Technology readiness level

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
NASA Technology Readiness Levels

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a measure used by some United States government agencies and many of the world's major companies (and agencies) to assess the maturity of evolving technologies (materials, components, devices, etc.) prior to incorporating that technology into a system or subsystem. Generally speaking, when a new technology is first invented or conceptualized, it is not suitable for immediate application. Instead, new technologies are usually subjected to experimentation, refinement, and increasingly realistic testing. Once the technology is sufficiently proven, it can be incorporated into a system/subsystem.

Contents

[edit] Definitions

Different definitions are used by different agencies, although they are somewhat similar. The most common definitions are those used by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

[edit] DOD definitions

Technology Readiness Levels in the Department of Defense (DOD)
(Source: DOD (2006), Defense Acquisition Guidebook)
Technology Readiness Level Description
1. Basic principles observed and reported Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. Example might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties.
2. Technology concept and/or application formulated Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. The application is speculative and there is no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumption. Examples are still limited to paper studies.
3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative.
4. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment Basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work together. This is "low fidelity" compared to the eventual system. Examples include integration of 'ad hoc' hardware in a laboratory.
5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so that the technology can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include 'high fidelity' laboratory integration of components.
6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond the breadboard tested for TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high fidelity laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment.
7. System prototype demonstration in an operational environment Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring the demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment, such as in an aircraft, vehicle or space. Examples include testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft.
8. Actual system completed and 'flight qualified' through test and demonstration 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 test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications.
9. Actual system 'flight proven' through successful mission operations Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation. In almost all cases, this is the end of the last "bug fixing" aspects of true system development. Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.

[edit] Related DOD definitions

The DOD uses similar definitions for the following specialized areas. See DOD Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook for more information.

[edit] NASA definitions

Technology Readiness Levels in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA)
(Source: Mankins (1995), Technology Readiness Levels: A White Paper)
Technology Readiness Level Description
1. Basic principles observed and reported This is the lowest "level" of technology maturation. At this level, scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development.
2. Technology concept and/or application formulated Once basic physical principles are observed, then at the next level of maturation, practical applications of those characteristics can be 'invented' or identified. At this level, the application is still speculative: there is not experimental proof or detailed analysis to support the conjecture.
3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept At this step in the maturation process, active research and development (R&D) is initiated. This must include both analytical studies to set the technology into an appropriate context and laboratory-based studies to physically validate that the analytical predictions are correct. These studies and experiments should constitute "proof-of-concept" validation of the applications/concepts formulated at TRL 2.
4. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment Following successful "proof-of-concept" work, basic technological elements must be integrated to establish that the "pieces" will work together to achieve concept-enabling levels of performance for a component and/or breadboard. This validation must be devised to support the concept that was formulated earlier, and should also be consistent with the requirements of potential system applications. The validation is "low-fidelity" compared to the eventual system: it could be composed of ad hoc discrete components in a laboratory.
5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment At this level, the fidelity of the component and/or breadboard being tested has to increase significantly. The basic technological elements must be integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so that the total applications (component-level, sub-system level, or system-level) can be tested in a 'simulated' or somewhat realistic environment.
6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) A major step in the level of fidelity of the technology demonstration follows the completion of TRL 5. At TRL 6, a representative model or prototype system or system - which would go well beyond ad hoc, 'patch-cord' or discrete component level breadboarding - would be tested in a relevant environment. At this level, if the only 'relevant environment' is the environment of space, then the model/prototype must be demonstrated in space.
7. System prototype demonstration in a space environment TRL 7 is a significant step beyond TRL 6, requiring an actual system prototype demonstration in a space environment. The prototype should be near or at the scale of the planned operational system and the demonstration must take place in space.
8. Actual system completed and 'flight qualified' through test and demonstration (ground or space) In almost all cases, this level is the end of true 'system development' for most technology elements. This might include integration of new technology into an existing system.
9. Actual system 'flight proven' through successful mission operations In almost all cases, the end of last 'bug fixing' aspects of true 'system development'. This might include integration of new technology into an existing system. This TRL does not include planned product improvement of ongoing or reusable systems.

[edit] Other definitions

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) references Technology Readiness Levels in some of their documents, and seems to rely on the NASA definitions.

The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is drafting Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) for medical countermeasures against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats.

[edit] Brief history of Technology Readiness Levels

Technology Readiness Levels were originally developed by NASA in the 1980s. The original definitions only included seven levels. These were later expanded to nine levels.

Original NASA TRL Definitions by Sadin, et al., 1989 (Source: Nolte 2003)

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 Real-space Environment
Level 6 System Adequacy Validated In Simulated Environment
Level 7 System Adequacy Validated In Space

According to Ray Chase of ANSWER, the TRL methodology was originated by Stan Sadin at NASA Headquarters in 1974. Mr. Chase states that Stan Sadin needs to be recognized as the initial developer of the TRL methodology. At that time Mr. Chase worked at JPL. He was the JPL Propulsion Division representative on the Jupiter Orbiter design team. At the suggestion of Stan Sadin he used his methodology to assess the technology readiness of the proposed JPL Jupiter Orbiter spacecraft design. Later Mr. Chase spent a year at NASA Headquarters helping Mr. Sadin institutionalize the TRL methodology. In 1978 Mr. Chase joined ANSER. Subsequently he used the TRL methodology to evaluated the technology readiness of proposed Air Force development programs. He published several articles during the 1980s and 90s on reusable launch vehicles, which used the TRL methodology to assess technology readies. He used an expanded version of the methodology that included design tools, test facilities, and manufacturing readiness on the Air Force Have Not program. Design tools, test facilities, and manufacturing were important additions to the TRL methodology. The Have Not program manager, Greg Jenkins, and Mr. Chase published the expanded version of the TRL methodology, which included design and manufacturing. Leon McKinney and Mr. Chase used the expanded version to assess the technology readiness of the ANSER teams HRST concept. Recently ANSER has been using an adapted version of the TRL methodology on proposed Homeland Security Agency programs.

The United States Air Force adopted the use of Technology Readiness Levels in the 1990s.

In 1995, John C. Mankins, NASA, wrote a "White Paper on Technology Readiness Levels" that discussed NASA’s use of TRLs and proposed descriptions for each TRL. In 1999, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) produced an influential report GAO/NSIAD-99-162 that examined the differences in 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 adopt the use of NASA's Technology Readiness Levels as a means of assessing technology maturity prior to transition. 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. Subsequently, the DOD developed detailed guidance for using TRLs in the 2003 DOD Technology Readiness Assessment Deskbook.

[edit] TRL assessment tools

A Technology Readiness Level Calculator was developed by the United States Air Force by Nolte et al. 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.

TPMM Transition Mechanism

The Technology Program Management Model (TPMM) was developed by the United States Army by Craver et al. The 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.

[edit] Uses of Technology Readiness Levels

 This list of advantages and disadvantages needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)

The primary purpose of using Technology Readiness Levels is to help management in making decisions concerning the development and transitioning of technology. Advantages include:

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

Disadvantages include:

  • More reporting, paperwork, reviews
  • Relatively new, takes time to influence the system
  • Systems engineering not addressed in early TRLs

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] Print

  • GAO, (26 October 1999), Presentation to the S&T Conference on the Transition of Technology to Acquisition.
  • GAO, (October 2001), Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition – Mature Critical Technologies Needed to Reduce Risk, GAO-02-39.

[edit] Online

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level"
Personal tools