The deconstruction of safety arguments through adversarial counter-argument

James M. Armstrong and Stephen E. Paynter

Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2007, vol. 92, issue 11, 1551-1562

Abstract: The project Deconstructive Evaluation of Risk In Dependability Arguments and Safety Cases (DERIDASC) has recently experimented with techniques borrowed from literary theory as safety case analysis techniques [Armstrong. Danger: Derrida at work. Interdiscipl Sci Rev 2003;28(2):83–94. [9]; Armstrong J, Paynter S. Safe systems: construction, destruction, and deconstruction. In: Redmill F, Anderson T, editors. Proceedings of the 11th safety critical systems symposium, Bristol, UK. Berlin: Springer; 2003. p. 62–76. ISBN:1-85233-696-X. [10]]. This paper introduces our high-level framework for “deconstructing†safety arguments. Our approach is quite general and should be applicable to different types of safety argumentation framework. As one example, we outline how the approach would work in the context of the Goal Structure Notation (GSN).

Date: 2007
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832006002110
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:reensy:v:92:y:2007:i:11:p:1551-1562

DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.10.004

Access Statistics for this article

Reliability Engineering and System Safety is currently edited by Carlos Guedes Soares

More articles in Reliability Engineering and System Safety from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().