A Thought Experiment on Evolution of Assurance Cases

—from a Logical Aspect
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10489)


A thought experiment on evolution of assurance argument is performed on the basis of an interview with a manufacturer that applied for a certification of conformance of their in-house software life cycle to a safety standard. The working hypothesis of the experiment is that assurance cases help find problems in arguments on software life cycle and improve the life cycle. Based on the result of the thought experiment, questions for further empirical studies are generated and the ontology of relevant information items are analysed.


Assurance case Assurance argument Software assurance Software life cycle Evolution Formal approach Thought experiment 



The authors acknowledge Makoto Takeyama’s thoughtful comments on the draft of this paper. Koji Okuno coordinated the authors’ contact with Nihon Koden Corp. that led to this work. The authors thank Kazuo Oosone, Masato Tanaka and Yuichi Kurabe for sharing their experience as software engineering experts in industry. The second author is grateful to Bengt Nordström for providing necessary facilities to prepare a draft of this paper during his stay in Göteborg.


  1. 1.
    Ankrum, T.S., Kromholz, A.H.: Structured assurance cases: three common standards. In: Ninth IEEE International Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE 2005), pp. 99–108 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holloway, C.M.: Explicate78: uncovering the implicit assurance case in do-178c. Technical report 20150009473, NASA Langley Research Center (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, Principles and rules for the structure and drafting of ISO and IEC documents, 7th edn. (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC/IEEE: 12207 FDIS Software life cycle processes (Final Draft International Standard registered for approval)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knight, J.C., Rowanhill, J.: The indispensable role of rationale in safety standards. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9922, pp. 39–50. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45477-1_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore, A.P., Klinker, J.E., Mihelcic, D.M.: How to construct formal arguments that persuade certifiers. In: Hinchey, M.G., Bowen, J.P. (eds.) Industrial-Strength Formal Methods in Practice. FACIT, pp. 285–314. Springer, London (1999). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-0523-7_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tokoro, M. (ed.): Open Systems Dependability: Dependability Engineering for Ever-Changing Systems, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kinoshita, Y., Takeyama, M.: Assurance case as a proof in a theory towards formulation of rebuttals. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds.) Assuring the Safety of Systems, Proceedings of the Twenty-first Safety-Critical Systems Symposium, Bristol, UK, pp. 205–230 (2013). SCSC on Amazon ISBN 978-1-4810-18647Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kanagawa UniversityHiratsukaJapan

Personalised recommendations