QUANTITATIVE BENCHMARK FOR 

TIME TO MARKET (QBTM) FOR NEW 

MATERIALS INNOVATION: 

AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

January 12, 2016
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 2

The overarching goal of the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI)—“to 

enable the discovery, development, manufacturing, and deployment of 

advanced materials at least twice as fast as possible today, at a fraction 

of the cost”—is difficult to measure without first knowing the timeline for 

commercial deployment that today’s new materials require. To address 

this knowledge gap, Milestone 2.3.3 of the MGI Strategic Plan1 calls for 

benchmarking studies to quantify the time to market for materials.

To date, there has been no consistent methodology used across 

materials, applications, and industries for analysis of the time to market 

for materials innovation. Time to market for materials innovation varies 

significantly by material type, function/application, and industry. In 

addition, time to market is already evolving for many materials classes 

and is driven by many factors, including the application of MGI-like tools 

and approaches. 

This report uses the following structure to evaluate existing time-tomarket innovation models and put forward a proposed analytical 

framework for materials innovation:

Review and discussion of key existing time-to-market innovation 

models with respect to their utility as an analytical framework for 

materials innovation

Proposal of a new analytical framework tailored to the broad 

spectrum of materials innovation and incorporating the best 

elements of existing models

Assessment of the validity and value of this model in the context of 

two case studies detailing real-life materials innovation processes. 

The resulting framework aims to establish a basis for future case studies 

as well as provide individual organizations with approaches and tools for 

self-assessment against relevant industry benchmarks.

1

2

3

OVERVIEW
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 3

STAGE-GATE®

The Stage-Gate approach has been in use since its development in 1960, and is a “conceptual 

and operational map for moving new products from idea to launch and beyond”. 2 It describes 

a series of project team work stages with intervening gates where go/no go decisions for project 

continuation are made based on specific criteria. A typical five-stage process is shown in Figure 1.3

The first three stages—Discovery, Scoping, and Build Business Case—are often termed the “fuzzy 

front end” of the process, and in some refinements collapsed into a single stage. Likewise, Stages 3 

and 4—Development and Testing and Validation—can be separate or combined depending on the 

risk and complexity of the project. The fifth stage—Launch—is the transition to the market. 

The Stage-Gate approach is a useful construct for project management and highlights the 

important stages of a product-oriented activity. It does not explicitly address manufacturingrelated areas, although these would be intrinsic to a successful product development and launch. 

In addition, the Stage-Gate process requires a significant effort on the definition and execution 

of the go/no go decisions at each gate. While time to market can be affected by decision-making 

bottlenecks, these activities tend to be more organizational in nature and less impacted by the 

predominately technical Materials Genome Initiative (MGI)-like development efforts. 

TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS

Technology Readiness Levels, also known as TRLs, were initially developed by 

NASA as a measure of technical maturity in the product development process. 

They were subsequently adapted and used by the Department of Defense, 

Department of Energy, industry, and others to better reflect the needs of specific 

products.4 The nine TRL categories of NASA’s version are shown in Figure 2.

In application, TRLs are often grouped to produce more concise scales or 

classifications. In one adapted version, just four research levels are identified: 

Basic Research (TRL 1-3), Development (TRL 3-5), Demonstration (TRL 6-7), and 

Early Deployment (TRL 8-9).5 Many organizations find consolidation to broader 

classifications to be a more practical application of the tool.

1 EXISTING TIME-TO-MARKET MODELS

Figure 1: The Stage-Gate Approach

Figure 2: Technology 

Readiness Levels
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 4

MANUFACTURING READINESS LEVELS

Manufacturing Readiness Levels, or MRLs, are a set of definitions that assess manufacturing 

maturity, risk, and readiness.6 The MRL system is also presented on a numerical scale, which 

enables comparison and evaluation in concert with the TRL scale. In the case of the most current 

implementation of MRLs, a 1–10 scale is used with definitions as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Manufacturing Readiness Levels 

Manufacturing Readiness Level Definition

MRL 1 Basic Manufacturing Implications Identified

MRL 2 Manufacturing Concepts Identified

MRL 3 Manufacturing Proof of Concept Developed

MRL 4 Capability to produce the technology in a laboratory 

environment

MRL 5 Capability to produce prototype components in a 

production relevant environment

MRL 6 Capability to produce a prototype system or subsystem 

in a production relevant environment

MRL 7

Capability to produce systems, subsystems, 

or components in a production representative 

environment

MRL 8 Pilot line capability demonstrated; Ready to begin Low 

Rate Initial Production

MRL 9 Low rate production demonstrated; Capability in place 

to begin Full Rate Production

MRL 10 Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production 

practices in place

The MRLs are further parsed in terms of nine different “threads” that make up the many 

dimensions of successful manufacturing. One of these is a “Materials” thread that includes aspects 

such as materials maturity, availability, supply chain, and special handling issues. This provides a 

useful and somewhat more detailed framework for considering the manufacturing aspects of the 

materials innovaton process. 

Notably, some organizations have developed combined readiness scales. For example, the 

European Association for Research and Technology Organizations (EARTO) has published an 

analysis of TRLs and incorporated other considerations, including manufacturability as well as 

market and organizational issues, into a combined scale.5
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 5

QUESTEK STAGE-GATE PROCESS

QuesTek Innovations LLC has adapted the Stage-Gate process to their materials innovation work.7

As shown in Figure 3, it is a three-phase process with three associated gates (indicated by green 

circles). 

The Concept phase (Phase I) incorporates three substages: Goal Definition, Concept Generation, 

and Concept Evaluation. This phase relies heavily on inputs from the end user to establish the 

design goals. QuesTek uses its computational materials design-driven capabilities to generate 

approaches that meet these goals and evaluates each approach computationally or at the bench 

scale. The gate is a design review with the customer to determine whether or not concepts should 

move into the Design and Development stage. 

The Design & Development 

phase (Phase II) includes two 

major sub-stages: Model/Design/

Prototype and Scale-Up. The first 

sub-stage involves modeling, 

designing, and prototyping Phase 

1’s concepts through an iterative 

process and culminates at a gate 

where the prototype’s properties 

are assessed before moving on 

to the next sub-stage. ScaleUp—or moving the product into 

commercial-scale production—is 

critical to the success of materials 

innovation products, which can 

face challenges shifting from 

the lab scale into a large-scale 

manufacturing environment. 

The Qualify phase (Phase III) is similar to the “Launch” stage of the standard Stage-Gate process. It 

includes two sub-stages—Design Allowables Testing and Component Demo—which reflect highperformance, often aerospace-dominated applications in which QuesTek’s materials have been 

implemented in thus far. As a result, this framework may be too specific to QuesTek’s products to 

be effectively used in other materials innovation applications. 

In addition to the Stage-Gate process implementation, QuesTek also uses the Technology 

Readiness Level framework as a measure of the maturation of materials innovation. 

Figure 3: Questek Stage-Gate Process
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 6

The Materials Genome Initiative white 

paper8 presents a seven-stage materials 

innovation process (see Figure 4), although 

it does not provide a description of each 

stage nor references to the source for the 

model. While the model maintains the 

general flow of steps of the Stage-Gate 

process and reflects aspects of materialsspecific activities, it appears to focus on 

high-performance systems, due to its 

inclusion of discrete steps for Systems/

Design Integration and Certification, 

which are not universally part of materials 

innovation. It is also unclear how a 

Certification step can occur prior to a 

Manufacturing step, as most certification 

processes require a stable manufacturing process to be established first. 

The MGI white paper states that the discrete nature of the seven stages and their execution by 

“different engineering or scientific teams at different institutions” with few opportunities for 

feedback between stages is an impediment to the pace at which the process moves forward. While 

recognizing that some steps need to be sequential (e.g., Certification cannot occur before Systems 

Design), the MGI model is proposed to be more circular in its approach, allowing “design, systems 

engineering, and manufacturing activities to overlap and interact” to reduce time to market (see 

concept in Figure 5). However, it is difficult to see how this type of model could be implemented in 

practice; actual case studies indicate that the more linear approach is closer to reality.

MATERIALS GENOME INITIATIVE MATERIALS INNOVATION PROCESS 

Figure 4: Materials Genome Initiative Materials Innovation Process

Figure 5: Conceptual acceleration of materials innovation envisioned through the Materials Genome Initiative
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 7

2 DEVELOPMENT OF AN INITIAL QBTM MODEL

The initial OBTM model built upon existing time-to-market models to create a four-stage 

framework applicable to a range of materials innovations (see Table 2). 

Stage Step Activity QuesTek Stage-Gate 

Connection

TRL/MRL 

Overlap

Proposed 

Materials 

Readiness 

Level

Discovery

START

Intent to seek a new material for 

a given application or end use is 

articulated

“Goal Definition”

TRL 1-3/ 

MRL 1-3 MatRL 1 PROCESS Experimentation and modeling at 

bench or lab scale

“Concept Generation, 

Concept Evaluation, 

Model, and Design”

END Candidate material composition(s) 

or chemistry(ies) are identified

Development

START

Synthesis of candidate material 

composition(s) or chemistry(ies) 

for application or end-use testing 

is begun

TRL 4-6/ 

MRL 4-6 PROCESS MatRL 2 Scale-up, including lab and pilot 

scale synthesis and evaluation

“Prototype” and 

“Scale-up”

END

A materials composition/

chemistry and synthesis approach 

are identified for transition to 

commercial manufacturing scale

Manufacturing

START

Trials of selected materials 

composition/chemistry and 

synthesis at production scale for 

manufacturing are begun

TRL 7-8/ 

MRL 7-8 MatRL 3 PROCESS

Production trials, product 

and process evaluation and 

modification

“Design allowables 

testing”

END

A production-scale process and 

resulting product is finalized and 

standards established

Deployment

START A commercial product is available

TRL 9/ 

MRL 9-10 MatRL 4

PROCESS

Application-specific tailoring 

and supporting technology 

development

“Component Demo”

END The product is used in the first 

commercial application

Table 2: Materials Genome Initiative Materials Innovation Process
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 8

3 ASSESSMENT OF THE INITIAL QBTM MODEL

Two approaches were taken to evaluate the initial QBTM model: QBTM webinars and Materials 

Innovation Case Studies. Feedback and findings from these two activities informed the final 

iteration of the proposed model. 

QBTM WEBINARS

Two webinars, identical in content, were presented on October 2 and October 14, 2015. Titled 

“Time-to-Market Materials Innovation Models: An MGI Benchmarking Project,” the webinars 

presented background on time-to-market materials innovation models as well as the initial 

proposed model. These webinars allowed attendees to provide feedback via an online chat 

function. The webinar recording is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXeVOawM_

zU. No inputs that changed the proposed model were received. 

MATERIALS INNOVATION CASE STUDIES

In a separate activity, two materials innovation case studies were developed, one for a structural 

material (Ferrium® M54, a high performance steel alloy) and one for a functional material (Gorilla 

Glass 3®, a high performance glass). During the development of these case studies, the initial 

QBTM model was reviewed with external partners to obtain their feedback and analyzed in terms 

of its application to actual materials innovations. 

The following considerations informed the development of the model:

1. The nomenclature for the four stages reflects the structure of the Materials Genome Initiative 

goal: discovery, development, manufacturing, and deployment 

2. This model decreases the granularity and number of stages relative to typical Stage-Gate or 

the MGI models to focus on the four main elements. Correspondence to the QuesTek stage 

gate process is noted in the model description, as it is most closely aligned with materials 

innovation.

3. To quantify time to market, the beginning and end points of each stage are needed. For the 

proposed model, they are treated as occurring as a sequential series even though there can 

be overlaps in real cases.

4. The proposed model recognizes the relevance of the TRL and MRL designations, especially 

as materials are ultimately incorporated into products and manufacturing systems, noting 

the approximate corresponding TRL/MRL designation for each stage. In addition, the model 

proposes a Materials Readiness Level, or MatRL, designation for each stage as a possible 

approach from better integration with the TRL/MRL construct. Again, a lesser degree of 

granularity is needed for this more general model.
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 9

A key finding from both case studies is that the Discovery stage in the initial model was not an 

accurate description of the earliest stage process for these two innovations. The term “Design” 

was recommended as a substitute, recognizing that at least in these two cases, the earliest stage 

efforts were more targeted and based on existing data and knowledge rather than an unexpected 

discovery. This is an important distinction, since the so-called “fuzzy front end” of the innovation 

process is often where much of the time variability from process to process resides. 

PROPOSED ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR 

THE QUANTITATIVE BENCHMARK FOR TIME 

TO MARKET FOR MATERIALS INNOVATION

Based on the above discussion and with the modifications based on the materials innovation case 

studies, a final model resulting from this work is proposed in Figure 6.

4

Figure 6: Proposed Analytical Framework for Time to Market for Materials Innovation

Modeling and 

experimentation at 

bench or lab scale 

Candidate material 

composition(s) or 

microstructure(s) are 

identified

Trials of selected 

materials 

composition/ 

microstructure 

and synthesis at 

production scale for 

manufacturing

Production trials, 

product and process 

evaluation and 

modification

A productionscale process and 

resulting product 

are finalized 

and standards/ 

specifications 

established

A commercial 

material product is 

available

Application-specific 

tailoring and 

supporting technology 

development 

The complete 

product is used in 

the first commercial 

application.

Synthesis of lab scale 

candidate material 

composition(s) or 

microstructure(s) for 

application or end-use 

testing

Scale-up, including 

lab and pilot scale 

synthesis and 

evaluation.

A materials 

composition/ 

microstructure and 

synthesis approach are 

identified for transition 

to commercial 

manufacturing scale

START PROCESS ENDSTART PROCESS ENDSTART PROCESS ENDSTART PROCESS END

STAGE ONE

DESIGN

STAGE TWO

DEVELOPMENT

STAGE THREE

MANUFACTURING

STAGE FOUR

DEPLOYMENT

Intent to seek a new 

material for a given 

application or end 

use is articulated 
Quantitative Benchmark for Time to Market (QBTM) for New Materials Innovation: An Analytical Framework 10

1. Materials Genome Initiative Strategic Plan, December 2014, https://www.whitehouse.gov/

sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/mgi_strategic_plan_-_dec_2014.pdf, accessed 

01/06/16.

2. R. G. Cooper, “The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process-Update, What’s New and NextGen 

Systems”, adapted from a paper published in Journal of Product Innovation Management, 

v. 25, no. 3, May 2008, pp. 212-232, http://www.stage-gate.net/downloads/wp/wp_30.pdf, 

accessed 12/30/2015. 

3. “Stage-Gate®-Your Roadmap to New Product Development”, http://www.prod-dev.com/stagegate.php, accessed 01/06/16.

4. Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, DOE G413434-4A, Sept. 15, 2011, https://www.

directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0413.3-EGuide-04a, accessed 12/30/15.

5. “The TRL Scale as a Research & Innovation Policy Tool, EARTO Recommendations”. April 30, 

2014, http://www.earto.eu/fileadmin/content/03_Publications/The_TRL_Scale_as_a_R_I_

Policy_Tool_-_EARTO_Recommendations_-_Final.pdf, accessed 01/05/16.

6. Materials Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook, Version 2.0, May 2011, http://www.dodmrl.com/

MRL_Deskbook_V2.pdf, accessed 12/3/015.

7. “Stage Gate Development Process”, QuesTek Innovations LLC, http://www.questek.com/

design-and-development.html, accessed 12/30/15.

8. “Materials Genome Initiative for Global Competitiveness”, June 2011, https://www.whitehouse.

gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/materials_genome_initiative-final.pdf, accessed 

12/3/0/15.

REFERENCES