All Access


The politics and interpretation of DOD's Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) guidelines

By John Keller

Posted by John Keller

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is using a long and nebulous set of guidelines that have a lot of people talking within the defense industry. The guidelines are called
Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)
, and describe in some detail the relative maturity of evolving technologies considered crucial for military systems like ships, airplanes, and tanks to meet their operational requirements.

The interesting thing about TRAs -- and one that generates substantial conversation and controversy in the defense industry -- is how to play them to best advantage in competitions for military procurement programs, and how companies can game the TRAs to ensure their most important technologies have the most beneficial TRA ratings.

The DOD lists nine different levels of TRAs, ranking so-called critical military technologies from least to most mature. Where the gamesmanship comes in is where on the scale to peg a company's most lucrative technology offerings for upcoming military procurements.



Company leaders don't want their core technology offerings to be among the least mature, because newer technologies pose great risk; there's no guarantee these technologies will work every time, and might not work and play well with other system components.

On the other hand, companies don't want their most important products to be among the most mature technologies because many of those are nearing obsolescence. No one wants to design in obsolete technology ... well, at least not on purpose.

The trick is to find that sweet spot in the middle that can describe a company's most important and lucrative technologies as not too new, not too old, but just right -- positioned most advantageously for system procurements with various durations.

DOD officials point out that TRA ratings come from independent review teams of subject matter experts, but we'd be silly if we didn't think each company had a substantial say in how their products will be rated.

A TRA, in essence, is a formal, systematic, metrics-based process and accompanying report that assesses the maturity of military technologies -- hardware or software -- which are necessary for military systems to meet their operational requirements. Here are the nine different TRA levels:

TRA 1, the lowest level of technology readiness, essentially is still laboratory technology just being considered for applications. TRA 2 is a technology just being translated into applications. TRA 3 refers to an experimental technology. TRA 4 refers to breadboard technologies. TRA 5 are technologies in advanced development. TRA 6 is prototype technology for specific applications. TRA 7 refers to demonstration and validation technology. TRA 8 refers to proven technologies. TRA 9 refers to technologies with a reasonably long track record in actual applications, and which might be on the downslope toward obsolescence.

DOD officials keep the TRA guidelines vague on purpose, so sometimes it's a guessing game for companies to determine the best TRA ratings. It's a fair bet that TRAs will remain a hot topic at the bar and around the water cooler.

Easily post a comment below using your Linkedin, Twitter, Google or Facebook account.

Previous Blog Posts

Who ever would have guessed that Embraer would be such a dominant player at Paris Air Show?

June 18, 2013

4th Gen Intel Core processor may be biggest thing in the last three years for embedded computing

June 11, 2013

If it's June, it must be briefing season for aerospace and defense industry

June 4, 2013

Defense budget being hammered out in relative quiet as outside scandals flare

May 28, 2013

SWAPped: how size, weight, and power are transforming the military electronics industry

May 21, 2013

China continues to improve capabilities in carrier-based military aviation

May 14, 2013

Small is more: SWAP for soldier systems and unmanned vehicles dominates today's technology

May 7, 2013

The defense budget is here: time to get to work

April 29, 2013

Ron Mastro: an unforgettable figure in the aerospace and defense electronics industry

April 23, 2013

Mil & Aero Publisher Ernesto Burden unhurt after bombs hit today's Boston Marathon

April 15, 2013

After all those sleepless nights of worry, now we find the Pentagon's budget is actually UP?

April 10, 2013

Confederate surrender at Appomattox ended the American Civil War 148 years ago this month

April 9, 2013

Dear God, what more can the U.S. military ask from the poor letter C?

April 5, 2013

Saber rattling in North Korea: how dangerous are these threats?

April 2, 2013

At last, some good news; is our industry really ready for this?

March 26, 2013

Teledyne Technologies becoming major player in unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) sensors

March 19, 2013

Is sequestration killing aerospace and defense trade shows?

March 14, 2013

Nuclear ballistic missile technology remains a post-Cold-War defense priority

March 12, 2013

The sequester hits! Is everyone okay?

March 5, 2013

The continuing drone war of low-tech vs. high-tech

February 26, 2013

Prospects for high-performance embedded computing (HPEC) look brighter than ever before

February 19, 2013

Self-sealing suction cups show promise for future robots

February 11, 2013

Air Force moving forward with potential upgrades to PAVE PAWS, BMEWS, and PARCS missile-defense radar

February 7, 2013

Cyberattacks carried out against media outlets

February 4, 2013

Quest for the humvee-mounted mobile data center for the battlefield edge

January 30, 2013

The Aerospace & Defense Bloggers

John Keller is editor-in-chief of Military & Aerospace Electronics magazine, which provides extensive coverage and analysis of enabling electronic and optoelectronic technologies in military, space, and commercial aviation applications. A member of the Military & Aerospace Electronics staff since the magazine's founding in 1989, Mr. Keller took over as chief editor in 1995.

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of PennWell’s Aerospace & Defense Media Group, including Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence and Avionics Europe.  He’s a father of four, a runner, and an avid digital media enthusiast with a deep background in the intersection of media publishing, digital technology, and social media. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @aero_ernesto.

Courtney E. Howard, as executive editor, enjoys writing about all things electronics and avionics in PennWell’s burgeoning Aerospace and Defense Group, which encompasses Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence, the Avionics Europe conference, and much more. She’s also a self-proclaimed social-media maven, mil-aero nerd, and avid avionics geek. Connect with Courtney at Courtney@Pennwell.com, @coho on Twitter, and on LinkedIn.

Mil & Aero Magazine

May 2013
Volume 24, Issue 5
file

Download Our Free Apps



iPhone

iPad

Android

Follow Us On...