# Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) in the Era of Co-Creation
## 2 Related Work
Within this context, for innovations to produce the outcomes that matter, it is important that the key stakeholders are involved in the design [34] and, hence, the TRL is adequate. According to [PERSON], the open innovation model enables the advancement of valuable technologies both within and outside the current business models, promoting growth through investments [35]. Thus, once again, the question emerges of whether the current TRL model can highlight the true and effective readiness of these innovation developments and suggest the next natural step in ascending the maturity ladder, as there are studies that suggest that TRLs have shortcomings in manufacturing environments [36] because of their imprecise interpretation and complex success factors [37] and that they fall short in assessing integration readiness and compatibility with human capabilities and limitations [38]. It is also important to distinguish between open collaboration and co-creation. Although a co-creative setup may also be an open, collaborative one, this is not always the case. Co-creation may also apply in completely restricted, multistakeholder setups, as it may also exist in a closed, collaborative environment, where the typical producer innovation coexists with open collaborative aspects. This scheme is the one that underpinned our empirical case and to which we will turn in the next section. A radically different approach to innovation and its assessment was introduced by Harvard professor [PERSON] and his co-authors in their seminal book _The Prosperity Paradox_[39]. In this work, [PERSON] et al. provide a compelling historical description of numerous incidents of so-called market-generating innovations and how they have benefited not only their initiators but, far more importantly, the public domain, having pulled in many subsequent investments for social infrastructure. The approach suggested by [PERSON] et al. is radically different because it pays little attention to the 'newness' of a development, a trait we typically consider as defining innovation. Instead, they take a value-driven view, whereby they assess innovation not in terms of newness but in terms of its market-generation potential. In such an approach, the traditional TRL model is seriously challenged, as its very foundations, rooted in the newness concept, are questioned. In his research and in this book, in particular, [PERSON] recounts numerous cases stripped of any 'newness' that, however, excelled in terms of market generation, especially in emerging economies. To be fair, one has to credit [PERSON] as the first to clearly trace the line between 'invention' fostering newness and 'innovation' fostering value. Here is how he puts it in his landmark _Fundamentals of Economic Development_ (1949): 'Although entrepreneurs of course may be inventors just as they may be capitalists, they are inventors not by nature of their function but by coincidence and vice versa'. Further, the innovation which it is the function of entrepreneurs to carry out need not necessarily be inventions at all. It is, therefore, not advisable--and it may be downright misleading--to stress the element of invention as much as many writers do. Thus, [PERSON] clearly draws the line between the two terms. Innovation is, for the first time, clearly not a synonym for invention.