Welcome to our new site version. Your web page bookmarks may have changed, please search for pages by title to update them. Having problems ? Please try clearing your web browser cache and hard-reloading your web page first before contacting our webmaster.

System Development Planning via System Maturity Optimization

[document] Submitted on 30 August, 2019 - 10:06
Keywords System Development Planning via System Maturity Optimization Integration readiness level project monitoring and control project planning system readiness level technology management technology readiness level.
Standards groups

The tension between detail and subjectivity is rationalized through prescriptive techniques, which allow people to make better decisions by using normative models, but with knowledge of the limitations and descriptive realities of human judgment [13]. In project and engineering management one of the prescriptive tools used is soft metrics, which are measured through subjective judgment and are relatively easy to derive, but require a complementary rationale that explains the assessment [14]. Within agencies in the U.S. Government, the prescriptive tool and soft metric of technology readiness level (TRL) has been used as an assessment of the maturity of evolving technologies prior to incorporating them into a system or subsystem. TRL’s origin is a by-product of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) post-Apollo era and a revision in the National Space Policy stating that NASA’s technology program shares the mantle of responsibility for shaping the agency’s future; therefore, NASA had to make strategic decisions on which technologies to invest in for future use. In response to this growing pressure, Sadin et al. [15] developed what originally was a seven-level metric for describing the maturity of a technology. This seven-level metric later became the nine level TRL metric that it is today. In the last five to seven years, other government agencies and their contractors have adopted the TRL scale with specific variations to satisfy their needs (e.g.,
Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DoE), National Air and Space Intelligence Center). There have been many attempts to identify alternative readiness/maturity levels that will complement TRL (e.g., design readiness level, manufacturing readiness level, software readiness level, operational
readiness level, human readiness levels, habitation readiness level, capability readiness levels [16]–[18]).

Metadata
Document identifier
VOL. 56, NO. 3
Date published
2009-08-03
Document type
White Paper
Pages
16
Replaced/Superseded by document(s)
Cancelled by
Amended by
File MIME type Size (KB) Language Download
Ramirez IEEE TEM 2009.pdf application/pdf   1.07 MB English DOWNLOAD!
File attachments
Organisation(s)
Defines standard
Visit also