https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4561-161X
![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper demonstrates the coordinating roles played by decision-making concepts such as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) in industrial engineering practice, where technology development is increasingly complex, involving diverse stakeholders, engineering tools and sociotechnical objects. Such distributed practices demand coordinated efforts across specialized units with diverging interests and perspectives on how development is being defined and accounted for. Nonetheless, coordinating roles of decision-making concepts in industry have largely escaped the recent attention of scholars within engineering studies and Science and Technology Studies. This paper offers an auto-ethnographic study of how the TRL figure of merit was deployed in an industrial organization. We ask how TRL is made to perform as an effective coordinating device. Following the TRL device across project meetings, we consider the three moments of a calculative device as defined by Michel Callon and Fabian Muniesa, to illuminate how TRL serves to circumscribe, configure and coordinate encounters and activity in a technology development project, as managed by the corresponding author. Contrary to linear and mechanistic understandings within management thinking, we show TRL is more than a figure of merit for measuring progress. In the hands of skilled practitioners, TRL also performs as a centralized calculating device to orchestrate distributed activities.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for insightful reviews of an earlier version of this paper, which we presented in September 2018 at a seminar organized by Prof. Robin Williams and Dr. Raluca Bunduchi for the Social Informatics Cluster and University of Edinburgh Business School, Entrepreneurship and Innovation Group at the University of Edinburgh. The Technology Development Project Team and TRL Assessment Group deserve special thanks for their generous feedback to and participation in this empirical study. Insightful and extensive comments from the anonymous reviewers and journal editors significantly contributed to improving the framing and clarity of this paper. Any shortcomings are our own.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Charles Anthony Bates http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4561-161X
Christian Clausen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6844-3866
Notes
1 Mankins, “Technology Readiness and Risk Assessments” and; “Technology Readiness Assessments.”
2 Clausen and Gunn, “From the Social Shaping of Technology to the Staging of Temporary Spaces of Innovation.”
3 For examples, see Clausen and Yoshinaka, “The Role of Devices,” “Sociotechnical Spaces,” and “Staging Socio-technical Spaces.”
4 See Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life.
5 Callon and Muniesa, “Peripheral Vision.”
6 See Trevelyan, “Reconstructing Engineering from Practice.” 5, 7.
7 See Vinck, “Taking Intermediary Objects.”
8 Ibid., 25
9 For examples, see: Broberg, Andersen, and Seim, “Participatory Ergonomics in Design Processes,” Hussenot and Missionier, “A Deeper Understanding,” Lee and Amjadi, “The Role of Materiality,” and Rau, Neyer, and Möslein, “Innovation Practices and their Boundary-crossing Mechanisms.”
10 Webster and Gardner, “Aligning Technology and Institutional Readiness.”
11 See Vinck, “Taking Intermediary Objects,” and “Accessing Material Culture.”
12 The corresponding author qualifies as a complete member researcher: Adler and Adler, Membership Roles in Field Research, 67–81. He has been employed in technology development at the host company since 2005 and identifies as an auto-ethnographer, possessing “the qualities of often permanent self-identification with a group and full internal membership,” as recognized by both himself and the group of whom he is a part. Hayano, “Auto-ethnography,” 100.
13 Law, “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics,” 141.
14 For similar endeavors, see: Hansen and Clausen, “Management Concepts and the Navigation of Interessement Devices,” and Vagn Jensen, Clausen, and Gish, “Three Perspectives on Managing Front End Innovation.”
15 Vinck, Everyday Engineering, 3.
16 Ibid.
17 All dialogues were translated by the authors from Danish, where translations were edited for clarity and brevity and approved by the cited individuals.
18 Vinck, Everyday Engineering.
19 Vinck, Engineering Practices, k.
20 Clausen and Gunn, “From the Social Shaping of Technology to the Staging of Temporary Spaces of Innovation,” 87.
21 Ibid., 88.
22 See Mankins, “Technology Readiness and Risk Assessments,” 1208.
23 Sadin, Povinelli, and Rosen, “The NASA Technology Push towards Future Space Mission Systems.”
24 For the 9-point scale see Mankins, “Technology Readiness Levels.” For TRL’s proliferation see Olechowski, Eppinger, and Joglekar, “Technology Readiness Levels at 40.”
25 Merriam-Webster Incorporated, “Figure of Merit,” <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/figure%20of%20merit> Accessed February 3, 2019.
26 Murchie et al., “Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer.”
27 E.g. Arbjerg et al.,, Hydraulische Lenkeinheit.
28 Danfoss A/S, Proprietary Company Document (in re Work Functions Division TRL Scale).
29 Cf. Danfoss A/S, Proprietary Company Document (in TRA Guidelines).
30 Danfoss A/S, Proprietary Company Document (in re Milestone Plan).
31 Cooper, “Perspective: The Stage-Gate® Idea-to-Launch Process.”
32 Danfoss A/S, Proprietary Company Document (in re Project Milestone Deliverables).
33 For a critique of categories of ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ science using examples from micro-processes of Nobel-prize winning research, see Narayanamurti and Odumosu, Cycles of Invention and Discovery. For a proposal to replace ‘stages and gates’ with ‘epochs and the shocks that initiate transitions’ in management within the NASA innovation ecosystem, see Szajnfarber and Weigel, “A Process Model of Technology Innovation in Governmental Agencies,” 59.
34 Mankins, “Technology Readiness and Risk Assessments,” 1209.
35 See: Garg et al., “Using TRLs and System Architecture,” Olechowski, Eppinger, and Joglekar, “Technology Readiness Levels at 40,”and Tomaschek et al., “A Survey of Technology Readiness Level Users.”
36 Vinck, Engineering Practices, b.
37 Bowen, “Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts,” 2.
38 Callon, “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation.” 63, 62.
39 Vinck, “Accessing Material Culture by Following Intermediary Objects,” 93.
40 Star and Griesemer “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects,” 390.
41 Ibid., 389.
42 Vinck, “Accessing Material Culture by Following Intermediary Objects,” 93.
43 Star and Griesemer “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects,” 392, 393.
44 Vinck, “Accessing Material Culture by Following Intermediary Objects,” 94.
45 Ibid., 93–4.
46 Star and Griesemer “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects,” 393.
47 Vinck, “Accessing Material Culture by Following Intermediary Objects.”
48 Star and Griesemer “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects,” 408.
49 Vinck, Jeantet, and Laureillard, “Objects and Other Intermediaries,” 302.
50 Ibid., 299.
51 Clausen and Gunn, “From the Social Shaping of Technology to the Staging of Temporary Spaces of Innovation,” 77.
52 Vinck, The Sociology of Scientific Work, 200.
53 Callon, “Writing and (Re) Writing Devices,” 193.
54 Ibid., 212.
55 Callon and Muniesa, “Peripheral Vision,” 1231.
56 Callon and Law, “On Qualculation, Agency and Otherness,” 717. For qualculation see Cochoy, Une sociologie du packaging ou l'âne de Buridan face au marché.
57 Callon and Muniesa, “Peripheral Vision,” 1231.
58 Ibid., 1245.
59 Cf. Latour, Science in Action, 222:
All the distinctions one could wish to make between domains (economics, politics, science, technology, law) are less important than the unique movement that makes all of these domains conspire towards the same goal: a cycle of accumulation that allows a point to become a centre by acting at a distance on many other points.
60 An annual event open to all Danfoss employees seeking to develop ideas for breakthrough products in infrastructure, energy, climate and food technologies.
61 The first comprises a combination of GPS receivers and inertial sensors for controlling and recording (non)autonomous vehicle tests. The latter is an autonomous system for applying accurate and repeatable inputs to a vehicle’s steering system.
62 Concerning specialized methods of testing and analysis, e.g. ISO, 7401:2011. Road Vehicles.
63 For more on demos in commercial and technological settings, see Rosental, “Toward a Sociology of Public Demonstrations.”
64 In WF, an SDP-report is a repository housing all relevant information for a steering development project, including a finalized report documenting the Purpose, Background, Procedures, Analyses, Conclusion and Date-of-completion for said activity. While finalized SDP-reports are generally accepted as evidence upon which future analyses and conclusions can be constructed and confirmed, unfinalized SDP-reports contain information still commuting between commissioning and mediating roles.
65 Callon and Muniesa, “Peripheral Vision,” 1242.
66 Ibid., 1238. An ideal calculative agency will “establish a long, yet finite list of diverse entities,” within a space that is open enough to accommodate a multitude of possible classifications and reclassifications, that the “procedures and algorithms” most likely to multiply “possible hierarchies and classifications” between these entities might be formalized.
67 TRL 3 (per 9 June 2017): “Analytical or Experimental Critical Functions and/or proofs of concept exist (including FEA or mathematical modelling activities).”
68 TRL 4 (per 9 June 2017): “Specific Technology Prototype mock-ups or similar components have been tested in WF Laboratories.”
69 TRL 5 (per 9 June 2017): “Specific Technology Prototypes or have been validated in a relevant environment and/or application.”
70 Cf. Clausen and Yoshinaka, “The Role of Devices in Staging Front End Innovation.”
71 See Latour, Reassembling the Social, 116: A matter of concern
is the thing itself that has been allowed to be deployed as multiple, and thus allowed to be grasped through different viewpoints, before being possibly unified in some later stage depending on the abilities of the collective to unify them.
72 TRL 3 (per 23 June 2017): “Critical functions are described. Analytical and experimental activities are defined, and proofs of concept exist.”
73 TRL 5 (per 23 June 2017): “Specific Technology Prototypes have been validated in a relevant environment and/or application and the critical functions have been validated analytically.”
74 Law, “Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering.”
75 Ibid., 109.
76 Callon and Muniesa, “Peripheral Vision.” 1242.
77 Ibid., 1231.
78 Ibid., 1242.
79 Ibid., 1231.
80 Erratic due their ‘uncertain and highly disputed character’, matters of concern are ‘real, objective, atypical, and above all, interesting agencies’, more readily understood as gatherings than objects. See Latour, Reassembling the Social, 114.
81 Callon and Law, “On Qualculation, Agency and Otherness,” 718.
82 Callon and Muniesa, “Peripheral Vision,” 1231.
83 Callon and Law, “On Qualculation, Agency and Otherness,” 720.
84 Callon and Muniesa, “Peripheral Vision,” 1242.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid., 1236–7.
87 Law, “Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering,” 111.
88 Vinck, The Sociology of Scientific Work, 199.
89 Law, “Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering.”
90 Cf. Vinck, The Sociology of Scientific Work, 220. “Conceptual work involves a broad material exercise in writing, correction, deletion and rewriting, on paper, on the board and on computer. Some of the “abstract” work can, therefore, be entered in its materiality.”
91 Latour, Science in Action, 220.
92 Vinck, The Sociology of Scientific Work, 203–4.
93 For another sociotechnical take on TRL, see Webster and Gardner, “Aligning Technology and Institutional Readiness.”
94 E.g. Garg et al., “Using TRLs and System Architecture to Estimate Technology Integration Risk.”
95 Webster and Gardner, “Aligning Technology and Institutional Readiness,” 1230: Exceptionally, Webster and Gardner consider sociotechnical aspects of how ‘readiness looks at the specific contexts within which innovation is engaged with and made sense of, and how, in doing so, is often adapted in order to be adopted.’
96 See Vinck, Everyday Engineering, 203–26.
97 Cf. Ibid. and “Engineering Practices.”
98 For examples, see: Juhl and Lindegaard, “Representations and Visual Synthesis in Engineering Design,” Legardeur, Zephir, and Minel, “How to Analyse Collaborative Practices of Engineering Students?” and Petersen and Buch, “Making Room in Engineering Design Practices.”