Goal structuring notation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:35, 17 November 2022

Revision as of 21:06, 8 January 2023

Line 1:

'''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|safety cases]]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 = }}</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 ==

Line 8:

== 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 StationaryStationery 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.

== See also ==

Line 19:

[[Category:Diagrams]]

[[Category:Notation]]

{{tech-stub}}

{{Systemstheory-stub}}