Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:06:23.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CARDINAL WTRL: TECHNOLOGY MATURITY, SCHEDULE SLIPPAGE AND TREND FORECASTING.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Kamran Behdinan  and
Soumya Ranjan Mishra
Kamran Behdinan
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Canada
Soumya Ranjan Mishra*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Canada
*
Mishra, Soumya Ranjan, University of Toronto, MIE, Canada, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Maturity assessments of technology is a crucial process to identify and acquire compatible technologies for a system’s development. However, being a complex and highly subjective process, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported cost overruns and schedule slippages through the years. This study provides a unique Weighted Technology Readiness Level (WTRL) framework which utilizes cardinal factors to ascertain the maturity, schedule and trend of NASA’s 7 Technologies based on their maturity time. The framework utilizes MCDM methods to determine the cardinal complexity of each TRL. It allows the assimilation of other cardinal factors using a simple, open structure to track the overall technology maturity and readiness. Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of tailored TRL frameworks to determine the accurate cardinal coefficient of the said technology and the inferences derived otherwise. It eliminates several limitations of previous frameworks and compares against their performance using a verified statistical representation of processed data.

Keywords

Risk managementTechnologyDesign managementSystems Engineering (SE)
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 601 - 610
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Asst. Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (2011), Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Azizian, N., Shahram, S. and Mazzuchi, T. (2009), “A Comprehensive Review and Analysis of Maturity Assessment Approaches for Improved Decision Support to Achieve Efficient Defense Acquisition”, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2009, Vol II, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
Behdinan, K. (2020), “Design Readiness Level (DRL) and Design Axis Principles”, Workshop Lecture, Trans-disciplinary and Cross-cultural Learning, Society for Design Practise and Process Science.Google Scholar
Blanke, J. (2010), Technology Readiness Levels Demystified. [online] NASA. Available at: <https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html> [Accessed 17 November 2020].Google Scholar
Chakraborty, S., Zavadskas, E., Antucheviciene, J. (2015), “Applications of WASPAS method as a multi-criteria decision-making tool”, Economic computation and economic cybernetics studies and research, Academy of Economic Studies, Vol 49, pp 5–22.Google Scholar
Conrow, E., (2011), “Estimating Technology Readiness Level Coefficients”, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 146–152. https://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.46753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, S. and Sarsfield, L. (2004), “Quantitative Methods for maturing and Infusing Advanced Spacecraft Technology”, IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, pp. 663–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubos, G.F., Saleh, J.H. and Braun, R. (2008), “Technology Readiness Level, Schedule Risk, and Slippage in Spacecraft Design”, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 45(4), pp.836–842. https://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.34947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahimian, M. and Behdinan, K. (2017), “On characterization of technology readiness level coefficients for design”, DS 87–2 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), vol. 2, pp. 309–316.Google Scholar
GAO (2020), Technology Readiness Assessment Guide - Best Practices for Evaluating the Readiness of Technology for Use in Acquisition Programs and Projects, U.S. Government Accountability Office, vol. GAO-20-48G.Google Scholar
GAO (2008), Better Weapon Program Outcomes Require Discipline, Accountability, and Fundamental Changes in the Acquisition Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office, vol. GAO-08-782 T, GAO, Ed, 2008.Google Scholar
GAO (1999), Best Practices: Better Management of Technology Development Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes, U.S. Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
Lee, T. and Thomas, L.D. (2003), “Cost Growth Models for NASA ’ S Programs : A Summary”, Journal of probability and Statistical Science, vol. 1(2), pp.265–279.Google Scholar
Magnaye, R., Sauser, B. and Ramirez-Marquez, J. (2010), “System development Planning Using Readiness Levels in a Cost of Development Minimization Model”, Systems Engineering, vol. 13(4), pp.311–323. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sys.20151Google Scholar
Mankins, J.C. (1995), “Technology Readiness Levels”, NASA office of Space and Technology, White Paper, p.5.Google Scholar
Mankins, J. C. (2009), “Technology readiness and risk assessments: A new approach”. Acta Astronautica, vol. 65(9-10), pp.1208–1215. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.03.059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihaly, Heder (2017), “From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation”, The Innovation Journal. Vol 22: pp 1–23. [online] Way back machine. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https:/www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf [Accessed 17 November 2020].Google Scholar
Olechowski, A., Eppinger, S., Joglekar, N. and Tomaschek, K. (2020), “Technology readiness levels: Shortcomings and improvement opportunities”, Systems Engineering, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 395–408. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sys.21533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peisen, D.J., Schulz, C.R., Golaszewki, R.S., Ballard, B.D. and Smith, J. (1999), Time Required to Mature Aeronautic Technologies to Operational Readiness, SAIC Report.Google Scholar
Revfi, S., Wilwer, J., Behdinan, K. and Albers, A. (2020), “Design Readiness of Multi-Material Concepts: Manufacturing And Joining Technology Integrated Evaluation Of Concept Maturity Levels Using Cardinal Coefficients”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, vol. 1, pp. 1067–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. (1990), “How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 9–26. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-i.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Energy, (2011), Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, DOE G 413.3–4A, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Valerdi, R. and Kohl, R.J. (2004), “An approach to technology risk management”, Engineering Systems Division Symposium, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar