Argumentation at work

I use argumentation theory in various projects (european fp7, with certification authorities, etc.). In fact, I use it for two purposes:

In these works, I just apply theories and more particularly the work of: Stephen Toulmin, Chaïm Perelman, Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, Philippe Besnard, Anthony Hunter, Douglas Walton, Phan Minh Dung. Thank's to them.

Argumentation for Validation, Accreditation or Certification

The aim of the argumentation diagram is to organize and visualize, in a synthetic way, all key elements proving the validity of a product's property. The argumentation diagram does not represent the process, but gives the rationale behind all Verification & Validation (V&V) documents. In fact, it lists and organizes necessary evidence in a development life cycle.
But the validity of the final assessment requires the validation and the identification of the evidence of each intermediate step. So, we introduce a generic argumentation pattern and its derivations, whose support a rational organization of all V&V evidence at each step. This pattern stems from legal science and argumentation theory legacies, and it is the basic building block for the argumentation diagram construction.

Publications

  • Thomas Polacsek. Validation, Accreditation or Certification: a New Kind of Diagram to Provide Confidence IEEE Tenth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS'16), 2016.
  • Pierre Bieber, Frédéric Boniol, Guy Durrieu, Olivier Poitou, Thomas Polacsek, Virginie Wiels, Ghilaine Martinez MIMOSA: Towards a model driven certification process, 8th European Congress Embedded Real Time Software and Systems (ERTS2'16), 2016.

Keynotes

  • Invited by NATO to speak on using argumentation theory in a V&V context at the Lecture Series on "Application of Verification and Validation of Models, Simulations and Data" (MSG-123). September 2014 at the NATO M&S COE Facility Caserma De Cicco Piaz in Rome, Italy / April 2014 in Stockholm, Sweden, and May in Ottawa, Canada.

Argumentation to Support and to Report Collaborative Decision

We define a process to support a collaborative decision made by experts, like collaborative modelling, design choice or collaborative validation, and a formal framework to understand and analyze the final decision. We propose a methodology in two steps: a graphical modeling of the debate to support experts and a more formal framework to record the rationale of the decision. The intended benefits of this methodology are to support the collaborative decision process and to record the motivations of the decision.

Publications