It. is well known that t.he introduction of a new technology in one organization not always produces the intended benefits (Levine, 1994). In many cases, either the receivers do not reach the intended level of use or simply the technology is rejected because it does not match with the expectations (true or false) and the accepted psychological effort to use it. The case of formal methods is a paradigmatic example of continual failures. The published cases with problems or failures only constitute the visible part of a large iceberg of adoption cases. It. is difficult to get companies to openly express the problems they had; however, from the experience of the author, failure cases are very common and they include any type of company. Many reasons to explain the failures (and in some cases the successes) could be postulated; however, the experiences are not structured enough and it is difficult to extract from them useful guidelines for avoiding future problems. Generally speaking, there is a trend to find the root of the problems in the technol­ ogy itself and in its adequacy with the preexistent technological context. Technocratic technology transfer models describe the problems in terms of these aspects. Although it is true that those factors limit the probability of success, there is another source of explanations linked to the individuals and working teams and how they perceive the technology.

It. is well known that t.he introduction of a new technology in one organization not always produces the intended benefits (Levine, 1994). In many cases, either the receivers do not reach the intended level of use or simply the technology is rejected because it does not match with the expectations (true or false) and the accepted psychological effort to use it. The case of formal methods is a paradigmatic example of continual failures. The published cases with problems or failures only constitute the visible part of a large iceberg of adoption cases. It. is difficult to get companies to openly express the problems they had; however, from the experience of the author, failure cases are very common and they include any type of company. Many reasons to explain the failures (and in some cases the successes) could be postulated; however, the experiences are not structured enough and it is difficult to extract from them useful guidelines for avoiding future problems. Generally speaking, there is a trend to find the root of the problems in the technol­ ogy itself and in its adequacy with the preexistent technological context. Technocratic technology transfer models describe the problems in terms of these aspects. Although it is true that those factors limit the probability of success, there is another source of explanations linked to the individuals and working teams and how they perceive the technology.

It. is well known that t.he introduction of a new technology in one organization not always produces the intended benefits (Levine, 1994). In many cases, either the receivers do not reach the intended level of use or simply the technology is rejected because it does not match with the expectations (true or false) and the accepted psychological effort to use it. The case of formal methods is a paradigmatic example of continual failures. The published cases with problems or failures only constitute the visible part of a large iceberg of adoption cases. It. is difficult to get companies to openly express the problems they had; however, from the experience of the author, failure cases are very common and they include any type of company. Many reasons to explain the failures (and in some cases the successes) could be postulated; however, the experiences are not structured enough and it is difficult to extract from them useful guidelines for avoiding future problems. Generally speaking, there is a trend to find the root of the problems in the technol­ ogy itself and in its adequacy with the preexistent technological context. Technocratic technology transfer models describe the problems in terms of these aspects. Although it is true that those factors limit the probability of success, there is another source of explanations linked to the individuals and working teams and how they perceive the technology.