TRL (Technology Readiness Level) scale as a
Research & Innovation Policy Tool,
EARTO Recommendations
Vienna may 2014
Prof Dr Ir Egbert-Jan Sol
TNO High-tech Systems & Materials
Radboud University, science faculty
• Introduction – valleys of death and TRLs • The EU and EARTO’s view on TRLs
• RTO contributions in TRL levels
• Discussion
– The use TRL of assessing maturity vs
the use of TRL for R&D funding
• Conclusion
Content
Research
Concept validation
Invention Prototyping & incubation
Initial market introduction
Pilot production &
demonstration
Market expansion
Time
(Yearly) Cost
Innovation and the cost of innovation
Two costly hurdles before any cash in
Technology cost bubble
Commercialisation cost bubble
Two long costs hurdles resulted in the USA
in visualisation of the danger of
In Europe, with no Death Valley's nor Grand Canyons,
the KET (Key Enabling Technology) report introduced the
concept of a 3-pillar bridge after the France Millau Viaduct
Market Knowledge
The valley of death
Industrial
consortia RTO’s
Technolo
gic
al
researc
h
Pro
duct
develo
pm
ent
Com
petitive
manufa
ctu
ring
Globally competitive
manufacturing facilities
But Europe is bridging knowledge to
market (concept, capability, cash)
From the KET report
Technological
facilities Pilot deployment
Pilot line
In the USA one has natural Death valleys, but economically Venture Capital
Europe we have no natural Death Valleys, but real economic death valleys
Concept validation
Invention Prototyping & incubation
Initial market introduction
Pilot production &
demonstration
Market expansion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Invention Concept validation Market
expansion Prototyping
& incubation
Pilot production
& demonstration
Initial market
introduction
The primary purpose of using Technology Readiness Levels is to help management
to communicate, plan and make decisions concerning the development and
transitioning of technology.
From Wikipedia, which also state: It should be viewed as one of several tools
to manage the progress of research and development activity
After its conception and development in the 70-80 it settled on 9 stage in the 90-ties
From Valley’s of Death to TRLs
Technology cost hurdle
Commercialisation cost hurdle
The NASA/DoD TRL today
• Introduction – valleys of death and TRLs
– At NASA TRL started as maturity tool,
– The KET origin was the Valley of Death problem
– But TRL’s say nothing on costs or project funding criteria
• The EU and EARTO’s view on TRLs
• RTO contributions in TRL levels
• Discussion
– The use TRL of assessing maturity vs
the use of TRL for R&D funding
• Conclusion
Content
• Introduction – valleys of death and TRLs
– At NASA TRL started as maturity tool,
– The KET origin was the Valley of Death problem
• The EU and EARTO’s view on TRLs • RTO contributions in TRL levels
• Discussion
– The use TRL of assessing maturity vs
the use of TRL for R&D funding
• Conclusion
Content
The KET Version
Basic
Principles
Observed
Technology
Concept
Formulated
Experimental
Proof of
Concept
Technology
Validation
In lab
Tech valid.
In relevant
environment
Demonstration
In relevant
environment
Demonstration
In operational
environment
System complete
and
qualified
Successful
mission
operations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fundamental
research Pillar 1: Technological research Pillar 2: Product demonstration Pillar 3:
Competitive
manufacturing
The EU H2020 Scale Description
TRL 1 Basic principles observed
TRL 2 Technology concept formulated
TRL 3 Experimental proof of concept
TRL 4 Technology validity in a lab
TRL 5 Technology validated in relevant environm.
TRL 6 Technology demonstrated in relevant env.
TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in
an operational environment
TRL 8 System completed and qualified
TRL 9 Actual system proven in operational
environment.
See COM(2012) 341 final
26.6.2012
But with unsolved issues
- Not yet sound definition
- How to deal dropbacks
- Focus on single tech.
lacks support tech
e.g manufact. tech
- Different sectors use
different TRL today
Basic
Principles
Observed
Technology
Concept
Formulated
Experimental
Proof of
Concept
Technology
Validation
In lab
Tech valid.
In relevant
environment
Demonstration
In relevant
environment
Demonstration
In operational
environment
System complete
and
qualified
Successful
mission
operations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fundamental
research Pillar 1: Technological research Pillar 2: Product demonstration Pillar 3:
Competitive
manufacturing
Review scientific
knowledge base
Development of
hypotheses and
experimental
designs
Target/Candidate
identification and
characterization of
preliminary
candidate(s)
Candidate
optimization and
non-GLP In vivo
demonstration of
activity and efficacy
Advanced
characterization of
candidate and
initiation of GMP
process
development
GMP Pilot Lot
Production, IND
Submission, and
Phase 1 Clinical
Trial(s)
Scale-up, Initiation
of GMP Process
Validation, and
Phase 2 Clinical
Trial(s)
GMP Validation
Consistency Lot
Manufacturing,
Efficacy Studies
Clinical Trials3and
FDA Approval
Post-Licensure and
Post-Approval
Activities
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Different TRL definitions
Basic
Implications
Observed
Manufacturing
Concepts
Identified
Proof of
Concept
Developed
Production
Capability
In lab
Components
Production
In relevant env.
System
Production
In relevant env
Production in
Representative
environment
Pilot line demo
Low rate
production
Capacity for
full rate
production
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
Manufacturing Readiness Level (note 10 levels!!)
Full rate, lean
manufacturing
In place
9
Medical/Pharma use of Technology Readiness Levels
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Main technology
Su
pp
ort
ive t
ech
no
log
y
ideal
delays
Dropbacks and a more maturing technologies
less
ideal
KET (Key Enabling/Emerging/Experimental Technologies)
KET TRL (June 2011)
Basic principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
First assessment
feasibility concept &
technologies
Validation
integrated prototype
in lab environment
Testing prototype
In user
environment
Pre-production
product
Low scale
pilot production
demonstrated
Manufacturing fully
tested, validated
and qualified
Production &
product
fully operational
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Invention Concept validation Market
expansion Prototyping
& incubation
Pilot production
& demonstration
Initial market
introduction
Basic
Principles
Observed
Technology
Concept
Formulated
Experimental
Proof of
Concept
Technology
Validation
In lab
Tech valid.
In relevant
environment
Demonstration
In relevant
environment
Demonstration
In operational
environment
System complete
and
qualified
Successful
mission
operations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fundamental
research Pillar 1: Technological research Pillar 2: Product demonstration Pillar 3:
Competitive
manufacturing
Concept validation
Invention Prototyping & incubation
Initial market introduction
Pilot production &
demonstration
Market expansion
EARTO’s proposal TRL (April 2014)
• Introduction – valleys of death and TRLs
– At NASA TRL started as maturity tool,
– The KET origin was the Valley of Death problem
• The EU and EARTO’s view on TRLs
• RTO contributions in TRL levels • Discussion
– The use TRL of assessing maturity vs
the use of TRL for R&D funding
• Conclusion
Content
RTO’s supports EU programs in many ways
• Establishing collaborations with/between entrepeneurs,
SMEs, large enterprises and academia from TRL 1-9
• House infrastructures for applied research, experimental &
prototype use from TRL 3-7 benefitting many stakeholders
• Identify new innovations through foresight & technology
assessment, e.g. from a TRL 9 to a new technology TRL 1-3
• Educate, train people and provide highly skilled personal for
industry, in particular SMEs, academia and government
KET Technology Platform at imec, Leuven
KET Technology Platform at VTT, Finland
KET Technology Platform at HighTech Campus, Eindhoven
Holst Centre/Solliance jointly run by TNO, imec, (ECN, FZ Jülich, +)
KET TRL (June 2011)
Basic principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
First assessment
feasibility concept &
technologies
Validation
integrated prototype
in lab environment
Testing prototype
In user
environment
Pre-production
product
Low scale
pilot production
demonstrated
Manufacturing fully
tested, validated
and qualified
Production &
product
fully operational
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Invention Concept validation Market
expansion Prototyping
& incubation
Pilot production
& demonstration
Initial market
introduction
Basic
Principles
Observed
Technology
Concept
Formulated
Experimental
Proof of
Concept
Technology
Validation
In lab
Tech valid.
In relevant
environment
Demonstration
In relevant
environment
Demonstration
In operational
environment
System complete
and
qualified
Successful
mission
operations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fundamental
research Pillar 1: Technological research Pillar 2: Product demonstration Pillar 3:
Competitive
manufacturing
Concept validation
Invention Prototyping & incubation
Initial market introduction
Pilot production &
demonstration
Market expansion
Technological valley of death
Commercialisation valley of death
EARTO’s proposal TRL (April 2014)
Enlarged
EARTO’s 2014 TRL proposal in small type
• Introduction – valleys of death and TRLs
• The EU and EARTO’s view on TRLs
• RTO contributions in TRL levels
• Discussion – The misuse of RoI (Return on Investment)
– The use TRL of assessing maturity vs
the use of TRL for R&D funding
• Conclusion
Content
RoI (Return on Investment)
• Developed in the 80-ties by Dow to compare investments in
new chemical installations
“choice the proposal with the best RoI”
• Promoted by business school in the 90-ties
• In the 00-ties CFO’s started to use RoI's to deny any proposal
with a RoI longer then a certain period
• And since 2008 we have a balance sheet crisis,
and the CFO further shortens the period in which any
(innovation) investment should generate a positive cash-flow
From Richard C. Koo, Nomura
Balance Sheet USA
Balance Sheet Germany
From Richard C. Koo, Nomura
Balance Sheet Japan
From Richard C. Koo, Nomura
Private Sector saving despite record-low interest rates
From Richard C. Koo, Nomura
Public funding
Private funding
Inve
stm
en
t n
ee
de
d
Global policy trend towards valorisation
Technology readiness
Basic principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
First assessment
feasibility concept &
technologies
Validation
integrated prototype
in lab environment
Testing prototype
In user
environment
Pre-production
product
Low scale
pilot production
demonstrated
Manufacturing fully
tested, validated
and qualified
Production &
product
fully operational
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Invention Concept validation Market
expansion Prototyping
& incubation
Pilot production
& demonstration
Initial market
introduction
Public funding
Private funding
Inve
stm
en
t n
ee
de
d
Global policy trend towards valorisation
Technology readiness
Basic principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
First assessment
feasibility concept &
technologies
Validation
integrated prototype
in lab environment
Testing prototype
In user
environment
Pre-production
product
Low scale
pilot production
demonstrated
Manufacturing fully
tested, validated
and qualified
Production &
product
fully operational
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Invention Concept validation Market
expansion Prototyping
& incubation
Pilot production
& demonstration
Initial market
introduction
And not this
Which company dares to invest in mid TRL innovations
• Since 15 years we face a generation of cash-saving oriented CFO’s and
European companies investing too less in innovation
(as each individual innovation seems to have a too long RoI)
• The TRL model is not the holy grail of having the public R&D take care
of the more costly, closer to market higher TRL because of a severe EU
valley of death problem caused by today’s balance-sheet crisis in the
private sector. (and severed by the EU public 3% deficit norm (Koo.))
• RoI is a perfect relative model to compare two innovations/investments,
TRL is a good model for technology maturity assessment & planning,
but don't misuse it for funding, see the risks as with single RoI.
• Consider an adaptation, or precise specification on TRL for EU funding
• Side message: RTO’s have a role to play and can trigger the much
needed innovations the private part is not working on yet
Conclusion- EARTO’s recommendations
• The TRL model is useful to assess technology maturity and planning an
innovation from concept to cash
• EARTO’s 2014 TRL model is more focussed on bridging the technology
and commercial valley’s of death then the NASA’s TRL model
• For funding selection purposes the higher levels should be carefully
used and it needs a less vague definition by the EU. EARTO can help.
• RTO’s play an key role from 3-7 and as public R&D organisation an
obligation to perform. Uni’s and science from 1-3, but EARTO from 3-7!!!
The challenge for our “M&M’s”
Basic principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
First assessment
feasibility concept &
technologies
Validation
integrated prototype
in lab environment
Testing prototype
In user
environment
Pre-production
product
Low scale
pilot production
demonstrated
Manufacturing fully
tested, validated
and qualified
Production &
product
fully operational
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Invention Concept validation Market
expansion Prototyping
& incubation
Pilot production
& demonstration
Initial market
introduction
Thank you for your attention!
On behalf of the EARTO temporary working group on TRL’s Muriel Attane (EARTO) Anna van den Bosch (imec) Kaisa Belloni and Leena Sarvaranta (VTT) Margaret Simonson McNamee (SP) Iñaki Oñate de la Presa (Technalia) Maurits Butter and Egbert-Jan Sol (TNO) Working with the help of several other readers on a document from:
Concept validation
Invention Prototyping & incubation
Initial market introduction
Pilot production & demonstration
Market expansion
