当前位置:首页 >> 数学 >>

A technology readiness levels (TRLs) calculator software for systems engineering and technology mana


Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

A technology readiness levels (TRLs) calculator software for systems engineering and technology management tool
Taner Altunok a, Tanyel Cakmak b,*
a b

Industrial Engineering Department of Cankaya University, Ankara, Turkey Vaksis R&D and Engineering, Cyberplaza B-220 Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Turkish defense industry and policy makers seek effective and successful system development programs by implementing a validation mechanism to verify the maturity of new technologies being developed in national laboratories and industry. Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) developed by NASA as a general metric of technology advancement and it has been widely accepted as a systems engineering and technology management metric tool. In order to explore the suf?ciency of this tool, ?rst of all, academic and applicable studies of army and civil organizations have been searched out and the lessons learned have been analyzed in this study. Thereafter, questionnaires of awareness of TRLs and TRL Calculator have been applied to defense ?rms in Ankara, and interviews held with the technology developers, ?rms’ speakers and defense authorities. Finally, the applicable algorithm of TRL calculator has been recommended for Turkish defense industry. ? 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 20 July 2009 Received in revised form 6 December 2009 Accepted 20 December 2009 Available online 25 January 2010 Keywords: Technology management Technology readiness levels Technology assessment Technology maturity TRL Management software Decision making

1. Introduction Different classi?cations of technology has been emerged in the literature for years; however, classi?cations became more complex in the last decade. Diversity of technologies, complexity of systems and knowledge-based programs standing out with their huge budget, and many scientists and technologists draw attention to controlling and developing new technologies based on the needs. From this point of view, technology management science may need to be re-organized by merging both analytical and experimental processes. Technology readiness assessment (TRA) is a consequential process to select the best technologies meeting the system requirements by examining maturity of the technology. Working through the TRA process, some more details must be observed such as organization, system, subsystems or components and procedures of national defense development policies. As a lesson learned through the system development programs, the technology must be mature before system development begins [1]. Mature technology is tested in a relevant environment and it must be achieve the threshold measurements convenient for intending mission. Imma-

ture technologies are the main sources of problems on weapons system programs [2]. Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) is accepted metric system for measuring the maturity of technology DUSD S&T (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Science and Technology), US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory) for years. TRL is used as a bene?cial metric system by program managers and technologists in many defense system programs. However, there are several problems of measuring maturity effectively and objectively by using TRL Calculator developed by AFRL, and approaches linked to the maturity measuring systems are differentiated among the constitutions and countries. This paper proceeds as follows: Following the introduction, second section examines the TRLs systematic; Section 3 includes a brief view to Turkish Defense ?rms’ awareness of TRLs and in Section 4 there is a recommendation of TRL calculator algorithm and new features in this calculator are discussed. 2. Technology maturity and TRLs Technology has a life cycle observed through the growth, maturity and decline, this process is characterized by S curves [3] in Fig. 1. Technology maturation stages may be discussed in terms of years and commercialization capability, these factors linked to

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: taltunok@cankaya.edu.tr (T. Altunok), tanyelcakmak@yahoo. com (T. Cakmak). 0965-9978/$ - see front matter ? 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.12.018

770

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

Incubation

Growth

Maturity

Decline

Years
Fig. 1. Characterization of technology maturity process as S curve.

Technology Development Efforts

Efforts
Technology Transition Efforts

Time
Fig. 2. Technology transition process and technology development [5].

the knowledge, R&D efforts out of the laboratory and competitive advantage of technology. A system consists of subsystems and technologies that are developed within system development process or independently. Generally, in defense system programs, speci?c technologies developed within system development process, technology transition is a major process to establish the technology and system development improve together successfully. Technology transition is the process by which technology deemed to be of signi?cant use to the operational military community is transitioned from the science and technology environment to a military operational ?eld unit for evaluation and then incorporated into an existing acquisition program or identi?ed as the subject matter for a new acquisition program. This is different from technology transfer, which is a technology partnership between government and industry by means of which, technology developed by one party is transferred to the other party for development and use, often with residual rights to the transferring party. The government may develop a technology in one of its labs and transfer it to industry, the government holding rights of some kind to the developed products. The objective of technology transition is to make the desired technology available to the operational units as quickly as possible and at the lowest cost [4]. Technology transition process must be start in time of technology development program starts. Technology development takes great efforts more than technology transition process when the system development program begins; however through the end of the program, this situation changes as transition efforts become greater Fig. 2 [5]. Therefore, technology readiness becomes critical for integration of the technology with the system and for investing the technology development process. Technology readiness has great importance to analyze the risks in the system development process and Technology readiness levels (TRLs) have become the de facto standard technique used to assess the maturity of new technologies as a

means of evaluating their readiness for incorporation in new systems [6]. According to GAO (US General Accounting Of?ce) report once the readiness level of the technology has been established, the risks of including that technology in a product development can be assessed. Unlike science and technology projects, for which the main objective is to develop knowledge, a product development’s objective is to deliver products that meet strict cost, schedule, and performance targets [7]. Technology development process consists of nine levels. In defense projects, project managers generally select the technologies at TRL 6 or higher levels and the lower maturity of the emerging technology is not preferred the since the greater effort is required to raise that technology to a readiness level suitable for its inclusion into an acquisition programme [8]. Summary of TRLs can be shown as in Table 1 [9]. NASA instituted this nine level metric as a systematic metric/ measurement approach to assess the maturity of a particular technology and to allow consistent comparison of maturity between different types of technologies as materials, hardware components, software components and devices. However, there is no standard repeatable method for determining the TRL achieved by a given technology, except Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Excelbased US TRL Calculator prepared by William Nolte. Questions have been prepared by James B. Bilbro. The TRL Calculator is a tool for applying TRLs to technology development programs. In its present form, the calculator is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet application that allows the user to answer a series of questions about a technology development project. Once the questions have been answered, the calculator displays the TRL achieved. Because the same set of questions is answered each time, the calculator provides a standardized, repeatable process for evaluating the maturity of any hardware or software technology under development. The calculator provides a snapshot of what a technology’s maturity level was at a given time. The TRL Calculator can be a useful tool in a risk management program. It can also help in the overall program management of a technology development effort because it tells management the current state of the program’s technology maturation process. The calculator’s questions and percent complete feature can assist a program manager in tracking progress toward accomplishing required tasks [10]. Technology readiness levels calculator is a subjective tool for exploring the maturity of the technology. TRLs are a uni-dimensional scale used to provide a measure of technology maturity; technology maturity is a multi-dimensional problem [11]. Currently, there is no standard or common used approach for implementing TRLs. Consequently, a process is needed that improves consistency (reliability) and ef?ciency of the application of TRLs [12]. Another issue to consider is that TRLs are currently de?ned for system Technologies but not for non-system technologies, such as processes, methods, algorithms or architectures [13]. AFRL TRL Calculator must have generic questions about these kinds of technologies. Technology maturity has many dimensions as technology developers’ opportunities, experiences, and the relationship with project managers, system parameters and characteristics of technology, etc. A TRL calculator should give speci?ed data about technology developer and technology development process to the project manager. These data could be helpful for project decisions as technology selection, funding, system integration procedures, dates, and technological risks. Actually, the project manager’s experiences, knowledge and perspective are not integrated into TRL calculator, yet this kind of calculator might be used to achieve the quali?ed and ordered data. Project manager can use technology

Commercialization

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778 Table 1 Technology readiness levels (US Department of Defense) TRL De?nition [9]. Source: DOD (Department of Defense USA) Deskbook 5000.2-R. TRL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 De?nitions Basic principles observed and reported Technology concept and/or application formulated Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment System prototype demonstration in an operational environment Actual system completed and quali?ed through test and demonstration Actual system proven through successful mission operations

771

3. Turkish defense ?rms’ awareness of TRLs The managers of defense system programs have been interviewed in order to explore if TRLs metric system would be applicable in Turkey. A questionnaire has been prepared about awareness of TRLs for examination of the general opinion about TRLs metric and project risk management process of the ?rms. First question is about exploring whether the ?rm have any idea and knowledge about TRL systematic used by DoD and NASA. Second, if ?rm make any applications in project management process by using TRLs metric, what are the ?ndings and results about these applications. The question categories of the questionnaire are depicted in Fig. 4. In this questionnaire, the relation between awareness of TRLs and both information resources and R&D capability of the ?rms are intended to be analyzed. For that purpose, questions about R&D policy and project background of the ?rms are also surveyed by the questionnaire. The interviews held in Ankara, capital city of Turkey and 17 ?rms has answered the questions. The answers avail to explore the applicability of TRLs metric in Turkish defense industry. 47% of the ?rms (eight ?rms) that have several information about TRLs, shown as green part of the pie chart in Fig. 5; and they have more or less experiences on the TRLs metric applications international defense projects consortiums and NATO brie?ngs. Only, 17% of ?rms have researches about the applications of TRLs in DoD and in NASA, one of them have been try to apply TRLs metric its own project management procedure as a risk management tool. These ?rms shown as green in Fig. 6. The project background about National Public Defense projects of the ?rms are particularly very different, 14 of them are main system integrator of many defense system programs. Three of them have not any experience about National Public Defense projects as can be seen in Fig. 7. In analysis, no relationship has been displayed between the ?rms’ awareness of TRLs systematic and their experience of National Public Defense procurement program projects. All of the ?rms have researches and applications about TRLs, have project experience as main integrator and three of them have project experience as main integrator and subcontractor. Fourteen of them are main integrator, but seven of them are either main integrator or subcontractor and seven ?rms are only component manufacturer or subcontractor in defense system programs. The relations between awareness of TRLs and information resources and R&D capability of ?rms have been analyzed using cross tab analysis by SPSS 11.0 statistics software. Cross tab analysis could reveal the relations by indicating the ratios of each question and awareness level of TRLs. Data are nominal as 1 is ‘‘Yes” and 0 is ‘‘No” about each yes–no answers. According to the cross tab ratio results, all ?rms have R&D organizations in different organization types and different scales. Scales of R&D organizations have no effect on the awareness of TRLs systematic. The 63.6% of all defense industry ?rms receive ?nancial R&D support of public funds. Two of the ?rms have researches and applications about TRLs have public R&D funding support. Public

Fig. 3. Decision algorithm of AFRL TRL calculator. Source: Nolte, 2003

readiness level with technology developers’ opportunities, experiences and other information as background and achievements. AFRL TRL calculator has questions for each technology readiness levels. Questions are answered by checking the boxes. A checked box means that the task of the question has been done. Questions have no weights and all of them have the same effect on the level reached. But every level has very critical issues explaining the characteristics of related level. Thus, AFRL TRL calculator have some constraints to give the sound results about technology maturity. AFRL TRL Calculator algorithm is shown as in Fig. 3 [14]. This ?gure shows 1colors of the levels reached and the explanations of them are given in Table 2 [15]. AFRL TRL Calculator has three types of readiness levels about technology: Manufacturing readiness levels, technical readiness levels and programmatic readiness levels. AFRL has developed a TRL Calculator that has proved to be useful in applying the TRL concept within research and development programs. The calculator simpli?es the process of determination of the maturity level for a given technology. Also it makes the process more repeatable by presenting a standard set of questions for each user. The Standard format facilitates the comparison of different technologies, and will accommodate both hardware and software development programs. Within DoD, using of technology maturity measures has been mandated, both legislatively and by regulation. The TRL Calculator was created in an attempt to answer the question, ‘‘How should technology maturity be measured?” [16].
1 For interpretation of color in Figs. 3 and 5–18, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.

Table 2 Colors in TRL calculator. Source: TRL calculator release notes by Nolte [15]. Colors None Red Yellow Description No data has been entered at this level or higher Some data has been entered at this level or higher, but not enough to claim attainment of this level While there are still items that have not been completed at this level or below, you may be able to claim attainment of this level, depending on the importance of the un?nished items to your program This level has been reached

Green

772

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

Have any idea about TRLs?
Questions about R&D capabilities and knowledge sharing systems

Have you ever make an TRL application in your Project management process?

Questions about TRL applications, experiments, and application procedures

Recommendations about TRL for Turkish Defense Firms

Fig. 4. Questions in questionnaire about awareness of TRLs.

ment that calculator since the questions are speci?cally for NASA space systems technologies.

47% (8 firms)

53% (9 firms)

4. Recommended algorithm for Turkish defense industry The de?nitions of TRLs used by DoD are applicable to defense industry and system acquisition directories in Turkey. Hardware, software and both technologies can be addressed in new algorithm, but, there would be added process technologies speci?cations to new calculator algorithm. In technology readiness calculator, hardware, software technologies and manufacturing process technologies must be evaluated, thus, speci?c questions must be prepared. In this calculator, user can select three types of main technologies as hardware, software, and manufacturing process. According to the selection, suitable questions opened in the calculation page. In every level, questions must be classi?ed as critical and non-critical for each level. This issue concerns with the main characteristics of related readiness level. The project manager can evaluate the number of the critical questions and change the questions; but a set of questions have been prepared for each TRL, contains integration, manufacturing, technical and programmatic issues of the technology development process. These questions take two types of marks according to the technology developers and technologist’s point of view: critical and non-critical. We held many interviews with technologists and project managers about the characteristics of these questions. Finally, we de?ne the questions for every level as critical and non-critical. We should mention that, the technology developer could not see the label of the critical or uncritical. Thus, user have no chance to cheat by only selecting the critical questions. Uncritical questions has a role of supporting the guidance mission of the TRL calculator. These questions are uncritical, however they are the part of the activities which describe the related maturity level. Also, Integration readiness of technology could be undertaken as the readiness of integration to the subsystems and system broadly. Thus, integration readiness questions have been added in all levels. Form this point of view, the questions have four types of categories as technical, programmatic, manufacturing and integration issues in the calculator. These categories are de?ned in Table 3. Technical, programmatic and manufacturing de?nitions are same with the categories in AFRL TRL calculator. The colors of levels are Green, Yellow, Red and Gray. Turkish defense industry ?rms could buy or transfer technologies from foreign ?rms and institutes. After the transfer, ?rm can develop technology by its own engineering and scienti?c capabilities. Turkish ?rms have a vision of learning technologies and adapt them as a tacit knowledge to the ?rm’s scienti?c, engineering and managerial entities. Thus we have also de?ned the color Gray. Colors are explained as Table 4. Technology developer can show any material, document, photography about each question answered in TRL calculator to prove his answers. These documents will be evidence of the questions. This feature provides true information about technology; project manager can use uploaded items to select the suitable technology in calculated level.

Have idea about TRLs Don't have any idea about TRLs
Fig. 5. Defense ?rms have idea about TRLs in Ankara.

17% ( 3 firms)

83% ( 14 firms)

Firms made application of TRLs Firms didn't have any application experiment about TRLs
Fig. 6. Defense ?rms have researched TRL applications.

?nancial supports do not concern with awareness of TRLs have appeared in this questionnaire. Three of the ?rms have researches and applications about TRLs, have projects with universities and all of them joined to the national and international academic and scienti?c conferences and seminars. These kinds of activities make the ?rms aware of new applications in project management process, new and applicable techniques and metrics in this area. Interview with the ?rm authorities indicates that, awareness of TRLs is not concerned with R&D activities and relations with public defense system development policy makers and project of?ces. Generally, directors have a broad sense of ?nding out and applying the R&D and technology management tools by their personal opportunities in Turkey. Thus, awareness of TRLs is generally concerned with ?rms’ own endeavors. Only the one ?rm has attempted to use AFRL TRL calculator in its own risk management process. The ?rm mentioned that the managers could not imple-

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

773

other both subcontracter main integrator 0

3 7 7 14
5 10
subcontracter both other

15

number of firms
main integrator

Fig. 7. Situation of defense industry ?rms in Ankara, Turkey about National Public Defense projects background.

Table 3 Question categories in new TRL calculator for Turkish defense industry. Technical Programmatic Manufacturing Integration Questions in this category measure only the technical maturity of the program. This element is what usually meant by TRL This element adds questions that attempt to measure some program management concerns, such as customer focus and program documentation This element measures the readiness of our production system to manufacture the technology being developed. Technologies at TRLs 1 and 2 are too immature for consideration of manufacturing readiness, so the lowest MRL is associated with TRL 3 This element measures the integration readiness of technology to the system

Table 4 Colors of levels in TRL calculator. Gray Green Yellow Red Technology transferred at this level, do not know anything about technology at this level Technology is successfully achieved this level. All critical questions have been answered Technology is not achieved this level but half of critical and noncritical questions have been answered Enough critical and non-critical questions have not been answered

Questions about technology developer as ?rm, institute or scientist and specialist have been prepared. These questions are about R&D capabilities, project background, supports, information systems, quality awards and certi?cations, education and specialty

of personnel, experiences, creativity etc. These answers give a basic idea about the situation of technology developer and its technology development success. But, this set of questions does not effect the technology maturity directly. Dual use of technology is important parameter for funding decisions in Turkey. If a technology has dual use characteristic, technology developer can indicate it’s distinctiveness. In this algorithm, the technology developers could not see all the questions at once. They only have chance to answer the level questions they had been in. And the users can see the next level questions, yet the algorithm does not allow them to answer the questions. The new algorithm for TRL calculator can be seen in Fig. 8. If the technology is transferred at that level, additional to the TRL Calc v2.2 algorithm, there is a choice to skip that level by

A

Answer the questions for each level

Technology transfered at this level, don’t know anything about technology at this level

No

All critical questions have been answered

No

Half of critical questions and half of noncritical questions have been answered

No

Less than half of the critical questions answered

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Repeat until TRL = 9

Stop

Fig. 8. The recommended algorithm for TRL calculator for Turkish defense industry.

774

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

Fig. 9. Technology transfer choice in TTRL v1.0.

Fig. 10. Main page for technology developers.

checking the box. The level passing criteria in TTRL (Turkish Technology Readiness Level) v1.0 is answering all critical questions or choosing technology transfer check box in gray color shown in Fig. 9. If all the critical questions are answered in that level, the next level’s questions are played on the screen. If the level was skipped by selecting technology transfer choice, same option is available for users. In Fig. 10, the main page is seen for users if the levels are achieved by answering all critical questions of that level or by selecting technology transfer check boxes. Gray color shows that level has been achieved by technology transfer. Green color shows that level has been achieved by answering all critical questions of that level. If all the critical questions are not been answered, then the level can’t be achieved. There are two options in this case: the half of the critical questions and half of the non-critical questions are answered, the level color will Yellow. The color will be Red when answered critical questions are less than the half. Yellow and Red

colors show that the level is not achieved. (i.e. In Fig. 10, the level 5 Red colored). Level 5 is seen as an example of a Yellow colored level in Fig. 11. By clicking Light Blue colored button, technology developers can see the next level questions. By this option, users have only ability to see the questions without being allowed to answer them. In TTRL v1.0, additionally, production process questions are available. Process questions of Level 1 is seen in Fig. 12. If software or hardware questions are selected to answer, all the technology, production and program questions are brought together according to the de?nition of that level. Unlike the TRL Calc v2.2, integration questions are presented to the user with software and hardware questions in TTRL v1.0 seen in Fig. 13. Technology developers and procurement of?ce users might add new technologies to database. Technologies might be national or critical in categorization. Technologies may be used in both military and civilian areas. Technologies might also contribute national security directly or indirectly. Technology developers might

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

775

Fig. 11. Level colors of TTRL v1.0.

Fig. 12. Process questions in level 1.

declare their opinion on technologies. Technology developers’ declaration page on technologies is seen in Fig. 14. Procurement of?ce users may see the opinions of the developers about technology. Procurement of?ce users may decide on priority of technologies by reading the opinions. Technology developer can show any material, document, photography about each question answered in TRL calculator. These documents will be the evidence of the questions. Technology developers may select a check box to notifying the procurement of?ce about the proof must be seen in the ?eld. If available, they may add additional documents, pictures or video ?les to the software. This additional feature of TTRL v1.0 is visualized in

Fig. 15. The evidences are needed for the objectivity of the assessment. Users can export the assessment results to the optional formats. The example of all results of technologies and export of these results to Ms Of?ce Word document is depicted in Fig. 16. The star-demonstration of quali?cations of the technology developers can be seen on the result page. If the related question was answered by technology developers color of star is Yellow. Otherwise vision of star is empty. In Fig. 17, there is an example to this visualization. Technology developers’ opinions on related technologies are demonstrated in a ?ag demonstration. Technology category is

776

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

Fig. 13. Example of technology, production, program and integration questions.

Fig. 14. Web page of declaration opinions on technologies.

Fig. 15. Adding documents to the questions & ?eld check of questions.

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

777

Fig. 16. TTRL results and export of results to a word document.

Fig. 17. Starred demonstration of technology developers’ situations.

Table 5 Flag Chart. A: Technology category 1: 2: 1: 2: 3: National Critical National Critical Other technologies B: Contribution of the technology to national security 1: 1: 2: 2: 1: Direct Direct Indirect Indirect Direct C: Funding 1: 1: 1: 1: 1: National National National National National Result

technology developers’ status seen in Table 5. Flagged demonstration example of the technology developers’ situations is depicted in Fig. 18.

5. Validity and reliability of TTRL v1.0
5 4 3 2 1 Flags Flags Flags Flags Flag

symbolized as A. This category has three alternatives: (1) National Technology, (2) Critical Technology and (3) Other Technologies. The status of contribution of the technology to the national security is symbolized as B: direct and indirect. And funding status is symbolized as C. This category has three types of values: (1) National, (2) Foreign Partnership and (3) Foreign. It is worth of note that TTRL Calculator only considers the nationally funded projects to give a ?ag. There is a criteria to demonstrate ?ags of

TTRL v1.0 calculator has been developed with C# software developing tool of Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 and uses Microsoft SQL Server database engine. The reason choosing this platform is commonly usage in Turkey and in the world and having an easy coding structure. Also software developing tool and database engine is supported by the same vendor. TTRL v1.0 application presents the ability of data entrance and update to technology developers in the Internet environment. A form based authentication is used in this application with advanced Rijndael cryptology algorithm. In three defense industry ?rms and on seven technologies TTRL v1.0 application has been tested by experts of ?rms. This application works properly using selected algorithm without errors. It’s ready for use in Turkish defense industry procurement programs.

778

T. Altunok, T. Cakmak / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 769–778

Fig. 18. Example of technology developers’ opinions on technologies.

6. Conclusions Turkish defense industry ?rms’ awareness of TRLs systematic is unexpectedly insuf?cient and this situation is entailed from the weak exploring capabilities of common applications of technology management tools and models. Interviews with defense industry ?rms and technologists held in Turkey about TRLs and its applicability in Turkish defense industry and we ?nally recommend an algorithm for an applicable and convenient for the policies. Questions are classi?ed as critical and non-critical for each level. Therefore, questions have different in?uence on the assessment. Additionally, quali?cations of the technology developers can be monitored in the readiness assessment. Another essential feature of the calculator is the objectivity of the assessment is quite stronger than AFRL TRL calculator, since the technology developers can upload the evidences such as test results, drawings, photos or other documents related to the level achieved. However, giving the project managers the ability to change the critical questions can weaken the objectivity of the results. TTRL Calculator can be strengthen by providing less intervention of the project managers. By the way, the critical questions can be approved as not required to be revised by the project managers. It can be suggested that, questions should be assigned by a statistical method, i.e. list of the questions can be stated by a comprehensive survey analysis or they can be weighted by the mathematical formulas. Recommended TRL calculator algorithm can be useful for not only Turkish defense industry but also developing countries’ defense industry. TTRL v1.0 application’s validity and reliability has been proven. This software may be used by technology developers, technology managers and project managers easily. It works without errors and suitable to the prepared algorithm. It saves the data in a required way and shows the results in a suitable display. Thus, a typical tested, valid and reliable calculator is prepared for Turkish defense industry. For this algorithm is prepared by evaluating the experiences of the experts of procurement of?ce, it can be effectively used for technology and system development programs.

In accordance with the test results and feedback, new version of this calculator will be developed in the future. On the other hand this calculator has an English version for international access. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Defense Sciences Institute for their valuable supports. And we would like to acknowledge the experts, project managers and colleagues who have substantial contributions to the analysis and applications. References
[1] General Of?ce of Accounting and Department (GAO), Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook; September 2003. p. 1. [2] GAO/NSIAD. Best practices: better management of technology development can improve weapon system technology, GAO NSIAD-99-162; 1999. p. 2–3. [3] Christensen Clayton M. Exploring the limits of the technology curve. Part I: component technologies, strategic management of technology and innovation. 4th ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill; 2004. p. 208–27. [4] Dobbins James H. Planning for technology transition defense AT&L, Washington (DC); April 2004. p. 14. [5] Forrester E. A life cycle approach to technology transition. News@Sei- J 2003;6(3). <http://www.sei.cmu.edu/news-at-sei/features/2003/3q03/ feature-4-3q03.htm>. [6] Young Thomas M. Aircraft design innovation: creating an environment for creativity. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers – part G. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2007;vol. 221(2):172. [7] GAO NSIAD-99-162; 1999. p. 3. [8] Young Thomas M.; 2007. p. 172–73. [9] US Department of Defense (DOD). DOD Deskbook 5000.2-R. <http:// www.acq.osd.mil/actd/FY06/TRL50002R.doc>. [10] Mankins JC. Approaches to strategic research and technology (R&T) analysis and road mapping. Acta Astronaut 2002;51:3–21. [11] Nolte William, Kennedy BC, Dziegiel RJ. Technology readiness calculator. In: NDIA system engineering conference; 2003. p. 13. <http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/ 2003systems/nolte2.pdf>. [12] Graettinger PC, Garcia S, Siviy J, Schenk RJ, Syckle PJV. Using technology readiness levels scale to support technology management in the DoD’s ATD/ STO environments: a ?ndings and recommendations report conducted for army CECOM, Special Report, CMU/SEI-2002-SR-027; 2002. p. 12. [13] Graettinger PC et al.; 2002. p. 10. [14] Nolte William et al.; 2003. p. 10. [15] Nolte William. AFRL TRL Calculator V 2.2 Release Notes. [16] Nolte William et al.; 2003. p. 15.


相关文章:
更多相关标签: