Talk:Technology readiness level

Active discussions

credit to previous editors of restored versionEdit

Previous editors include: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User:2001:630:201:f1f6:78a4:2f4d:6210:3ffe User:2001:630:201:f1f6:c4e9:2eec:ee6a:72 User:2001:67c:10ec:3185:8000::7c User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User: User:Addbot User:Alexbot User:AnomieBOT User:Antimony User:ATReynolds User:BattyBot User:Bender User:BG19bot User:BillFlis User:Bjsauser User:Bluebot User:Boleyn User:Ccloutier User:Chowbok User:Clicketyclack User:ClueBot User:CmdrObot User:ComputerGeezer User:Craverj User:Crzer07 User:Cslatlantis User:David.p.mika User:DeknMike User:DILtron3000 User:DragonBot User:DSisyphBot User:Fchristiaens User:FrescoBot User:Gaius User:Gbarki User:Ghannam User:GreenC User:Imnotminkus User:Ingolfson User:InternetArchiveBot User:Izno User:John User:JorisvS User:Kku User:Kurgh User:Luckas-bot User:Manop User:Mathew User:Maxence2 User:Mbeijers User:Me, User:Mgscox User:MHeder User:Mion User:Monkbot User:N2e User:OrphanBot User:Oyvindb User:Paradoctor User:Per User:Pietrow User:Raellerby User:Randykitty User:Rangoon11 User:Ras67 User:Rathfelder User:Rems User:Rich User:Richard User:Robbot User:Rolinger User:RussBot User:Sailsbystars User:Samosa User:Sbolat User:SEI User:SmackBot User:StefanoSalsano User:STemplar User:Sylvainremy User:Tom.Reding User:Trivialist User:VoABot User:Vortmax User:Wheredangerlives User:William User:Wyatts User:Xp54321 User:Yobot User:YorkBW User:Zangar


I manage an IT technology assessment activity in my organization. We have developed methodologies for conducting and documenting technology assessments. We are trying to find a method or best practice for technology readiness levels for commercially available IT products and technologies, similarly to the TRLs on this wiki page. So far I haven't found anything other than these TRLs which are oriented towards developmental technology. I am interested in discussion on this topic.

The following link provides a document that talks about what I am looking for:

John242 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

John, Did you get anywhere with this? I just finished a stint at the Missile Defense Agency and although they are using a tool called Engineering Manufacturing Readiness Levels (EMRLs), it includes some readiness assessment methodology on software as one of the criteria. The original work on Software Readiness Levels was from a different group in the 2004 timeframe.

Jgaluardi (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed broken link above. Tjamison (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Related DoD definitionsEdit

Most DoD agencies still categorize Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) by Budget Activity rather than by TRL. See: DoD Financial Management Regulation, DoD 7000.14-R, volume 2B, chapter 5, July 2008. Psalm 119:105 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

DoD definitions and SoftwareEdit

My experience with highly software-based prototypes it that they often fail to become a marketable (e.g. production) product. Where does the DoD definitions stand on IT or software-based applications? This is VERY important - please help!-- (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Technology readiness level. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Previous version deleted as copyvioEdit

Apparently the previous versions contained a long running copyvio. The original page didn't, but it was outdated (2004 versions of docs). I restored the encyclopedic prose portion of the previous article, which does not appear to contain any copyvios. (editors credited at the top of the talk page) I know US government works are public domain, so are some EU works. To keep this article encyclopedic in tone, it might be better to link to those government works rather to include large numbers of long tables in the article itself. --Versageek 18:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

HEY, I need that TRL table that I've referenced here for years! Bring it back, or link to it, please. (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Anonymous User

Loss of content of TRL 1-9Edit

This page used to have a detailed discussion of TRLs 1-9. All that content seems to have been deleted, and removed from the publicly accessible history; it's no longer available to editors, only administrators.

The discussion mentions a copyvio from ; however, not only was that content deleted, but _all_ discussion of TRLs 1-9.

This is wrong, because:

  • TRLs as used now go to 1-9
  • The reader needs to know what they mean
  • The article had an excellent, clear discussion
  • And editors no longer have access to bring it back

I request that whoever has access to the TRL 1-9 discussion please restore it, or at least provide some means to gain access to it, so that the article can be reconstructed. As is, a reader will learn the _outdated_ definition of TRLs.

To be concrete, the article now defines TRL 7 as "System Adequacy Validated in Space". That's completely outdated: NASA, and all other users of TRL, define valildation in space as TRL 9. TRL 7 means something else entirely. As is, using this article will only confuse the readers, and cause them to get TRLs all wrong.

Please restore the content that defined TRLs 1-9 in their modern definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Int80 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Up-to-date list of TRLs and short descriptionsEdit

This article is considerably incomplete. The comments on the Talk hint that this was because of some copy violation that caused most of the content of the article to be purged. But having an article about technology readiness levels without even having a proper (up-to-date) list of such levels makes no sense. Could such a list be added at least, with some brief descriptions of each level (without incurring in some possible copyright infringement)? Or at least add a link to a site with that list? (A description of TRLs 0–9 as described by the European Commission for H2020 can be found here.)

If there are currently multiple different definitions of the TRL list coexisting (which seems to be the case), it would be nice to have a list of them at the beginning, with references to the official sites defining each of them, and maybe a short comment describing their context. This would help clarify the differences between them and provide an easy way to access this information without incurring in possible copyright infringement. (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The article was edited after this comment and two TRL definitions (NASA and EU) were added. I have moved these two definitions to their own section to maintain a proper document structure. I'm not sure if it makes more sense to put them after or before History; feel free to rearrange if you think it should appear before.— (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Technology readiness level" page.