Volume List  / Volume 11 (4)



DOI: 10.7708/ijtte2021.11(4).03

11 / 4 / 528 - 542 Pages


Dimitrios Rizopoulos - KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden -

Nils O.E. Olsson - NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway -

Anders Lindahl - KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden -

Olov Lindfeldt - MTR Pendeltågen, Rålambsvägen 17, SE-112 59 Stockholm, Sweden -


It is now more evident than ever before that the organizations that develop or utilize railway signaling systems need to take advantage of modern scientific disciplines and technologies in order to meet transportation demand, improve train services, and re-assure the financial and environmental sustainability of railways. Although several game-changing technologies have emerged both in academic studies and the industry, adoption has differed across industries and sectors, with some of them employing modern tools and extracting their benefits, while others not. While this phenomenon can be attributed to the levels of demand for technological solutions according to the needs of each market, on the other hand, it can be accredited to the unsuccessful attempt to understand how the implementation of adoption itself could take place. In the current article, it is discussed how the study of the adoption of Formal Methods, and the tools that can be developed based on them, can occur in a systematic way in order to extract critical insights for this process. The analysis included in this article is part of the on-going discussion on the systematic study of the adoption of emerging technologies in railways and the currently developed scientific literature on the topic.

Download Article

Number of downloads: 406


This work has been supported by the Swedish Trafikverket as a part of the Shift2Rail research programme.


Ajzen, I. 1985. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, 11–39.


Bacherini, S. et al. 2006. A Story About Formal Methods Adoption by a Railway Signaling Manufacturer. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 179–189.


Baregheh, A.; Rowley, J.; Sambrook, S. 2009. Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation, Management Decision 47(8): 1323–1339.


Basile, D. et al. 2018. On the Industrial Uptake of Formal Methods in the Railway Domain, In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 20–29.


Batty, M. et al. 2012. Smart cities of the future, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 214(1): 481–518.


ter Beek, M. H. et al. 2019. Adopting Formal Methods in an Industrial Setting: The Railways Case. In International Symposium on Formals Methods, 762-772.


Behm, P. et al. 1999. Météor: A successful application of B in a large project. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 369-387.


Bowen, J. P.; Hinchey, M. G. 1995. Seven More Myths of Formal Methods, IEEE Software 12(4): 34-41.


Christou, C.; Eliophotou-Menon, M.; Philippou, G. 2004. Teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum: An application of CBAM, Educational Studies in Mathematics 57(2): 157–176.


Cimatti, A. et al. 1998. Formal Verification of a Railway Interlocking System using Model Checking, Formal Aspects of Computing 10(4): 361-380.


Coccia, M. 2009. Measuring the impact of sustainable technological innovation, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 5(3): 276-288.


Crossan, M. M.; Apaydin, M. 2010. A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Journal of Management Studies 47(6): 1154–1191.


Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319-340.


Douthwaite, B.; Keatinge, J. D. H.; Park, J. R. 2001. Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption, Research Policy 30(5): 819–836.


Edison, H.; bin Ali, N.; Torkar, R. 2013. Towards innovation measurement in the software industry, Journal of Systems and Software 86(5): 1390–1407.


Essamé, D.; Dollé, D. 2006. B in large-scale projects: The canarsie line CBTC experience. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 252-254.


Fantechi, A.; Flammini, F.; Gnesi, S. 2014. Formal methods for railway control systems, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 16(6): 643-646.


Ferrari, A. et al. 2013. Model-Based development and formal methods in the railway industry, IEEE Software 30(3): 28-34.


Ferrari, A.; Fantechi, A.; Gnesi, S. 2012. Lessons Learnt from the Adoption of Formal Model-Based Development. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 24–38.


Fuller, F. F. 1969. Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization, American Educational Research Journal 6(2): 207-226.


Hall, G.; Wallace, R.; Dossett, W. 1973. A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas, Austin. USA. 44 p.


Goverde, R. M. P.; Corman, F.; D’Ariano, A. 2013. Railway line capacity consumption of different railway signalling systems under scheduled and disturbed conditions, Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management 3(3): 78–94.


Gruner, S. et al. 2013. Towards a Formal Methods Body of Knowledge for Railway Control and Safety Systems, FM-RAIL-BOK Workshop 2013. Technical University of Denmark. DTU Compute-Technical Report-2013 No. 20.


Gruner, S.; Kumar, A.; Maibaum, T. 2016. Towards a body of knowledge in formal methods for the railway domain: Identification of settled knowledge. In Communications in Computer and Information Science, 87-102.


Hall, A. 1990. Seven myths of formal methods, IEEE Software 7(5): 11–19. Hall, G. E. 1979. The Concerns-Based Approach to Facilitating Change, Educational Horizons 57(4): 202–208.


Hauschildt, J. et al. 2016. Innovationsmanagement. Vahlen, Munich, Germany. Haxthausen, A. E. 2010. An introduction to formal methods for the development of safety-critical applications. DTU Informatics Technical University of Denmark. Denmark.


Huhn, M.; Milius, S. 2014. Observations on formal safety analysis in practice, Science of Computer Programming. 80(Part A): 150-168.


Iacono, M. P. et al. 2012. Knowledge creation and inter-organizational relationships: The development of innovation in the railway industry, Journal of Knowledge Management 16(4): 604-616.


Indrawati; Yusliansyah, S. 2017. Adoption factors of online-web railway ticket reservation service (A case from Indonesia). In 2017 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology, ICoIC7 2017, 1-6.


Karg, S. et al. 2016. Model-driven software engineering in the openETCS project. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 19th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems - MODELS ’16. 238–248.


Kline, S. J. 1985. Innovation Is Not a Linear Process, Research Management 28(4): 36–45.


Laurent, O. 2010. Using Formal Methods and Testability Concepts in the Avionics Systems Validation and Verification (V&V) Process. In 2010 Third International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, IEEE. 1–10.


Madigan, R. et al. 2016. Acceptance of Automated Road Transport Systems (ARTS): An Adaptation of the UTAUT Model. In Transportation Research Procedia, 14: 2217-2226.


Madigan, R. et al. 2017. What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 50: 55–64.


Marchewka, J.; Liu, C.; Kostiwa, K. 2007. An Application of the UTAUT Model for Understanding Student Perceptions Using Course Management Software, Communications of the IIMA 7(2): Article 10.


O’Hara, M. T.; Watson, R. T.; Kavan, C. B. 1999. Managing the three Levels of Change, Information Systems Management 16(3): 63-70.


Palmqvist, C. W.; Olsson, N. O. E.; Hiselius, L. W. 2017. Some influencing factors for passenger train punctuality in Sweden, International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 8(7): 1-13.


Puthur, J. K.; George, A. P.; Mahadevan, L. 2020. Understanding citizen’s continuance intention to use e-government services: the case of the Indian railway e-ticket booking site, International Journal of Business Information Systems 34(2): 183-203.


Ren, M. 2019. Why technology adoption succeeds or fails: an exploration from the perspective of intra-organizational legitimacy, The Journal of Chinese Sociology 6(1): 1-26.


Rizopoulos, D. et al. 2020. Research Directions Regarding the Adoption of Formal Methods in the Railway Signaling sector: Determinants and next steps for future-proof railways. In Computers in Railways XVII, 75–86.


Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York, USA, 551 p.


Smith, R. A. 2003. Railways: How they may contribute to a sustainable future. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit 217(4): 243–248.


Foon, Y. S.; Fah B. C. Y. 2011. Internet Banking Adoption in Kuala Lumpur: An Application of UTAUT Model, International Journal of Business and Management 6(4): 161-167.


Souyris, J. et al. 2009. Formal verification of avionics software products. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 532-546.


Straub, E. T. 2009. Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning, Review of Educational Research 79(2): 625-649.


Tan, P. J. B. 2013. Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan, SAGE Open 3(4): 1-12.


Venkatesh et al. 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View, MIS Quarterly 27(3): 425–478.


Venkatesh et al. 2012. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, MIS Quarterly 36(1): 157-178.


Venkatesh, V. 2000. Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model, Information Systems Research 11(4): 342–365.


Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions, Decision Sciences 39(2): 273–315.


Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F. D. 2000. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies, Management Science 46(2): 186–204.


Vu, L. H. 2015. Formal Development and Verification of Railway Control Systems - In the context of ERTMS/ETCS Level 2. Technical University of Denmark. DTU Compute PHD-2015 No.395.


Vu, L. H.; Haxthausen, A. E.; Peleska, J. 2014. A Domain-specific language for railway interlocking systems. In FORMS/FORMAT 2014 - 10th Symposium on Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems, 200–209.


Woodcock, J. et al. 2009. Formal methods, ACM Computing Surveys 41(4): 1–36.


Ye, J.; Zheng, J.; Yi, F. 2020. A study on users’ willingness to accept mobility as a service based on UTAUT model, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 157: 120066.