Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2015.48.5.421

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) Indicator Development for Geoscience and Mineral Resources R&D  

Ahn, Eun-Young (Policy Research Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM))
Kim, Seong-Yong (Policy Research Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM))
Lee, Jae-Wook (Policy Research Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM))
Publication Information
Economic and Environmental Geology / v.48, no.5, 2015 , pp. 421-429 More about this Journal
Abstract
Base researches in geoscience and mineral resources, such as geological and geo-thematic mapping, geological survey and observation, have long-term, continuity and time-leasing characteristics and they are difficult to present the particular research stages or progressions in the research span. The Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), developed by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), is effective for presenting research maturity levels and progression in the development of new technologies. This study suggests adjusted definitions for the Technology Readiness Levels to fit Geo-technology (Technology in Geoscience and Mineral Resources). Base geological researches, including mapping, surveys and observation, can be also presented in research levels from TRL 1 (R&D planning, literature survey) to TRL 9 (geological information construction and service in all target areas) in terms of the final product's coverage. Moreover, not only development and construction of commercial products, geological disasters and environmental researches can also be presented in field demonstrations through public pilot applications. The modified commercialization or cemonstration TRLs in Geo-technology are TRL 5 (starting pilot field application), TRL 6 (pilot field operation) and TRL 7 (pilot field operation for a larger scale, greater than ten percent of the actual environment).
Keywords
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs); Geo-technology; Quantified indicator;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ahn, E.Y (2011) Economic Impact Analysis on the Groundwater R&D Project. Journal of Water Policy and Economy, v.18, p.23-40.
2 Ahn, E.Y and Yu, S.Y. (2012) A Social Costs Quantification for Impact Assessment Indicators Development on Technologies Related Groundwater and Soil Contamination. Econ. Environ. Geol., v.45, p.447-454.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Ahn, S.J (2012) Experimental Studies on Applicability and Effect of the Total Project Cost Management System on R&D Program. KISTEP, 137p.
4 Department of Defense (DoD) (2011) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)), 20p.
5 Engel, D.W, 2012, Development of Technology Readiness Level(TRL) Metrics and Risk Measures. Parcific Northwest National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, 16p.
6 General Accounting Office (GAO) (1999) BEST PRACTICES. Better Management of Technology Development Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes. United States General Accounting Office-National Security and International Affairs Division, GAO/NSIAD-99-162, 80p.
7 Hwang, H.W., Kim, H.R. and Chang Y.K. (2012) TRL Impact on Development Schedule and Cost in the Aerospace Project. Journal of Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences, v.40, p.264-272.   DOI
8 Hwang, J.H (2014) Standard Guidance for Preliminary Feasibility Study on R&D Program. KISTEP, 217p.
9 Kim, N.G., An, B.H., Lee, H.S., Choi, J.H. Park, S.H. and Kim, Y.S. (2012) Implementation of TRL and TRA tools to Korean Construction and Transportation R&D Evaluation for Improving Practical Use. Korean journal of construction engineering and management, v.13, p.110-119.
10 Kim, S.Y. (2010) Definition of KIGAM TRLs (KIGAM internal document). 3p.
11 Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) (2009) TRL evaluation indicator for industrial strategic technology. 85p.
12 Lee, H.G., Jeon, E.Y., Yu, S.J. and Park, H.J. (2014) Project outcome differences according to recognition of project goals in health care R&D. 2014 Autumn proceedings of Korean association for policy studies, p.95-113.
13 Mankins, J.C. (1995) Technology Readiness Levels: A White Paper, Advanced Concepts Office. Office of Space Access and Technology, NASA, 5p.
14 National S&T Commission (NSTC)-Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP) (2012) 4th Technology Foresight. 265p.
15 Office for Science and Technology (OST) (1993) Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology. 74p.
16 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2002) Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. 255p.
17 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) - U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2011) FY 2011 - 2016 DOI Strategic Plan. http://www.doi.gov/pmb/ppp/upload/DOI_StrategicPlan_fy2011_2016.pdf
18 TEC-SHS (2008) Technology readiness levels handbook for space applications, https://artes.esa.int/sites/default/files/TRL_Handbook.pdf, European Space Agency (esa). 66p.
19 Um, I.C. (2012) Government Research and Development budget analysis in the FY 2011, KISTEP. 173p.