On Three: Tips on Assessing the Readiness of Emerging Technologies

Many moons ago, NASA developed a scale they call Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). Originally designed to determine how ready a particular technology was for implementation on missions to outer space, they have since been adopted by U.S. industry for their own purposes. You can view my post on TRL at https://desulf.blogspot.com/2019/09/are-you-ready-nasas-technology.html for more detail.

In that same vein, the authors of a recent article … Emerging technologies and the use case: A multi-year study of drone adoption (https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1196) explore the adoption of drone technology by industry as a way to understand how to determine when ANY technology is ready for prime time.

If you are interested in emerging technology in any field, you should read this article. It is, remarkably, open access.

Here are some highlights from the piece …
///////
EXCERPTS from:
Emerging technologies and the use case: A multi-year study of drone adoption
IN: Journal of Operations Management (2022)
Omid Maghazei (1) | Michael A. Lewis (2) | Torbjørn H. Netland (1)
1Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK
Correspondence
Omid Maghazei, Chair of Production and Operations Management, Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Weinbergstrasse 56/58, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
Email: omaghazei@ethz.ch
Abstract
Although disruptive “Industry 4.0” technologies often lack a clear business case, vendors are advocating and companies are actively exploring their use in operations settings. The technology management literature suggests that successful adoption derives from an appropriate fit between the specific technology and (1) economic and strategic factors, (2) operational and supply chain factors, and (3) organizational and behavioral factors. Through a five-year research project, we explore how drones—an archetypal emerging technology supported by a thriving vendor ecosystem—transitioned from early ideas to experimental applications to full adoption in daily operations. We analyze a range of data, including exploratory interviews with drone ecosystem actors, a secondary dataset, and case studies of drone applications in Geberit and IKEA. Key findings relate to our observation that technology adoption patterns for emerging technologies do not always follow the traditional linear logic of technology fit. We find that emerging technologies are characterized by a dynamic interaction between technology push from a thriving ecosystem and market pull from companies exploring meaningful operational and business value using the concept of “use case.” Based on these findings, we contribute to the technology management literature with an alternative technology adoption framework for emerging “Industry 4.0” technologies.
…….
We find that—when faced with fast-emerging technologies in thriving ecosystems—companies do not follow a linear technology adoption pattern, where adoption commonly starts with a business case. Instead, companies trial technologies by focusing on a “use case,” which allows a potential business case to evolve, or not, over time. The “use case”—a concept from information systems research—is underdeveloped in the TM field. These findings have important implications for practitioners and scholars. In seeking meaningful operational and business value from emerging technologies, practitioners should be aware of the importance of the technology push of an emerging ecosystem, the role of suppliers including startup suppliers, and the role of timing in technology trials. Scholars must pay attention to the stage of technology maturity and the difference between business case-driven and use case-driven technology adoption.
…….
The use case is a straightforward idea: an application of a technology for a specific operational purpose. Yet, the “use case” concept seemed to really help drone vendors and potential users find common ground. The users were seeking a “use case” that applied to them, and the vendors often specialized in a limited set of use cases (e.g., inspection, mapping, external logistics, surveillance, or search-and-rescue).
…….
5.3 | The use case
Throughout this research, especially in the absence of clear and obvious drone “business cases,” the notion of the “use case” was repeatedly mentioned. The term “use case” is absent from the rich AMT literature and rarely appears in the wider OM/TM literature. “Use case,” however, appears often in the recent popular press and the “Industry 4.0” literature. For example, a 40-page report from the World Economic Forum (2019) on the fourth industrial revolution mentions “use case” 61 times. Where does this term come from, and how can it help advance the OM/TM literature?
…….
As presented in our AMT literature review, the extant TM literature presents an essentially linear fit process (see Figure 1), where adoption proceeds by identifying a business case, piloting the technology if needed (which is required for new technologies but not for established technologies), and proceeding to implementation and scaling. This process, however, rewards incremental technological improvements because their business case is easier to identify. The use case concept allows one to diverge from this linear process and test alternative technologies before there is certainty regarding their value or to help identify where value can be hidden. We observed that this use case process, especially for IKEA, created an iterative fit process, which allows the business case to evolve, or not evolve, during the piloting of a technology. It also helped to moderate the effects of hype and subsequent disillusionment. This kind of middle-out, technology-in-use approach precedes and helps shape business cases. The process diagram in Figure 6 illustrates how companies can search for fit by trialing technologies as use cases.
source: (https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1196)
///////
Google® Better!
Jean Steinhardt served as Librarian, Aramco Services, Engineering Division, for 13 years. He now heads Jean Steinhardt Consulting LLC, producing the same high quality research that he performed for Aramco.

Follow Jean’s blog at: http://desulf.blogspot.com/ for continuing tips on effective online research
Email Jean at letters@jeansteinhardt.com with questions on research, training, or anything else
Visit Jean’s Web site at http://www.jeansteinhardtconsulting.com/ to see examples of the services we can provide

Are You Ready? NASA’s Technology Readiness Levels

Years ago, NASA developed a scale they call Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). Originally designed to determine how ready a particular technology was for implementation on missions to outer space, they have since been adopted by U.S. industry for their own purposes.

Here is a description of NASA’s TRL:

///////
Oct. 28, 2012, Last Updated: Aug. 7, 2017
Technology Readiness Levels
Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are a type of measurement system used to assess the maturity level of a particular technology. Each technology project is evaluated against the parameters for each technology level and is then assigned a TRL rating based on the projects progress. There are nine technology readiness levels. TRL 1 is the lowest and TRL 9 is the highest.
When a technology is at TRL 1, scientific research is beginning and those results are being translated into future research and development. TRL 2 occurs once the basic principles have been studied and practical applications can be applied to those initial findings. TRL 2 technology is very speculative, as there is little to no experimental proof of concept for the technology.
When active research and design begin, a technology is elevated to TRL 3. Generally both analytical and laboratory studies are required at this level to see if a technology is viable and ready to proceed further through the development process. Often during TRL 3, a proof-of-concept model is constructed.
Once the proof-of-concept technology is ready, the technology advances to TRL 4. During TRL 4, multiple component pieces are tested with one another. TRL 5 is a continuation of TRL 4, however, a technology that is at 5 is identified as a breadboard technology and must undergo more rigorous testing than technology that is only at TRL 4. Simulations should be run in environments that are as close to realistic as possible. Once the testing of TRL 5 is complete, a technology may advance to TRL 6. A TRL 6 technology has a fully functional prototype or representational model.
TRL 7 technology requires that the working model or prototype be demonstrated in a space environment. TRL 8 technology has been tested and "flight qualified" and it's ready for implementation into an already existing technology or technology system. Once a technology has been "flight proven" during a successful mission, it can be called TRL 9.
source: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/txt_accordion1.html
///////

If you are a researcher in a particular area of technology, and you are trying to find who and what else is out there, your first step is to determine which level of readiness fits your needs. This will help you determine how to conduct a useful literature search on your topic.

TIP: If you are interested in research being conducted at its initial stage (TRL 1-6), your best bet is to do a Google® Scholar ( https://scholar.google.com/ ) search.

If, on your other hand, you are more interested in research being conducted closer to the implementation stage (TRL 7-9), you are better off searching regular Google®

TIP: For TRL 7-9, some keywords that may help you focus your online research are:
case study, demonstration, pilot

Try implementing this approach when you begin researching the technology of your choice.