9920 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL.

71, 2024

A Product Innovation Readiness Level Framework

Sercan Ozcan , Aldo Stornelli , and Christopher Simms

Abstract—The term readiness became popular following emer- or external project submission assessments. This identifies the
gence of NASA’s now widely recognized technology readiness level need for a more comprehensive model; innovation readiness
(TRL), leading to studies examining the readiness levels of a level (IRL).
particular field or context. Whilst TRL is widely accepted and
various types of readiness level frameworks have emerged, there Existing IRL models have proposed frameworks to assess
is a weakness in the literature specifically examining the concept different types of innovations which our study builds upon [5],
of innovation readiness. This is evident in the lack of compre- [3], [7]. First, Evans and Johnson [5] illustrate a framework
hensive frameworks designed to assess the readiness of a product implemented at Lockheed Martin to assess the organization’s
innovation. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to establish the capabilities with regard to a business model innovation oppor-
first multidimensional framework to assess the level of readiness
of product innovations. In order to construct this framework, we tunity. More importantly for our analysis, this framework is
conducted a systematic literature review and examined a total of 55 described as a tool to assess early stage ideas relative to the
articles from the product innovation and readiness levels literature. verifications required in key functions of the firm (e.g., mar-
Our findings provide several contributions to the literature. First, keting, manufacturing). Second, Tao et al. [3] propose an IRL
by merging two streams of literature we link the main themes model to evaluate incremental innovations, considering different
of product innovation success factors to potential readiness level
scales. As a result, we establish the first product-innovation readi- dimensions (e.g., market, technology). Lastly, Hasenauer et al.
ness level (P-IRL) framework: consisting of four readiness levels [7] propose a two-dimensional IRL model used in start-up fund-
that include project, market, product and technology capability ing process, and Blank [8] refers to investment readiness levels
readiness levels. The P-IRL framework is introduced to support following different project development phases for investment
the product innovation investment decisions. The results of our
management.
study provide important implications for innovation managers,
fund providers, and product innovation managers. Despite these attempts to design IRL frameworks, existing
attempts are limited in two main respects. First, the frame-
Index Terms—Innovation readiness level (IRL), product innova- works they present fail to comprehensively address the mul-
tion readiness level (P-IRL), technology readiness level (TRL).
tidimensional aspects specific for product innovations and their
success. Second, these frameworks have not specifically ad-
I. INTRODUCTION dressed product innovations and hence are unable to detail the
factors specifically relevant to their success (e.g., as project,
HE technology readiness level (TRL) has become a widely
T recognized measurement system to track the progress of
a new technology, or the technological dimensions of a new
product design). Hence, the aim of our study is to design a new
product innovation readiness level (P-IRL) framework enabling
a multidimensional product innovation project assessment. In
product [1], [2]. Despite its widespread acceptance and use, both
doing so, we contribute to the literature by providing a novel
academia [3] and policymakers, such as the EU Commissioners
and comprehensive approach to establishing the readiness of an
[4], have highlighted the need for relevant frameworks to im-
innovation, as well as providing innovation managers and other
prove the management of innovation projects. Policy-makers, in
decision-makers for investment decision making. In addressing
particular, report the need to develop comprehensive frameworks
this aim, our study adopts the definition of innovation presented
to better understand and evaluate the progress of a product
in Crossan and Apaydin [91], where the process of innovation in
innovation project [4]. This reveals the limitations of TRL, which
a firm precedes the final outcome as the type of innovation where
focuses on the technology alone, and as a result it lacks the ability
we focus specifically on product innovation. To achieve this, we
to holistically capture other factors that influence the success of
design a new framework that embeds the critical “product inno-
a product innovation, thus limiting its applicability in internal
vation” success factors [44]. For this study we consider product
innovation as related to the development of manufactured goods,
Manuscript received 31 October 2022; revised 29 April 2023 and 7 August hence we do not cover other types of innovation such as service,
2023; accepted 28 August 2023. Date of publication 26 October 2023; date
of current version 4 June 2024. Review of this manuscript was arranged by
process or business model innovations. Also, in contrast to other
Department Editor L. Santiago. (Corresponding author: Sercan Ozcan.) innovation related RLs, we do not believe that one model can
Sercan Ozcan is with the School of Strategy, Marketing and Innovation, Uni- be applicable to every innovation scenario considering different
versity of Portsmouth, PO1 2UP Portsmouth, U.K., and also with the Department
of Engineering Management, Bahcesehir University, 34349 Istanbul, Turkey
characteristics, processes, and success factors.
(e-mail: [Link]@[Link]). We argue that the product innovation literature regarding
Aldo Stornelli and Christopher Simms are with the School of Strategy, success factors combined with the existing readiness level
Marketing and Innovation, University of Portsmouth, PO1 2UP Portsmouth,
U.K. (e-mail: [Link]; [Link]@[Link]).
literature provides the foundation for a more comprehensive
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2023.3312595 understanding of innovation’s market and commercialization

1558-0040 © 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See [Link] for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9921

potential. Thus, our tool would be highly relevant for the as- A. Technology Readiness Levels and its Applications
sessment of projects, either incremental [3], related to new
The TRL framework originates from the aerospace industry
ventures [7], [8] and specifically for overall innovation project at NASA [1]. The 9-level TRL model is a measurement scale
assessment. Also, P-IRL framework could be used to assess both
to monitor the technological aspect of projects, from basic
internal and external investment decisions specific to the product
technological knowledge to prototyping and launch [1]. Since
innovations. its inception, this model has supported the development of
This article contributes to the literature by providing a new
different technology applications within industries and govern-
measurement system tool, “P-IRL framework,” to assess product
ment organizations, which have each tailored it to their own
innovation projects for both internal and external investment contexts [9]. For example, the American Department of Defence
decisions [4], [8]. Our first contribution is to extend existing
applied the manufacturing readiness level to better track the
business model related [5] and incremental innovation specific development of a manufacturing process along TRL levels [10].
[3] IRL approaches. By contrast, we provide a new readiness Another example is the personalized “relevant environment,” in
level model specific to products. Our new product innova-
which technology needs to be tested to reach TRL 5 (analytical
tion readiness model provides a more comprehensive approach laboratory work). This would be different in IT projects, where
founded upon an extensive systematic literature review (SLR) the environment differs from an aircraft lab; forming a system of
that combines two sets of literature. Specifically, we integrate
“cooperative software development” [11]. As another example,
the findings of 30 studies related to product innovation, and 25 the drilling of oil reservoirs would entail the initial assessment
related to different aspects of “readiness levels.” Based on our of finance to geotechnical data, health policy monitoring, and
analysis, we contribute by offering a product innovation specific,
the life cycle [12]. Whilst such studies capture differences in
multidimensional model which captures a broader number of the environment and requirements that may differ by context,
dimensions that require assessment in order to establish the
they fail to address other dimensions affecting the success of
readiness of an innovation project. In doing so, we create nine
an innovation, and thus provide an indication of its overall
new levels of readiness for four novel dimensions of overall readiness.
product innovation readiness, namely
Since the earlier applications of TRL, other variations of RL
1) project planning readiness levels (Proj-RL);
models have been developed overtime under the logic of TRL.
2) market analysis readiness levels (MRL); 7 Rolls Royce, for example, applied a Manufacturing Capability
3) product planning readiness levels (Prod-RLs);
Readiness level to generate a higher degree of engineering and
4) technology capability readiness levels (TCRL).
supply chain knowledge, from which other studies shaped a
Our second contribution is to studies examining how to im- manufacturing TRL [13].
prove decision-making along innovation projects [6]. The P-IRL
A more recent interpretation of TRL is provided by studies on
framework provides a novel approach to conceptualizing the sustainable development innovations (aviation turbo propellers
dimensions that innovation managers need to address within or waste management technologies), by linking the levels of
decision-making on new product developments, by providing
the TRL framework to the conceptual layers of the multilevel
a comprehensive set of readiness dimensions that help to un- perspective (MLP) model.1 Thus, using both TRL and MLP to
derstand the readiness of a product innovation and supports track the progress of different innovation projects [14]. Further
investment decisions. We also introduce a P-IRL matrix model
studies have tailored the TRL framework to specific contexts
that illustrates how different RLs can be used in an integrated either grouping its levels by relevant activities or adding other
fashion. readiness levels, such as societal or consumer readiness [14],
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section II will
[15]. In synthesis, Mankins [2] provided a retrospective descrip-
review the literature on readiness levels and specific to the IRL tion of over 30-years of TRL use, suggesting that the scope
separately, to subsequently perform the systematic review for our
of TRL has been bounded to solving the three key challenges
study. Section III will describe our SLR method. Section IV will
of projects, as a basic guideline tool: performance, schedule,
present the new P-IRL framework. Section V discusses further and budget. Thus, as a general “guideline tool” the TRL fails
the contributions of our model by relating it to the previous
to address other project factors which results in a gap in the
literature and finally limitations and future recommended studies
literature. This limitation is detailed in the work of Olechowski
are discussed. et al. [9] who explored the context of different industrial firms
II. LITERATURE REVIEW: RELEVANT READINESS LEVELS FOR (NASA, Google, John Deere, BP, and Bombardier). These firms
PRODUCT INNOVATIONS encountered challenges in implementing TRL to track the level
of advancement of complex technological systems.
In this section, we separated the literature review for TRL The seminal study from Sauser et al. [16] on system readi-
and other “readiness level” (RL) models. First, we reviewed the ness level (SRL) forms another example of the hierarchical
TRL models and how TRL is implemented in different contexts. relationships between TRL and other readiness levels. Their
This allowed us to understand how the TRL model has been
transferred and expanded in other areas. In the next section, to
1 “MLP has been developed as a model to grasp technical change by synthe-
position our study, we examined other readiness level models to
sizing the factors affecting innovation process. MLP explores the innovation
examine the innovation readiness related gap and weaknesses in process of three levels (and interactions among them): niche innovations, the
the literature. socio-technical regime, the socio-technical landscape” [14].

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9922 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 71, 2024

TABLE I
SUMMARY OF READINESS LEVELS RELATED TO PRODUCT INNOVATION

work proposes a need to connect TRL with integration readiness, 1) TRL variations;
which relates to the compatibility of different technologies into 2) manufacturing;
the final product [17]. Thus, a system maturity assessment (i.e., 3) system;
the iterative verification) is introduced and system readiness 4) market impact;
(i.e., the validation of maturity) of the technologies used for 5) innovation;
the product. 6) project management readiness levels.
The potential value of a tool to evaluate innovation readiness Table I summarizes all the relevant RLs and IRLs present in
is particularly evident in the context of entrepreneurial envi- the existing literature. The remainder of this section is organized
ronments. Venture Capital Funds or Accelerators require more according to this table.
complete evaluation tools in order to address the gaps in in- First, the manufacturing readiness level (MRL) [10] intro-
vestment practice requirements, namely, from minimum viable duced variations of RLs to track the development of manufac-
products (MVPs), to time-to-market, and commercialization. In turing process innovation related to new products. For example,
this respect, Blank’s [8] investment readiness level assesses the the MRL tool of Islam [18] aimed to assess the maturity and
level of progress of start-up companies to manage the different uncertainties within micro- and nanotechnology manufacturing.
rounds of funding. Furthermore, Peters [13] proposed the manufacturing TRL for
In conclusion, TRL is widely used in project applications a comprehensive assessment of premature manufacturing tech-
for both internal and external funding mechanisms by many nologies, such as additive manufacturing, also for production
firms and funding organizations. Yet, existing readiness levels system performance.
tools and conceptualizations fail to provide a comprehensive Second, SRL models have been introduced by scholars to as-
assessment within the process of product innovation due to their sess the integration of different technologies within a technology
sole emphasis on the technology, which forms only one of a system [16], [17], [19]. SRL is an important model to assess
number of dimensions of a product innovation project. Hence readiness of other relevant technological developments. This
there is a need for a more comprehensive measurement tool for becomes even more important for complementary technologies
product innovation and development activities. The following where a newly proposed technology needs to be integrated into
section examines “RL” models in order to report the different existing systems and architectures.
contexts in which these have been applied, as well as product Third, different types of market readiness levels (MktRLs)
development dimensions included or neglected. exist in the literature, and as with the previously mentioned
SRL levels, integration forms a key aspect of these approaches.
B. Readiness Level Models
Hjorth and Brem [20] assess market readiness intersecting three
A review of the literature on existing relevant readiness levels different RLs: integration and demand, leading to an aggregate
reveals that they can be divided into six RL areas, based on their MktRL. Hicks et al. [21] proposed another model as an extension
purpose and applications areas, which are as follows: of the TRL with regards to the product’s lifecycle. Their model

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9923

follows 11 levels and related subreadiness levels. For example, TABLE II

LIMITATIONS OF IRL MODELS
in the sublevels of TRL10, the framework includes the potential
need to develop new product features or the commencement
of new product R&D. Kobos et al. [22] propose a technology-
regulatory-market exploring the timing of renewable energy
technologies development, meeting the readiness of the market,
policies and regulations.
Fourth, aligned with product innovation factors, the market
attractiveness readiness level proposed by Kwon and Son [23]
encompasses: Global market size, growth rate, policy suitability.
This model integrates TRL and a customer readiness level rel-
atively to product diffusion levels. Similarly, we also identified
the demand readiness level [24]; mostly applied to technology
transfer contexts.
RLs and factors other than TRL that needs to be considered for
Having described different readiness levels models that are
product innovations. These limitations, alongside other aspects
related to product innovations, it is apparent that few academic
of a product innovation that existing models fail to recognize,
studies present IRL frameworks with scale level measurement
highlight a need for further conceptual development of IRL. We
[3], [5], [7]. Hasenauer et al.’s [7] IRL model is based on
summarize the limitations of existing models in Table II. This
analyzing the degree of impact of the social environment, the
informs the rationale for the present study, which aims to address
environmental impact, and the economic driver tradeoffs. These
these limitations by presenting a multidimensional model.
main levels include many other sublevels but only related to Mar-
The conceptual framework for our study is shown in Fig. 1,
ket (e.g., supply, demand, customer, product) and Technology
which captures the two sets of literature we synthesize through
(e.g., intellectual property, integration, manufacturing). Each of
a systematic literature review approach. This underpins the sub-
the sublevels presented are linked to a nine-level scale, following
sequent development of a new P-IRL model, namely the “P-IRL
TRL logic. Furthermore, the IRL framework from Tao et al.
framework.” To achieve this, we 1) review studies related to the
[3] is tailored to support incremental innovations. Moreover,
factors influencing the success of product innovations, and 2)
their work aims at providing a generic innovation framework
integrate our RL-related findings with other product innovation
considering the internal organization as one of the dimensions
related RL models. This results in the new RLs specific to P-IRL
and including the lifecycle of the product until its potential
framework. Specifically, previous innovation-relevant RL mod-
changeover. Furthermore, Evans and Johnson [5] present a more
els are assessed and modified considering product innovations.
focused framework on business model innovation, including the
Hence, the relevant aspects of product innovation and RL models
organizational changes required when a new business model
are integrated into a final P-IRL framework.
is required for a new product. Hence, also highlighting the
importance of developing capabilities.
Overall, our review of prior IRL studies reveals that the III. METHODOLOGY
majority fail to provide a comprehensive coverage of factors The literature on readiness levels and IRL have delineated
relevant to the overall readiness of innovations and specifically the main problems of creating an assessment method to manage
for product innovation investment decisions. This weakness projects. The methodology adopted for our study is an SLR [26],
results from either their scope in the type of dimensions [7] which is developed in a sequential approach toward a systematic
or a focus on specific technological contexts [25]. More impor- mapping [27]. This consisted of a separate search for 1) product
tantly, even though Tao et al. [3] present a model with different innovation success factors, and 2) readiness levels.
dimensions, their framework is not founded upon an analysis of The literature analysis follows the principles of an SLR [28],
the product innovation literature to determine these dimensions and to minimize bias in our procedure, we adopted the widely
and specific activities to consider for investment decisions. recognized PRISMA checklist protocol [29] (see the PRISMA
This results in a failure to systematically and comprehensively steps as depicted in Fig. 2). The logical development of this
address the factors required to provide a complete assessment of study is also aligned with the guidelines of Tranfield et al.
the readiness of a product innovation None of the existing IRL [30]. First, a preunderstanding of the topic allowed the authors
frameworks in fact, are designed upon a comprehensive set of to outline the nature of the subject, as well as the evaluation
product innovation success factors and existing readiness level of different methodological approaches [26]. Second, within
literature. We argue that this is a critical aspect underlying the the adopted systematic mapping rationale [27] two separate
need to design a model based on a specific innovation type [91], database interrogations were conducted for 1) successful product
as opposed to a generic innovation readiness framework [3]. innovation and 2) readiness levels. These searches were per-
As innovations have various dimensions to their success, cur- formed on the Web of Science and Scopus databases (searches
rent models fail to provide a comprehensive model for product completed 05.02.2021). In doing so, we aimed to integrate and
innovation managers and other decision-makers to follow. These capture the linkages between two separate literature streams and
limitations reduce the overall utility of a model, which should subsequently lay the foundations of our comprehensive P-IRL
resolve a number of questions for innovation managers and framework (see Fig. 2). Prior systematic reviews have adopted
scholars. In particular, it would help identifying other critical a similar approach, attempting to merge two distinct research
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9924 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 71, 2024

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for P-IRL.

Fig. 2. PRISMA flowchart.

streams when seeking definitions of specific underexplored top- from CABS ranked journals2 and studies that had minimum ten
ics [31], [32]. In order to provide a comprehensive picture of citations. The spread of citations across our sample featured
both product innovation success factors and readiness levels we 68% of the sample exhibiting 100+ citations, following from
included both theoretical and empirical studies [33], whilst not Scopus citation metrics (see Appendix A for greater detail on
restricting the data collection to a specific period [31]. the quality of the sample). Following the qualitative inclusion
First, for new product development and product innovation and exclusion step, the studies are assessed for their eligibility to
success factors, articles that are focusing on success or failure make sure each article covers why certain product innovations
related determinants were aimed to be retrieved. Thus, our query are successful or unsuccessful focusing on different factors and
to retrieve product innovation studies was (“product innovation” contexts (e.g., [54], [55]). As the focus of the study was to
OR “product development”) AND (success), performed into title identify the success factors and embed these into the newly
abstract and keywords of the articles. This returned a total of
7317 articles after the elimination of duplicates using Endnote 2 We consulted the Academic Journal guide (AJG) 2018 from the Chartered

citation software [34]. This study followed both quantitative Association of Business Schools (CABS). The AJG is based upon peer review,
editorial and expert judgements following from the evaluation of publications,
and qualitative inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quantitative and is informed by statistical information relating to citation [97; p. 4]. The
inclusion criteria focused on papers identifying success factors; guide is based on a quality scale ranging from 1 to 4 and 4∗ rated journals.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9925

proposed P-IRL model, any studies that focused on other aspects (Project, Market, Product, Technology). In analyzing the case
such as efficiency of the NPD process were excluded. This studies, we coded the most relevant illustrative quotes using the
resulted in a final sample for the product innovation success main dimensions of the P-IRL as a reference coding scheme.
literature of 30 articles. The evidence of the cases does not aim to validate the P-IRL
Second, the approach to readiness levels and IRL adopted framework, instead the specific cases are introduced to illustrate
broader criteria, due to the emerging nature of the field of how the identified dimensions could apply to innovation cases
readiness level analysis and papers closely analyzing the concept analyzed. This approach enabled us to link the issues to a number
of innovation readiness. Therefore, we also included conference of levels (e.g., Market analysis aspects from MRL 2–7), or
proceedings and evaluated as a team those additional sources where RL activities had been addressed (e.g., Project Level
relevant to the scope of the analysis. This resulted in consid- activities for General Electric cases). These are summarized in
ering those papers relevant to TRL variations, alternative types Section IV-D with relevant quote examples.
of readiness level scales originating from TRL logic and IRL In order to further illustrate the relevance of the P-IRL by
academic work. To this concern, a broader query for readiness analyzing the cases, we also presented a diagram (see Fig. 5)
levels included the terms considered key in a sequential approach illustrating the assumed overall level for each dimension related
to product innovation analysis as shown below: to the Google Glass case based on the analysis done.
(technol∗ OR innovation OR product OR market OR system OR
project OR planning OR maturity OR consumer OR demand OR
IV. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS
risk) AND (“readiness level” OR "levels of readiness”). The following sections present the synthesis of findings,
which set the foundations of our P-IRL framework. Based on the
Our search query retrieved 734 studies after the removal of
preceding discussion, we first identified critical themes and suc-
duplicates from WoS and Scopus databases, which was limited
cess factors in the product innovation literature. Subsequently,
to business and management and engineering categories. Fol-
we proposed readiness levels for each of the identified themes.
lowing the remaining steps, as shown in the PRISMA flowchart
This analysis is summarized in Table III through the proposed
(see Fig. 2), 25 readiness level studies were included in the final
four Readiness Levels. The comparison between product in-
examination step (we included one model that was implemented
novation success factors and readiness levels highlights that
by EU funded entity, as there are limited number of relevant
the readiness levels literature has to date neglected important
studies available for IRL model) [25]. After selecting the relevant
aspects, which are identified as critical in the product innovation
studies, thematic coding was conducted in NVivo 12 software for
literature. In this respect, Table III reports our proposed readiness
both sets of literature [28]. Here, open coding and focused coding
levels based on both product innovation success factors and
were conducted, and a subsequent inter-rater coding reliability
relevant RLs. This latter detail is clarified in Section IV-A, where
index, following recent sources based on calculating the level of
we explain the rationale for the P-IRL framework with the newly
agreement on the coded themes [95]. The three authors coded a
proposed RLs.
sample of the ten papers from a defined coding scheme. These
Table III is also designed to report the references that are
papers were selected based on the most cited within the overall
used in this study in groups of RL and product innovation
sample. Subsequently, through NVivo 12 an inter-rater reliability
literature. In order to provide a descriptive account of the two
comparison query was performed [94] with no evident incon-
literature streams, Sections IV-B1 to IV-B4 provides a detailed
sistencies revealed [35] and with an agreement ratio of 90%.
analysis and descriptions for all the developed RLs. In ad-
The final phase was to report the results in a narrative synthesis
dition, the Section IV-C is provided to explain and illustrate
using the concepts of the coding [36]. Throughout this analysis,
how different RLs and teams can work together through the
the identified themes acted as connectives between the different
P-IRL framework’s requirements. Finally, the Section IV-D is
studies (e.g., [90]) mainly represented by the joint analysis of
provided with carefully selected three case studies to illustrate
product innovation success factors and readiness levels. Further
how the P-IRL framework could be implemented to minimize the
detail on the different themes is presented in Section IV through
chance of product innovation failures or maximize the potential
a summary of tables for each readiness level proposed.
success. This section demonstrates how the lack of attention
To illustrate the model, we integrated the systematic literature
to specific readiness levels may effectively lead to the product
review analysis, explained in Fig. 2, with a secondary data
being unsuccessful in the marketplace. Also, the Section IV-D
analysis (e.g., see [96]). In doing so, we first conducted a
provides an illustrative case to show how the P-IRL could be
systematic review of the product innovation and readiness levels
implemented for funding or investment decisions.
literature that have shaped the description of each readiness level
(see Section IV-A). Second, we conducted a separate search in
both Sage Business Cases database and Scopus to select sources A. P-IRL Framework
which enabled a retrospective analysis of product innovation This section describes the logic of the readiness level scales
success or failure factors. In doing so, we searched for prod- relative to our P-IRL framework. We propose a scale concept
uct innovation cases that would discuss in detail the different composed of four Readiness Levels that are as follows:
dimensions related to either success or failure of the case. 1) Proj-RLs;
Following the development of the P-IRL framework, a the- 2) MRL;
matic analysis was conducted to code the information related 3) Prod-RLs;
to the selected cases according to the different readiness levels 4) TCRL.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9926 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 71, 2024

TABLE III
PRODUCT SUCCESS AND READINESS LEVELS LITERATURE COMPARISON

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9927

Fig. 3. P-IRL framework.

As detailed, the proposed levels derive from the success Proj-RL encompasses nine levels, reflecting themes identified in
factors identified in the product innovation literature and their the literature, particularly the significance of planning, teams for
linkage to the relevant RLs. In order to clarify this relationship, product development decisions, and the complexity of projects
Table III illustrates the development of each of the proposed in relation to necessary resources [42], [43], [44], [45], [46],
four RLs by identifying the product innovation literature themes [47], [48]. Table IV provided below to describe each Proj-RL
(e.g., team, complexity). Our analysis led us to propose new RLs levels.
through our critical examination of the factors identified in both 2) Market Analysis Readiness Levels (MRL): The units of
product innovation and RL literature. The outline of each of the analysis of this readiness level reflects the themes identified in
readiness levels is proposed to align with each other following the literature highlighting market related success factors. The
the structure of TRL model (e.g., nine levels) which also builds aim of the following readiness levels is to ensure that managers
upon prior IRL studies [3], [7]. The rest of the article and the consider target consumers, competitors, the business model
relevant sections are organized based on the four RLs that are and advertising strategy of the project. Consequently, Table V
illustrated in Fig. 3. summarizes the literature findings into each identified readiness
levels and describing the aspects to be completed in order to
move from one level to another.
B. Readiness Levels Scheme and Findings 3) Product Planning Readiness Levels (Prod-RL): The Prod-
In the following sections we explain our P-IRL framework RLs emphasize two relevant themes in the literature: product
with relation to each readiness level. As also explained in originality and product design. These levels focus on the tech-
previous sections, the basic logic and structure underlying our nical and design aspects of the product [50], [51], including
framework is the TRL model. Specifically, we benefited from initial design options, the originality of the product in its aes-
the TRL model of Mankins [37] in terms of the basic logic of thetic and functional aspects, and relevant product testing and
main levels in relation the newly proposed P-IRL. According to development. Prod-RLs differ from product innovations or the
these approaches, we contextualized product innovation success P-IRL framework since not all products result in successful
factors and relevant RLs for each of the proposed levels. innovations, and other proposed readiness levels are needed, as
1) Project Planning Readiness Levels (Proj-RL): As previ- presented in the P-IRL framework. See Table VI for Prod-RLs
ously mentioned, P-IRL framework is designed to support the descriptions.
project selection and investment decisions. The ability to select 4) Technology Capability Readiness Levels (TCRL): The
a relevant innovation project among a portfolio of projects is TCRLs range from basic research on technological solutions
widely acknowledged as a critical success factor in the product to the full impact on the manufacturing process development.
innovation literature [38], [39], [40], [41]. The unit of analysis Our proposed readiness levels, in fact, differ from TRL as they
for this readiness level is the project, considering its strategic and include different dimensions of technological development such
resource dimensions [42]. The purpose of the described Proj-RL as system [16], manufacturing [13], and intellectual property [7]
is to track progress from an initial stage of project analysis to readiness levels. TCRL also benefits from the product innovation
thoroughly planned and finalized project documentation. The literature as well [58]. These are summarized in Table VII.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9928 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 71, 2024

TABLE IV
DESCRIPTION FOR PROJECT PLANNING READINESS LEVELS

C. Integration of RLs of the P-IRL Framework a company may have a previously developed technology or a
product, and they may have a different starting point. Fig. 4(a)–
In Section IV-B, RLs are explained in detail separately for (c) represents different scenarios specific to the product innova-
each level. In this section, Table VIII and Fig. 4(a)–(c) present tions where it could be initiated from the following: First, the
the P-IRL Matrix to illustrate how different RLs can be inte- product innovation can be based on a product centric approach
grated and used collaboratively with various teams. This further [see Fig. 4(a)] where the innovation processes follow the ap-
supports our explanation of how the proposed RLs are relevant proaches such as NPD process [38], [39], [40], [41] where the
to the overall maturity of product project plans and readiness product design and its functions is the main concern. As shown
to execute the product development process in an integrated in Fig. 4(b), it can also be based on a market-centric approach
fashion. where the innovations are developed based on a model such as
P-IRL can be adjusted according to the requirements of the “market pull” [24], [64], [65], [93]. Finally, the P-IRL model
funding mechanism. It would be wrong to assume that every can be adjusted according to the technology-centric approach
organisation or fund provider would accept the same RL lev- [see Fig. 4(c)] where the innovations are generated from a
els and the risk appetite. For instance, a fund provider or a model such as “technology push” [24], [93]. Each of the pro-
mechanism may accept lower RLs and a higher risk for a funding posed scenarios would result in variation in the order of the
mechanism specific to the start-ups compared to those more RLs being initiated, as well as the actual level at which each
established organisations. Each project can also differ where commences.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9929

TABLE V
DESCRIPTION FOR MARKET ANALYSIS READINESS LEVELS

To illustrate the above discussion, in the example of the each integrated process is that where the innovation is generated
product-centric scenario the idea can be generated within a from or which team has the dominant role (the main team who
product development team (Prod-RL1) but this idea can be eval- is in charge of the innovation project) over a specific innovation
uated with the marketing team considering the market analysis project. Certainly, these dynamics between different teams may
(MRL2) and this information can be fed into the product devel- not be that apparent in projects where innovations are developed
opment team for Prod-RL2 where product design and features by smaller companies or multidisciplinary project-based teams.
are evaluated. The R&D team can commence from TCRL4 when Table VIII, P-IRL Matrix provides a more detailed explanation
they have detailed information about the product and technology with examples of how different teams may work on the product
to evaluate the relevant technology, capability and its suitability innovation projects in an integrated fashion.
for the product. Finally, when there is more clarity about the
product’s features and requirements, the project management
team can start with the first step—Proj-RL1 to initiate the project D. Application of P-IRL to Case Studies
development and documentation. The application of P-IRL Based on the prior discussion on how the RLs relate to each
specific to the integration of different levels and their specific other, Table IX summarizes different case studies based on
linkages can be also seen in Fig. 4(b) and (c). The key point in illustrative examples of the relevance of P-IRL when analyzing
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9930 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 71, 2024

TABLE VI
DESCRIPTIONS FOR PRODUCT PLANNING READINESS LEVELS (PROD-RLS)

cases [88], [89]. Hence, as explained in Section III, we aim to framework alongside critical aspects to consider for product in-
explain how the different levels in the P-IRL would pertain to the novation success. Hence, through the secondary data we explain
evidence presented in each of the cases by retrospectively ana- where the firm may have failed to adhere to the specific activities
lyzing unsuccessful innovations (e.g., Google Glass), successful and the related sequence of the RL dimensions proposed in the
innovations (GE products for bottom of the pyramid markets) P-IRL. By presenting such analysis we consider an ideal scenario
EU commission funded research programmes (e.g., Clean sky where the firm would successfully achieve each RL. More
project for sustainable aviation products). Lastly, following the specifically, reporting quotes which in some cases illustrated
logic of Table VIII explained in the previous section (RL ma- how there may have been a lack of considerations for a range
trix), we explained how the analysis of the cases also provides of levels. For example, the market related aspects in Google
evidence of the inter-relationship between RLs. Respectively, Glass were mainly related to potentially unsuitable customer
Table IX describes how the literature sources provide infor- segments, enabling the researchers to link this aspect to activities
mation for each assumption made, supported with examples relevant to different MRLs. Another illustrative example, is the
of quotes. Overall, it highlights the relevance of the P-IRL clean sky research program (EU funded project) where the P-IRL

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9931

TABLE VII
DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY READINESS LEVELS

dimensions would support the analysis of the value proposition achieved each level. Thus, for example, we do not assume that
of sustainable products within its overall project complexity. Google may have missed to create a minimum viable product
This latter point also builds on EU reports claiming the need to (Prod-RL 6). However, according to the logic and sequence of
include a more comprehensive readiness level model to assess our P-IRL, we consider that activities already relevant to Prod-
funded research programs [4]. RL 3 (examination of product design functions and options)
Lastly, through Fig. 5 we provide an illustration of the levels may have been neglected. Specifically, regarding the originality
achieved for the Google Glass case study. We selected this case and relevance of product design for defined customer segments
in particular because it provides a clear example of a radical [44]. The case description in [68] also provides evidence on
technological innovation which was instead unsuccessful due to the lack of market related aspects. For example, considerations
factors linked to all P-IRL dimensions. on public concerns related to wireless radiations. Thus, Fig. 5
Based on the evidence in Table IX, Fig. 5 illustrates the shows potential issues ranging from MRL 3. Moreover, the case
scenario for each readiness level and dimension for the Google of Google Glass shows a potential lack of integration between
Glass case study. For example, Fig. 5 shows a level of Prod-RL 2 available technologies (e.g., photo camera) and the relevance
which is related to the secondary data evidence of the lack of this to the device itself and the way users perceive it (e.g.,
of attention in “human design.” As previously mentioned, we lack of consideration for human design). For this reason, Fig. 5
consider a scenario where the firm would have successfully also portrays a scenario where levels from TCRL 2–7 may have
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9932 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 71, 2024

TABLE VIII
P-IRL MATRIX

Fig. 4. (a) Scenario for product-centric integrated processes for P-IRL frame-
work. (b) Scenario for market-centric integrated processes for P-IRL framework.
(c) Scenario for technology-centric integrated processes for P-IRL framework.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9933

Fig. 5. Google glass case analysis using P-IRL framework.

not been adequately addressed before the product technology P-IRL also presents unique nine level structures, distinct from
selection. Lastly, the project dimension as explained in Table IX existing readiness levels, such as MktRLs [7], [20]. For example,
is presented as Proj-RL 6 (Risks and contingencies). This is Hjorth and Brem [20] have proposed an MktRL considering ex-
justified by the risks related to such a radical product innovation isting scales related to demand and integration RLs. In contrast,
and its performance within the market. building on two literature streams, our framework presents a
more comprehensive set of factors ranging from market opportu-
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION nity identification to business model understanding and competi-
Our proposed P-IRL framework, underpinned by an SLR, tor analysis. This enables a more comprehensive assessment of
provides several contributions to the body of the literature of both readiness. Our second contribution is to studies examining how
product innovation and readiness levels. Our initial contribution to improve decision-making along innovation projects [6]. Our
is to propose the first RL specific to product innovations con- framework would be a great addition to the TRL based fund or in-
sisting of multiple dimensions. The dimensions proposed in this vestment decisions that are followed by funders or organizations.
model provides a new comprehensive approach, as a result of be- The IRL framework offers a new approach to comprehending the
ing founded upon recognized product innovation success factors key dimensions that innovation managers need to address within
and relevant RLs, through an integrated approach. In doing so, decision-making on new product developments. It provides a
we also proposed new RLs using the product success factors that comprehensive set of readiness dimensions that help with un-
were not previously evident in the literature. Our model can be derstanding the readiness of a product innovation and supporting
implemented by practitioners in multiple departments and teams investment decisions for relevant project stakeholders, including
towards product development plans and investment decision managers and external fund providers [4]. Hence, we offer a first
making which could include project, marketing, product and step toward creating a comprehensive and integrated framework
R&D teams or departments. The activities of these teams should that can provide a commonly understood approach for internal
be overseen by an innovation manager and can be coordinated and external stakeholders to comprehend the relative readiness
by a project manager. of a product innovation project. The introduced P-IRL frame-
Our new readiness level model contributes to prior RL’s, work should be used by the fund providers in addition to the
which to date have been specific to incremental product de- TRL to have a more comprehensive evaluation of the submitted
velopments [3] and business model innovations [5]. Hence they projects.
have failed to provide a comprehensive approach to assessing Third, our integrated P-IRL framework extends NPD related
readiness, and furthermore this has resulted in the lack of a preparations with the RL logic for a more comprehensive coor-
readiness level framework specific to product innovations. In dination of all product innovation project decisions related to the
doing so, we contribute to enabling improvements in innova- investments and approvals. This is related to our choice of using
tion management in practice [3]. Uniquely our readiness level the TRL model as a basic structure [3] and connecting this to the
approach highlights four specific dimensions of readiness that logic of other NPD studies [38]. Following the aim of our analy-
have not been addressed in prior studies, namely sis to structure a P-IRL framework to assess product innovation
1) Proj-RL; projects, we were able to propose this interrelated logic through
2) Prod-RLs; the evidence of product innovation articles, where several in-
3) MRL; novation dimensions are explicitly interrelated in our analysis
4) TCRL. [50], [58]. As explained in the P-IRL matrix (see Table VIII),
The approach adopted, combining prior RL studies with the development of product innovation projects requires an
the success factor literature provides a more comprehensive interaction between different teams. This matrix illustrates how
approach and framework than was previously evident. This is different teams can collaborate and engage considering different
evident not only in the four dimensions proposed but also in levels of four RLs. It is evident that the successful plans require
the content of each of those relative readiness levels. Hence, in information and engagement between teams.
addition to proposing unique dimensions not present in other Our new proposed product innovation readiness model has
frameworks in fact (e.g., project planning readiness level), our several benefits from an innovation management perspective.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9934 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 71, 2024

TABLE IX Our study implies that the assessment of NPD projects re-
CASE ANALYSIS USING RELATED P-IRL DIMENSIONS
quires moving beyond the temporality of project management
documents or TRL models that are being conducted, extending
this view through a different product innovation dimensions [80]
that offers a way of assessing in a comprehensive way. Our P-IRL
framework, enables us to assume that a low RL scores may reflect
the poor planning of a particular team or lack of coordination
between teams.
The rationale for this research was also based on policy-
makers researching on such assessment tools needed for product
innovation projects [4]. We suggest that our model should be
used for any funding decisions. The P-IRL framework can be
provided to project reviewers to assess how ready the project
is. The funders can allocate minimum thresholds to accept
the project applications. The projects can be reviewed with
interdisciplinary teams to make sure the considerations for dif-
ferent RLs are met before the investments are made. Also, the
project funders may ask the applicants to review their projects
according to different levels and resubmit their applications after
addressing the low RLs. At this stage, we do not propose a
minimal acceptance level for projects but as each project funding
conditions differ such as for those seed funds to the funds for
collaborative large projects, each funder should set their minimal
thresholds for RLs.
This article also illustrates with multiple cases why P-IRL
is important for product innovation investment decisions and
to increase the successful output of the product developments.
In doing so, we analyzed several cases from the literature in
retrospect [88], [89], demonstrating that the logic of assessing
a product innovation project through the P-IRL dimensions can
provide a useful framework to increase the chances of product
success. This was particularly evident for both Google Glass and
the GE products for bottom of the pyramid markets.
We build on recent studies assessing strengths and weaknesses
in innovation projects [6] and to the reviewed literature on
product innovation success factors. As this study was based
on an SLR approach and illustrations of case studies from the
secondary data, an empirical study should follow to test the
model in its proposed dimensions with a data from either fund
providers or companies’ data regarding the internal product
investment decisions. Second, as our model developed based on
an SLR approach, the proposed P-IRL framework may be limited
to the factors and RLs that are evident only in the literature but
there may be new factors or RLs that can be identified with
empirical data.
We propose future studies leverage the gaps on the theme of
IRL in order to emphasize the importance of different dimen-
sions. This will enable the path to understand the framework here
proposed in its structural limitation and to determine the levels
and scales of each RLs. Also, our framework does not propose
weights for each RLs toward the overall P-IRL score. This is, to
our knowledge, the main weakness of current readiness levels
and in other innovation assessment models [81]. Thus, further
research should extend the contributions of our framework by
introducing a weighted system and by also enriching each readi-
ness level. Also, a minimal threshold can be introduced for each
RL for successful product innovation investment decisions.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9935

APPENDIX
A. Product Innovation ABS Journal Quality Table

REFERENCE [16] J. B. Sauser, J. E. Ramirez-Marquez, D. Henry, and D. DiMarzio, “A

system maturity index for the systems engineering life cycle,” Int. J. Ind.
[1] J. C. Mankins, “Technology readiness levels,” Office of Space Access and Syst. Eng., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 673–691, 2008.
Technology, NASA, Washington, DC, USA, White Paper, Apr. 1995. [17] B. Sauser, R. Gove, E. Forbes, and J. E. Ramirez-Marquez, “Integration
[2] J. C. Mankins, “Approaches to strategic research and technology (R&T) maturity metrics: Development of an integration readiness level,” Inf.
analysis and road mapping,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 51, no. 1–9, pp. 3–21, Knowl. Syst. Manage., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 17–46, 2010.
Jul. 2002. [18] N. Islam, “Innovative manufacturing readiness levels (IMRLs): A new
[3] L. Tao, D. Probert, and R. Phaal, “Towards an integrated framework for readiness matrix,” Int. J. Nanomanufacturing, vol. 6, pp. 362–375,
managing the process of innovation,” Res. Develop. Manage., vol. 40, 2010.
no. 1, pp. 19–30, Dec. 2010. [19] J. E. Ramirez-Marquez and B. J. Sauser, “System development planning
[4] M. Doussineau, E. Arregui-Pabollet, N. Harrap, and F. Merida, via system maturity optimization,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 56,
“Drawing funding and financing scenarios for effective implemen- no. 3, pp. 533–548, Aug. 2009.
tation of smart specialisation strategies,” 2018. [Online]. Avail- [20] S. Solberg Hjorth and A. Brem, “How to assess market readiness for an
able: [Link] innovative solution: The case of heat recovery technologies for SMEs,”
ed3f-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-en Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 11, Nov. 2016, Art. no. 1152.
[5] J. D. Evans and R. O. Johnson, “Tools for managing early-stage business [21] B. Hicks, A. Larsson, S. Culley, and T. Larsson, “A methodology for
model innovation,” Res.-Technol. Manage., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 52–56, evaluating technology readiness during product development,” in Proc.
Sep. 2013. Int. Conf. Eng. Des., 2009, vol. 3, pp. 157–168.
[6] J. Frishammar, A. Richtnér, A. Brattström, M. Magnusson, and J. Björk, [22] P. H. Kobos, L. A. Malczynski, L. T. N. Walker, D. J. Borns, and G. T. Klise,
“Opportunities and challenges in the new innovation landscape: Implica- “Timing is everything: A technology transition framework for regulatory
tions for innovation auditing and innovation management,” Eur. Manage. and market readiness levels,” Technological Forecasting Social Change,
J., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 151–164, Apr. 2019. vol. 137, pp. 211–225, Dec. 2018.
[7] R. Hasenauer, A. Gschöpf, and C. Weber, “Technology readiness, market [23] Y.-I. Kwon and J.-K. Son, “A case study on the promising product
readiness and the triple bottom line: An empirical analysis of innovating selection indicators for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),”
startups in an incubator,” in Proc. Portland Int. Conf. Manage. Eng. J. Open Innov., Technol., Market, Complexity, vol. 4, no. 4, Nov. 2018,
Technol., 2016, pp. 1387–1428. Art. no. 56.
[8] S. Blank, “It’s time to play moneyball: The investment readiness level,” [24] F. Paun, “The demand readiness level scale as new proposed tool to
2013. [Online]. Available: [Link] hybridise market pull with technology push approaches in technology
to-play-moneyball-the-investment-readiness-level/ transfer practices,” in Proc. Technol. Transfer Glob. Economy, 2012,
[9] A. Olechowski, S. D. Eppinger, and N. Joglekar, “Technology readi- pp. 353–366.
ness levels at 40: A study of state-of-the-art use, challenges, and op- [25] C. Julienne, “Considerations for an innovation readiness level with the
portunities,” in Proc. Portland Int. Conf. Manage. Eng. Technol., 2015, technology and manufacturing readiness level indicators,” in Proc. IEA
pp. 2084–2094. Commitee Energy Res. Technol. - Model. Anal. Res. Develop. Priority
[10] Department of Defence, “Manufacturing readiness level (MRL) Setting Innov., 2016, pp. 2–25.
deskbook,” 2011. [Online]. Available: [Link] [26] M. Petticrew and H. Roberts, Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences.
Deskbook_V2.pdf Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2008.
[11] R. Mackey, R. Some, and A. Aljabri, “Readiness levels for spacecraft [27] K. Petersen, R. Feldt, S. Mujtaba, and M. Mattsson, “Systematic mapping
information technologies,” in Proc. IEEE Aerosp. Conf., 2003, vol. 1, studies in software engineering,” in Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Eval. Assessment
pp. 1–398. Softw. Eng., 2008, pp. 1–8.
[12] S. Yasseri, “Subsea system readiness level assessment,” Underwater Tech- [28] L. Pittaway, M. Robertson, K. Munir, D. Denyer, and A. Neely, “Network-
nol., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 77–92, Mar. 2013. ing and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence,” Int. J. Manage.
[13] S. Peters, “A readiness level model for new manufacturing technologies,” Rev., vol. 5/6, no. 3/4, pp. 137–168, Sep. 2004.
Prod. Eng., vol. 9, no. 5/6, pp. 647–654, Sep. 2015. [29] D. Moher, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
[14] H. Nakamura, Y. Kajikawa, and S. Suzuki, “Multi-level perspectives with analyses: The PRISMA statement,” Ann. Intern. Med., vol. 151, no. 4,
technology readiness measures for aviation innovation,” Sustain. Sci., Aug. 2009, Art. no. 264.
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 87–101, Sep. 2012. [30] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, “Towards a methodology for
[15] J. Rybicka, A. Tiwari, and G. A. Leeke, “Technology readiness level as- developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of
sessment of composites recycling technologies,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 112, systematic review,” Brit. J. Manage., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 207–222,
pp. 1001–1012, Jan. 2016. Sep. 2003.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9936 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 71, 2024

[31] M. Andresen and F. Bergdolt, “A systematic literature review on the [56] A. Griffin and A. L. Page, “An interim report on measuring product
definitions of global mindset and cultural intelligence – merging two development success and failure,” J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 10,
different research streams,” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage., vol. 28, no. 1, no. 4, pp. 291–308, Sep. 1993.
pp. 170–195, Oct. 2016. [57] J. F. de Medeiros, J. L. D. Ribeiro, and M. N. Cortimiglia, “Suc-
[32] S. Unalan and S. Ozcan, “Democratising systems of innovations based cess factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: A
on blockchain platform technologies,” J. Enterprise Inf. Manage., vol. 33, systematic literature review,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 65, pp. 76–86,
no. 6, pp. 1511–1536, Dec. 2020. Feb. 2014.
[33] A. M. Wagenschwanz, “The identity of entrepreneurs: Providing concep- [58] R. Balachandra and J. H. Friar, “Factors for success in R&D projects
tual clarity and future directions,” Int. J. Manage. Rev., vol. 23, no. 1, and new product innovation: A contextual framework,” IEEE Trans. Eng.
pp. 64–84, Oct. 2020. Manage., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 276–287, Aug. 1997.
[34] M. D. J. Peters, “Managing and coding references for systematic reviews [59] D. Galvez, M. Enjolras, M. Camargo, V. Boly, and J. Claire, “Firm
and scoping reviews in endnote,” Med. Reference Serv. Quart., vol. 36, readiness level for innovation projects: A new decision-making tool for
no. 1, pp. 19–31, Jan. 2017. innovation managers,” Administ. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, Mar. 2018, Art. no. 6.
[35] P. Kivimaa, W. Boon, S. Hyysalo, and L. Klerkx, “Towards a typology [60] R. J. Calantone, C. Anthony di Benedetto, and S. Bhoovaraghavan, “Ex-
of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a amining the relationship between degree of innovation and new product
research agenda,” Res. Policy, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1062–1075, May 2019. success,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 143–148, Jun. 1994.
[36] T. Greenhalgh, G. Robert, F. Macfarlane, P. Bate, O. Kyriakidou, and [61] R. T. Hise, L. O’Neal, A. Parasuraman, and J. U. McNeal, “Mar-
R. Peacock, “Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta- keting/R&D interaction in new product development: Implications for
narrative approach to systematic review,” Social Sci. Med., vol. 61, no. 2, new product success rates,” J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 417–430, Jul. 2005. pp. 142–155, Jun. 1990.
[37] J. C. Mankins, “Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective,” Acta [62] H. Ernst, W. D. Hoyer, and C. Rübsaamen, “Sales, marketing, and
Astronautica, vol. 65, no. 9/10, pp. 1216–1223, Nov. 2009. research-and-development cooperation across new product development
[38] R. G. Cooper, “The drivers of success in new-product development,” Ind. stages: Implications for success,” J. Marketing, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 80–92,
Marketing Manage., vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 36–47, Jan. 2019. Sep. 2010.
[39] R. G. Cooper, “The invisible success factors in product innovation,” J. [63] M. Christofi, D. Vrontis, and E. Leonidou, “Product innovation and
Product Innov. Manage., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 115–133, Mar. 1999. cause-related marketing success,” Marketing Intell. Plan., vol. 32, no. 2,
[40] R. G. Cooper and E. J. Kleinschmidt, “Success factors in product innova- pp. 174–189, Apr. 2014.
tion,” Ind. Marketing Manage., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 215–223, Aug. 1987. [64] N. Boso, J. W. Cadogan, and V. M. Story, “Entrepreneurial orientation
[41] R. G. Cooper and E. J. Kleinschmidt, “Winning businesses in product and market orientation as drivers of product innovation success: A study
development: The critical success factors,” Res.-Technol. Manage., vol. 50, of exporters from a developing economy,” Int. Small Bus. J., vol. 31, no. 1,
no. 3, pp. 52–66, May 2007. pp. 57–81, Feb. 2013.
[42] K. Cormican and D. O’Sullivan, “Auditing best practice for effective prod- [65] J. Liu and J. Su, “Market orientation, technology orientation and product
uct innovation management,” Technovation, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 819–829, innovation success: Insights from CoPS,” Int. J. Innov. Manage., vol. 18,
Oct. 2004. no. 4, Aug. 2014, Art. no. 1450020.
[43] H. Sun and W. C. Wing, “Critical success factors for new product de- [66] M. P. Knudsen, “The relative importance of interfirm relationships and
velopment in the Hong Kong toy industry,” Technovation, vol. 25, no. 3, knowledge transfer for new product development success,” J. Product
pp. 293–303, Mar. 2005. Innov. Manage., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 117–138, Mar. 2007.
[44] M. A. Maidique and B. J. Zirger, “A study of success and failure in product [67] S. Kam-Sing Wong, “The influence of green product competitiveness on
innovation: The case of the U.S. electronics industry,” IEEE Trans. Eng. the success of green product innovation,” Eur. J. Innov. Manage., vol. 15,
Manage., vol. EM-31, no. 4, pp. 192–203, Nov. 1984. no. 4, pp. 468–490, Sep. 2012.
[45] B. Verworn, C. Herstatt, and A. Nagahira, “The fuzzy front end of Japanese [68] N. Gozuacik, C. O. Sakar, and S. Ozcan, “Social media-based opinion
new product development projects: Impact on success and differences retrieval for product analysis using multi-task deep neural networks,”
between incremental and radical projects,” Res. Develop. Manage., vol. 38, Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 183, Nov. 2021, Art. no. 115388.
no. 1, pp. 1–19, Dec. 2008. [69] G. F. Dubos and J. H. Saleh, “Spacecraft technology portfolio: Probabilistic
[46] R. K. Moenaert, W. E. Souder, A. D. Meyer, and D. Deschoolmeester, modeling and implications for responsiveness and schedule slippage,” Acta
“R&D-marketing integration mechanisms, communication flows, and in- Astronautica, vol. 68, no. 7/8, pp. 1126–1146, Apr. 2011.
novation success,” J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 31–45, [70] A. A. R. Setiawan, A. Sulaswatty, Y. Meliana, and A. Haryono, “Inno-
Jan. 1994. vation readiness assessment toward research commercialization: Case of
[47] B. Verworn, “A structural equation model of the impact of the ‘fuzzy front surfactants for food processing,” Int. J. Innov., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 180–193,
end’ on the success of new product development,” Res. Policy, vol. 38, May 2018.
no. 10, pp. 1571–1581, Dec. 2009. [71] R. Shishko, D. H. Ebbeler, and G. Fox, “NASA technology assessment
[48] D. Kandemir, R. Calantone, and R. Garcia, “An exploration of organiza- using real options valuation,” Syst. Eng., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2003.
tional factors in new product development success,” J. Bus. Ind. Marketing, [72] J. D. Smith, “An alternative to technology readiness levels for
vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 300–310, Aug. 2006. non-developmental item (NDI) software,” in Proc. 38th Annu.
[49] B. Weber and S. Heidenreich, “When and with whom to cooperate? Inves- Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., Big Island, HI, USA, 2005, p. 315a,
tigating effects of cooperation stage and type on innovation capabilities doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.77.
and success,” Long Range Plan., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 334–350, Apr. 2018. [73] G. L. Ragatz, R. B. Handfield, and T. V. Scannell, “Success factors for
[50] M. V. Tatikonda and S. R. Rosenthal, “Technology novelty, project com- integrating suppliers into new product development,” J. Product Innov.
plexity, and product development project execution success: A deeper look Manage., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 190–202, Oct. 2003.
at task uncertainty in product innovation,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., [74] J. Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Newbury
vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 74–87, Feb. 2000. Park, CA, USA: Sage, 2015.
[51] A. Griffin, “PDMA research on new product development practices: Up- [75] A. L. Porter and S. W. Cunningham, Tech Mining: Exploiting New
dating trends and benchmarking best practices,” J. Product Innov. Manage., Technologies for Competitive Advantage. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley,
vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 429–458, Nov. 1997. 2005.
[52] F. A. Johne and P. A. Snelson, “Success factors in product innovation: A [76] A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur, Business Model Generation: A Handbook
selective review of the literature,” J. Product Innov. Manage., vol. 5, no. 2, for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, vol. 1. Hoboken, NJ,
pp. 114–128, Jun. 1988. USA: Wiley, 2010.
[53] A. Paladino, “Investigating the drivers of innovation and new product suc- [77] H. Evanschitzky, M. Eisend, R. J. Calantone, and Y. Jiang, “Success
cess: A comparison of strategic orientations,” J. Product Innov. Manage., factors of product innovation: An updated meta-analysis,” J. Product Innov.
vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 534–553, Nov. 2007. Manage., vol. 29, pp. 21–37, Jun. 2012.
[54] S. Holland, K. Gaston, and J. Gomes, “Critical success factors for cross- [78] R. Magnaye, B. Sauser, P. Patanakul, D. Nowicki, and W. Randall, “Earned
functional teamwork in new product development,” Int. J. Manage. Rev., readiness management for scheduling, monitoring and evaluating the
vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 231–259, Sep. 2000. development of complex product systems,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 32,
[55] S. Hart, “Dimensions of success in new product development: An ex- no. 7, pp. 1246–1259, Oct. 2014.
ploratory investigation,” J. Marketing Manage., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 23–41, [79] E. H. Conrow, “Estimating technology readiness level coefficients,” J.
Jan. 1993. Spacecraft Rockets, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 146–152, Jan. 2011.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 OZCAN et al.: PRODUCT INNOVATION READINESS LEVEL FRAMEWORK 9937

[80] M. S. Salerno, L. A. de V. Gomes, D. O. da Silva, R. B. Bagno, and S. L. [89] D. J. Smith, “The sustainable and green engine (SAGE) – Aircraft engine
T. U. Freitas, “Innovation processes: Which process for which project?,” of the future?,” Int. J. Entrepreneurship Innov., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 256–262,
Technovation, vol. 35, pp. 59–70, Jan. 2015. 2016, doi: 10.1177/1465750316672601.
[81] E. Kujawski, “Analysis and critique of the system readiness level,” [90] A. Mcphearson and R. Holt, “Knowledge, learning and small firm
IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Syst., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 979–987, growth: A systematic review of the evidence,” Res. Policy, vol. 36, no. 2,
Jul. 2013. pp. 172–192, 2007, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2006.10.001.
[82] A. Zerfass, “Innovation readiness: A framework for enhancing corpora- [91] M. M. Crossan and M. Apaydin, “A multi-dimensional framework orga-
tions and regions by innovation communication,” Innov. Journalism, vol. 2, nizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature,” J. Manage.,
no. 8, pp. 2–27. vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1154–1191, Jan. 2010.
[83] H. J. An and S.-J. Ahn, “Emerging technologies—Beyond the chasm: As- [92] K. Kusunoki, “Incapability of technological capability: A case study on
sessing technological forecasting and its implication for innovation man- product innovation in the Japanese facsimile machine industry,” J. Product
agement in Korea,” Technological Forecasting Social Change, vol. 102, Innov. Manage., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 368–382, 1997.
pp. 132–142, Jan. 2016. [93] G. Di Stefano, A. Gambardella, and G. Verona, “Technology push and
[84] Z. Juan, L. Wei, and P. Xiamei, “Research on technology transfer readiness demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and
level and its application in university technology innovation management,” future research directions,” Res. Policy, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1283–1295,
in Proc. Int. Conf. E-Bus. E-Government, 2010, pp. 1904–1907. 2012.
[85] D. Klar, J. Frishammar, V. Roman, and D. Hallberg, “A technology readi- [94] NVivo, “Coding comparison query,” [Online]. Available: [Link]
ness level scale for iron and steel industries,” Ironmaking Steelmaking, [Link]/12/win/v12.1.112-d3ea61/Content/queries/coding-
vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 494–499, Mar. 2016. [Link]
[86] G. T. Jesus and M. F. Chagas, Jr., “Using systems architecture views to [95] E. Cinar, P. Trott, and C. Simms, “A systematic review of barriers to
assess integration readiness levels,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 69, public sector innovation process,” Public Manage. Rev., vol. 21, 2019,
no. 6, pp. 3902–3912, Dec. 2022. pp. 264–290, 2019.
[87] Z. Tompkins, M. Grenn, and B. Roberts, “Improving system maturity [96] A. Bolor, “Backcasting frugally innovative smart sustainable future cities,”
assessments by incorporating a design structure matrix,” IEEE Trans. Eng. J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 383, 2023, Art. no. 135300.
Manage., vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 122–140, Feb. 2020. [97] CABS, “Academic journal guide (methodology),” 2018. [Online]. Avail-
[88] S. Malodia and A. Jaiswal, “GE in India: Changing healthcare,” in Sage able: [Link]
Business Cases. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage, 2015. [Link]

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 12,2025 at [Link] UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.