Need for Technology Maturity of Any Advanced Capability to Achieve Better Life Cycle Cost

Robinson, John; Levack, Daniel J.; Rhodes, Russel E.; Chen, Tseng-hui Timothy

doi:10.2514/6.2009-5347

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Definition Relative To Nasa Trlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The definition draws on the notion of certification advanced by Brown and McCleskey [11] and extrapolated on by Robinson et al [12]. It also draws upon the notion advanced by Robinson et al [12] of not requiring significant unexpected repairs and troubleshooting. Robinson et al had used this as one part of their definition of the phrase "without loss of system integrity" used in both their and Brown and McCleskey's definition for TRL 10, in addition to suggesting that operations should not require the system to be routinely disassembled or to require ongoing verification activities (e.g., electrical, fluid and structural integrity).…”

Section: Definition Relative To Nasa Trlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A similar description was included in a 2009 paper by Robinson et al [12] which described this proposed technical readiness model for "space trans-NASA documents throughout the early 1990s: both for management of internal technical development and external communications [13]. In 1995, Mankins created the "Technology readiness levels" white paper [3] that provided a "compressive set of definitions of the technology readiness levels" which serve as the basis for the TRL system to this day.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Robinson et al [12] use Brown and McCleskey's [11] proposed TRL level 10 in their work on discussing life cycle costs. They also note an only tangentially related problem: the differences in perception/assignment to TRLs, noting that between technology developers and application developers (those who use a technology to meet a mission need) the perception of the TRL may differ by as many as three levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

In search of technology readiness level (TRL) 10

Straub

2015

Aerospace Science and Technology

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Definition Relative To Nasa Trlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Definition Relative To Nasa Trlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In search of technology readiness level (TRL) 10

Straub

2015

Aerospace Science and Technology

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The "relevant environment" was pointed out as incongruent, as the developers tended to think that testing in real environments as too costly while program managers considered simulations to be too poor a representation. (Robinson, et al, 2009).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of TRL in the systems engineering toolbox

Bakke

Haskins²

2018

INCOSE International Symp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is used to evaluate the maturity of the Critical Technology Elements (CTE) in a project or program and indicates an assumed level of the remaining technical risks for each independent technology. This paper presents results of a literature review exploring the diversity of definitions applied to TRL. Survey results explore whether and how TRLs are used. Based on these results the authors assess to what degree TRL evaluations are suitable for organizations without separately trained and skilled readiness assessment personnel.

show abstract

Technology Maturity Assessments and Confidence Intervals

Peters

Doskey

Moreland

2017

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research presented in this paper examines the accuracy of technology maturity assessments at a key decision point in the acquisition life cycle. This study utilizes statistical means to quantify the confidence interval of technology maturity determinations and established confidence intervals for various population sizes using a Monte Carlo simulation. The study identified with a 95% confidence that there are no significant differences in the standard deviation or the confidence interval ranges of heritage developments and new developments at a key decision point. The significance of this finding is the margin of error, which is derived from the standard deviation and used to compute confidence intervals, measures accuracy. One challenge facing the field of system engineering is the ability to accurately measure technology maturity when transitioning from formulation to implementation. Correctly assessing the technology maturity of a development is crucial for the organization's ability to manage performance, cost, and schedule. The findings from this research have the potential for minimizing inaccurate maturity determinations, which could lead to reductions in unsatisfactory technical performance and programmatic overruns. C⃝ 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 20: 188-204, 2017

show abstract

Need for Technology Maturity of Any Advanced Capability to Achieve Better Life Cycle Cost

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

In search of technology readiness level (TRL) 10

In search of technology readiness level (TRL) 10

Use of TRL in the systems engineering toolbox

Technology Maturity Assessments and Confidence Intervals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About