See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317345935

Measuring Technology Readiness for Investment: Accelerating Technology

Development and Improving Innovation Performance.

Technical Report · May 2017

CITATION READS

1 4,123

11 authors, including:

Kyle Andrews Mel Armstrong

Edinburgh Napier University Manufacturing Technology Center
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Umit S. Bititci William Jackson

Heriot-Watt University University of Aberdeen
155 PUBLICATIONS   7,899 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impact of National Culture on the Design and Use of performance Measurement and Management Systems View project

Performance measurement as a social system View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tom Pfefferkorn on 07 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MEASURING TECHNOLOGY
READINESS FOR INVESTMENT
Accelerating technology development and
improving innovation performance

Report of a project undertaken by

Manufacturing Technology Centre
and
Heriot-Watt University
funded by
Innovate UK

March 2017
Measuring Technology Readiness for Investment
Accelerating technology development and improving innovation performance

Report of a project undertaken by

Manufacturing Technology Centre

and

Heriot-Watt University
funded by

Innovate UK

Project team and authors

Dr. George Adam (MTC)

Kyle Andrews (HWU)
Mel Armstrong (MTC)
Professor Umit S. Bititci (HWU)
Peter Flinn (MTC)
Dr. William Jackson (HWU)
Andrew Mayfield (MTC)
Dr. Gillian Murray (HWU)
Professor Toby Peters (HWU)
Tom Pfefferkorn (HWU)
Professor James Ritchie (HWU)

Editor: David Strahan

Contacts:
Professor Umit S. Bititci: U.S.Bititci@hw.ac.uk
Andrew Mayfield: Andrew.mayfield@the-mtc.org

April 2017

Copyright © 2017 The Manufacturing Technology Centre Limited and Heriot-Watt University

1
2
 Contents

Foreword 3

What the participants say 4

Executive Summary 5

Main Report 9

Objectives and rationale 9

The context 9
Britain’s early stage investors 10
Research approach and initial findings 12
Measuring technology readiness 14
Framework for measuring technology readiness for investment 16
Case studies 21
Delivering a robust technology readiness assessment service 22
Conclusions 25
Recommendations 26

Appendix 1: Ten pillars of the UK Industrial Strategy 28

Appendix 2: TRL and MRL definitions 29
Appendix 3: Initial self-evaluation questionnaire 33
Appendix 4: Sample anonymised assessment report 34

3
4
 Foreword

In advanced economies, innovation is a key driver of growth. Britain is ranked as a world

leader in innovation, but we have been far less successful at commercialising our inventions.
Curing this long-standing and widely-recognised problem is one of the main aims of the UK’s
new Industrial Strategy.
The gap between Britain’s performance in innovation and commercialisation makes it
important to understand the process that turns that ‘eureka moment’ into a commercial
product. The steps in this journey are typically measured through two numerical scales
known as Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs).
These metrics are an important factor in many early-stage investment decisions.
TRLs and MRLs are widely misunderstood, however. Entrepreneurs commonly overestimate
the maturity of their technology by several TRL stages, and investors often lack the skills to
perform their own assessment. Investors can end up feeling misled, and entrepreneurs
misunderstood. As a result, the flow of investment into promising early stage technologies
may be held back or even reduced.
This project, carried out jointly by the Manufacturing Technology Centre (MTC) and Heriot-
Watt University and funded by Innovate UK, has made significant progress towards solving
this problem by developing a rigorous methodology to assess TRL and MRL levels carried out
by independent assessors.
Although there is still more to do, we are convinced this work will improve understanding
between entrepreneurs and investors, increase the flow of investment to early stage
technologies and ultimately feed through to higher economic growth for Britain.

Professor Richard A Williams OBE - Principal and Vice-Chancellor, Heriot-Watt University, UK-
Dubai-Malaysia.

Clive Hickman - Chief Executive, Manufacturing Technology Centre, UK.

5
 What the participants say

"This is an excellent idea. The process confirmed some things we thought we already knew, but with
the added assurance of an independent external audit. That allows you to plan and prioritise the
things you need to do to jump up the TRL and MRL scales. "

Phil Berry,
Director, Aims Ltd

"People often underestimate the investment you need to turn an infant product into something
people actually want to buy. This tool potentially gives us a much clearer answer much earlier. I
would like to see it as one part of a wider process that lets us assess business opportunities in a
comprehensive way."

Rod Tompsett
Chairman and Group Chief Executive, Alycidon Capital

"If investors understand what stage your technology has reached, they can work out what funds are
needed to get it to market. So an accurate and independent measure of TRL increases a company's
credibility and makes it easier to attract investment, and that speeds up the progress of the
technology."

Prem Singh
Chief Executive, Symmetrical Power

“This would be an exceptionally valuable service.”

UK Business Angels Association

6
Executive Summary

Background
The ultimate aim of this project is to accelerate technology development and improve the
innovation performance of engineering and manufacturing companies, which represent
around 20% of the UK economy. This is necessary because although Britain is ranked a world
leader in innovation for its science, technology and research outputs, its performance in
commercialising these outputs is ranked significantly lower.
The government recently launched its new Industrial Strategy to tackle this and other long-
term challenges to the UK economy. Of the Industrial Strategy’s 10 pillars (see Appendix 1),
this project directly addresses two of the highest priority:
• Investing in science, research and innovation
• Supporting businesses to start and grow

What we did
The idea behind this project was for MTC and Heriot-Watt University jointly to develop and
trial an independently-audited tool-kit to measure both technology and manufacturing
readiness. The toolkit was intended to deliver a service that would improve communication
between investors and entrepreneurs, accelerate technology development and improve the
innovation performance of the UK’s engineering and manufacturing companies.
The toolkit was developed in collaboration with a number of venture capitalist firms, angel
investors, start-up companies and early-stage university spin-outs but as the project
progressed, it became apparent that the methodology would also be useful to funding
bodies such as Innovate UK and OEMs seeking to invest in early-stage technologies.
The project developed a framework for measuring technology readiness for investment
based on the existing Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) and Manufacturing Readiness
Levels (MRL). Our work integrated the TRL and MRL scales, clarified and improved the
definition of underlying concepts, and developed a three-stage assessment methodology.
The framework was tested and refined by using it to assess 14 different technologies which
confirmed the process produces results that are repeatable, reliable and consistent.

What we found: participant feedback

The MTC and Heriot-Watt University interviewed 15 early-stage investors - venture
capitalists, angel investors and public agencies - to understand how they assess a company’s
technology; which other factors they take into consideration when making an investment;

7
and what they thought of our new methodology. We also conducted interviews among the
11 technology development companies that allowed us to measure their technology
readiness. The feedback was positive and supported the following points:

1. Investors look at technology readiness as one parameter in their assessments of

investment opportunities, alongside the market opportunity and the company’s
capability to deliver. Some investors also place importance on manufacturing.
2. Investors often do not know the technology readiness level of companies they are
thinking of investing in; they often engage an expert consultant to check that the
technology works but not to assess its maturity in a structured way.
3. Entrepreneurs often overestimate their own technology readiness by failing to
grapple with all the detail.
4. All the investors contacted welcomed the prospect of a structured and independent
assessment process to judge current technology readiness levels and track future
progress, perhaps linked to further tranches of investment.
5. Any assessment fee would have to be in line with the overall cost of the due
diligence of the investment opportunity. Our process, which takes 2-3 person-days in
total, including half a day to conduct the face-to-face assessment, typically at the
company’s premises, would meet this requirement.
6. The technology innovators appreciated the assessments and appear to have gained
from interacting with experienced assessors and taking part in the project.

The project results were presented at two consultation events, one in Edinburgh on 4 April,
the other at the MTC in Coventry on 6 April. The feedback from those who took part in the
project and the consultation events suggests that our approach is worthwhile and should be
developed. The UK Business Angels Association said it would be “an exceptionally valuable
service.”
The feedback also suggested areas in which our approach could be further developed in
future. One striking theme to emerge from the consultation events was that investors saw
TRL and MRL levels as only one part of a wider assessment of potential investments. Some
were also dissatisfied with the way TRLs and MRLs have traditionally been used: as a
snapshot of progress achieved so far, rather than as a tool to estimate the future time and
investment required to get the product to market. Several saw potential to develop TRLs
and MRLs into a single measure of investment readiness, including aspects such as design for
manufacture, manufacturing processes, supply chains, skills and business models. Such a
measure would be less of a snapshot of current progress, more a countdown to commercial
lift-off. This is very much the approach of our methodology, but we think the idea of a
single, broader measure of investment readiness is worth investigating further.

8
Conclusions
We have demonstrated that our assessment works, and that both investors and innovators
have found it informative, useful and far from burdensome. We have also shown that there
is demand for an independent assessment service and that such a service could be
established.
Our assessment process could be deployed immediately but expertise is currently limited to
the project team. The UK would therefore benefit from further investment to develop the
documentation and training needed to support its roll-out.
This would help accelerate investment in early-stage technologies and the growth of the
companies that develop them. This in turn would accelerate innovation and
commercialisation, and ultimately feed through to higher economic growth. The process
would also be useful to public funding bodies, especially those involved in small company
and supply chain funding and development.
It is important that any technology readiness assessment covers both technology and
manufacturing readiness, including supply chain, skills and other manufacturing-related
aspects.
Looking ahead, there is an opportunity to develop an independent service that would train
accredited assessors to perform assessments. This independently verified TRL/MRL rating
could then be used by entrepreneurs, companies and investors to negotiate and secure
investment with greater confidence. It would also help technology developers to better
understand their current level of readiness and, more importantly, what more they need to
do to commercialise their technology. Based on the experience gained through this project,
it is likely that such a service would be valuable not only to investors and innovators but also
technology funding agencies, industrial catapults, university incubators and technology
parks.
Ultimately, the value of such a service would be to support at least two pillars of the UK
Industrial Strategy, accelerate technology development and the growth of small companies,
and stimulate economic growth. To realise this potential as quickly as possible, however,
will require further work, and we make a number of recommendations below.

Recommendations

To reap the full economic benefit of our work so far, we recommend further funding should
be considered to:
1. Establish a dedicated readiness assessment group charged with developing the
assessment process, conducting assessments and maintaining standards.

9
 2. Develop and refine the documentation and methodology for making readiness
assessments including some industry specific terminology.

3. Locate and train a wider pool of competent assessors.

4. Develop accreditation for the assessors.

Longer term, and beyond the immediate scope of this project, we recommend funding
should also be considered to:

1. Develop a web-based self-assessment screening process that early-stage companies

could use to assist their initial development, and which could eventually help match
technologies with potential investors and public sector funding agencies.

2. Extend our work to develop a methodology to help start-ups to produce a rigorous

technology development plan that ensures their innovation leads to a product that is
robust enough to manufacture, commercialise and sell. Our work has shown that the
lack of such technology development plans is a serious shortcoming among some
technology developers that needs to be addressed.

3. Broaden the scope of the assessment to include competencies and capabilities of the
people within the company against the development roadmap, potentially building
on the work of other Catapult projects already funded by Innovate UK.

4. Consider what follow-on consultancy services could be offered post-assessment,

such as developing company technology plans and business plans.

10
 Main Report
Objectives and rationale
The purpose of this document is to report on the work done to develop a methodology for
measuring technology readiness to enable more objective and constructive conversations
between investors and technology entrepreneurs. The ultimate objective is to accelerate
technology development and improve the innovation performance of UK engineering and
manufacturing companies, which represent around 20% of the UK economy.

Figure 1: The impact of technology measurement on national innovation performance

The project was funded by Innovate UK’s Catapult capability development fund1, and
undertaken by the Manufacturing Technology Centre (MTC) and Heriot-Watt University
between November 2016 and March 2017. The overarching idea was that a measurement
of technology readiness should not only provide a snap-shot of a technology’s readiness at a
given date, but also provide insight into what remains to be done to fully commercialise it.

The context
The UK’s Industrial Strategy2 has been developed to address long-term challenges to the UK
economy, and is built around 10 pillars that range from skills to infrastructure to institutions
(see Appendix 1 for detail). The work conducted for this project directly addresses two of
the most important pillars:

 Investing in science, research and innovation.

 Supporting businesses to start and grow.
These two pillars are critical because they relate to the key problem in Britain’s innovation
performance: the gap between our inventiveness and our ability to commercialise our
inventions. As shown in Figure 2, Britain is a world leader as measured by its science,
technology and research outputs but its record on commercialising those outputs is ranked
significantly lower.

1 UK's innovation agency – see www.gov.uk/government/organisations/innovate-uk

2
https://beisgovuk.citizenspace.com/strategy/industrial-strategy/supporting_documents/buildingourindustrialstrategygreenpaper.pdf

11
Figure 2: Global innovation commercialisation performance (Global Innovation Index, 2016; 296-3903)

The funding provided by early-stage investors is fundamental to both innovation and

supporting businesses to start and grow. According to Silicon Valley Bank’s (SVB) annual
survey4, a growing number of British start-ups say they hope to expand with venture capital
funding in 2017 but also that securing venture capital is one of their toughest challenges. In
this context, establishing a solid basis for clear communication between technology
developers and early-stage investors is vital to raise Britain’s innovation performance and
economic growth.
The British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (BVCA)5 reports that almost 3,000
companies with 385,000 employees are currently backed by British venture capital. The
BVCA also reports that during the period 2011-2016, Britain’s venture capitalists invested a
total of £27 billion in 3,900 British companies. These numbers are clearly significant, but - in
light of SVB’s survey findings, and Britain’s historic under-performance in commercialising
its innovation – not yet sufficient. This makes it all the more important to improve the clarity
of communication between start-ups and early-stage investors to increase the flow of
investment into Britain’s young technology companies.

Britain’s early-stage investors

Britain’s early-stage investors comprise family and friends, who typically provide small
amounts of seed capital; investment clubs, high net-worth individuals and business angels,

3
www.globalinnovationindex.org
4 https://www.svb.com/startup-outlook-report/uk/
5
www.bvca.co.uk/Our-Industry

12
who make investments ranging from a few thousand pounds to several million; and venture
capitalists (VCs), professional investment funds that invest larger sums at the later stages.
Once a technology has been substantially de-risked and the company has begun to generate
revenue, expansion capital is typically provided by private equity (PE) funds.
New technologies usually develop from an idea that may have emerged from a university
laboratory, corporate R&D facility or a lone inventor’s garden shed, and progress through
many stages, starting with rough sketches and ending with a commercial product. Until a
profitable business emerges, the value of the technology is determined by its strategic value
alone6, but after that point it is valued by a combination of its strategic value and EBITDA. 7
Figure 3 below illustrates the technology development timeline and the typical investment
patterns for angels and VCs – although the pattern can vary between sectors. Angels tend to
invest smaller amounts to support the earlier stages of development and sell out before the
business has started to make a profit. In contrast, VCs usually make larger investments at
the later stages of technology development, when funding needs are higher, and tend to
look for an exit after first profits have been achieved. Early-stage investors commonly exit
through a ‘trade sale’ to a corporate buyer, and less often through a public flotation. This
thumbnail sketch clearly simplifies reality: the actual entry and exit paths for different
investors can vary according to technology area, market structure and barriers to entry and
exit.

Figure 3: Technology development and investment timeline

7
EBITDA – Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation

13
Research approach and initial findings
The research was conducted from November 2016 to March 2017 using inductive and
deductive approaches. The inductive approach involved engaging with the investors and
technology entrepreneurs through semi-structured interviews to gauge their views on the
challenges of assessing technology readiness, investing in early stage technologies, and our
proposed methodology.
The deductive approach involved the use of the existing TRL and MRL scales as originally
developed by NASA and the US Department of Defense, and later modified by the US
Department of Energy and the UK Automotive Research Council. We used these scales to
conduct technology readiness assessments in participating technology companies to test
their suitability. The feedback from participants and our observations of these tests,
together with the findings from the inductive research, resulted in development of our final
TRL and MRL scales as presented in this report.
As part of this work, we spoke to around 40 investors, of whom we interviewed about 15,
and conducted 14 technology and manufacturing readiness assessments at 11 companies.

Figure 4: Overview of the research approach

MTC and Heriot-Watt University had detailed discussions with over 15 venture capitalists,
angels and public sector investment organisations to understand how they assess a
company’s technology, and what other factors they take into consideration when making an
investment. The assessment methodology was developed and trial assessments carried out
on 11 companies, which allowed us to assess both the subject technologies and our
methodology.
The key barriers to early stage investment in technology development include uncertainties
around the technology and the investment and support that would be required to develop
the product into a commercial product. Our initial research with the investors and

14
entrepreneurs validated our original hypothesis that a robust, reliable and repeatable
methodology for measuring technology readiness would alleviate some of these concerns
and help attract earlier stage investments, and so accelerate technology development. This
finding was reinforced by the feedback from the two consultation events in April 2017.
During our consultation events, we asked the investors and entrepreneurs about the issues
and challenges that arise when making an investment decision. Their replies included:

 Does the technology work? What prototypes have been developed and what trials
conducted; under what conditions does the technology work; what is the resilience of
the technology; what is its usability?
 Matching technology to a market need. What is the potential value of the technology;
what is its value proposition; what is the market size; who are the potential
competitors?
 Skills, capabilities and knowledge of the enterprise. Does the company have the
necessary skills and management capabilities; do the entrepreneurs have the technical
skills to take the technology through to a commercial product; are they able to make
decisions objectively?
 Costs, value and timescales. What is the investment value and payback; what are the
funding/capital requirements to commercialisation; what are the critical pressure points
that need investment; what is the long term ROI; what is the value of the company;
what is the time to next stage technology readiness, product launch and revenue
generation?
 Risk and investment readiness. Who owns the IP and how well is it protected; what are
the supply chain issues, particularly for scaling up; what are the hidden risks; is there a
clear and compelling business model; how best to carry out a due diligence?
 Manufacturability. Can it be made; what capabilities are required to manufacture at the
right volumes; how robust is the manufacturing process; what are the manufacturing
benchmarks?

15
Measuring technology readiness
Principles of measurement
Measurement is the process of assigning a number, or a set of numbers, to quantify a
feature (e.g. size, amount, weight, etc.) by using an instrument conforming to standard
units. The National Physics Laboratory (NPL)8 has developed six guiding principles for good
measurement. These include:

1. Use the right standard - Define and understand the measurement to be made by
studying the system to be measured and then adopting the right standard.
2. Choose the right instruments – The chosen instrument should be appropriate and in
good condition. It should be calibrated against a standard and used according to the
manufacturer’s instructions.
3. Use the right people - Human error is a major source of poor measurement quality.
An operator needs to be appropriately trained. Where a group of operators is
involved, their individual roles and responsibilities need to be understood and their
measurement approach needs to be calibrated to ensure consistency and
repeatability.
4. Review regularly - Performance of the measurement instruments should be checked
at regular intervals.
5. Ensure demonstrable consistency - A measurement result is only valid if it can be
reproduced consistently. This includes accounting for local factors. Important or
difficult measurements should be compared with the same measurements by other
laboratories/operators and results compared.
6. Use the right measurement procedures - Follow appropriate written measurement
procedures. Review procedures regularly as part of the review of the overall
measurement system.

All measurement systems are based on a standard, such as the standard metre bar held at
the International Bureau of Weights and Measures at Sevres in France from 1889 to 1960,
which represented the standard metre used to calibrate all other measuring instruments.
Similar standards have also been developed for measuring against descriptive scales. These
are commonly known as maturity scales, and first emerged during the 1970s in the
information systems literature (Nolan and Gibson, 1974). This in turn led the Software
Engineering Institute9 to develop the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which is essentially

8
www.npl.co.uk
9
www.sei.cmu.edu

16
a process maturity framework for information systems (Humphrey 1988, 1989; Moultrie,
Clarkson and Probert 2007). Since its development, the maturity model concept has been
widely adopted and used in a number of fields. For example, in 1996, the Supply Chain
Council10 introduced the Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR model) to provide
a framework that links supply chain practices to supply chain performance. In an
engineering context a CMM was successfully applied to determine the capability and
effectiveness of a major UK company’s mechanical design process.11

Measuring technology maturity

The first scales for measuring technology maturity, called Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)
were created by NASA in 1974. The original scale had seven levels, which were formally
defined in 1989, but in the 1990s the scale was expanded to nine-levels and gained wider
acceptance.12
In a similar vein, the US Department of Defense (DoD) developed the Manufacturing
Readiness Level (MRL) to assess the maturity of manufacturing development. The MRL scale
comprises ten levels and measures manufacturing readiness of a product from initial
concept to a fully production-qualified state. A number of other bodies have used the
concept and some manufacturers have developed their own scales, broadly following the
original NASA and DoD ideas, and used them for internal management. Table 1 below
summarises the 10 levels of TRL and MRL maturity scales.

10
www.supplychain.org
11
Egan, I., J. M. Ritchie, and P. D. Gardiner. "Measuring performance change in the mechanical design process
arena." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture
219.12 (2005): 851-863.
12
Banke, J., 2010, Technology Readiness Levels Demystified. NASA.

17
Table 1: Overview of TRL and MRL scales (the tables are not intended to reflect equivalence across the two
scales)

Framework for measuring technology readiness for investment

Based on the fundamental principles of measurement, our research has led to development
of a framework for measuring technology readiness for investment. The framework
comprises four components, shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Measurement framework for measuring technology readiness for investment

18
A maturity model based measurement standard
The main criticism of TRL and MRL scales is their unfamiliarity beyond the industries where
they originated - aerospace and defence. This can lead to a misunderstanding of readiness
levels on both sides in the relationship between investor and investee. Investors and
entrepreneurs we spoke to agreed that the TRL and MRL scales lack a clearly structured and
well-defined incremental maturity process. Our first job was therefore to develop a TRL
version in plain English that could be understood unambiguously in any industry.
We then developed and tested a maturity model based measurement standard to assess
coherently the technology and manufacturing readiness of early stage companies in various
industries across the UK. Based on conversations with investors and extensive research of
the academic literature we identified the core characteristics and capabilities of the
technology and manufacturing “threads” that develop and mature along the TRL and MRL
scales. Table 2 below provides an overview of the key threads that are assessed across our
TRL and MRL scales.

Key threads of technology and manufacturing readiness

TRL MRL

 Technology description and definition  Industrial base

 Physical realisation of technology
 Fidelity from realisation to final design
 Applications for the technology
 Performance and modelling
 Testing to confirm performance
 Environment for testing
 Intellectual property status
 Regulatory approvals
 Design for manufacture
 Manufacturing feasibility
Table 2: Key threads for technology and manufacturing readiness used in the TRL and MRL scales
 Manufacturing technology development
 Cost/investment modelling and analysis
 Material selection and availability
 Supply chain management
 Modelling and simulation
 Manufacturing performance
 Quality management arrangements
 Manufacturing workforce skill base
 Tooling and inspection equipment
 Manufacturing planning

Our research also identified that, for the purposes of investment assessment, the TRL and
MRL scales link to one another at or around TRL3 and MRL1, as illustrated in Figure 6. This
requires that from TRL3 onwards the technology and manufacturing readiness should be
assessed concurrently.

19
Figure 6: Mapping of TRL and MRL scales for measuring technology readiness for investment

Our research also improved the repeatability and reliability of the existing TRL and MRL
scales by developing explicit definitions for key terms used to describe the maturity of
technology and manufacturing readiness.
In our model, a technology’s readiness is ranked only as high as its weakest characteristic
and capability, as measured during an official and independent maturity assessment. This
highlights the characteristics and capabilities that require further attention for the
technology to progress along the TRL and MRL scales. This helps investors and
entrepreneurs to better understand the gaps and opportunities for their technologies, so
enabling them to make more realistic investment decisions.
In our integrated TRL/MRL scales technology progresses through three main phases:
Research (TRL0 to TRL3); technology development (TRL4 to TRL6); and product development
(TRL7 to TRL9). Completion of each phase represents a significant milestone for both
technology/product development and investment decision making. In other words, the TRL
progression plots the transformation of a technology from an idea into a viable product that
can be produced and commercialised in an efficient and effective way to achieve the desired
returns.

Three-stage measurement instrument

We have developed a three-stage technology readiness assessment (TRA) process as
described in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Three stage approach to measuring technology readiness

20
The first stage of the process involves self-evaluation based around a simple questionnaire
(Appendix 3). The initial questionnaire is a vital piece of information for the second stage as
it helps the assessor place the company’s technology approximately on the TRL and MRL
scale.
The second stage is an on-site assessment conducted by individuals trained in the TRL/MRL
scales (and ideally with specific industry knowledge) and the assessment methodology
described here. During the on-site assessment, the assessor uses an assessment template,
an example of which is illustrated below. These templates precisely relate to the maturity
model based measurement standards described above. The assessment takes about three
to four hours and includes an in-depth conversation with the management or project team
responsible for taking the technology to production and commercial sale. Questions address
all characteristics and capabilities of the technology, enabling the assessor to position the
company’s technology precisely on the TRL/MRL scales. During these conversations the
assessors will expect to see documentation such as drawings, test results, certifications,
business plans and manufacturing plans to enable them to assess the
technology/manufacturing maturity accurately.

Figure 8: Assessment template example (TRL1) used during the on-site assessment

In the third stage of the process, the assessor writes a report of his or her findings. The
report positions the technology/product on the TRL/MRL scales as well as outlining the
major challenges it needs to overcome to reach higher levels of technology and
manufacturing readiness.
The report, the content of which is illustrated in Figure 9 below, is itself produced in three
steps. First, the assessors write a draft report, which the internal team reviews and refines.
Second, the refined draft report is presented to the assessee and/or the investor for review.

21
Third, the report is updated and issued as a final report. An anonymised example of the
assessment report is included in Appendix 4.

Table of Contents
Summary
1. Background
2. The assessment
2.1 The assessment process
2.2 Key points arising from the TRL assessment
2.3 Key points arising from the MRL assessment
3. Other points arising from the assessment
Appendix 1 - Initial TRL threads questionnaire
Appendix 2 - Company Initial placement on TRL progression Matrix
Appendix 3 - TRL Assessment
Appendix 4 - MRL Assessment

Figure 9: Structure and content of the report

Figure 10 below provides an overview of the three-stage approach that was developed and
tested during the course of this project.

Figure 10: Content of technology and manufacturing readiness assessment report

22
Case studies
The framework for measuring technology readiness as described above has been tested and
refined through its application across 11 case studies. The case study technologies included:

 Power distribution  Energy storage

 Powder metallurgy  Food processing
 Medical  Big data
 Intelligent automation  Robotics
 Research instrumentation  Mobile refrigeration systems
 Renewable energy

The feedback from companies we assessed, such as Aims Ltd, which makes liner barrels for
extrusion machines and is considering plans to scale up its powder metallurgy
manufacturing process, has been enthusiastic. After the assessment, the company’s director
Phil Berry said: "This is an excellent idea. The process confirmed some things we thought we
already knew, but with the added assurance of an independent external audit. That allows
you to plan and prioritise the things you need to do to jump up the TRL and MRL scales."
The company’s main investor was also impressed. Rod Tompsett, chairman and group chief
executive of Alycidon Capital Limited, said "People often underestimate the investment you
need to turn an infant product into something people actually want to buy. This tool
potentially gives us a much clearer answer much earlier. I would like to see it as one part of
a wider process that lets us assess business opportunities in a comprehensive way."
Representing early stage investors more generally, the UK Business Angels Association said
our proposal to provide independent TRL assessments would be “an exceptionally valuable
service”. Two more case studies are presented below.

Company 1: Photon Force

This company is a university spin-out founded to develop single-photon image sensor technology. The first product
comprises an array of over a thousand pixels with single-photon sensitivity and ultra-fast time resolution
electronics, resulting in a powerful and compact device. Customers integrate the sensor into their own
systems. Two separate assessments were made:

 The technology readiness of the sensor was assessed at TRL7 as one critical part of its design was not
truly finalised and the company was planning to redesign this part. The manufacturing readiness of the
sensor was also assessed at MRL7, as the parts were made in low volumes in a production facility.

 An assessment of one of their next generation products was also conducted, which is at an earlier stage.

The company’s CEO, Dr Richard Walker, was able to explain the technology in a way that everyone could
understand, which was impressive and considered crucial for securing the future of the company. The technical
benefits of the sensor are also impressive, and it is clearly a saleable product. Dr Walker said “I found it useful to go
through a diligent assessment and be reassured about the state of our technology and manufacturing readiness”.

23
 Company 2: Symmetrical Power

Symmetrical Power has developed a new design for a three-phase distribution board that allows for easy balancing
and measurement of electric current through each circuit. The assessment was carried out at the MTC, even though
this was not ideal. The company brought a helpful concept demonstrator and a comprehensive test report that had
been compiled by the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult.

The assessment team confirmed the company’s initial self-assessment of TRL 3. One reason the technology failed to
reach TRL4 was that the company has no working model of the board allowing its performance to be tested and
confirmed. After conducting an MRL assessment which included 22 separate threads from both MRL 1 and MRL 2,
the assessors concluded the technology was at MRL 1, mainly because there was no formal manufacturing
feasibility documentation.

Overall, the assessors concluded the technology should have no difficulty reaching TRL4 other than funding; the
product is viable and offers many benefits. It was impressive that the product design was based on the practical
experience of installing and adjusting ID boards in-situ. There appeared to be at least two genuine innovations
present in the product.

A non-technical observation was that the marketing of the board needed to consider end users rather than only the
manufacturers. This would create some market pull, without which there would be no demand-led market.
Without such a market it would probably be difficult to persuade manufacturers to make and sell the boards.

Prem Singh, chief executive of Symmetrical Power, said the process was worthwhile: "If investors understand what
stage your technology has reached, they can work out what funds are needed to get it to market. So an accurate
and independent measure of TRL increases a company's credibility and makes it easier to attract investment, and
that speeds up the progress of the technology."

Delivering a robust technology readiness assessment service

To summarise, the project developed and tested a maturity model based measurement
standard based on the integrated TRL and MRL scales, and developed a methodology based
on a three-stage measurement instrument as described above. It also developed precise
definitions for each stage of the TRL/MRL scales as well as various other terminology used in
those scales. In most cases the assessments were conducted by four individual assessors
acting in teams of two. The conclusions reached by different pairs of assessors
demonstrated the consistency and reliability of this approach. This was achieved through
training of the assessors and common documentation.
Looking ahead, there is an opportunity to develop an independent service that would train
and accredit assessors to perform these evaluations. This independently verified TRL/MRL
rating could then be used by entrepreneurs, companies and investors to negotiate and
secure investment with greater confidence. It would also help technology developers to
better understand their current level of readiness and, more importantly, what more they
need to do to commercialise their technology.

The project results also suggest an opportunity for Innovate UK to provide a front-end
screening process for several large industry support programmes currently under discussion.

24
Considering the broader national objective to encourage greater investment into innovative
UK technology companies, an independent and trusted accreditation service of this type
could quickly become an important national asset. Heriot-Watt University and the MTC are
keen to collaborate to offer such a service themselves.
Based on the experience of this project, it is likely that such a service would be of some
value to the following groups:
 Investors – to evaluate new investment prospects and track progress with existing
investments.
 Innovators – to assess their current position, perhaps ahead of a funding application.
 Economic development agencies and research funding bodies - such as Scottish
Enterprise and Innovate UK – could use such a service tactically to support collaborative
R&D programmes and strategically to target major funding programmes and initiatives
linked to the government’s Industrial Strategy.
 The Catapult Network –could be trained and accredited to deliver such a service for its
own client networks ahead of technology or business improvement projects.
 University incubators and technology parks – could make use of such a service to
accelerate growth of technology companies as well as offering a match-making service
between entrepreneurs/innovators and investors.

The ultimate value of such a service would be to accelerate technology development and
improve the innovation performance of engineering and manufacturing companies for the
benefit of the UK economy. More specifically, such a service would increase investor
confidence, through:
 More accurate assessment of a new technology’s maturity.
 A reliable insight into what more needs to be done to support the development and
commercialisation of the technology.
 A reliable and repeatable process for tracking progress of technology development and
commercialisation.

At our consultation events, after we had presented the tool kit to investors and
entrepreneurs, we posed the following questions:

 How would this process/tool-kit help you navigate the issues that were suggested
earlier?
 How would this process/tool-kit help to accelerate the technology development
process?
 What else could we do in future to improve on what we have already done?

25
Their answers are summarised as follows:

 How would this process/tool-kit help you address the issues suggested earlier?
By building trust and confidence through independent assessment with a logical and
common understanding; by mapping demand to manufacturing capability; by
scoping out manufacturing capabilities of the supply chain; by understanding the
changing skill sets and knowledge required as the technology develops, including for
manufacturing; by creating transparency over how much time and money the
project will need; by identifying gaps where investment is required and investment
payback timescale; by helping to decide when not to invest or discontinue
investment; by ensuring that the gaps identified feed into the investment plan;
facilitating concurrency and quicker to market; by helping to identify opportunities
as well as risks; by providing independent confirmation of the trials and proof of
concept; by developing a roadmap from the assessment.

 How would this process/tool-kit help to accelerate the technology development

process? By providing a robust framework; a useful standardised monitoring tool;
usable, repeatable and independent assessment which gives credibility and
confidence; by providing a common language; by helping communication with
investors/customers; by creating greater confidence for early stage investment; by
helping to reduce risk and increase transparency; by helping to bring investors in
sooner; by providing better market direction; by helping to do the right things in the
right order; by providing better links to customer requirements and scalability; by
focusing investment and shifting culture towards commercialisation; by structuring
and organising a roadmap; by helping to achieve early sales to customers and co-
fund the development.

 What else could we do in future to improve on what we have already done? There
is a need to connect the process to the customer/market needs; the output should
be developed into a roadmap to accelerate outcomes; consider having different
levels of assessment ranging from an open source self-assessment to
correspondence based desk-top assessment to a full assessment service conducted
by a team of experts; the process could be improved to include recommendations
about the future development of a technology, value propositions and scalability;
what to focus on and what not to progress; technology supply chain as well as
funding options and potential sources.

26
Conclusions
We have demonstrated that our assessment works and that both investors and innovators
have found it informative, useful and far from burdensome. We have also shown that there
is demand for an independent assessment service and that such a service could be
established.
The key message that emerges is that technology readiness is a broad concept, and start-
ups and early-stage investors need a measurement tool that captures not only the readiness
of the technology, but also the readiness of the technology as a product for
commercialisation. This would include readiness of the product for its intended market(s);
readiness of the product for manufacturing; readiness of manufacturing system that would
produce the product; readiness of the supply chain; and readiness of the skills required by
company staff to take the product to commercialisation.
Other important messages include:

 Investors look at technology readiness as one parameter in their assessments of

investment opportunities, alongside the market opportunity presented by a new
technology and the capability of the company’s team to deliver. Investors also place
importance on manufacturing.
 Assessment of technology readiness is normally carried out by individuals known and
trusted by the investor. There is currently no structured assessment process and the
question being answered is “does the technology work?” without a recognition of its
maturity.
 All the investors welcomed the prospect of a structured and independent assessment
process which could be used to judge current technology readiness levels and to track
future progress, perhaps linked to further tranches of investment.
 The cost of assessment would have to be in line with the overall cost of the due
diligence process of the investment opportunity.
 The technology innovators appreciated the assessments and appear to have gained both
from the report and the interaction with experienced assessors.

During our two consultation events, feedback from investors suggested some dissatisfaction
with the way TRLs and MRLs had been used in the past, and an appetite to develop our
methodology further, perhaps into a single, broader measure of investment readiness. This
would be less of a snapshot of the current status of a technology’s development, and more
a forward-looking measure of what is required to commercialise the invention, including
aspects such as design for manufacture, manufacturing processes, supply chains, skills and
business models. This is very much the approach of the methodology we have developed,
but we believe the idea of a single, broader measure of investment readiness is worth
further investigation.

27
This feedback, and the positive response from those who went through the assessment
process, suggests that our methodology has value and should be developed.
Our assessment process could be deployed immediately, but expertise is currently limited to
the project team. The UK would therefore benefit from further investment to develop the
documentation and training needed to support its roll-out.
This would help accelerate investment in early-stage technologies and the growth of the
companies that develop them. This in turn would accelerate innovation and
commercialisation and ultimately feed through to higher economic growth. The process
would also be useful to public funding bodies, especially those involved in small company
and supply chain funding and development.
It is important that any technology readiness assessment covers both technology and
manufacturing readiness, including supply chain, skills and other manufacturing-related
topics.
Looking ahead, there is an opportunity to develop an independent service that would train
accredited assessors to perform assessments. This independently verified TRL/MRL rating
could then be used by entrepreneurs, companies and investors to negotiate and secure
investment with greater confidence. It would also help technology developers to better
understand their current level of readiness and, more importantly, what more they need to
do to commercialise their technology. Based on the experience gained through this project,
it is likely that such a service would be valuable not only to investors and innovators, but
also technology funding agencies, industrial catapults, university incubators and technology
parks.
Ultimately, the value of such a service would be to support at least two pillars of the UK
Industrial Strategy, accelerate technology development and the growth of small companies,
and stimulate economic growth. To realise this potential as quickly as possible, however,
will require further work, and we make a number of recommendations below.

Recommendations

To reap the full economic benefit of our work so far, we recommend further funding should
be considered to:
1. Establish a dedicated readiness assessment group charged with developing the
assessment process, conducting assessments and maintaining standards.

2. Develop and refine the documentation and methodology for making readiness
assessments including some industry-specific terminology.

3. Locate and train a wider pool of competent assessors.

28
 4. Develop accreditation for the assessors.

Longer term, and beyond the immediate scope of this project, we recommend funding
should also be considered in order to:

5. Develop a web-based self-assessment screening process that early-stage companies

could use to assist their initial development and which could eventually help match
technologies with potential investors and public sector funding agencies.

6. Extend our work to develop a methodology to help start-ups to produce a rigorous

technology development plan that ensures their innovation leads to a product that is
robust enough to manufacture, commercialise and sell. Our work has shown that
the lack of such technology development plans is a serious shortcoming among some
technology developers that needs to be addressed.

7. Broaden the scope of the assessment to include competencies and capabilities of the
people within the company against the development roadmap, potentially building
on the work of other Catapult projects already funded by Innovate UK.

8. Consider the follow-on consultancy services that could be offered post-assessment,

such as developing company technology plans and business plans.

29
Appendix 1

Ten pillars of the UK Industry Strategy

1. Investing in science, research and innovation – we must become a more innovative
economy and do more to commercialise our world-leading science base to drive growth
across the UK.
2. Developing skills – we must help people and businesses to thrive by: ensuring everyone
has the basic skills needed in a modern economy; building a new system of technical
education to benefit the half of young people who do not go to university; boosting
STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) skills, digital skills and numeracy;
and by raising skill levels in lagging areas.
3. Upgrading infrastructure – we must upgrade our standards of performance on digital,
energy, transport, water and flood defence infrastructure, and better align central
government infrastructure investment with local growth priorities.
4. Supporting businesses to start and grow – we must ensure that businesses across the
UK can access the finance and management skills they need to grow; and we must
create the right conditions for companies to invest for the long term.
5. Improving procurement – we must use strategic government procurement to drive
innovation and enable the development of UK supply chains.
6. Encouraging trade and inward investment – government policy can help boost
productivity and growth across our economy, including by increasing competition and
helping to bring new ways of doing things to the UK.
7. Delivering affordable energy and clean growth – we need to keep costs down for
businesses, and secure the economic benefits of the transition to a low-carbon
economy.
8. Cultivating world-leading sectors – we must build on our areas of competitive
advantage, and help new sectors to flourish, in many cases challenging existing
institutions and incumbents.
9. Driving growth across the whole country – we will create a framework to build on the
particular strengths of different places and address factors that hold places back –
whether it is investing in key infrastructure projects to encourage growth, increasing skill
levels, or backing local innovation strengths.
10. Creating the right institutions to bring together sectors and places – we will consider
the best structures to support people, industries and places. In some places and sectors
there may be missing institutions which we could create, or existing ones we could
strengthen, be they local civic or educational institutions, trade associations or financial
networks.

30
Appendix 2

TRL and MRL definitions

The purpose of the document is to provide a plain language description of the TRL and MRL scales. The start
point for the scales was information published by NASA, the US Department of Defense, US Department of
Energy, European Commission and UK Automotive Council.

Technology Readiness Levels

TRL1 – First stage of development for a new technology. At this stage, a need for the technology will have
been identified, perhaps in the form of a problem to be solved or a market need to be addressed, and the
principles of a solution will have been developed. The solution will be described briefly, probably in narrative
form or as a feasibility study, and its performance and characteristics will be predicted. This will be supported
by sketches, diagrams and some calculations or simple mathematical modelling. A literature search may
identify other, similar applications which provide confidence that the proposal is a feasible proposition. The
development work will probably have been carried out in a research, laboratory or workshop environment.
There may also be some initial ideas about how the solution could be manufactured but no more.

TRL2 - The concept outlined at TRL1 will be developed in greater detail and more thorough performance
predictions will be made. Initial drawings or CAD models of the solution will be produced. Simulations or
analysis of critical elements of the solution will also be produced and physical tests of these elements may be
undertaken to correlate the analysis. These physical tests are likely to have been limited to components of the
solution rather than the solution as a whole. Areas will be identified to which formal IP protection could be
applied. Basic manufacturing feasibility studies will also be undertaken, outlining the approach which might be
taken and showing its basic feasibility.

TRL3 - Basic concept of the new technology is shown to be viable (“proof of concept”). On the basis of this,
further investment in the next, and more expensive, stages of development might be expected by either the
organisation doing the development or by an external investor. The design of the solution will be complete, as
an overall system, but not the details. This will probably be in the form of a CAD model plus coding of any
embedded software. Substantial simulation and modelling will have been undertaken to prove the
performance characteristics of the system. This will be supported by practical test work, in a laboratory
environment, of a complete system, albeit using relatively crude representations of the final items. This
demonstration system is unlikely to work reliably, and could be quite temperamental, but it will show that the
concept can be made to work and can achieve something approaching the required level of performance. The
development work will also be supported by an initial QFD-type (Quality Function Deployment) analysis,
linking the product in detail to the market need which has been identified. FMEA or similar methodologies will
also be started to identify areas critical to the reliability of the solution. Formal IP protection will be sought.
Finally, a manufacturing approach will be defined and documented, suited to the volumes of the market
identified.

TRL4 - The basic functioning of the proposed new technology will have been demonstrated at TRL3 but in a
laboratory environment and with limited repeatability. The aim of TRL4 is to build an understanding of how
the technology works so it can be developed and used with much more confidence. The emphasis therefore is
on practical testing of the complete solution, rather than elements of it, but in a laboratory environment and
using components which are not wholly representative of the final solution. Modelling and simulation work
will proceed in parallel with the practical work and this will feed off the practical work. Initial QFD and FMEA
studies will be completed and the results fed into the technology design and into the test program. The QFD,
or similar, study will require the market application to be defined in some detail. More detail will also be

31
added to the design of the technology which will take the form of CAD models from which detailed drawings
and bills of material could be extracted. Manufacturing work will have identified the basis of a manufacturing
process or system for the technology. Formal IP protection will now be in place. There will be a broad
indication of the timescale and costs to reach TRL9.

TRL5 - The work undertaken at TRL4 should give sufficient confidence for the technology to be taken out of a
laboratory or workshop environment for the first time. This could be achieved by installing it on a test vehicle
if, for example, it is an automotive, aerospace or rail technology. Alternatively, it could be installed, on a one-
off basis, in something close to the true operating environment but under close control and operated by the
technology developer, not the customer. Further details will be added to the design which will continue to be
optimised and one output of this TRL will be a set of design rules which provide the guidance for designing a
successful product in the future. At this stage, manufacturing studies should be undertaken in some depth. The
manufacturing process routings should have been identified, including any new technologies or hazardous
processes. Sources of materials, supply chains and capacity to produce, including any special materials, should
be known. This work should be fed back into the design through formal Design for Manufacture assessments
which should optimise the design to achieve cost targets. Any special skill needs for production should be
known and the broad programme through to TRL9 should be confirmed.

TRL6 - At the TRL6 stage, the technology is ready to be taken out into the field for trials by known end-user(s)
in a form close to the final end product. The performance of the technology will be measured closely for
comparison with the expected performance and benefits. Based on successful completion of this stage, a
decision should be made to launch the technology on a specific product platform, or as a product in its own
right, by a certain date and within known cost boundaries (product cost and investment). As well as operating
the technology under “normal” conditions, it could also be trialled at extremes, such as overload, abuse, harsh
environments, or with unfamiliar operators. Simulation models will continue to be used in parallel with the
practical work, in particular to investigate any problems identified. The design of the technology will be stable
and detailed at this stage but will be open to detailed modification based on the field trials. Manufacturing
planning will have started in detail and this could impact on the design in terms of design for manufacture
(DfM) studies, supply source capabilities and capacities and lead times. Some re-design might be expected to
deal with issues related to manufacturing and these will have to be dealt with in parallel with the field trials
and its outcome.

TRL7 - This stage has the aim of confirming that the product embodying the new technology meets all the
performance, durability and reliability criteria specified for that product. It may involve multiple prototypes of
either the complete product, and/or elements of it. These prototypes will be as close as possible to the final
product but may be produced by low volume methods or without production tooling. The prototypes will be
subject to a wide range of tests which could include coverage of extremes of the operating envelope, overload,
abuse and extreme environmental testing. Issues identified by earlier FMEA work will be signed off as resolved
at this stage. The product itself will be fully defined in terms of drawings, bills of material and specifications
which will be the subject of formal change control to manage the modifications which will inevitably arise from
the test programme. Models and simulations from earlier TRL’s will be maintained and used in problem
solving. Detailed manufacturing planning will run parallel to this activity and production of prototypes will
provide useful learning to guide the full production process. This learning will be captured in formal DfM
processes which will have been started at much earlier TRLs.

TRL8 - TRL8 is linked to the establishment of a full production system for the product which will embody the
new technology. The product itself will be stable in the sense that the design will not be subject to major
modifications as a result of the test programme which is largely completed at TRL7. There is, however, the
possibility that long-term durability testing, a TRL7 issue which will overlap with TRL8, will throw up some
issues and similarly early pre-production products may be introduced into the field for reliability trials. There

32
will also be scope for changes and optimisation arising from manufacturing and supply chain development. Full
regulatory approval, if needed, will be completed at this stage, which may require approval of the production
system - the physical assets, the processes and the skill base - as well as the product itself.

TRL9 - At TRL9, the technology which started its journey at TRL1 will be operating successfully in the market
with customers and be providing the benefits and capabilities which were originally envisaged. Manufacture
will be operating smoothly within acceptable cost, quality and delivery boundaries. Skills and training to
achieve this will be in place. There will be programmes of cost reduction and productivity improvement. The
technology will be operating reliably and be the subject of continuous improvement rather than rectification.
Reliability performance, and other measures such as warranty costs and customer complaint levels, will be
known and acceptable. The emphasis will be on expanding market coverage and developing new applications
for the technology.

Manufacturing Readiness Levels

MRL1 - The first stage of development of the manufacturing processes which will be used to produce, for sale
to the market-place, a new product based on new technology. It can take place when the product concerned
has reached a TRL2 or TRL3 stage of its development. At MRL1, there will be paper-based research of the
possible manufacturing methods which could be used, appropriate to the sales volumes envisaged. There will
be a broad assessment of manufacturing costs, investment, sources of supply and timescales. This will also
highlight any areas of potential difficulty, for example, unusual materials or processes, where early action
might be needed to forestall potential risks.

MRL2 - More detail will be added, at this stage, to the work undertaken at MRL1. In particular, initial
conclusions will have been reached concerning difficult or unusual materials or processes. Initial drawings and
bills of material will be available which will enable DfM studies to commence. The product will be at a TRL3 or
TRL4 stage of maturity so there will be hardware to evaluate, covering both its design and its early-stage
manufacture and sourcing. From this work, a manufacturing development programme can be defined. These
points will be documented in a manufacturing feasibility and development plan.

MRL3 - At this stage of manufacturing development, the new technology or product will have advanced to the
stage where a trial system might have been taken out of the laboratory or workshop environment and be
operating in a market environment. There will therefore be a lot of design detail and experience from the
manufacture of early components or systems. At this stage then, manufacturing studies should be undertaken
in some depth. The manufacturing process routings should have been identified, including any new
technologies or hazardous processes. An initial make-v-buy study will have been undertaken. Sources of
materials, supply chains and capacity to produce, including any special materials, should be known in principle.
If substantially new manufacturing methods or technologies are required, workshop trials will have been
conducted to confirm that the planned manufacturing concepts will actually function. This work should be fed
back into the design through initial DfM assessments which should optimise the design to achieve
manufacturability. Skills needs for production should be known and the programme through to full production
should be confirmed or modified.

MRL4 - An early prototype is likely to have been produced when the manufacturing readiness has reached
MRL4. Hence, the product will be capable of manufacture in a workshop or low volume environment. Problem
areas or risks will be known, and the design will have been optimised as a concept for prototype production.
This then provides the basis for planning high volume production and processes will have started for this,
including formal in-house and supplier quality planning systems. The potential supply chain will have been
surveyed, sources of supply and lead times will be known, and make-v-buy decisions confirmed. Simulation
models will have been established for critical, individual processes and for the overall production layout.
Workshop trials for any new manufacturing technologies will have proceeded to the point of reliable operation

33
in a high-skill environment. The programme through to full production will be known in detail, including
revenue and capital costs for subsequent MRL stages. A high-cost commitment to enter a full prototype
development and production planning programme will be made by the company at the end of this stage.

MRL5 - Manufacturing readiness will have advanced to the level where multiple prototypes can be produced
by low volume methods to permit a detailed performance and durability programme to be undertaken on the
new product. By committing to build multiple prototypes, supplier company choices for production will in
many cases have been made in effect. Part-by-part design for manufacture studies will be completed during
this phase to capture the learning from prototype build. Manufacturing process FMEAs or similar process risk
studies will also be completed during this phase. Trials of new manufacturing technologies will be running with
production-level operators. The product itself will be fully defined in terms of drawings, bills of material and
specifications which will be the subject of formal change control to manage the modifications which will
inevitably arise from the test and manufacturing review programme.

MRL6 - Having started to produce multiple prototypes and learnt from this experience, the design will now be
capable of being produced in volume and most production manufacturing processes will have been defined.
New manufacturing technologies will now be capable of production operation and statistical methods will
demonstrate this. Supplier agreements will be in place and long-lead production items will have been
identified. Cost analyses will be updated from prototype experience and overall cost targets will be achievable
with actions in place for problem areas. The investment budget will be known on a detailed basis and a
commitment will be made to go ahead with that investment.

MRL7 - Facility design procurement will be undertaken covering capital items, tooling, fixtures, inspection
equipment and material handling. Process FMEAs or other risk analysis methods will be completed ahead of
this. Simulation modelling will have been completed and critical areas identified. Supplier quality assessment
will be complete. Material will be ordered, starting with long-lead items, for facility commissioning and parts
schedules issued accordingly. Cost models will be updated as orders are placed.

MRL8 - At this stage, production facilities will be in place and will be commissioned to produce the full range of
products in the required quantity. Simulation models will be run in parallel with physical commissioning and
used to support problem solving. Parts and products will be inspected in detail to confirm that all
requirements have been met. This will apply to both in-house and externally sourced items. Formal
certification of processes by external agencies may be required at this stage. Sufficient operators for MRL9
volumes, and support staff, will be fully trained and signed off as competent.

MRL9 - All production facilities will be fully operational at this stage and have a proven capability to run at the
full, planned volumes. Volumes will be gradually built up. Further staff will be recruited to facilitate the
expanding output. Process capabilities and facility performance will be closely monitored during the period of
volume increase, as will the performance of the supply chain. Costs will be fully known and within target levels.

MRL10 - At MRL10, manufacturing will be running consistently at the planned volume levels and parameters
such as on-time delivery, quality and cost will be stable within the target parameters. There will be a full
complement of trained staff. Statistically, processes will be under control and the emphasis will be on
continuous improvement, cost reduction and productivity enhancement. All facilities will be fully operational
and proven.

34
Appendix 3
Initial self-evaluation questionnaire

35
Appendix 4
Sample anonymised assessment report

Summary
Company A showed two (very confidential) possible technology development projects.

One (Technology 1) was to develop a machine for affixing fasteners in a location with restricted
access. In this application the fasteners need to be tightened to a pre-set torque.

The second (Technology 2) was to develop a way to improve the use of certain types of cutting tool
insert by ensuring that they had optimum wear on the cutting surfaces.

In the case of Technology 1 the TRL was assessed as being 2, with many elements of TRL 3 present as
well.

In the case of Technology 2 the TRL was assessed as being 4, with a caveat that the MRL needed a
more detailed review.

Table of Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 36
1 Background.................................................................................................................. 37
2 The assessment........................................................................................................... 37
2.1 The assessment process ...................................................................................... 37
2.1.1 Key points arising from the TRL assessment of Technology 1 ....................... 38
2.1.2 Key points arising from the MRL assessment of Technology 1 ...................... 38
2.1.3 Key points arising from the TRL assessment of Technology 2 ....................... 38
2.1.4 Key points arising from the MRL assessment of Technology 2 ...................... 38
3 Other points rising from the audit ................................................................................. 38
Appendix 1 Background information for the assessment .........................................................
Appendix 2 TRL assessment background. ..............................................................................
Appendix 3 TRL questionnaire for Technology 1 .....................................................................
Appendix 4 TRL questionnaire for Technology 2 .....................................................................

36
1 Background
Assessee Business Opportunity

Company A has been developing two technologies (Technologies 1 & 2) for a third party customer.
These are early stage developments; however, they are being developed to meet specific customer
opportunities.

Reason for the Assessment

Company A is known to the MTC and volunteered to be a trial subject for the TRL assessment tool.

Location

United Kingdom

2 The assessment

Company A

Date of Assessment 1st February 2017

Personnel (Company) Professor Richard Starkey

George Harrison
Personnel (MTC/HW)
Paul McCartney

Overall finding of TRL

TRL 2
assessment for Technology
MRL -
1
Overall finding of TRL
TRL 4 subject to more work on the MRL
assessment for Technology
MRL ~2 (not thoroughly researched)
2

Richard Starkey spent over three hours speaking with the assessment team. For confidentiality
reasons they were unable to fill in the pre-assessment questionnaire.

Two technologies were reviewed.

2.1 Assessment process

In both cases, based on the results of a discussion with Professor Starkey the technology was
reviewed against the TRL questionnaire. (See Appendices 3 and 4), assessments of TRL 2 and TRL 4
were made for Technology and Technology 2 respectively.

37
2.1.1 Key points arising from the TRL assessment of Technology 1

The problem that this technology addresses is simple to describe. However, the environment in
which the technology must operate is challenging. There is a physical realisation that demonstrates
the concept, however it cannot, as yet, be considered to be proof of concept of the complete
system. This restricts the TRL to TRL2.

It should be noted that a number of design challenges have been overcome. ‘All’ that remained for
successful proof of concept to be achieved was to solve the issue around reliably feeding the
fasteners into the device.

2.1.2 Key points arising from the MRL assessment of Technology 1

Being at TRL2, there was no requirement for an MRL assessment. However, given that the envisaged
volume for this device was in the ‘00s, no level of automation would be required. At this stage of the
development no obvious manufacturing challenges had presented themselves. The situation could
change when the final design was complete.

2.1.3 Key points arising from the TRL assessment of Technology 2

This technology has been able to reach a physical realisation that has allowed real life trials to take
place with some success.

2.1.4 Key points arising from the MRL assessment of Technology 2

Little work was done on the MRL assessment; however, given that the components of the
technology are well known, the volumes envisaged are relatively small and the system has been
shown to work, it is reasonable to assume that MRL2 is a safe assessment.

3 Other points arising from the audit

It was only possible to see the demonstrator of concept for technology 1.

Technology 2 will be passed on for further development to another centre, so it can be stated that
the technology development was a success.

38
39
 Measuring Technology Readiness for Investment

View publication stats