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

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.

[1]  Ricardo Valerdi,et al.  An Approach to Technology Risk Management , 2005 .

[2]  Mihály Héder.  From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation , 2017 .

[3]  S.L. Cornford,et al.  Quantitative methods for maturing and infusing advanced spacecraft technology , 2004, 2004 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.04TH8720).

[4]  Kamran Behdinan,et al.  On characterization of technology readiness level coefficients for design , 2017 .

[5]  Robert D. Braun,et al.  Technology Readiness Level, Schedule Risk, and Slippage in Spacecraft Design , 2008 .

[6]  Shahram Sarkani,et al.  A Comprehensive Review and Analysis of Maturity Assessment Approaches for Improved Decision Support to Achieve Efficient Defense Acquisition , 2009 .

[7]  John C. Mankins,et al.  Technology readiness and risk assessments: A new approach , 2009 .

[8]  Deborah J. Peisen,et al.  Task Order 221 CASE STUDIES: TIME REQUIRED TO MATURE AERONAUTIC TECHNOLOGIES TO OPERATIONAL READINESS , 1999 .

[9]  Brian J. Sauser,et al.  System development planning using readiness levels in a cost of development minimization model , 2010, Syst. Eng..

[10]  Edmund H. Conrow,et al.  Estimating Technology Readiness Level Coefficients , 2009 .

[11]  Alison Olechowski,et al.  Technology readiness levels: Shortcomings and improvement opportunities , 2020, Syst. Eng..

[12]  Lillian Gipson Nasa Hq,et al.  Technology Readiness Levels Demystified , 2015 .

[13]  T. Saaty.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[14]  Albert Albers,et al.  DESIGN READINESS OF MULTI-MATERIAL CONCEPTS: MANUFACTURING AND JOINING TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATED EVALUATION OF CONCEPT MATURITY LEVELS USING CARDINAL COEFFICIENTS , 2020 .

[15]  Andreea Stoian,et al.  ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH , 2009 .

[16]  Keith Warfield,et al.  Technology readiness levels , 2016 .