A balanced approach to using the Technology Readiness Level

In this episode, we’re taking a deep dive into the concept of the Technology Readiness Level and expanding it to explore the Balanced Readiness Level approach. This perspective is essential for us as enablers of change, as it helps us assess not only how ready a technology is from a technical standpoint but also how it stands in terms of market, regulatory, organisational, and acceptance readiness. Using this approach can help us guide farmers and other stakeholders through the technology adoption process.

The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a scale developed by NASA during the 1970s to assess the maturity of a particular technology. The TRL scale is widely used in various sectors, including space, defence and energy, to guide decision-making about technology investments and implementation. It helps assess the risks and readiness of innovations before scaling up. It ranges from TRL 1 to 9, where each level describes the progress from the basic concept to full operational deployment. Let’s now work through each level to better understand them.

Technology Readiness Levels. Source: NASA.

TRL 1: Basic principles observed and reported.
This is the very beginning of the technology development process. At this stage, scientific research starts to be translated into applied research and development. The principles of the technology are observed and reported, but practical applications aren’t yet considered.

TRL 2: Technology concept and/or application formulated.
In this stage, basic concepts are explored, and the feasibility of these concepts is evaluated through theoretical research. However, there’s no experimental proof or detailed analysis at this level.

TRL 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept.
Here, active research and development begins. Analytical studies and laboratory-based experiments are conducted to validate that the concept or technology could work. This is the proof-of-concept stage, where fundamental testing takes place.

TRL 4: Component and/or prototype validation in laboratory environment.
At this stage, the components of the technology are integrated and tested in a lab environment. A non-functional or simple prototype is used to validate the basic functions. This is the point where basic technical issues are identified and addressed.

TRL 5: Component and/or prototype validation in a relevant environment.
The prototype or components are tested in closer to real-world conditions, but the system is not fully operational yet. This involves testing in environments that mimic the operational setting more closely, refining the technology to meet specific requirements.

TRL 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment.
A more developed prototype or model is created and demonstrated in a relevant operational environment. This prototype functions more like the final product and is tested to work within the conditions it will face in its actual use. This is a key milestone in proving the technology’s readiness for real-world application.

TRL 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.
Now things get more exciting, as the technology is in its final form and is tested in a real operational environment. The prototype system is nearly at the level of a final product, and the focus is on demonstrating the system’s full functionality in a real-world situation.

TRL 8: Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration.
At this penultimate level, the technology has been fully developed and is qualified for use. The system is completed and has been successfully demonstrated in operational settings, proving that it works under expected conditions.

TRL 9: Actual system proven through successful mission operations.
The final level means that the technology has been fully proven in a real operational environment. It has been successfully deployed and used under real conditions, confirming its reliability and effectiveness.

So, those are the nine points of the technology readiness level. While this is valuable, TRL alone doesn’t give us the full picture. A new piece of farm equipment might be technically ready but face challenges in market adoption, regulatory approval, or user acceptance (all common problems in agricultural extension). That’s where the Balanced Readiness Level (BRL) comes into play, adding the dimensions of Market Readiness, Regulatory Readiness, Acceptance Readiness, and Organisational Readiness. You can read more detail in Vik et al. (2021). 

Let’s now use a new irrigation technology as an example. Let’s say it has reached TRL 7—tested in a real-world environment—but hasn’t yet been commercialised, lacks regulatory approval, faces resistance from farmers, and doesn’t easily fit into existing farm operations. We’ve created a radar graph showing those five readiness levels, which helps give a better overview of them. By using the BRL framework, we can assess these additional factors, which allows us to give a more comprehensive recommendation to the farmer. For instance, we could tell them, “The technology works, but it’s not yet widely available, and some regulations need to be resolved before it’s market-ready. However, it’s something to keep in mind.”  

Let’s firstly look at the Market Readiness Level, which assesses how well a technology is positioned in the marketplace. A product might be technically sound, but without a clear business model or established customer base, it could still fail. For example, precision agriculture drones have been technically mature for several years but faced a slower uptake due to high costs and limited market awareness. In this case, our role as enablers of change might involve organising a trial or demonstration to show farmers the benefits of the technology, bridging the gap between technical maturity and market readiness.

Next, we have the Regulatory Readiness Level, which looks at the legal and policy framework surrounding a new technology. Farmers may be interested in autonomous tractors, but if regulations around self-driving machinery are unclear or restrictive, this could prevent adoption. Our job here could involve staying informed on policy developments or advocating for more favourable regulatory conditions. In fact, understanding the legal landscape might allow us to provide more precise advice to farmers about when they can realistically expect to use such innovations.

Acceptance Readiness Level addresses the social aspect of new technology adoption. Even if a technology is technically sound, it might face resistance if it’s seen as controversial or unnecessary. Vik et al. (2021) gives an example of virtual fencing technology. When it first emerged, there was some resistance from animal welfare groups concerned about its use of small electric shocks to control livestock. As enablers of change, we might have to work through these concerns by providing education, engaging stakeholders, and ensuring transparency about how the technology works. This way, we can help increase acceptance and pave the way for smoother adoption.

Finally, Organisational Readiness Level assesses how well a technology fits into existing farm operations. For example, implementing a new data management system might require changes in the way a farm is run, including new training for staff or altering workflows. If these changes are significant, we’ll need to provide additional support, helping farmers adapt their systems and processes so the technology can be integrated easily.

By looking at all these factors together, we can make more nuanced recommendations about technology adoption. We know that TRL is important, but a balanced readiness assessment helps us ensure that farmers are not only adopting technologies that are technically mature but are also commercially viable, legally sound, socially accepted, and operationally feasible.

In conclusion, the Balanced Readiness Level framework gives us a comprehensive toolkit for helping farmers navigate new technologies. It allows us to evaluate where potential roadblocks might be and how to address them. It also helps us avoid recommending a technology that might be technically ready, but not yet feasible due to other constraints. We think it’s a useful framework and we know that at least one rural research and development funder in Australia is using it to assess potential projects.

Well, you’ve read our thoughts on Technology and Balanced Readiness Levels—now it’s your turn! How do you assess technology readiness in your work, and have you found the BRL framework useful? We’d love to hear your tips, experiences, and suggestions. Join the conversation by leaving a comment below. Don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for updates on future episodes, and if you found this episode helpful, please share it with your colleagues and friends. We look forward to hearing from you!

Stay curious, stay inspired, and until next time, take care and keep moving forward!

Resources

Héder, M. (2017). From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation. The Innovation Journal, 22(2), 1-23. Available online.

Sadin, S. R., Povinelli, F. P., & Rosen, R. (1989). The NASA technology push towards future space mission systems. In Space and Humanity (pp. 73-77). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-037877-0.50012-0.

Vik, J., Melås, A. M., Stræte, E. P., & Søraa, R. A. (2021). Balanced readiness level assessment (BRLa): A tool for exploring new and emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 169, 120854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120854