542
I. Ihara et al.
Most of the projects were registered in the database of Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), and Global Environment Centre Foundation (GEC), and various
Japanese companies’ websites. To ensure that the projects are up-to-date, we included
only those taken place after the year 2010. From about 150 projects found on the
websites, we double checked to ensure that they are all actually different projects.
In the end, there are 86 eligible projects in our database. In our previous study,
we analyzed the readiness level of these projects by using our original methodology
called the Japanese Technology Readiness Assessment (J-TRA) (Ihara et al. 2019), an
adaptation result from the United States’ Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)
(Ihara et al. 2018). In this study, we compare the J-TRA result with the common
terminology used to express technology development project readiness in each of
the project website for the following aims; (1) To identify which methodology is
better to communicate technology readiness level, (2) To identify which methodology is better at identifying the bottleneck of the technology, and (3) To find out
whether both methodologies convey the same message.
36.2 Methodology
In this study, we compared two methodologies that present the readiness level of
a technology development project. The first one is the generic terms used in the
original project information sources (website). We have categorized those terms
into five categories: “basic research”, “research experiment”, “feasibility study”,
“pilot demonstration project”, and “full-scale operation”. There is no common or
standardized guideline that determines the project readiness categorization among
the funding organizations. The second methodology is the J-TRA method. This
method has the following seven analysis sectors: market development, technology
integration, technology verification, safety, commercialization, and cost or risk and
each of them have several compliance-checklist. A J-TRA results could be presented
in 2 ways: 1) In 8 readiness levels (as 1 to 8) called as the Technology Readiness Level
(TRL), or 2) By the percentage of compliance in our checklist for each evaluation
sectors. We compared the shape of the distribution curve of the projects in the five
generic readiness categories, in different TRL levels, and in percentage of J-TRA
checklist-compliance, to determine their similar/dissimilarities.
36.2.1 Conversion of Project Readiness Level Terminology
Although the original terms used by the project fund providers slightly vary, they indicate similar ideas that could be translated to the generic terms as shown in Table 36.1.
For example, “basic research”, “networking”, and “methodology proposal” could be
I. Ihara et al.
Most of the projects were registered in the database of Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), and Global Environment Centre Foundation (GEC), and various
Japanese companies’ websites. To ensure that the projects are up-to-date, we included
only those taken place after the year 2010. From about 150 projects found on the
websites, we double checked to ensure that they are all actually different projects.
In the end, there are 86 eligible projects in our database. In our previous study,
we analyzed the readiness level of these projects by using our original methodology
called the Japanese Technology Readiness Assessment (J-TRA) (Ihara et al. 2019), an
adaptation result from the United States’ Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)
(Ihara et al. 2018). In this study, we compare the J-TRA result with the common
terminology used to express technology development project readiness in each of
the project website for the following aims; (1) To identify which methodology is
better to communicate technology readiness level, (2) To identify which methodology is better at identifying the bottleneck of the technology, and (3) To find out
whether both methodologies convey the same message.
36.2 Methodology
In this study, we compared two methodologies that present the readiness level of
a technology development project. The first one is the generic terms used in the
original project information sources (website). We have categorized those terms
into five categories: “basic research”, “research experiment”, “feasibility study”,
“pilot demonstration project”, and “full-scale operation”. There is no common or
standardized guideline that determines the project readiness categorization among
the funding organizations. The second methodology is the J-TRA method. This
method has the following seven analysis sectors: market development, technology
integration, technology verification, safety, commercialization, and cost or risk and
each of them have several compliance-checklist. A J-TRA results could be presented
in 2 ways: 1) In 8 readiness levels (as 1 to 8) called as the Technology Readiness Level
(TRL), or 2) By the percentage of compliance in our checklist for each evaluation
sectors. We compared the shape of the distribution curve of the projects in the five
generic readiness categories, in different TRL levels, and in percentage of J-TRA
checklist-compliance, to determine their similar/dissimilarities.
36.2.1 Conversion of Project Readiness Level Terminology
Although the original terms used by the project fund providers slightly vary, they indicate similar ideas that could be translated to the generic terms as shown in Table 36.1.
For example, “basic research”, “networking”, and “methodology proposal” could be