## 3 Method
This helps avoid engaging in projects that rely on unproven or purely theoretical technologies, thus mitigating the risk of technical failure or infeasibility. Setting both thresholds at level 2 ensures that innovation efforts focus on initiatives with a minimal level of technological viability and environmental readiness. Based on the methodology, we designed a tool consisting of a matrix with rows representing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) levels and columns representing the Acatech maturity levels. Each cell in the matrix represents the intersection of a TRL and an Acatech maturity level, providing a clear indication of the R&D activity's positioning. This matrix facilitates strategic planning for implementing the activity effectively. The tool is shown in Figure 1, and it is composed of three areas:  
* Red area (corresponding to TRL 1 and Acatech MI 1), representative of: (i) immature technology and organization; (ii) technology not ready for implementation or integration, likely in early research, prototype, or conceptual stage; (iii) technology carrying high risk, i.e., not actionable yet. * Green area (corresponding to TRL 2-5 and Acatech MI 2-6), representative of: (i) technology in development or validation stages; (ii) technology with basic components proven that may be integrated in a laboratory or pilot setting; (iii) technology with potential for application, but still requiring testing, refinement, and scale-up; (iv) promising technologies that could be implemented in controlled environments or pilot projects; (v) technologies representing a bridge between R&D and practical deployment--a critical zone for innovation managers. In these stages the organization may start planning for future integration, especially if Acatech maturity is high. * Light blue area (corresponding to TRL 6-9 and Acatech MI 2-6), representative of: (i) mature and validated technology, proven in operational environments; (ii) technology that has been tested successfully in real-world conditions and is ready for scaling or deployment; (iii) feasible immediate implementation, especially if the organization's Acatech maturity is also high; (iv) technologies considered for strategic rollout, competitive advantage, or digital transformation efforts; (v) strategic focus shifting from technical validation to business integration, training, and change management. For each axis of the matrix, we assign Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) based on widely accepted frameworks:  
Figure 1: The tool based on the EU TRL and Acatech Industry 4.0 MI frameworks. * TRL Quantification: We adopt a standardized interpretation of TRLs as defined by the European Commission and NASA. TRLs are assessed using a checklist of criteria (e.g., prototype development, validation in operational environments). Each level is defined by observable milestones, making it possible to assign a discrete score (TRLs 1 to 9). * MI Quantification: The Acatech MI is broken down into six stages (computerization, connectivity, visibility, transparency, predictive capacity, and adaptability). Each stage is defined by observable criteria such as IT infrastructure coverage, the data integration level (e.g., ERP/MES interoperability), and the use of predictive analytics. Each of these is rated on a 1-6 scale. The data for both dimensions are gathered using a mixed-method approach:
* Surveys and interviews with technical leads, innovation managers, and digital transformation officers. * Document reviews of R&D roadmaps, technology development milestones, and IT integration reports. * System data extracted from enterprise software (ERP, MES, and PLM) to validate the current state of digitalization and process automation. * Workshops or maturity audits conducted using structured templates aligned with TRL and MI criteria. From a procedural point of view, TRLs and the MI are evaluated based on the current development status. The activity is plotted in the matrix at the intersection of the corresponding TRL and MI scores.