The Safety Argument Manager: an integrated approach to the engineering and safety assessment of computer based systems

Wilson, Stephen; McDermid, John; Kirkham, Peter; Fenelon, P.

doi:10.1109/ecbs.1996.494529

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We believe that viewpoints can provide this control, but need the assistance of some underlying support. We have developed a support tool [12] which is being used experimentally in industry, and which is now being developed to commercial standards. Our further work in this area is concerned with the definition of a method that can use viewpoints to manage the analytical complexity of safety critical systems, but which is supported by the use of Goal Structuring to organise the underlying information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing analytical complexity of safety critical systems using viewpoints

McDermid

Wilson

1996

Joint Proceedings of the Second International Software Architecture Workshop (ISAW-2) and International Workshop on Multiple Pe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

York YOl 5DD. United Kingdom.To add to the above difficulties, there are a large number ,of participants involved in the development and assessment of SCS, spanning multiple disciplines, e.g. computing, mechanical, hydro-mechanical, electronics, human factors. There are also different types of stakeholder: regulators, customers, developers, assessors, operators, those responsible for peer systems, standards bodies, government bodies (e.g. Health and Safety Executive), and so on.Managing any kind of complexity in a large scale systems development is a hard task. Viewpoints are a useful means of managing complexity and have been widely advocated in the field of Requirements Engineering. This position statement outlines the benefits of using viewpoints as a means of managing the analytical complexity of safety critical systems and describes the role of Goal Structuring as a supporting technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing analytical complexity of safety critical systems using viewpoints

McDermid

Wilson

1996

Joint Proceedings of the Second International Software Architecture Workshop (ISAW-2) and International Workshop on Multiple Pe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Safety Argument Manager (SAM) [57,82] and its various versions represent, perhaps, the very first set of tools for creating and managing safety arguments. The initial incarnation of SAM based its structuring principles on the Toulmin model of arguments [70].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tool support for assurance case development

Denney

Pai

2017

Autom Softw Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argument-based assurance cases, often represented and organized using graphical argument structures, are increasingly being used in practice to provide assurance to stakeholders, e.g., regulatory authorities, that a system is acceptable for its intended use with respect to dependability and safety concerns. In general, comprehensive system-wide assurance arguments aggregate a substantial amount of diverse information, such as the results of safety analysis, requirements analysis, design, verification and other engineering activities. Although a variety of assurance case tools exist, many desirable operations on argument structures such as hierarchical and modular abstraction, argument pattern instantiation, and inclusion/extraction of richly structured information have limited to no automation support. To close this automation gap, over the past four years we have been developing a toolset for assurance case automation, AdvoCATE, at the NASA Ames Research Center. This paper describes how AdvoCATE is being engineered atop formal foundations for assurance case argument structures, to provide unique capabilities for: a) automated creation and assembly of assurance arguments, b) integration of formal methods into wider assurance arguments, c) automated pattern instantiation, d) hierarchical abstraction, e) queries and views, and f) verification of arguments. We (and our colleagues) have used AdvoCATE in real projects for safety assurance, in the context of unmanned aircraft systems.

show abstract

D-Case Communicator: A Web Based GSN Editor for Multiple Stakeholders

Matsuno

2017

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Safety Argument Manager: an integrated approach to the engineering and safety assessment of computer based systems

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

Managing analytical complexity of safety critical systems using viewpoints

Managing analytical complexity of safety critical systems using viewpoints

Tool support for assurance case development

D-Case Communicator: A Web Based GSN Editor for Multiple Stakeholders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About