View source for Technology readiness level

{{Short description|Method for estimating the maturity of technologies}}
[[Image:NASA TRL Meter.png|frame|right|NASA technology readiness levels]]
{{Futures studies}}

'''Technology readiness levels''' ('''TRLs''') are a method for estimating the [[technology maturity|maturity]] of technologies during the acquisition phase of a program. TRLs enable consistent and uniform discussions of technical maturity across different types of technology.<ref name="NASA to EU" /> TRL is determined during a '''technology readiness assessment''' ('''TRA''') that examines program concepts, technology requirements, and demonstrated technology capabilities. TRLs are based on a scale from 1 to 9 with 9 being the most mature technology.<ref name="NASA to EU" /> 

TRL was developed at [[NASA]] during the 1970s. The [[United States Department of Defense|US Department of Defense]] has used the scale for procurement since the early 2000s. By 2008 the scale was also in use at the [[European Space Agency]] (ESA).<ref name=ESA08>{{cite web |url=https://artes.esa.int/sites/default/files/TRL_Handbook.pdf |title=Technology Readiness Levels Handbook for Space Applications |edition=1 revision 6 |date=September 2008 |publisher=[[ESA]] |id=TEC-SHS/5551/MG/ap }}</ref>
The [[European Commission]] advised EU-funded research and innovation projects to adopt the scale in 2010.<ref name="NASA to EU" /> TRLs were consequently used in 2014 in the EU [[Horizon 2020|Horizon 2020 program]]. In 2013, the TRL scale was further canonized by the [[International Organization for Standardization]] (ISO) with the publication of the '''ISO 16290:2013''' standard.<ref name="NASA to EU" /> 

A comprehensive approach and discussion of TRLs has been published by the [[European Association of Research and Technology Organisations]] (EARTO).<ref>{{cite web |title=The TRL Scale as a Research & Innovation Policy Tool, EARTO Recommendations |date=30 April 2014 |publisher=European Association of Research & Technology Organisations |url=https://www.earto.eu/wp-content/uploads/The_TRL_Scale_as_a_R_I_Policy_Tool_-_EARTO_Recommendations_-_Final.pdf}}</ref> Extensive criticism of the adoption of TRL scale by the [[European Union]] was published in The Innovation Journal, stating that the "concreteness and sophistication of the TRL scale gradually diminished as its usage spread outside its original context (space programs)".<ref name="NASA to EU" />

==Definitions==
<!-- It would be nice to add a paragraph indicating how most TRL scales are fairly similar, and that the descriptions below differ only in the exact phrasing. -->

{| class="wikitable"
! TRL !! NASA usage<ref>{{cite web |title=Technology Readiness Level Definitions |url=https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf |website=nasa.gov |access-date=6 September 2019}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> !! European Union<ref>{{cite web |title=Technology readiness levels (TRL); Extract from Part 19 - Commission Decision C(2014)4995 |url=https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/annexes/h2020-wp1415-annex-g-trl_en.pdf |website=ec.europa.eu |access-date=11 November 2019 |date=2014}}  [[File:CC-BY icon.svg|50px]] Material was copied from this source, which is available under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License].</ref>
|-
| 1 || Basic principles observed and reported || Basic principles observed
|-
| 2 || Technology concept and/or application formulated || Technology concept formulated
|-
| 3 || Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of concept || Experimental proof of concept
|-
| 4 || Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment || Technology validated in lab
|-
| 5 || Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment || Technology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
|-
| 6 || System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) || Technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
|-
| 7 || System prototype demonstration in a space environment || System prototype demonstration in operational environment
|-
| 8 || Actual system completed and "flight qualified" through test and demonstration (ground or space) || System complete and qualified
|-
| 9 || Actual system "flight proven" through successful mission operations || Actual system proven in operational environment (competitive manufacturing in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space)
|}

<!--
===US Department of Energy===
The US DOE has defined the following TRL levels<ref>[https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/em/Volume_I/O_SRP.pdf Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) / Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) Process Guide ] US Department of Energy</ref>

;TRL 9 Actual system operated over the full range of expected conditions.
The technology is in its final form and operated under the full range of operating conditions. Examples include using the actual system with the full range of wastes in hot operations.

;TRL 8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration.
The technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental testing and evaluation of the system with actual waste in hot commissioning. Supporting information includes operational procedures that are virtually complete. An ORR has been successfully completed prior to the start of hot testing System Commissioning

;TRL 7 Full-scale, similar (prototypical) system demonstrated in relevant environment
This represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in a relevant environment. Examples include testing full-scale prototype in the field with a range of simulants in cold commissioning1. Supporting information includes results from the full-scale testing and analysis of the differences between the test environment, and analysis of what the experimental results mean for the eventual operating system/environment. Final design is virtually complete.

;TRL 6 Engineering/pilot-scale, similar (prototypical) system validation in relevant environment
Engineering-scale models or prototypes are tested in a relevant environment. This represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing an engineering scale prototypical system with a range of simulants.1 Supporting information includes results from the engineering scale testing and analysis of the differences between the engineering scale, prototypical system/environment, and analysis of what the experimental results mean for the eventual operating system/environment. TRL 6 begins true engineering development of the technology as an operational system. The major difference between TRL 5 and 6 is the step up from laboratory scale to engineering scale and the determination of scaling factors that will enable design of the operating system. The prototype should be capable of performing all the functions that will be required of the operational system. The operating environment for the testing should closely represent the actual operating environment.

;TRL 5 Laboratory scale, similar system validation in relevant environment
The basic technological components are integrated so that the system configuration is similar to (matches) the final application in almost all respects. Examples include testing a high-fidelity, laboratory scale system in a simulated environment with a range of simulants1 and actual waste2. Supporting information includes results from the laboratory scale testing, analysis of the differences between the laboratory and eventual operating system/environment, and analysis of what the experimental results mean for the eventual operating system/environment. The major difference between TRL 4 and 5 is the increase in the fidelity of the system and environment to the actual application. The system tested is almost prototypical.

;TRL 4 Component and/or system validation in laboratory environment
The basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared with the eventual system. Examples include integration of ad hoc hardware in a laboratory and testing with a range of simulants and small scale tests on actual waste2. Supporting information includes the results of the integrated experiments and estimates of how the experimental components and experimental test results differ from the expected system performance goals. TRL 4-6 represent the bridge from scientific research to engineering. TRL 4 is the first step in determining whether the individual components will work together as a system. The laboratory system will probably be a mix of on hand equipment and a few special purpose components that may require special handling, calibration, or alignment to get them to function.

;TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept
Active research and development (R&D) is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory-scale studies to physically validate the analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative tested with simulants.1 Supporting information includes results of laboratory tests performed to measure parameters of interest and comparison to analytical predictions for critical subsystems. At TRL 3 the work has moved beyond the paper phase to experimental work that verifies that the concept works as expected on simulants. Components of the technology are validated, but there is no attempt to integrate the components into a complete system. Modeling and simulation may be used to complement physical experiments.

;TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated
Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative, and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are still limited to analytic studies. Supporting information includes publications or other references that outline the application being considered and that provide analysis to support the concept. The step up from TRL 1 to TRL 2 moves the ideas from pure to applied research. Most of the work is analytical or paper studies with the emphasis on understanding the science better. Experimental work is designed to corroborate the basic scientific observations made during TRL 1 work.

;TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported
This is the lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied R&D. Examples might include paper studies of a technology’s basic properties or experimental work that consists mainly of observations of the physical world. Supporting Information includes published research or other references that identify the principles that underlie the technology.
-->

==Assessment tools==
<!-- Image with unknown copyright status removed: [[Image:TPMM Process Icon.jpg]] -->[[Image:TPMM transition mech.jpg|right|300px|DAU Decision Point / TPMM Transition Mechanisms]]






A ''Technology Readiness Level Calculator'' was developed by the [[United States Air Force]].<ref>{{cite web|author = Nolte, William L.|title = ''Technology Readiness Level Calculator, Air Force Research Laboratory'', presented at the NDIA Systems Engineering Conference |date = 20 October 2003|url = http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003systems/nolte.ppt|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150513154728/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003systems/nolte.ppt|url-status = dead|archive-date = 13 May 2015|display-authors=etal}}</ref> This tool is a standard set of questions implemented in [[Microsoft Excel]] that produces a graphical display of the TRLs achieved. This tool is intended to provide a snapshot of technology maturity at a given point in time.<ref>{{cite web|title = Technology Assessment Calculator|url = https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=320594}}</ref>

The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Decision Point (DP) Tool originally named the ''Technology Program Management Model'' was developed by the [[United States Army]].<ref>{{cite web|author=Craver, Jeffrey T. |date=28 Dec 2020|title=Decision Point / Technology Program Management Model, DAU |url=https://www.dau.edu/tools/t/Decision-Point |website=Defense Acquisition University}}</ref> and later adopted by the DAU.  The DP/TPMM is a TRL-gated high-fidelity activity model that provides a flexible management tool to assist Technology Managers in planning, managing, and assessing their technologies for successful technology transition.  The model provides a core set of activities including [[systems engineering]] and [[program management]] tasks that are tailored to the technology development and management goals.  This approach is comprehensive, yet it consolidates the complex activities that are relevant to the development and transition of a specific technology program into one integrated model.<ref>{{cite web|last=Jeff|first=Craver|title=''Decision Point / TPMM - Technology Program Management Model'' (only available to DOD components)|url=https://www.dau.edu/tools/t/Decision-Point}}</ref>

==Uses==
The primary purpose of using technology readiness levels is to help management in making decisions concerning the development and transitioning of technology. It should be viewed as one of several tools that are needed to manage the progress of research and development activity within an organization.<ref>{{cite web|author = Christophe Deutsch|author2 = Chiara Meneghini|author3 = Ozzy Mermut|author4 = Martin Lefort|title = Measuring Technology Readiness to improve Innovation Management|access-date = 2011-11-27|url = http://www.ino.ca/Docs/Documents/publications/scientifiques/Deutch_Measuring%20technology%20readiness%20to%20improve%20innovation%20management.pdf|publisher = INO|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120602044401/http://www.ino.ca/Docs/Documents/publications/scientifiques/Deutch_Measuring%20technology%20readiness%20to%20improve%20innovation%20management.pdf|archive-date = 2012-06-02}}</ref>

Among the advantages of TRLs:<ref name="hfidtc">{{cite web|author = Ben Dawson|title = The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations|date = 31 October 2007|url = http://www.hfidtc.com/research/process/reports/phase-2/HFIDTC-2-12-2-1-1-tech-organisation.pdf|publisher = Human Factors Integration Design Technology Centre|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120426001612/http://www.hfidtc.com/research/process/reports/phase-2/HFIDTC-2-12-2-1-1-tech-organisation.pdf|archive-date = 26 April 2012}}</ref>

* Provides a common understanding of technology status
* Risk management
* Used to make decisions concerning technology funding
* Used to make decisions concerning transition of technology

Some of the characteristics of TRLs that limit their utility:<ref name ="hfidtc" />

* Readiness does not necessarily fit with appropriateness or technology maturity
* A mature product may possess a greater or lesser degree of readiness for use in a particular system context than one of lower maturity
* Numerous factors must be considered, including the relevance of the products' operational environment to the system at hand, as well as the product-system architectural mismatch

TRL models tend to disregard negative and obsolescence factors. There have been suggestions made for incorporating such factors into assessments.<ref>{{cite conference |author = Ricardo Valerdi|author2 = Ron J. Kohl|title = An Approach to Technology Risk Management |conference=Engineering Systems Division Symposium MIT, Cambridge, MA, March 29-31, 2004 |date = March 2004 |citeseerx=10.1.1.402.359 |url =https://www.academia.edu/download/3237659/TRL_paper_ESD_Valerdi_Kohl.pdf }}{{dead link|date=July 2022|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

For complex technologies that incorporate various development stages, a more detailed scheme called the Technology Readiness Pathway Matrix has been developed going from basic units to applications in society. This tool aims to show that a readiness level of a technology is based on a less linear process but on a more complex pathway through its application in society.<ref>{{cite web|author = Vincent Jamier|author2 = Christophe Aucher|title =Demystifying Technology Readiness Levels for Complex Technologies |work=Leitat Projects Blog |date = April 2018|url = https://projects.leitat.org/demystifying-trls-for-complex-technologies/}}</ref>

==History==
Technology readiness levels were conceived at NASA in 1974 and formally defined in 1989. The original definition included seven levels, but in the 1990s NASA adopted the nine-level scale that subsequently gained widespread acceptance.<ref name="TRL Demystified">{{cite web|title = Technology Readiness Levels Demystified|author=Banke, Jim |date = 20 August 2010 |url = http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html|publisher = [[NASA]]}}</ref>

'''Original NASA TRL Definitions (1989)'''<ref>{{cite conference |author = Sadin, Stanley R.|author2 = Povinelli, Frederick P.|author3 = Rosen, Robert |title = The NASA technology push towards future space mission systems |conference=International Astronautical Congress, 39th, Bangalore, India, Oct. 8-15, 1988 |date = October 1, 1988|url = https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?print=yes&R=19890030268}}</ref>

:Level 1 – Basic Principles Observed and Reported
:Level 2 – Potential Application Validated
:Level 3 – Proof-of-Concept Demonstrated, Analytically and/or Experimentally
:Level 4 – Component and/or [[Breadboard]] Laboratory Validated
:Level 5 – Component and/or Breadboard Validated in Simulated or Realspace Environment
:Level 6 – System Adequacy Validated in Simulated Environment
:Level 7 – System Adequacy Validated in Space

The TRL methodology was originated by Stan Sadin at NASA Headquarters in 1974.<ref name="TRL Demystified"/> Ray Chase was then the JPL Propulsion Division representative on the Jupiter Orbiter design team. At the suggestion of Stan Sadin, Chase used this methodology to assess the technology readiness of the proposed JPL Jupiter Orbiter spacecraft design.{{Citation needed|date=November 2011}} Later Chase spent a year at NASA Headquarters helping Sadin institutionalize the TRL methodology. Chase joined ANSER in 1978, where he used the TRL methodology to evaluate the technology readiness of proposed Air Force development programs. He published several articles during the 1980s and 90s on reusable launch vehicles utilizing the TRL methodology.<ref>{{cite conference |author = Chase, R.L.|title =Methodology for Assessing Technological and Manufacturing Readiness of NASP-Technology Enabled Vehicles |id=AIAA 91-2389 |doi=10.2514/6.1991-2389 | conference=27th Joint Propulsion Conference, June 24-26, 1991, Sacramento CA |date = 26 June 1991|url = http://papers.sae.org/965565/}}</ref> 

These documented an expanded version of the methodology that included design tools, test facilities, and manufacturing readiness on the Air Force Have Not program.{{Citation needed|date=November 2011}} The Have Not program manager, Greg Jenkins, and Ray Chase published the expanded version of the TRL methodology, which included design and manufacturing.{{Citation needed|date=November 2011}} Leon McKinney and Chase used the expanded version to assess the technology readiness of the ANSER team's Highly Reusable Space Transportation (HRST) concept.<ref>{{cite book|display-authors = 4|author = R. L. Chase|author2 = L. E. McKinney|author3 = H. D. Froning, Jr.|author4 = P. Czysz|author5 = R. Boyd|author6 = Mark Lewis|title = AIP Conference Proceedings|name-list-style = amp|chapter = A comparison of selected air-breathing propulsion choices for an aerospace plane|chapter-url = http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS%2F458%2F1133%2F1|publisher = [[American Institute of Physics]]|doi = 10.1063/1.57719|volume = 458|pages = 1133–8|date = January 1999|access-date = 2018-08-28|archive-date = 2016-03-11|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160311074302/http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.57719|url-status = dead}}</ref> ANSER also created an adapted version of the TRL methodology for proposed Homeland Security Agency programs.<ref>{{cite web|title = Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Readiness Level Calculator (Ver. 1.1) - Final Report and User"s Manual|date = September 30, 2009|url = http://www.homelandsecurity.org/hsireports/DHS_ST_RL_Calculator_report20091020.pdf|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100826124930/http://www.homelandsecurity.org/hsireports/DHS_ST_RL_Calculator_report20091020.pdf|url-status = dead|archive-date = August 26, 2010|publisher = Homeland Security Institute}}</ref>

The [[United States Air Force]] adopted the use of technology readiness levels in the 1990s.{{Citation needed|date=November 2011}}

In 1995, [[John C. Mankins]], NASA, wrote a paper that discussed NASA's use of TRL, extended the scale, and proposed expanded descriptions for each TRL.<ref name="NASA to EU" /> In 1999, the United States [[General Accounting Office]] produced an influential report<ref>{{cite web |title = Best Practices: Better Management of Technology Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes |id = GAO/NSIAD-99-162 |date = July 1999 |url = http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns991620.pdf |publisher = [[General Accounting Office]] |access-date = 2018-08-28 |archive-date = 2021-02-24 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210224141905/https://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns991620.pdf |url-status = dead }}</ref> that examined the differences in [[technology transfer|technology transition]] between the DOD and private industry. It concluded that the DOD takes greater risks and attempts to transition emerging technologies at lesser degrees of maturity than does private industry. The GAO concluded that use of immature technology increased overall program risk. The GAO recommended that the DOD make wider use of technology readiness levels as a means of assessing technology maturity prior to transition.<ref>[http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf ''Defense Acquisition Guidebook''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425232741/http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf |date=2012-04-25 }}</ref>

In 2001, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology issued a memorandum that endorsed use of TRLs in new major programs. Guidance for assessing technology maturity was incorporated into the ''Defense Acquisition Guidebook''.<ref>[http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf ''Defense Acquisition Guidebook''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425232741/http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf |date=2012-04-25 }}</ref> Subsequently, the DOD developed detailed guidance for using TRLs in the 2003 DOD Technology Readiness Assessment Deskbook.

Because of their relevance to Habitation, 'Habitation Readiness Levels (HRL)' were formed by a group of NASA engineers (Jan Connolly, Kathy Daues, Robert Howard, and Larry Toups). They have been created to address habitability requirements and design aspects in correlation with already established and widely used standards by different agencies, including NASA TRLs.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Space Architecture Education for Engineers and Architects|last=Häuplik-Meusburger and Bannova|publisher=Springer|year=2016|isbn=978-3-319-19278-9}}</ref><ref>{{Cite conference|last=Cohen|first=Marc|date=2012|title=Mockups 101: Code and Standard Research for Space Habitat Analogues|conference=AIAA Space 2012 Conference Pasadena, California}}</ref>

===In the European Union===
The European Space Agency<ref name="NASA to EU">{{Cite journal|last=Mihaly|first=Heder|date=September 2017|title=From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation|url=https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/2017_22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf|journal=The Innovation Journal|volume=22|pages=1–23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf|archive-date=October 11, 2017}}</ref> adopted the TRL scale in the mid-2000s. Its handbook<ref name=ESA08/> closely follows the NASA definition of TRLs. In 2022, the [https://trlcalculator.esa.int/ ESA TRL Calculator] was released to the public. The universal usage of TRL in EU policy was proposed in the final report of the first High Level Expert Group on Key Enabling Technologies,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/11283/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native|title=High-Level Expert Group on Key Enabling Technologies – Final Report|date=June 2011|access-date=March 16, 2020|page=31}}</ref> and it was implemented in the subsequent EU framework program, called H2020, running from 2013 to 2020.<ref name="NASA to EU" /> This means not only space and weapons programs, but everything from nanotechnology to informatics and communication technology.

==See also==
* {{annotated link|Capability Maturity Model Integration}}
* {{annotated link|List of emerging technologies}}
* {{annotated link|Manufacturing readiness level}}
* {{annotated link|Open innovation}}
* {{annotated link|Technology assessment}}
* {{annotated link|Technology life cycle}}
* {{annotated link|Technology transfer}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

===Online===
*{{cite web |title= Best Practices: Better Management of Technology Development Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes |date=July 1999 |publisher=U.S. Government Accountability Office |id=NSIAD-99-162 |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-99-162}}
*{{cite web |title=Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition: Mature Critical Technologies Needed to Reduce Risks |date=October 2001 |publisher=U.S. Government Accountability Office |id=GAO-02-39 |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-02-39}}

==External links==
{{Commonscat|Technology readiness level}}
*[https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/technology_readiness_level Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)] [[NASA]]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20051206035043/http://as.nasa.gov/aboutus/trl-introduction.html Technology Readiness Levels Introduction] [[NASA]] archive via [[Wayback Machine]]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20120608083705/http://exchange.dnv.com/publishing/Codes/ToC_edition.asp#Recommended_Practices DNV Recommended_Practices (Look for DNV-RP-A203)]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20081222144442/http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/tactical/techman/content/trl_whatarethey.htm UK MoD Acquisition Operating Framework guide to TRL (requires registration)]

{{emerging technologies|topics=yes}}

[[Category:Technology assessment]]
[[Category:Technology transfer]]
[[Category:Management cybernetics]]