Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) is a well-established and widely used approach for defining the readiness of new technology. To this extent, it assesses technology maturity against specific benchmarks, ranging from 1 (concept) to 9 (market solution). Although this is a useful classification service, allowing us to establish a common language, there are cases where we find that this conceptual approach fails to adequately highlight the maturity of certain innovative endeavors and effectively steer their development to higher TR levels. We will present an empirical case where the TRL approach presented a critical shortcoming in highlighting the true and effective readiness of a specific technological development and could not suggest the next natural step in ascending the maturity ladder. We will seek to generalize for the case of co-creation at large, analyze why co-creation may be poorly serviced by the current TRL model and suggest an amendment that would allow the observed shortcoming of the traditional TRL approach to be overcome and its use extended also in such co-creative settings.

Building electric energy is characterized by a significant increase of its uses (e.g. vehicle charging), a rapidly declining cost of all related data collection and a proliferation of smart grid concepts, including diverse and flexible electricity pricing schemes. Not surprisingly, an increased number of approaches have been proposed for its modeling and forecasting. In this work, we place our emphasis on three forecasting related issues. First, on the forecasting explainability, i.e. the ability to understand and explain to the user what shapes the forecast. To this extent we rely on concepts and approaches that are inherently explainable, such as the evolutionary approach of genetic programming (GP) and its associated symbolic expressions, as well as the so-called SHAP (SHapley Additive eXplanations) values, which is a well established model agnostic approach for explainability, especially in terms of feature importance. Second, we investigate the impact of the training timeframe on the forecasting accuracy; this is driven by the realization that a fast training would allow for faster deployment of forecasting in real life solutions. And third, we explore the concept of counterfactual analysis on actionable features, i.e. features that the user can really act upon and which therefore present an inherent advantage when it comes to decision support. We have found that SHAP values can provide important insights into the model explainability. As for GP models, we have found comparable and in some cases superior accuracy when compared to its neural-network and time-series counterparts but a rather questionable potential to produce crisp and insightful symbolic expressions, allowing a better insight into the model performance. We have also found, and report here on an important potential especially for practical, decision support, solutions of counterfactuals built on actionable features and short training timeframes.