安全分析中的群体思维:一个工业案例研究

Yang Wang, S. Wagner
{"title":"安全分析中的群体思维:一个工业案例研究","authors":"Yang Wang, S. Wagner","doi":"10.1145/3183519.3183538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: In safety-critical systems, an effective safety analysis produces high-quality safety requirements and ensures a safe product from an early stage. Motivation: In safety-critical industries, safety analysis happens mostly in groups. The occurrence of \"groupthink\", under which the group members become concurrence-seeking, potentially leads to a poor safety assurance of products and fatalities. Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate how groupthink influences safety analysis as well as how to reduce it. Method: We conducted a multi-case study in seven companies by surveying 39 members and interviewing 17 members including software developers, software testers, quality engineers, functional safety managers, hazard/risk managers, sales, purchasing, production managers and senior managers. Results: The TOP 10 phenomena of groupthink in safety analysis are: (1) The managers are too optimistic on the plan of safety analysis from norms. (2) The technical members overestimate their capability on avoiding risks. (3) The non-functional department is under negative stereotypes in safety analysis. (4) Non-technical members keep silence during safety analysis. (5) Team members keep consistent opinions with senior safety experts. (6) The team rationalizes the safety analysis solutions. (7) The safety analysts spontaneously freeze the safety-related documents. (8) The safety analyst has an illusion of invulnerability during verification. (9) The internal safety assessor rationalizes the safety assurance to a third party. (10) The team rationalizes the safety analysis for providing safety evidences. Furthermore, we found reasons like \"cohesion\" and \"group insulation\" and solutions like \"inviting external expert\" and \"making key members impartial\". Conclusion: There is groupthink in safety analysis in practice. Practitioners should look for the phenomena and consider solutions. However, the cases are limited to the investigated domains and countries.","PeriodicalId":445513,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE-SEIP)","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Groupthink in Safety Analysis: An Industrial Case Study\",\"authors\":\"Yang Wang, S. Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3183519.3183538\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: In safety-critical systems, an effective safety analysis produces high-quality safety requirements and ensures a safe product from an early stage. Motivation: In safety-critical industries, safety analysis happens mostly in groups. The occurrence of \\\"groupthink\\\", under which the group members become concurrence-seeking, potentially leads to a poor safety assurance of products and fatalities. Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate how groupthink influences safety analysis as well as how to reduce it. Method: We conducted a multi-case study in seven companies by surveying 39 members and interviewing 17 members including software developers, software testers, quality engineers, functional safety managers, hazard/risk managers, sales, purchasing, production managers and senior managers. Results: The TOP 10 phenomena of groupthink in safety analysis are: (1) The managers are too optimistic on the plan of safety analysis from norms. (2) The technical members overestimate their capability on avoiding risks. (3) The non-functional department is under negative stereotypes in safety analysis. (4) Non-technical members keep silence during safety analysis. (5) Team members keep consistent opinions with senior safety experts. (6) The team rationalizes the safety analysis solutions. (7) The safety analysts spontaneously freeze the safety-related documents. (8) The safety analyst has an illusion of invulnerability during verification. (9) The internal safety assessor rationalizes the safety assurance to a third party. (10) The team rationalizes the safety analysis for providing safety evidences. Furthermore, we found reasons like \\\"cohesion\\\" and \\\"group insulation\\\" and solutions like \\\"inviting external expert\\\" and \\\"making key members impartial\\\". Conclusion: There is groupthink in safety analysis in practice. Practitioners should look for the phenomena and consider solutions. However, the cases are limited to the investigated domains and countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":445513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE-SEIP)\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE-SEIP)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3183519.3183538\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE-SEIP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3183519.3183538","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:在安全关键型系统中,有效的安全分析可以产生高质量的安全要求,并确保从早期阶段就获得安全产品。动机:在安全关键行业,安全分析大多以小组形式进行。“群体思维”(groupthink)的出现,使群体成员变得趋同,可能导致产品的安全保障较差,造成人员伤亡。目的:探讨群体思维对安全分析的影响及如何减少群体思维。方法:我们在7家公司进行了多案例研究,调查了39名成员,采访了17名成员,包括软件开发人员、软件测试人员、质量工程师、功能安全经理、危害/风险经理、销售、采购、生产经理和高级管理人员。结果:安全分析中群体思维最常见的10大现象是:(1)管理者对规范的安全分析方案过于乐观;(2)技术人员高估了自身规避风险的能力。(3)非职能部门在安全分析中存在负面刻板印象。(4)非技术人员在安全分析时保持沉默。(5)团队成员与资深安全专家意见一致。(6)团队对安全分析方案进行合理化。(7)安全分析人员自发冻结安全相关文件。(8)安全分析人员在验证过程中有一种无懈可击的错觉。(9)内部安全评估员向第三方合理化安全保证。(10)团队合理化安全分析,提供安全证据。此外,我们还找到了“凝聚力”、“群体绝缘”等原因,以及“邀请外部专家”、“让核心成员保持公正”等解决方案。结论:安全分析实践中存在群体思维。从业者应该寻找现象并考虑解决方案。然而,这些案例仅限于被调查的领域和国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On Groupthink in Safety Analysis: An Industrial Case Study
Context: In safety-critical systems, an effective safety analysis produces high-quality safety requirements and ensures a safe product from an early stage. Motivation: In safety-critical industries, safety analysis happens mostly in groups. The occurrence of "groupthink", under which the group members become concurrence-seeking, potentially leads to a poor safety assurance of products and fatalities. Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate how groupthink influences safety analysis as well as how to reduce it. Method: We conducted a multi-case study in seven companies by surveying 39 members and interviewing 17 members including software developers, software testers, quality engineers, functional safety managers, hazard/risk managers, sales, purchasing, production managers and senior managers. Results: The TOP 10 phenomena of groupthink in safety analysis are: (1) The managers are too optimistic on the plan of safety analysis from norms. (2) The technical members overestimate their capability on avoiding risks. (3) The non-functional department is under negative stereotypes in safety analysis. (4) Non-technical members keep silence during safety analysis. (5) Team members keep consistent opinions with senior safety experts. (6) The team rationalizes the safety analysis solutions. (7) The safety analysts spontaneously freeze the safety-related documents. (8) The safety analyst has an illusion of invulnerability during verification. (9) The internal safety assessor rationalizes the safety assurance to a third party. (10) The team rationalizes the safety analysis for providing safety evidences. Furthermore, we found reasons like "cohesion" and "group insulation" and solutions like "inviting external expert" and "making key members impartial". Conclusion: There is groupthink in safety analysis in practice. Practitioners should look for the phenomena and consider solutions. However, the cases are limited to the investigated domains and countries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信