# Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) in the Era of Co-Creation
## 5 Conclusions and Future Work  
The producer innovation model that completely dominated the innovation scene in the past is no longer the only one in use. Both the user and the open collaborative model are increasingly entering the innovation scheme and shaping the course of innovation. [PERSON] (1973) provides a comprehensive review of the economics of these three models to understand the conditions under which each presents benefits, as well as understanding the mechanisms at play that may erode this advantage. In our work, we were guided by a practical requirement to push a specific scientific development, a novel energy forecasting algorithm, up the TRL ladder. We soon realized that, if considered as a standalone development, this could never be achieved. We found that a way to bypass this inherent limitation was to resort to collaborative schemes which bore the potential to drastically reposition the specific component and leverage its value in the collaborative development. We also believe that this empirical result has a high generalization potential and can provide guidance and a new mindset for similar endeavors. Such cases, as well as the many hybrids that may result therefrom, need to be meticulously considered in the light of the current TRL formulation. The TRL approach is a product of the 20 th century and reflects the dominant producer innovation model of that period. We have empirically found that this model does not allow us to see the true potential value as it emerges in our time; a co-creative (and not just a producer) mindset is required for such a refined and adapted model to clearly emerge. To this end, we proposed an amendment to the TRL ladder scheme to address this type of opportunity. Indeed, similar empirical evidence needs to be collected and similar investigations will need to be performed over all possible hybrids, bringing together producer, collaborative, and user innovation, to see if and how these can be described by the current TRL formulation, or if some amendments are due, such as those suggested in our particular hybrid case study, merging producer and open collaborative innovation. Even more dynamically, one needs to consider how such setups can unleash new value in innovative approaches which, if left trapped in the producer model and mindset, cannot reach high on the TRL ladder. As we approach the end of this treatise, we find it pertinent to refer again to [PERSON] and his robust, empirical evidence-based market generating approach to innovation. His conceptual framework clearly challenges any 'newness'-centered TRL formulation to describe the evolution of the value generating innovation. Indeed, we believe this would be a fascinating area of future research, similar to the case of co-creation discussed in more detail in this paper. In the light of related empirical evidence, we would once again need to consider an even more pervasive overhaul of the current TRL formulation which, by reflecting almost exclusively the 'producer innovation' and the 'newness' concepts, appears to be inadequate for providing an effective structuring of the maturity of a multifold and multipurpose, modern-era innovation. Of course, the traditional approach to innovation and its accompanying assessment schemes are well present and bound to remain dominant in the innovation arena. To this extent, TRLs will still serve as a common language and continue to play a valuable role in guiding technology development, assessing readiness, and managing risks. In this work, we showed that there is important evidence that, more and more, this innovation model is challenged by novel approaches, such as collaborative and co-creative schemes. Further evidence in the same direction arises from a robust consideration of innovation value. All this will necessitate some reconsideration and adjustment of the typical, current TRL approach, so that it can better fulfill its purpose in the current moment. Conceptualization, S.Y. and N.S. ; methodology, S.Y. and N.S. ; formal analysis, S.Y. and N.S. ; investigation, S.Y.