Content deleted Content added
Correct historical detail in summary and improve use of references. |
re-ordering sections - seems reasonable to explain the thing before we dive into criticism. |
||
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]].<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" />
== 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 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 ==
Line 9 ⟶ 6:
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 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 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.
== See also ==
| |||