Full report

Original page 1

/,,,v", .z.. //8,72. NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Report Number 13 Source Selection and Information Engineers and Scientists: Results Thomas E. Pinelli NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia Nanci A. Glassman Continental Research Norfolk, Virginia September 1992 N/_A •° J National Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY Project NASA Technical Memorandum 107658 r Use by U.S. Aerospace of a Telephone Survey I" • ! i ._I _I N92-33Zg? | | m

Original page 2

Original page 3

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApproved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for th_s collection of _nformat_on s estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the 6me for reviewing instruct;ons, searching ex_stlng data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of informatlorL Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, toWashlngton Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports. 12t5 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washlngtont DC 20503, 1. AGENCY USE ONLY(Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE September 1992 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Source Selection and Information Use by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of a Telephone Survey* 6. AUTHOR(S) Thomas E. Pinelli and Nanci A. Glassman WU 505-90-00 ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S)AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-107658 *Report number 13 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Nanci A. Glassman: Continental Research, Norfolk, VA. 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 82 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE A telephone survey of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists belonging to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was conducted between December 4, 1991 and January 5, 1992. The survey was undertaken to (1) validate the telephone survey as an appropriate technique for collecting data from U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists; (2) collect information about how the results of NASA/DoD aerospace research are used in the R_D process; (3) identify those selection criteria which affect the use of federally-funded aerospace R&D; and (4) obtain information that could be used to develop a self-administered mail questionnaire for use with the same population. The average rating of importance of U.S. government technical reports was 2.5 (on a 4-point scale); The mean/median number of times U.S. government technical reports were used per 6 months was 8/2. Factors scoring highest for U.S. government technical reports were technical accuracy (2.9), reliable data and technical information (2.8), and contains comprehensive data and information (2.7) on a 4-point system. The factors scoring highest for influencing the use of U.S. government technical reports were relevance (3.1), technical accuracy (3.06), and reliable data/information (3.02). Ease of use, familiarity, technical accuracy, and relevance correlated with use of U.S. government technical reports. Survey demographics, survey questionnaire, and the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project publications list are included. 14. SUBJECT TERMS lS. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; STI production and use; NASA STI; User study 27 16. PRICE CODE AW 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIOI 20. LIMITATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified _SN 7540-01-280-5500 OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified UL Standard Form 2g8(Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z3g-18 29B- J.02 NASA-Langley, 1992

Original page 4

Original page 5

INTRODUCTION The production, transfer, and use of scientific and technical information (STI) is an essential part of aerospace research and development (P_D). For purposes of this discussion, we define STI production, transfer, and use as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies indicate that timely access to STI can increase productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills. These same studies demonstrate, however, how little is known about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn more about this process, a research project has been organized to study knowledge diffusion. This research project is the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This research project is being undertaken by researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). Several aerospace professional including the American Institute of Aeronautics societies have endorsed this investigation, and Astronautics (AIAA), and the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD), Technical Information Panel (TIP) has sanctioned it. This 4-phase project is providing descriptive and analytical data regarding the diffusion of aerospace knowledge at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels used to communicate and the social system of the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. Phase I investigates the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and places particular emphasis on their use of federally funded aerospace R&D and U.S. government technical reports. Phase 2 examines the industry-government interface and emphasizes the role of information intermediaries in the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academic-government interface and focuses on the relationships between and among the information intermediary, faculty, and students. Phase 4 explores patterns of technical communications among non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists in selected countries (PineUi, T. E.; J. M. Kennedy; and R. O. Barclay, 1991).

Original page 6

A list of NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge in Appendix A. BACKGROUND Phase 1 of this research concerns the engineers and scientists. The intent of Phase the information-seeking behavior of aerospace the information-seeking behavior of engineers Diffusion Research Project publications appears 4t information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace 1 is to describe, explain, and ultimately predict engineers and scientists. Literature regarding is fragmented and superficial, and the results of previous work have not accumulated to form a significant body of knowledge that can be used by information professionals for designing and developing information systems and policy (Holland, M. P.; T. E. PineUi; R. O. Barclay; and J. M. Kennedy, 1991). The research reported herein was conducted as a Phase 1 activity. A telephone survey of aerospace engineers and scientists belonging to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was conducted between December 4, 1991 and January 5, 1992. U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists belonging to the AIAA served as the study population for previous Phase 1 studies. Self-administered mail questionnaires were used to collect data from the AIAA membership. The majority of the AIAA members selected research and design as their primary professional duties. The SAE representation among those U.S. aerospace duties in development, manufacturing, and was included as a study population to ensure engineers and scientists performing professional production. Combined, the two populations provide a cross section of the aerospace R&D process. The SAE telephone survey was undertaken technique for collecting data from aerospace to (1) validate the telephone as an appropriate engineers and scientists; (2) collect information about how the results of NASA/DoD aerospace research are used by U.S. engineers and scientists performing professional duties in aerospace development, manufacturing, and production; (3) identify those selection criteria which affect the use of federally funded aerospace R&D; and (4) obtain information that could be used to develop a self-administered mail questionnaire for use with this same population. A review of the related research and 2

Original page 7

literature indicates that telephone survey techniques have not been used to investigate the information-seeking behavior of U.S. engineers and scientists. Methodology The questionnaire used in the SAE telephone survey was jointly prepared by the Project team and representatives from Continental Research. After the survey was pretested, minor changes were made in wording to improve the flow of the instrument and the quality of the data collected. The final version took approximately 18 minutes to administer. The survey instrument appears in Appendix B. A diskette supplying the sample frame list was provided by the SAE. Readers should note that the sample frame included the names of aerospace engineers and scientists who were on the SAE mailing list, not necessarily members of the SAE. A total of 2,000 names was included on the diskette; however, some names were deleted from the sample frame because their telephone numbers were not listed. The sample frame was separated according to time zone. The telephone numbers were reviewed to indicate whether they were business or home numbers. Interviews were conducted between 9:00 am and 9:00 pm (local time). Before conducting the survey, each interviewer was thoroughly briefed on the purpose of the survey and how the questionnaire should flow. All interviewers role-played the questionnaire to become comfortable with the wording and format. The final version of the survey instrument was administered by a staff of trained telephone interviewers. All answers were recorded verbatim. Each interviewer's work was eIectronicalIy monitored by a supervisor at least once per hour. After completion, each of the 407 completed surveys was edited, categorized, coded, and entered into the computer for analysis. The adjusted completion rate for the survey was 74 percent. Sampling Variability Estimates The term "sampling variability" is used when referring to the difference between what survey results report and what one would get if a complete census was conducted. It is 3

Original page 8

expressedas the maximum percentage that a figure in this report could vary from what a full census would produce. With a sample size of 407 and assuming a dichotomous question, we are 95% certain than any percentage in the report would be within plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Data Comparison Certain data contained in this report are compared with data from a previous Phase 1 study of AIAA members. The AIAA study concerned the relationship between the use of U.S. government technical reports and selected institutional and sociometric variables. The research methodology and design for the AIAA study are not reported here, but they are contained in the report that documents the results of the AIAA study (Pinelli, 1991). Survey Demographics Seven demographic questions were asked of the survey participants. Survey data for each demographic question appear in table 1. The following "composite" participant profile was based on these data. The survey participant works in industry (88.0%), has part of his current work funded by the federal government (73.0%), was educated (trained) as an engineer (90.7%), has a mean of 19.98 years (17.0 median) of professional work experience, works (current job involves performing duties) as an engineer (74.0%), works in design and development (55.8%), and is a male (97.8%). PRESENTATION The questionnaire contained 20 closed OF THE DATA ended questions. Responses to all but the 7 demographic questions were grouped and presented according to the fonowing topics. Importance of Internal and External Sources of Technical Information The importance of internal (found inside side your organization) sources of technical your organization) and external (found outinformation was measured on a 4-point scale 4

Original page 9

Table 1. Survey Demographics In = 407] Demographics Do you currently work in: Industry Government Academia Not-for-profit sector Number Percentage 362 88.9 42 10.3 0 0.0 3 0.7 Is any of your work currently funded by the federal government? Yes No Was your education primarily as: An Engineer A Scientist A Business Major A Math/English/Education Major Technician/Technical background 297 73.0 110 27.0 369 90.7 13 3.2 11 2.7 5 1.2 9 2.2 How many years of professional work experience do you have? 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 to 35 years 36 to 40 years 41 or more years Mean = 19.998 years Median = 17.0 years Does your current job involve working primarily as: An engineer A scientist An administrative manager Other Which best describes you? Are you in: Research Design and development Manufacturing and production Administrative manager Gender of respondent: Male Female 5 15 3.7 97 23.8 81 19.9 45 11.1 40 9.8 48 11.8 36 8.8 33 8.1 12 2.9 301 74.0 I0 2.5 93 22.9 3 0.7 35 8.6 227 55.8 52 12.8 93 22.9 398 97.8 9 2.2

Original page 10

(1.0 -- not important; 4.0 ----extremely important). The responses are presented in table 2. Both sources of technical information were considered important with '_internal sources" scoring higher (X -- 3.6) followed by "external sources" (X -- 3.1). Respondents were also asked if they preferred to get needed information from '_rritten" sources or "informal" (person) sources when working on a technical problem or task. Approximately two thirds of the respondents indicated a preference for written sources (i.e., professional literature) over colleagues and information specialists. Respondents also indicated that they had spent approximately 6.5 hours per week over the past 6 months using all kinds of technical information to perform their present professional duties. These findings are consistent with similar findings reported in the literature. (See, for example, Shuchman, 1981.) Table 2. Importance of Internal and External Sources of Technical Information In= 407] Source Internal Information Extremely important Quite important Slightly important Not at all important Mean = 3.604 External Information Extremely important Quite important Slightly important Not at all important Mean = 3.091 Number Percentage 262 64.4 131 32.2 12 2.9 2 0.5 140 34.4 176 43.2 79 19.4 12 2.9 6

Original page 11

Importance of Selected Technical Information Products Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of 4 technical information products in the performance of their present professional duties. The technical information products included conference and meeting papers, journal articles, in-house (company) technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports. The importance of the 4 technical information products was measured on a 4-point scale (1.0 = not important; 4.0 -- extremely important). The responses are presented in table 3. In-house (company) technical reports Table 3. Importance of Four Technical Information Products [n = 407] Information product Conference and meeting papers Extremely important Quite important Slightly important Not at all important Mean = 2.423 Journal articles Extremely important Quite important Slightly important Not at all important Mean = 2.469 In-house (company) technical reports Extremely important Quite important Slightly important Not at all important Mean = 3.057 U.S. government technical reports Extremely important Quite important Slightly important Not at all important Mean ----2.595 7 Number Percentage 42 10.3 129 31.7 195 47.9 41 10.1 42 10.3 135 33.2 202 49.6 28 6.9 139 34.2 170 41.8 80 19.7 18 4.4 67 16.5 145 35.6 158 38.8 37 9.1

Original page 12

important). The responses appear in table 3. In-house (company) technical reports received the highest overall (mean) importance rating (X = 3.057) followed by U.S. government technical reports (X - 2.595), journal articles (X -- 2.469), and conference and meeting papers (-X = 2.423). These findings vary slightly from data collected from the Phase 1 AIAA study (Pinelli, 1991). In the AIAA study, in-house (company) technical reports received the highest overall (mean) importance rating (X = 3.84) followed by conference and meeting papers (X = 3.53), journal articles (X = 3.52), and U.S. government technical reports (x = 3.51). Overall, participants in the AIAA study attributed higher ratings of importance to the 4 products than did participants in the SAE study. Further, the differences in the ratings of the 4 products were greater for the SAE participants than for the AIAA participants. Unlike the AIAA study, there is a clear distinction between the importance of internal information, as measured by the importance rating of in-house (company) technical reports, and external information, as measured by the importance of the 3 remaining technical information products. Use of Selected Technical Information Survey participants were asked to indicate products in the past 6 months. The mean Products their use of the 4 selected technical information (median) number of times these 4 technical information products were used appears in table 4. On average, in-house (company) technical reports were used to a greater extent (X -- 22.63) than the remaining 3 technical information products. After in-house (company) technical reports, conference and meeting papers (X = 18.79) were used most frequently, followed by journal articles (X = 16.92) and U.S. government technical reports (X = 12.12). Overall, the mean (2) use of the 4 technical information products was higher in the SAE study than in the AIAA study. (See table 5.)

Original page 13

Table 4. Mean (Median) Useof Four TechnicalInformation Products In varies between407 and 276] Information product Conference and meeting papers Including zeros Without zeros Journal articles Including zeros Without zeros In-house (company) technical reports Including zeros Without zeros U.S. government technical reports Including zeros Without zeros Average number of times (median) product used Number in 6-month period n 14.543(4.00) 407 18.790(6.00) 315 13.388(4.00) 407 16.92 (6.00) 322 20.744 (8.00) 407 22.635(10.00) 373 8.221(2.00) 407 12.123(4.00) 276 Table 5. Mean (Median) Use of Four Technical Information Products by AIAA and SAE Study Participants In = 1,893; n varies between 407 and 276] Average number of times (median) product used in 6-month period for respondents in-- Information product Conference-meeting papers Journal articles In-house (company) technical reports U.S. government technical reports 9 AIAA SAE 12.02 (4.00) 18.79 (6.00) 14.74 (5.00) 16.92 (6.00) 20.30(6.oo) 22.63(lO.OO) 11.45 (5.00) 12.12 (4.00)

Original page 14

Use of Computer Technology To Obtain Technical Information Participants in the SAE study were asked if they would use a computer to obtain technical information if it was available through a computer. A 4-point scale (1 = always use; 4 = never use) served as the scale of measurement. About 59 percent indicated that they would "always" or "usually" prefer to obtain technical information by using a computer. About 41 percent indicated they would "sometimes" or '_never" use a computer. Considering all respondents, about 98 percent indicated that they would prefer to use a computer to obtain technical information if that information were available via a computer. Rating of Selected Technical Information Products Using a 4-point scale (1.0 = not at all; 4.0 -- extremely e.g., "ease to obtain"), survey participants were asked to rate conference and meeting papers, journal articles, in-house (company) technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports on 8 factors. Their responses appear in table 6. Conference/meeting papers and U.S. government technical reports were rated highest on technical quality. Journal articles and in-house (company) technical reports were rated highest on reasonably priced. Table 6. Mean Rating of Four Technical Information Products [n varies between 379 and 407] Factors Easy to obtain Easy to use Reasonably priced Familiar to you Contain reliable data and information Technically accurate Contain comprehensive data and information Relevant to your work In-house V.S. Conference (company) governmenl and meeting Journal technical technical papers articles reports reports 2.466 2.816 3.346 2.475 2.581 2.837 3.162 2.473 2.683 2.919 3.654 2.821 2.631 2.778 3.251 2.578 2.778 2.792 3.256 2.889 2.897 2.852 3.285 2.946 2.614 2.649 3.076 2.768 2.591 2.612 3.236 2.587 The highest ratings were recorded for in-house (company) technical reports followed by journal articles, U.S. government technical reports, and conference and meeting papers. 10

Original page 15

For in-house (company) technical reports, the highest mean (X) rating scoreswere for "reasonablypriced" (X -- 3.654) followedby "easy to obtain" (X -- 3.346) and "technical accuracy" (X -- 3.285). For journal articles, the highest mean (X) rating scores were "reasonablypriced" (X = 2.919) followed by '%echnical accuracy" (X = 2.852) and "easy to obtain" (X -- 2.816). For U.S. government technical reports, the highest mean (2) rating scores were for '%echnical accuracy" (X - 2.946) followed by "reliable data and information" (X = 2.889) and "reasonably priced" (X = 2.821). For conference and meeting papers, the highest mean (X) rating scores were for '%echnical accuracy" (X = 2.897) followed by "reasonably priced" (X = 2.683) (X = 2.614). Considering the 3 highest ratings ratings were evenly divided; 6 were accessibility Factors Influencing Use and "comprehensive data and information" for each of the 4 products (4 x 3 = 12), the factors and 6 were technical quality factors. Using a 4-point scale (1.0 - not at all; 4.0 -- extremely influencial), survey participants were asked to indicate the extent to which these same 8 factors influenced their use of conference and meeting papers, journal articles, in-house (company) technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports. Their responses are summarized in table 7. Table 7. Mean Factors Affecting the Use of Four Technical Information Products [n varies between Factors How easy they are to obtain How easy they are to use How reasonably priced they are How familiar they are to you How reliable are the data and information How technically accurate they are How comprehensive are the data/information How relevant they are to your work 11 405 and 407] In-house V.S. Conference (company) government and meeting Journal technical technical papers articles reports reports 2.472 2.455 2.361 2.501 2.381 2.391 2.383 2.378 1.921 1.990 1.742 1.985 2.538 2.504 2.600 2.522 3.034 3.047 3.182 3.027 3.130 3.148 3.268 3.066 2.936 2.978 3.074 2.894 3.249 3.182 3.351 3.192

Original page 16

The highest group of ratings were recorded for in-house (company) technical reports followedby journal articles, conferenceand meeting papers, and U.S. governmenttechnical reports. For in-house(company)technical reports, the highest mean (2) rating scoreswere for "relevance"(X = 3.351) followed by 'technical accuracy" (X - 3.268) and '_reliable data and information" (X = 3.182). For journal articles, the highest mean (X) rating scores were for "relevance" (X = 3.182) followed by '%echnical accuracy" (X = 3.148) and '_eliable data and information" (X = 3.047). For conference and meeting papers, the highest mean (X) rating scores were for "relevance" (X = 3.249) followed by '%echnical accuracy" (X = 3.130) and "reliable data and information" (X = 3.034). For U.S. government technical reports, the highest mean (X) ra{ing scores were for "relevance" (X = 3.192) followed by '%echnical accuracy" (X = 3.066), and '_reliable data quality factors exerted the greatest influence products. A slightly modified version of the factors and information" (X = 3.027). The technical on use for each of the 4 technical information "influencing use" question was included in the survey of AIAA members. (Seven factors were included in the AIAA study. Reliability was the missing factor.) A comparison of the AIAA and SAE "factors influencing use" data appears in table 8. Overall, participants in the AIAA study attributed higher influence ratings to the factors than did participants in the SAE study. Further, the differences between the ratings of the 8 factors were greater for the SAE participants than for the AIAA participants. Unlike the SAE study, accessibility factors influenced the use of the 4 technical information products by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists belonging to the AIAA. 12

Original page 17

Table 8. Mean Factors Affecting the Use of Four Technical Information Products by AIAA and SAE Study Participants [n = 1839; n = 407] Conference In-house V.S. (company) government and meeting Journal technical technical papers articles reports reports Factors AIAA SAE AIAA SAE AIAA SAE AIAA SAE Accessibility 3.79 2.47 3.88 Ease of use 3.43 2.38 3.51 Expense 2.50 1.92 2.64 Familiarity 3.56 2.53 3.58 Reliability -- 3.03 -- Technical quality 3.74 3.13 4.03 Comprehensiveness 3.38 2.93 3.59 Relevance 3.97 3.24 3.87 -- Not asked of AIAA participants 2.45 4.01 2.36 3.65 2.50 2.39 3.61 2.38 3.38 2.37 1.99 2.50 1.74 2.51 1.98 2.50 3.78 2.60 3.52 2.52 3.04 3.18 3.02 3.14 3.77 3.26 3.73 3.06 2.97 3.51 3.07 3.55 2.89 3.18 4.15 3.35 3.90 3.19 Finally, correlation coefficients (r) were calculated using data from the SAE study. The correlation compared '_ase levels" by '_ratings" for each of the 4 technical information products. A positive and significant correlation and the following rating factors: Conference and meeting papers r • ease of use .1178 • familiarity .1409 • relevance .2325 In-house (company) technical reports r • familiarity .1316 • comprehensiveness .1231 • relevance .1894 aAll r values are statistically significant 13 a was found between the use of the 4 products Journal articles r • ease of use .1634 • familiarity .2313 • reliable data and information .1491 • relevance .1972 U.S. government technical reports /I r • ease of use .1168 • familiarity .2078 • technical accuracy .1191 • relevance .2581

Original page 18

CONCLUDING The SAE telephone survey was undertaken REMARKS to (1) validate the telephone as an appropriate technique for collecting data from U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists; (2) collect information about how the results of NASA/DoD aerospace research are used by engineers and scientists performing professional duties in aerospace development, manufacturing, and production; (3) identify those selection criteria which affect the use of federally funded aerospace R_D; and (4) obtain information that could be used to develop a self-administered mail questionnaire for use with this same population. Based on these results, telephone survey techniques were judged to be an appropriate technique for collecting data from U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Data obtained from this telephone survey were successfully used to construct the self-administered mail survey that was used with the same population. Both internal and external sources of technical information are important to survey participants with internal sources being rated "more important" than external sources of technical information. By comparison, in-house (company) technical reports (X = 3.057) (internal sources of information) were rated "more important" than conference/meeting papers, journal articles, and U.S. government technical reports (external sources of information). Further, the mean/median use rate in a 6-month period, was considerably higher for inhouse (company) technical reports (X = 20.30) than for conference/meeting papers, journal articles, and U.S. government technicap reports. Survey participants were asked to rate conference/meeting papers, journal articles, inhouse (company) technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports on 8 factors. The 8 factors were almost evenly divided between ratings of accessibility and technical quality. Conference/meeting papers and U.S. government technical reports were rated higher on the technical quality factors. Journal articles and in-house (company) technical reports were rated higher on the accessibility factors. In terms of factors influencing use, all 4 products were rated higher on the technical 14 quality than on the accessibility factors by

Original page 19

Original page 20

survey participants. Finally, a correlation coefficient (r) was calculated. The correlation compared "use levels" by "rating" for each of the 4 technical information products. A positive and significant correlation was found for use and '_amiliarity" and '?elevance" each of the 4 products. These findings indicate that of federally-funded aerospace R&D. The results accessibility alone does not ensure the use of federally funded aerospace R&D must also be relevent, reliable, and technically accurate. Information products chosen/used to disseminate the results of federally funded aerospace R&D should be familiar to the user which bodes well for staying with a proven format/package rather than making excessive changes or changes only to promote a new look or image. REFERENCES Holland, M. P.; T. E. Pinelli; R. O. Barclay; and J. M. Kennedy (1991). Engineers as Information Processors: A Survey of U.S. Aerospace Faculty and Students. European Journal of Engineering Education 16:4, 317-336. Pinelli, T. E. (1991). The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-102774, January 1991. 350 p. N9118898.) (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA as Pinelli, T. E.; J. M. Kennedy; and R. 0. Barclay (1991). The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Government Information Quarterly 8(2), 219- 233. Shuchman, H. L. (1981). Information Transfer in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The Futures Group. 15

Original page 21

Appendix A NASA/DoD Aerospace Research Project REPORTS Report No. 1 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Knowledge Diffusion Publications Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca O. Barclay. PART 1 Technical Communications in Aerospace: Results of Phase 1 Pilot Study. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101534. February 1989. 106 p. (Available from NTiS 89N26772.) 1 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca O. Barclay. PART 2 Technical Communications in Aerospace: Results of a Phase 1 Pilot Study. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101534. February 1989. 83 p. (Available from NTiS 89N26773.) 2 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca O. Barclay. Technical Communication in Aerospace: Results of Phase 1 Pilot Study -- An Analysis of Managers' and Nonmanagers' Responses. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101625. August 1989. 58 p. 3 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; (Available from NTIS 90Nl1647.) Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca O. Barclay. Technical Communication in Aerospace: Results of Phase 1 Pilot Study -- An Analysis of Profit Managers' and Nonprofit Managers' Responses. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101626. October 1989. 71 p. (Available from NTIS 90N15848.) 4 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to Phase 1 Respondents. Washington, Administration. NASA TM-102772. 91N17835.) DC: National Aeronautics and Space January 1991. 8 p. (Available from NTIS Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to Phase 1 Respondents Including Frequency Distributions. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-102773. January 1991. 53 p. (Available from NTIS 91N20988.) Pinelli, Thomas E. The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-102774. January 1991. 350 p. (Available from NTIS 9iN18898.) 17 PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

Original page 22

7 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to Phase 2 Respondents Including Frequency Distributions. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-104063. March 1991. 42 p. (Available from NTIS 91N22931.) 8 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to Phase 3 Faculty and Student Respondents. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (Available from NTIS 91N24943.) NASA TM-104085. June 1991. 8 p. 9 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to Phase 3 Faculty and Student Respondents Including Frequency Distributions. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-104086. June 1991. 42 p. (Available from NTIS 91N25950.) 10 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to Phase 3 Academic Library Respondents Including Frequency Distributions. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-104095. August 1991. 42 p. (Available from NTIS 91N33013.) 11 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Madeline Henderson; Ann P. Bishop; and Philip Dory. Chronology of Selected Literature, Reports, Policy Instruments, and Significant Events Affecting Federal Scientific and Technical Information (STI) in the United States. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 130 p. (Available from NTIS 92N17001.) NASA TM-101662. January 1992. 12 Glassman, Nanci A. and Thomas E. Pinelli. An Initial Investigation Into the Production and Use of Scientific and Technical Information (STI) at Five NASA Centers: Results of a Telephone Survey. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-104173. June 1992. 80 p. (Available from NTIS 92N27170.) PAPERS PaDQr No. Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Rebecca O. Barclay; and Walter E. Oliu. The Value of Scientific and Technical Information (STI), Its Relationship to Research and Development (R&D), and Its Use by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Paper presented at the European Forum "External Information: A Decision Tool" January from AIAA 90A21931.) ]8 19, 1990, Strasbourg, France. (Available

Original page 23

Blados, Walter R.; Thomas E. Pinelli; John M. Kennedy; and Rebecca O. Barclay. External Information Sources and Aerospace R&D: The Use and Importance of Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Paper prepared for the 68th AGARD National Delegates Board Meeting, 29 March 1990, Toulouse, France. (Available from NTIS 90N30132.) 3 Kennedy, John M. and Thomas E. Pinelli. The Impact of a Sponsor Letter on Mail Survey Response Rates. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 1990, Lancaster, PA. (Available from NTIS 92N28112.) 4 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Rebecca O. Barclay; John M. Kennedy; and Myron Glassman. Technical Communications in Aerospace: An Analysis of the Practices Reported by U.S. and European Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Paper presented at the International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), Post House Hotel, Guilford, England, 14 September 1990. (Available from NTIS 91N14079; and AIAA 91A19799.) Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. Aerospace Librarians and Technical Information Specialists as Information Intermediaries: A Report of Phase 2 Activities of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper presented at the Special Libraries Association, Aerospace Division - 81st Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 13, 1990. (Available from AIAA 91A19804.) Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion in the Academic Community: A Report of Phase 3 Activities of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper presented at the 1990 Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education - Engineering Libraries Division, Toronto, Canada, June 27, 1990. (Available from AIAA 91A19803.) Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project: The DoD Perspective. Paper presented at the Defense Technical Information Center (DTtC) 1990 Annual Users Training Conference, Alexandria, VA, November 91 N28033.) 1, 1990. (Available from AIAA Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Rebecca O. Barclay. The Role of the Information Intermediary in the Diffusion of Aerospace Knowledge. Reprinted from Science and Technology Libraries, Volume 11, No. 2 (Winter), 1990: 59-76. (Available from NTIS 92N28113.) Eveland, J.D. and Thomas E. Pinelli. Transfer of Aerospace Scientific Information Intermediaries and the and Technical Information (STI): A Report From the Field. Paper commissioned for presentation at the 1991 NASA STI Annual Conference held at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, April 9, 1991. (Available from NTIS 91N21959.) ]9

Original page 24

10 Pinelli,ThomasE.; JohnM. Kennedy;and RebeccaO. Barclay. The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Government Information Quarterly, (Available from AIAA 91A35455.) Research Project. Reprinted from Volume 8, No. 2 (1991): 219-233. 11 Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. The Voice of the User -- How U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists View DoD Technical Reports. Paper presented at the 1991 Defense Technical Information Center's (DTIC) Managers Planning Conference, Solomon's Island Holiday Inn, MD, May 1, 1991. (Available from AIAA 91A41123.) 12 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Rebecca O. Barclay. The Diffusion of Federally Funded Aerospace Research and Development (R&D) and the Information-Seeking Behavior of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Paper presented at the Special Libraries Association (SLA) 82nd Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, June 11, 1991. (Available from AIAA 92A29652.) Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of 13 Pinelli, Thomas E. The Engineers. Reprinted from Science (Spring) 1991" 5-25. (Available & Technology Libraries, Volume 11, No. 3, from NTIS 92N28114.) 14 Barclay, Rebecca O.; Thomas E. Pinelli; David Elazar; and John M. Kennedy. An Analysis of the Technical Communications Practices Reported by Israeli and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Paper presented at the International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), The Sheraton World Resort, Orlando, FL, November 1, 1991. (Available from NTIS 92N28183.) 15 Barclay, Rebecca O.; Thomas E. Pinelli; Michael L. Keene; John M. Kennedy; and Myron Glassman. Technical Communications in the International Workplace: Some Implications for Curriculum Development. Reprinted from Technica/ Communication, Volume 38, No. 3 (Third Quarter, August 1991): 324-335. (Available from NTIS 92N28116.) 16 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; Rebecca O. Barclay; and Terry F. White. Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research. Reprinted from World Aerospace Technology '91: The International Review of Aerospace Design and Development, Volume 1 (1991): 31-34. (Available from NTIS 92N28220.) 17 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Rebecca O. Barclay; John M. Kennedy; Nanci Glassman; and Loren Demerath. The Relationship Between Seven Variables and the Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science (ASIS), The Washington Hilton & Towers, Washington, DC, October 30, 1991. (Available from NTIS 92N28115.) 2O

Original page 25

18 Hernon, Peter and Thomas E. Pinelli. Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Policy and the Competitive Position of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. Paper presented at the 30th Aerospace Meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), Bally's Grand Hotel, Reno, NV, January 1992. (Available from AIAA 92A28233.) 19 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; Rebecca O. Barclay; and Ann P. Bishop. Computer and Information Technology and Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (hAAS), The Hyatt Regency Hotel, Chicago, IL, February 8, 1992. (Available from NTIS 92N28211.) 20 Holland, Maurita P.; Thomas E. Pinelli; Rebecca O. Barclay; and John M. Kennedy. Engineers As Information Processors: A Survey of U.S. Aerospace Engineering Faculty and Students. Reprinted from the European Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 16, No. 4 (1991): 317-336. (Available from NTIS 92N28155.) 21 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Rebecca O. Barclay; Maurita P. Holland; Michael L. Keene; and John M. Kennedy. Technological Innovation and Technical Communications: Their Place In Aerospace Engineering Curricula. A Survey of European, Japanese, and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Reprinted from the European Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 16, No. 4 (1991): 337-351. (Available from NTIS 92N28184.) 22 Pinelli, Thomas E. Establishing a Research Agenda for Scientific and Technical Information (STI): Focus on the User. Paper presented at the "Research Agenda in Information Science" workshop sponsored by the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD), April 7-9 1992, Lisbon, Portugal. (Available from NTIS 92N28117.) 2]

Original page 26

Original page 27

Appendix B SAE Telephone Survey Instrument Hi, my name is with Con=inen_al Research in Norfolk, VA. We are conducting a survey tonight with engineers and scientists _nd we would like to include your opinion. I. To perform your professional duties, is [fill in) Extreme! 7, Quite, Slightly, or Not At Ail lmpor[ant? Extremely Quite Slightly Not At All Important Important ImDortan: important 4 3 2 i Technical information found _ of your organization 4 3 2 i Technical information found inside of your organization 4 3 2 i Conference and meeting papers 4 3 2 1 Journal articles 4 3 2 l Technical reports produced in-house at your company 4 3 2 [ U.S. government technical reports 2. In the pas= six months, how many times, if any, did you use (fill in) in your work? Times Used Conference and meeting papers Journal articles Technical reports produced in-house at your company U.S. government technical reports 3. If technical information were available through a computer, would you prefer to use the computer: (R.EAD CHOICES) l-Always 2-Usually 3-Sometimes, or 4-Never when you need technical information? 4. How would you rate CONFERENCE AND MEEq]NG PAPERS in terms of bein easy to obtain? Are they Extremely, Quite, Slightly, Extremely Quite Slightly Not At All or Not At Aii easy to obtain ? 4 3 2 I Easy to obtain? 4 3 2 l Are they easy to use? 4 3 2 I Are they reasonably=prlced? 4 3 2 1 Are they familiar to you? 4 3 2 1 Do they contain reliable data and information? 4 3 2 1 Are they technically accurate? 4 3 2 [ Do they contain comprehensiv _ data and information? 4 3 2 1 Are they relevant to your work? 5. Are JOURNAL ARqqCLES : Extrem#i7 Quite SliRhti7 Not At All 4 3 2 1 Easy to obtain? 4 3 2 l Are they easy to us@? 4 3 2 [ Are they reasonably priced? 4 3 2 l Are they familiar to you? 4 3 2 [ Do they con=sin reliable dat@ add information? 4 3 2 [ Are they technically accurate? 4 3 2 [ Do they contain comprehensive data and information? 4 3 2 i Are they relevant to your work? 23 _'_ECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT HLMED

Original page 28

1. Now, let's talk about TECHNICAL REPORTS PI{ODUCED IN IIOUSE AT YOUR COMPANY. Are they: Extremely Oui=e SliKht!7 No t Ae All 4 3 2 : Easy to obtain? 4 3 2 Are they easy to use? 4 3 2 : Are they reasonably priced? 4 3 2 : Are they familiar tc you? 4 3 2 l Do they contain reliable da_a and information? 4 3 2 [ Are they technically accurate? 4 3 2 [ Do they contain comprehensive data and information? 4 3 2 1 Are they relevant to your work? 7. And how about U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS? Are they: Extremely Quite SliKhtl 7 _ot At All 4 3 2 1 Easy to obtain? 4 3 2 1 Are they easy to use? 4 3 2 1 Are they reasonably'priced? 4 3 2 i Are they familiar to you? 4 3 2 I Do they contain reliable data and information? 4 3 2 I Are they technical!7 accurate? 4 3 2 i Do they contain comprehensive data and information? 4 3 2 1 Are they relevant to your work? 8. When you decide to us___eeor not use CONFERENCE AND MEETING PAPERS in your work, is your decision Extremely, Quite, Slightly, or Not At All influenced by how easy they ave to obtain ? Extremely Quite Slightly Not At All pfluenced Influenced Influenced Influenced 4 3 2 l How easy they ate to obtain? 4 3 2 i How east they. are to use? 4 3 2 I How reasonably priced they are? 4 3 2 i How familiar they are to you? 4 3 2 i How reliable the data and information is? 4 3 2 i Hc technically accurate it is? 4 3 2 l How ¢omprehenslve the data and information is? 4 3 Z i How re_evant to your work it is? 9. When you decide to us___eor not use JOURNAL AR_qCLES, is your decision influenced by: Extremely Quite Slightly Not At All Influenced Influenced _n_luenced Influenced 4 3 2 l How easy they are to obtain? 4 3 2 [ How easy they are to use? 4 3 2 L How reasonably priced they are? 4 3 2 [ How familiar they are to you? 4 3 2 [ How reliable the data and information is? 4 3 2 L How technically accurate it Is? 4 3 2 [ How comprehensive the data and information is? 4 3 2 [ How relevant to your work i: is? 24

Original page 29

i0. Now, let's talk about TECHN[CAL REPORTS PRODUCED IN-HOUSE AT YOUR COMPANY. When you decide to us___eeor Dot use them, is your decision influenced by: Extremely Quite Slightl 7 Not At AI_ Influenced Influenced Influenced Influenced 4 3 2 l How easy they are [o obtain? 4 3 2 l How ea_v they are to use? 4 3 2 [ How reasonably priced they are? 4 3 2 l How familiar they are to you? 4 3 2 [ How reliable the data and information is? 4 3 2 [ How technically accura=e it is? 4 3 2 i How comprehensive the data and info..ation is? 4 3 2 [ How relevant to your work it is? [i. And how about U.S. GOVERNMENT Y?ECHNICAL REPORTS? When you decide to us____eor no__ use them, is your decision influenced by: Extremely Quite S!ightl 7 Not At.All Influenced Influenced Influenced Influenced 4 3 2 I Hc easy they are to obtain? 4 3 2 1 How easy they are to use? 4 3 2 i How reasonably Driced they are? 4 3 2 1 How familiar they are to you? 4 3 2 I How reliabie the data and information is? 4 3 2 1 How technically accurate it is? 4 3 2 1 How comprehensive the data and information is? 4 3 2 L How relevant to your work it is? 12. In the past six months, approximately how many hours did you spend using all kinds of technical resource information (like the various types we've been discussing)? hours used in past six months 13. When you're working on a technical problem needed or task, do you prefer to get information from written technical resources or informally from other eop_q___le? 1 - Prefers writ=en sources (ASK Q. 13e) 2 - Prefers people (ASK Q. _3b) 13a. Would that be more the: (READ CHOICES) discipline, or (co T0 q. t4) i - The professional literature in your 2 - Other kinds of written materials? 13b. Would that be: (READ CHOICES) I - Colleagues and co-workers, or 2 - Information specialists...like librarians? 14. Do you currently work in: (READ CHOICE) I - Industry, 4 - The non-for-profit sector, or 2 - Government, 5 - Another type of organization? 3 - Academia, (SPECIFY) i - Yes 2 - No 15. Is any of your work currently funded by the federal government? [6. Was your education primarily as: (READ CHOICES) [ - An engineer 2 - A scientist, or [7. How many years of professional work experience 25 3 - Something else? (SPECIFY) do you have? years

Original page 30

1. Does your current job involve working primarily as: (READ CHOICES) [ - An engineer 3 - An adminis_ra[ive manazer , cr (SKIP T0 END) 2 - A scientist 4 - Some[hing =!se? (S PECI f) [9. Which bes describes you? Are ycu in: (READ CHOICES) [ - Research 2 - Design and development, Thank you so much for your time. I really RECORD: [ - Male 2 - Female NAME OF RESPONDENT: COMPANY: STATE: PHONE #: INTV: DATE : COMMENTS 26 or 3 - Manufacturing and production? appreciate it! (area code)