Readiness levels provide a useful tool for acquisition professionals in many areas. The levels pro- vide both a visual and descriptive reference to help assess where a particular factor resides on a scale from low to high. The assessment tool can also help to identify subsequent actions to increase the readiness to an appropriate level based on the program’s situation.
The first use of readiness levels can be traced to NASA’s use of Technol - ogy Readiness Levels (TRLs) starting in the 1970s. The TRLs were used to measure the product maturity level of a particular technology, often at a component or subsystem level. The proposed technology would be eval - uated against the definition of each technology level and is then assigned a TRL rating based on the technolo - gy’s maturity. For example, some new technologies could be assessed at a low TRL due to the lack of testing in different environments. NASA uses a scale of nine TRLs (Figure 1). TRL 1 is the lowest (least mature) and TRL 9 is the highest (highest maturity). The color shad - ing of each level is significant as it highlights the readiness to use that technology in different test and op - erational scenarios. DoD adopted TRLs in the early 2000s and uses the TRLs in a similar manner. Over time, the use of this type of measurement scale evolved to other areas such as software, manufacturing, integration, and others across many domains. Readiness level assessments are pop - ular because the methodology is easy to use and provides a framework for further analysis and actions. In light of the current threat, ur - gency, and acquisition transforma - tion, one critical area that warrants such a readiness framework is the Integrated Product Team (IPT). War- fighting acquisition relies on the ex - pertise and performance of these cross-functional IPTs to plan and exe - cute programs. Acquisition is a people business, and building skilled acqui - sition teams is arguably the most im - portant factor in successful outcomes. The data are clear from various root cause analysis reports. Poor manage - ment performance during program inception is directly linked to poor
performing programs (e.g., critical Nunn-McCurdy baseline breaches). Program offices need a tool to as - sess the readiness of an IPT to plan and execute a program. While the
common focus of staffing up and fill - ing IPT vacancies is important, it is critical to conduct an assessment of factors that should be in place for an effective IPT. Using a methodology like TRLs can help acquisition lead - ers assess their IPTs and determine actions needed to equip their teams for success. Figure 2 provides a visual sum - mary of the proposed Integrated Product Team Readiness Levels (IP - TRLs). Color coding of the levels helps users to quickly visualize readiness at each level. The overall readiness level rollup (assessed as a color on the tool) identifies the IPT’s readiness to plan and execute a program. Unlike NASA TRLs, which evalu - ate technology as a single factor, IPT readiness must assess multiple fac - tors, each with criteria. In this model, an assessment of four IPTRL factors determines an overall rollup for each of the nine IPTRLs (Figure 3). These As in Figure 2, color coding of the levels helps users to quickly visualize readiness at each level. The overall readiness level rollup (assessed as a color on the tool) identifies the IPT’s readiness to plan and execute a pro - gram. Separation of planning and exe - cuting is important because the IPT workload and skill requirements can change as the program transitions from planning to executing a pro - gram. For our purposes, we will de - fine planning as development of the key regulatory and statutory planning and strategy documents. Execution involves developing the Request for Proposal, conducting source selec - tion, and managing the contract assessment factors are: • Charter/Team Norms • Expertise • Resources • Stakeholder Support
Figure 1. NASA Technology Readiness Levels
TRL 9
Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations
Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through test and demonstration (ground or space) TRL 8 System prototype demonstation in a space environment TRL 7 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) TRL 6 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment TRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment TRL 4 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept TRL 3
Technology concept and/or application formulated TRL 2 Basic principles observed and reported TRL 1
Source: NASA
6 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | MAY – JUNE 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker