# Problematizing the Adoption of Formal Methods in the 4 IR-5 IR Transition
###### Abstract  
The adoption of formal methods (FMs) as a software development methodology remains low. Advocates of FMs point to the advantages to be gained by producing highly dependable systems, while critics refer to the steep learning curve required to master the underlying mathematics and logic. The situation was similar for artificial intelligence (AI), but the advent of 4 IR-5 IR technologies has recently made AI a feasible technology for computing. We believe that the same could hold for FMs. In this article, we considered both the advantages and disadvantages of the use of FMs and unpacked them by problematizing the aspects that need to be considered in the 4 IR-5 IR worlds to facilitate the use of FMs as a viable software development methodology. We made the case that the 5 IR embedding of harmonious collaboration between humans and machines could assist with difficult FM interfaces, similar to how human-computer interaction (HCI) has influenced technical and inflexible systems in the past. Since we view FMs as a technology, we further considered the role to be played by technology adoption, exemplified by the various technology adoption models, e.g., the TOE framework. This article culminates in the formulation of a problematization framework for the adoption of FMs in 4 IR-5 IR. F 2022 2  
completed. A prominent source for these challenges are the regular CHAOS reports [5]. Later, CHAOS reports indeed evidenced an improvement in software development for smaller projects [6] through the use of Agile, but Agile itself is often criticized due to its lack of a rigorous set of upfront user requirements and its possible inability to reach an acceptable project maturity level [7]. Nevertheless, larger software projects continue to face challenges [8]. While it was hoped that the above software development advances would bring about the elusive silver bullet, it did not fully materialize. One such development, specifically related to the development of safety-critical or mission-critical software, wherein human lives may be at stake, was the use of formal methods (FMs) based on techniques of discrete mathematics and logic [9]. Formal methods aim to produce provably correct software or at least highly dependable software, i.e., software of a high quality. Indeed, formal methods projects have had their fair share of success [10] over the years, but the steep learning curves required to get to grips with the underlying mathematical formalisms discouraged many companies from adopting FMs as a serious software development methodology [11]. The value of applying an FMs approach to software development for industrial critical systems, specifically railway applications, avionics, and the automotive industry, together with the value of using the correct software tools for FMs, was discussed by the authors in [12]. With respect to the commercial world, however, the use of FMs remains limited [13]. A comprehensive survey of 130 FMs experts worldwide, in which responses were obtained for 30 questions using a Likert scale instrument [14], confirmed the industry adoption challenges of FMs. The survey produced interesting results, including that: FMs may be viewed as a disruptive technology; they are often sold to industries while still being immature; in the opinion of the respondents, FMs are applicable to any company, irrespective of its size; managers ought to become more aware of the value of FMs; training in FMs is much needed; 4 IR-based AI is in need of FMs to assist with making intelligent decisions in the new industrial environment; and policies around the use of FMs should be put in place. In regard to policies, the work by [PERSON] et al. [15] called for an FMs manifesto embodying ten principles related to scope, methodology, integration, explainability, automation, scalability, transfer, usefulness, ease of use (usability--user experience (UX)), and evaluation.