Assurance Case Working Group.<ref name=gsn2>{{cite book |author=The Assurance Case Working Group |date=Jan 2018 |url=https://scsc.uk/r141B:1 |title=Goal Structuring Notation Community Standard Version 2}}</ref> As at 2022, the standard has reached Version 3.<ref name="gsn3">{{cite book |author=The Assurance Case Working Group |date=May 2021 |url=https://scsc.uk/r141C:1 |title=Goal Structuring Notation Community Standard Version 3 |isbn=979-8451294949}}</ref>

== 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>{{citation |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 Stationery 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 producing "outsize GSN charts" that could be yards long and became an end in themselves rather than an aid to structured thinking.

== See also ==

Line 10 ⟶ 20:

[[Category:Diagrams]]

[[Category:Notation]]

{{tech-stub}}

{{Systemstheory-stub}}