The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

One of the current issues being discussed by the Department of Energy’s Technology Transfer Working Group is the issue of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

Technology Readiness Level Description

1. Basic principles observed and reportedLowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development (R&D). Examples might include paper studies of a technology’s basic properties.

2. Technology concept and/or application formulated

Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative, and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies.

3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept

Active R&D is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate the analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative.

4. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment

Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together. This is relatively “low fidelity” compared with the eventual system. Examples include integration of “ad hoc” hardware in the laboratory.

5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment

Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so they can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include “high-fidelity” laboratory integration of components.

6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high-fidelity laboratory environment or in a simulated operational environment.

7. System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.

Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6 by requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment (e.g., in an air-craft, in a vehicle, or in space).

8. Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration.

Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications.

9. Actual system proven through successful mission operations.

Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation (OT&E). Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.

The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

The Riskier the Technology, the less likely it will get Development Funding.

The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

There is a lot of Technology Transfer Related Legislation in the PipelineSome identify the issue of TRL.

Technology Transfer Legislation –TRANSFER Act √–National Defense Authorization Act –EINSTEIN Act –America COMPETES Reauthorization Act (House Democrats) √–America COMPETES Reauthorization Act (Senate Bipartisan) √–America INNOVATES Act –Technology Transfer Invention, Innovation, and Implementation Act –21st Century Innovation at the National Labs Act of 2013 √.

.

Technology Transfer Legislation Title: America COMPETES Reauthorization (House Democrats)

Bill Number: DRAFT Sponsor: TBD – House Democrat Alternative – Science Committee Ranking Member Eddie

Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30)

Tech Transfer Provisions: •Gives National Lab Directors authority to sign-off on tech transfer agreements under

$500,000, including CRADAs, non-federal WFO, and ACT agreements •Makes ACT authority permanent, and expands eligibility to include non-federal entities

that have received federal funding for project-related activities •Clarifies the definition of technology transfer activities to include technology maturation

•Gives DOE’s Tech Transfer Coordinator the authority to distribute funds from the Technology Commercialization Fund created in EPACT 2005

Other Provisions: •5-year reauthorization, with annual budget increases of 5% for NSF, DOE’s Office of

Science, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) •Supports Regional Innovation Clusters and manufacturing innovation centers

•Authorizes ARPA-E, Energy Frontier Research Centers, and Energy Innovation Hubs •Repeals the 20% cost share requirement for basic research grants

•Implements a Federal Strategic Plan for STEM Education

Technology Transfer Legislation Title: TRANSFER ACT (Technology and Research Accelerating National Security and Future

Economic Resiliency Act of 2013) Bill Number: H.R. 2981

Sponsor: Reps. Chris Collins (R-NY-27) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA-6) Tech Transfer Provisions:

•Directs agencies with Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs to use a small portion of its STTR set-aside for grants to universities, non-profit research institutes, and National Labs to support innovative approaches to tech transfer •Defines “innovative approaches to tech transfer” to include: –Early stage proof of concept activities for translational research; –Identification of technologies with potential for accelerated commercialization; –Technology maturation activities such as prototype construction, experiment analysis, product comparison, and collecting performance data; –Technical validations, market research, clarifying intellectual property rights position and strategy, and investigating commercial and business opportunities; and –Advice, mentoring, entrepreneurial education, project management, technology and business development expertise for innovators and recipients of technology transfer licenses to maximize commercialization potential. •Institutional grants of $1 million; project grants of $150,000 •Requires grant recipients to create a program oversight board

Technology Transfer Legislation Title: 21st Century Innovation at the National Labs Act of 2013

Bill Number: DRAFT

Sponsor: Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) Tech Transfer Provisions:

•Makes Agreements for Commercializing Technology permanent •Authorizes the use of LDRD to enhance tech transfer activities, including to demonstrate

the commercial potential of promising early stage research and technologies •Creates a pilot allowing national lab directors to enter into WFO, CRADA, User Facility, and

Other Transaction agreements without prior approval by DOE •Expands the PEMP process to include a category on “technology impact”

Other Provisions: •Makes National Lab Policy Council permanent

•Consolidates positions of Under Secretary for Energy and Under Secretary for Science •Creates a task force to reduce burdensome DOE regulations on the national labs and

strengthen the contractor-assurance system while maintaining necessary oversight of lab operations.

The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

Most Laboratory Technologies are developed to the TRL 1 or 2.

Generally Companies are only interested in licensing Technologies at TRL 5 or 6.

What can be done at the Labs to bridge the TRL gap?

Answer - Fund Technology Maturation

The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

1) Expand the Use of Royalty Funding to Include Tech Maturation Funding – Expand the allowed use of royalty income.

This would be in conjunction with a license option agreement where the licensee would provide Tech Maturation Funding and have priority for a standard license.

The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

2) Establish an Agency Technology Innovation Program - Provides funding to mature key lab selected with industry input, and then provides funded lab support to licensees. Funded by lab royalty pool. Reinstatement of “maturation funds” at the Department level would provide seed money to help move lab technologies to the marketplace

The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

3) Use specific Program Funds. A process where working in conjunction with several of the DOE Programs, a commercialization strategy is developed, then jointly, the DOE program managers agree to provide funding to mature the technology and to help deploy the technology over a period of 3-5 years.

The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

4) Use Laboratory Overhead Funding for Technology Maturation – Allow the labs to use overhead funds for technology maturation. This provides the Labs the broadest possible use of the funds and doesn’t restrict usage to technologies applicable to only a single [DOE] programs.

The Issue of Technology Readiness Level

5) Establish an agency Tech Maturation Fund - Establish a fund targeted at maturing early stage technology developed at the National Laboratories. Access to funding might be competitively awarded and require relevant industry participation to ensure adoption and commercial success.