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.

Previous Blog Posts

The haunting bugle call Taps is 150 years old this summer

The Navy's solid-state laser weapon

High-performance embedded computing (HPEC) gaining market traction, but its definition remains elusive

Did I say $114 million mistake? I meant $351 million.

Continuing the conversation

Lockheed Martin experimental stealth surface vessel to be scrapped after yielding valuable technology

Air Force competes in National Collegiate Cyber Defense competition

Will Intel 3rd Generation Intel Core processor make a big splash in embedded computing applications?

The $114 million mistake

Iran under attack once again

High-performance computing for rugged mobile military applications is becoming a hot design issue

Is the U.S. getting ready for conflict?

Historic obsession about the Titanic sinking 100 years ago wipes Bread and Roses strike from popular memory

The future of UAV technology aims high

Conference combo

We can thank a self-absorbed Congress for hurting national defense if deep automatic defense cuts happen

Securing the military network

FAA's impending rule on small UAVs may usher in a new era of civil aerial warfare

Boeing and Airbus both claim victory in WTO Appeal? That can't be right...

The defense industry may be adjusting to a new age of financial austerity

What's up with all the anti-tamper technology?

Effects of 2013 DOD budget cuts already being felt with program cancellations

Top ten technologies the U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force is looking for

The Aerospace & Defense Bloggers

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.

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.

Skyler Frink is an Assistant Editor of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. Skyler graduated Cum Laude from the University of New Hampshire with a BA in Journalism and a Minor in Information Technology in 2011. He has contributed to many different publications both online and in print throughout his career as a Journalist. Skyler can be reached skylerf@pennwell.com.

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 2012
Volume 23, Issue 5