Content deleted Content added
Add history section |
Add criticism section |
||
Line 1:
'''Goal structuring notation''' (GSN) 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 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> The notation is a diagram that builds its [[safety case]] through logic-based maps.<ref name="RichBlanchardMcCloskey2007">{{citation | last1 = Rich | first1 = K.J.N. | last2 = Blanchard | first2 = H. | last3 = McCloskey | first3 = J. | title = The use of goal structuring notation as a method for ensuring that human factors is represented in a safety case | date = 2007 | publisher = IEE | doi = 10.1049/cp:20070467 | url = }}</ref> Originally developed at the University of York during the 1990s, it gained popularity in 2012 and has been used to track safety assurances in industries such as 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 |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4471-2312-5}}</ref> By 2014, it had become the standard{{cn|date=February 2022}} 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>{{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>
== 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> 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 ==
| |||