{"title":"Engineering Readiness: How the TRL Figure of Merit Coordinates Technology Development","authors":"Charles Anthony Bates, Christian Clausen","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1728282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"38 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1728282","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1728282","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
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.
Engineering StudiesENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
12
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍:
Engineering Studies is an interdisciplinary, international journal devoted to the scholarly study of engineers and engineering. Its mission is threefold:
1. to advance critical analysis in historical, social, cultural, political, philosophical, rhetorical, and organizational studies of engineers and engineering;
2. to help build and serve diverse communities of researchers interested in engineering studies;
3. to link scholarly work in engineering studies with broader discussions and debates about engineering education, research, practice, policy, and representation.
The editors of Engineering Studies are interested in papers that consider the following questions:
• How does this paper enhance critical understanding of engineers or engineering?
• What are the relationships among the technical and nontechnical dimensions of engineering practices, and how do these relationships change over time and from place to place?