When is technology really ready?

Technology Readiness Level, or TRL, is a familiar acronym across engineering, often raised in the question: “what is its TRL?”

TRLs have been around since the 1970s, when NASA introduced the idea as a way of assessing whether emerging technologies were mature enough for high risk missions.

The principle was sensible: create a common language for talking about maturity, risk and readiness as technology moves from an idea in the lab to something operating in the real world.

Since then, TRLs have travelled well beyond aerospace. In the oil and gas sector, you may have seen DNV-RP-A203 and API RP 17N, which were developed from 1990s through, as existing standards were often insufficient to demonstrate the reliability of new technologies that were required for deeper waters and more demanding conditions.

The TRLs

Below is my interpretation of each TRL, illustrated using a simple analogy: the humble pressure cooker. In a world where only open-pot cooking exists, you set out to develop a faster way to cook food.

TRL 1: Basic first principles that the technology utilises have been observed. You understand that increasing pressure raises the boiling point of water, allowing food to be cooked at higher temperatures.

TRL 2: The idea for the technology has been formulated but remains speculative (i.e. no experimental validation performed). You conceive of a sealed vessel that uses pressure to cook food faster but you are yet to prove it could work.

TRL 3: Experimental proof of concept achieved through initial laboratory testing. You build a crude sealed container and demonstrate that food cooks faster under pressure. It works, but is unstable and needs refinement.

TRL 4: Technology validated at laboratory scale (small-scale prototype). You put together a small experimental vessel in the lab that can reliably contain pressure and cook food faster.

TRL 5: Technology validated in representative environment (larger-scale prototype tested under conditions representing the intended environment). You test improved versions of the vessel under more realistic conditions (different foods, repeated cycles, varying heat) and start to understand its risks and limitations.

TRL 6: Demonstration/prototype system achieved in relevant operational environment.
You develop a complete pressure cooker and demonstrate reliable operation. The design is approaching its intended commercial/market size.

TRL 7: Demonstration/pilot system achieved in actual operational environment.
You conduct supervised trials in real kitchens, confirming performance, safety, and durability. The design is near-final but still being optimised.

TRL 8: System complete, qualified and issues resolved. System is ready for commercial deployment as a first-of-a-kind. The design, safety features, and market size are finalised. The product is qualified and ready for production as a first-of-a-kind product.

TRL 9: System proven in operational environment and is available to the market in full commercial capacity.
The pressure cooker is widely manufactured, adopted, and proven in everyday use.

The heart of technology readiness: qualification

TRLs are fun to talk about and in my circles they get plenty of airtime, but technology readiness is so much more than that. Assigning a TRL to something is a small part of the greater qualification process. Really, we want a vehicle to progress through the TRLs; because technology doesn’t become out of the box ready to use. It becomes ready through rigorous qualification.

That starts with being clear about what we need the technology to do and we do this in the concept feasibility phase. What is the application? What performance do we expect? What does success look like? And what evidence would convince us that it works? That becomes our Qualification Basis: “what you want the technology to do in the application you want to do it in and how you are going to prove it”.

From there, we assess the technology itself. Which parts are already proven, which are novel? Which introduce new uncertainties? And which present genuinely demanding technical challenges? And it’s in this Technology Assessment that TRLs live (it really shows they are a small part of the process).

We then conduct a risk assessment to identify potential failure modes, assess their risk and decide what we need to do about them. Any failure modes deemed medium to high risk are to be covered by a Qualification Plan. Maybe we need laboratory testing. Maybe modelling or engineering analysis will give us the evidence. Maybe we need a pilot or field trial. Often, it will be a combination. Those activities form the Qualification Plan.

Then we do the work, typically performed in early FEED or just before the project reaches FID. This is where technology qualification can become expensive and time consuming. Testing everything simply because we can isn’t good engineering. The challenge is choosing the activities that give us the most useful evidence and reduce the risks that actually matter.

Finally, we stand back and look at what we’ve learned: the Performance Assessment. Did the technology meet the requirements we set at the beginning? Have we satisfied the acceptance criteria? Have we reduced the risks to a level we’re prepared to accept? If the answer is yes, then the technology has earned its readiness.

Overall, TRLs provide a useful snapshot of maturity, but the engine behind technology readiness is the qualification process. Qualification takes us from scientific feasibility to commercial scale by systematically addressing uncertainty and risk. Done properly, TRLs and qualification provide not just a measure of progress, but the confidence required to deploy new technologies in challenging real-world environments.

In industries where technology has to perform in deeper water, harsher environments and increasingly complex systems, “it should work” isn’t much of a qualification strategy. We need to know what we know, understand what we don’t, and have a deliberate plan for closing the gap.

TRLs are useful. I use them, and I expect I’ll continue having plenty of conversations about whether something is a seven, eight or nine. But I’m much more interested in the evidence sitting behind the number.