What if a new technology works well and farmers can clearly see its benefits, yet widespread adoption still doesn’t happen? In this episode, we’re exploring Adoption Readiness Levels, or ARLs. They help us look beyond the technology itself to understand what else might be holding adoption back. For us as enablers of change, that wider view can reveal barriers that technical testing alone may miss. It can also help us decide where our time, effort and resources will make the greatest difference.
In an earlier episode, we explored Technology Readiness Levels, or TRLs. These were developed by NASA in the 1970s and assess an innovation’s technical maturity, but not necessarily whether it is ready to be used widely. The US Department of Energy has recently developed the ARL framework to identify non-technical risks that can prevent commercial adoption. Instead of asking only, ‘Does it work?’, ARL prompts us to ask, ‘Are the conditions around it ready too?’ The insights provided can help us plan how to support an innovation.
The ARL framework groups 17 dimensions of adoption risk into four broad areas. The first is the value proposition: can the innovation deliver what people need at a price they’re willing to pay? The second is market acceptance: is there sufficient demand, a viable market and a pathway through the value chain? These questions test whether a technically sound innovation also makes commercial sense. They encourage us to examine the innovation from the perspective of users and the organisations needed to bring it to market.
The third area, resource maturity, considers what will be needed to scale the innovation. This includes capital, infrastructure, supply chains, materials, project capabilities and a suitably skilled workforce. The fourth area is licence to operate, which examines regulation, policy, approvals, environmental and safety issues, and community acceptance. Together, these areas capture many of the conditions that influence whether adoption can occur. A weakness in any one of them may delay progress, even when the technology itself performs well.
The 17 dimensions encourage us to look beyond whether an innovation technically works. They can reveal practical, commercial, institutional and social barriers that may prevent adoption or slow its progress. The real value of ARL isn’t simply the production of an overall readiness score. It lies in identifying which dimensions present the greatest risks and where attention is needed next. This makes the framework useful not only for assessment, but also for thinking about extension requirements.
This is why TRLs and ARLs are complementary. TRLs focus on whether a technology works, performs as intended and has progressed sufficiently through research, testing and demonstration. ARLs consider the system the innovation is in. Used together, they help us consider both whether an innovation can work and whether people and systems are ready to adopt it.
There’s also an interesting connection with Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations, which we discussed in an earlier episode. Rogers proposed that adoption is influenced by five characteristics: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. These characteristics help us view an innovation from the potential adopter’s perspective. Does it seem better than existing options, fit the way people work, feel manageable to use, offer opportunities for trial and produce visible results? The answers can influence whether someone becomes interested in an innovation and whether they decide to use it.
ARL overlaps with some of these ideas, but focuses more strongly on the system surrounding an innovation. Rogers’ relative advantage is reflected in ARL’s questions about cost and functional performance. Complexity is covered by ARL’s ease-of-use and complexity dimension. Compatibility is explored through questions about existing infrastructure, workforce capabilities, value chains and community perceptions. ARL adds the system perspective to the insights Rogers gives us about individual perceptions and decisions.
Imagine a robotic weeder that performs brilliantly in field trials. Rogers would prompt us to ask whether farmers see a clear advantage over their existing weed-control methods. We would also consider whether it fits their farming system, how difficult it is to operate and whether they can trial it on a small scale. Finally, we would ask whether its results are visible to other farmers. These questions help us understand how the innovation might be perceived by the people expected to adopt it.
ARL expands our thinking about this by asking whether the wider system can support that robotic weeder. Is the machine cost-competitive? Can enough units be manufactured and is suitable finance available? Are trained technicians, spare parts, dealers and service networks in place? These questions show us that farmers’ willingness to use the machine is only one part of its readiness for adoption. Without the surrounding support system, even early adopters may struggle to use the technology successfully.
An innovation may score well against Rogers’ five characteristics and still encounter system barriers. Consider a digital irrigation tool that growers find useful, easy to understand and able to trial. Adoption might still stall because rural connectivity is unreliable, compatible sensors are difficult to source or there aren’t enough installers. The business model may also be unable to support the ongoing service that users need. ARL helps us identify these constraints before we assume the solution is simply providing more extension.
The reverse can happen as well. The market, infrastructure and regulatory environment may all be ready, while potential users see little relative advantage or find the technology too complex. They may also have no opportunity to trial it or observe credible results. Because trialability and observability aren’t explicit ARL dimensions, it’s useful to keep Rogers alongside ARL rather than treating one framework as a replacement for the other.
When using an ARL assessment, we might therefore add two simple questions. Can people try this innovation on a limited basis before committing, and can they see credible results achieved by people like themselves? These questions point us towards familiar extension approaches such as demonstrations, small-scale trials, field days and peer-to-peer learning. They also remind us that readiness isn’t something we simply measure—it’s something we can actively build. Well-designed extension activities can strengthen readiness by reducing uncertainty, increasing confidence and making the benefits of the innovation visible.
The ARL process provides a structured way to assess that readiness. It begins by clearly defining the technology, the relevant part of the value chain and the timeframe being considered. A three-to-five-year commercialisation window is suggested as good practice. Each of the 17 dimensions is then rated as presenting low, medium or high risk, or as not applicable, with the reasoning behind each rating recorded. Documenting that reasoning creates a clearer picture of the assumptions, evidence and uncertainties informing the assessment.
An optional overall score from one to nine can also be calculated. However, the framework’s authors caution against using a single number as it can create a false sense of precision. The discussion behind the ratings, and the barriers it uncovers, will often be more valuable than the final score. The assessment is most useful when it guides decisions about what needs to happen next.
So, returning to our opening question, a technology can work well and still fail to spread. It may be ready for adoption in some respects but face significant barriers in others. Rogers helps us understand how potential adopters perceive an innovation, while ARL examines whether the commercial, institutional and social system can support it. Used alongside TRLs, they give us a much richer picture of innovation readiness. Together, they help us avoid placing all the responsibility for adoption—or non-adoption—on the potential user. These frameworks help us ask three important questions. Does the innovation work, do people see enough value to adopt it and is the surrounding system ready to support them?
Add a comment below with your experiences, tips and ideas. We’d love this to become an ongoing conversation about how adoption readiness can be assessed and strengthened. Thanks for reading this episode of Enablers of Change, and don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for future episodes. Please also share this post with friends and colleagues who might find these readiness questions useful. The more perspectives we bring together, the better we can understand what successful adoption really requires.
We hope this discussion helps you look at innovation readiness from a broader perspective.
Resources
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Technology Transitions. (2025). Adoption Readiness Assessment (April 2025 version). U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ARL
John and Denise, I really appreciate the way you integrate multiple models, frameworks or processes in your regular Enablers of Change contributions. Also, I think it’s valuable the way you often recommend regarding different treatments of related issues as complementary rather than being competitors. An example from this video is your treatment of ARL and Rogers’ diffusion of innovation approach. As you know, I don’t work in the field of agriculture extension. However, I almost always find I can relate your videos to the fields of community and organisational change where I do have experience. In present times, more often… Read more »
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and encouraging comments Bob! I still remember how much I enjoyed undertaking your postgrad psych courses at UQ. Coming from a background in ag extension and working with farmers, I sometimes felt a bit like a fish out of water, but I could usually see the connections. After all, we’re still working with humans, whatever the context! I wasn’t aware of Corporate Rebels, so thanks for introducing me to them! Their bucketlist is certainly impressive and I’ve now subscribed to their newsletters. Denise and I have particularly appreciated the cross-disciplinary insights and connections… Read more »