Full report

Original page 1

NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research ....'!_SA Technical Memorandum 107673 Report Number 14 Engineering Work and Information ReSu_s-of a Telephone Survey Thomas E. Pinelli NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia John M. Kennedy Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Terry F. White Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana October 1992 IMt A _a National Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY Project .... Use in Aerospace: I _-, 4" ¢,4 U N O" t" ,-4 2£ D 0 1"4 eO = i | = | | z m Aeronautics and Space Administra_n

Original page 2

Original page 3

INTRODUCTION Engineers are an extraordinarily diverse group of professionals, but an attribute common to all engineers is their use of information. Mailloux highlights the centrality of information to engineering. She reports that spent in the intellectual activities of engineering about "20 percent of an engineer's time is -- conceiving, sketching, calculating, and evaluating -- with the remaining 80 percent spent on activities associated with creating, accessing, receiving, manipulating, or transferring information" (239). Considering the relationship between engineering work and the use of information, surprisingly little is known about engineers and their information-seeking behavior. The literature regarding the information-seeking behavior of engineers is fragmented and superficial. The results of engineering information studies have not accumulated to form a significant body of knowledge that can be used to develop and design information policy and systems (Rhode 50). BACKGROUND The production, transfer, and use of scientific and technical information (STI) are essential parts of aerospace research and development (R&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 knowledge diffusion. This research project Diffusion Research Project. has been organized to study aerospace is the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge This research 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 societies have endorsed this

Original page 4

investigation, including the American Institute of Aeronauticsand Astronautics (AIAA), and the Advisory Group for AerospaceResearchand Development(AGARD), Technical Information Panel (TIP) has sanctionedit. This 4-phaseproject is providing descriptive and analytical data regarding the diffusion of aerospaceknowledge at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels usedto communicateand the social systemof the aerospaceknowledgediffusion process. The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Re._eareh Project fact sheet appears in Appendix A. Phase 1 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 (Pinelli, Kennedy, and Barclay). A list of NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project publications appears in Appendix B. METHODOLOGY The research reported herein, conducted AND DESIGN as a Phase 1 activity, was performed by the Indiana University Center for Survey Research. It was undertaken to obtain information on the daily work activities of aerospace engineers and scientists, to measure various practices used by aerospace engineers and scientists to obtain STI, and to ask aerospace engineers and scientists about their use of electronic networks. Data were collected using a telephone survey between August 14-26, 1991, using the University of California Computer Assisted Survey Methods Software. The Aerospace Division of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) served as the study population. The SAE was selected as the 2

Original page 5

study population in an attempt to ensurerepresentationof thoseU.S. aerospaceengineers and scientists performing professionalduties in design,development,manufacturing, and production. A diskette supplying the sampleframe list wasprovided by the SAE. Readersshould note that the sampleincluded the namesof U.S. aerospaceengineersand scientistswho wereon the SAE mailing list, not necessarilymembersof the SAE. A total of 2,000names was included on the diskette; however,somenamesweredeleted from the sampleframe becausethe correspondingtelephone numbers were not listed. The sample frame was separatedaccording to time zone. The telephone numberswere reviewedto determine whether they were businessor home numbers. Only those individuals who provided a home phone number were selectedfor the sample. Telephonecalls were made only on eveningsand weekends(unlessotherwiserequestedby the respondent)to minimize the possibility of calling work places. The questionnaireusedin the SAEtelephonesurveywasjointly preparedby the Project team and representativesfrom the Indiana University Center for Survey Research. The surveywaspretestedon August 7, 8, and 12, 1991.After the surveywaspretested,minor changesweremade in wording to improve the flow of the instrument and the quality of the data collected. A pretest letter wassent to thoseselectedto participate in the survey. Data collection began on August 14, 1991,and endedon August 26, 1991.The average length of the interviews was 15 minutes. After completion, each of the 430 completed questionnaireswasanalyzed.The adjustedcompletionrate for the surveywas75 percent. The survey instrument appearsin Appendix C. RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH Recent interest in the information-seeking behavior of engineers corresponds to rising interest and concerns regarding industrial competitiveness and technological innovation. Consequently, an understanding of the information-seeking behavior of engineers is essential to predicting information use and to planning, developing, and implement- 3

Original page 6

ing engineering information systems. Such an understanding is also critical to enhancing economic competitiveness, improving productivity, and maximizing the process of technological innovation. Relevant literature is presented for the following five topics: the world of engineering, engineering work, engineering knowledge, computer use in engineering, and computer use in aerospace. The World of Engineering According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, engineers held almost 1,411,000 jobs in 1988 (U.S. Department of Labor). About half of these jobs were located in manufacturing industries; about 511,000 were located in non-manufacturing industries; and about 185,000 were located by federal, state, and local governments. About one-third of these jobs (439,000) were held by electrical engineers followed, in decreasing order of frequency, by mechanical (225,000), civil (186,000), and industrial (132,000) engineers. A bachelor's degree in engineering from an accredited engineering program is generally acceptable for beginning engineering jobs. Most engineering degrees are granted in branches such as electrical, chemical, or nuclear engineering. Most engineers specialize within these branches; professional societies recognize more than 25 major specialties. The Occupational Outlook Handbook (U.S. Department of Labor) lists and discusses the following 10 branches of engineering: aerospace, chemical, civil, electrical and electronics, industrial, mechanical, metallurgical, ceramic and materials, mining, nuclear, and petroleum. Formal registration is a requirement in the U.S. for engineers whose work may affect life, health, or property, or who offer their services to the public. Registration generally requires, in addition to a degree from an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), four years of relevant work experience and satisfactory performance on a state examination. h

Original page 7

Engineering Work What is engineering work like? What tasks and activities are performed by engineers on a day-to-day basis? Florman, an engineer who has written extensively on the nature of the profession, indicates that "the essence of engineering lies in its need and willingness to embrace opposites. Empiricism and theory, craftsmanship and science, workshop and laboratory, apprenticeship and formal schooling, private initiative, and government venture, commerce and independent professionalism, military necessity and civic benefit -- all of these and more have their place" (64). In trying to sort out the diversity of engineering, Adams notes that it may be categorized according to particular industries, fields, disciplines, job functions, and end products, among other things. He concludes that engineering is interlocked with science, mathematics, and business in a complex environment that "requires a multidimensional map for understanding" (38). The characteristic activity of engineers is making things. Expressed more formally, engineering is usually defined as the application of scientific knowledge to the creation or improvement of technology for human use (Kemper 3). The term "technology" as used in the context of describing engineering work encompasses products, systems, structures, and processes. Engineering work is often described as a process that originates with the first idea for a new or improved technology that is put into use. The National Research Council, for example, describes what it calls "the product realization process" as extending "over all phases of product development from initial planning to customer follow-up" (1991, 17). Phases in this process include defining customer needs and product performance requirements, planning for product evolution, planning for design and manufacturing, product design, manufacturing process design, and production. Engineering work can also be described in terms of the kinds of tasks and activities that engineers perform on a day-to-day basis. Because of the multidimensional nature of engineering work and the extensiveness of the product development process, engineers perform a wide variety of tasks. Engineering work involves cognitive activities and physical 5

Original page 8

tasks that include the technical and the non-technical,the routine and the creative,the rational and the serendipitous.According to Ritti, engineeringwork consistsof scientific experimentation, mathematical analysis, design and drafting, building and testing of prototypes, technical writing, marketing, and project management. Murotake calls attention to the non-technicalelementsof engineeringwork: "the processof engineering work is not only a technical one,but a social one in which management,communication, and motivation influencethe efficiency,quality, and innovativenessof the project team's work" (20). If the characteristic physical activity of engineeringis making things, the characteristic cognitive activity is problem-solving. Laudan notes that "change and progressin technologyis achievedby the selectionand solution of technologicalproblems, followedby choicebetweenrival solutions" (84). The great variety in the nature of the tasksand activities that compromiseengineering work is often reflected in the individual engineer'swork, as well. Kemper notes that the typical engineeris likely to define problems, come up with new ideas,produce designs, solve problems, managethe work of others, produce reports, perform calculations, and conduct experiments(2). Hollister alsodescribesthe work of an engineeras multi-faceted: "He beginswith an idea,a mental conception. He conductsstudiesand, when necessary, researchinto the feasibility of this idea. He directs the building and operation of what he has planned" (18). Although engineersperform manytasksindependently,mostproductsresult from team effort, requiring engineersto sharetheir knowledgeand the result of their work with others (Holmfeld 156). For complex products, teamwork is required at each stage of the engineeringprocess.The literature on concurrentengineeringindicatesthat teamwork is a natural requirement of the needto integrate the various stagesof the engineeringprocess(seeStoll 86, for example). For examplebringing a high-quality product to market in an efficient manner often requiresthat designengineerscommunicatewith managers,

Original page 9

manufacturing, and marketing staff within their firm aswell as with peopleoutside their organizations,such as clients, funders,and suppliers. Engineering work takes place in a variety of environments, depending not only on the nature of the product being developed and the stage of product development, but also on the type of employing organization. Organizations employing engineers include universities, research centers, government laboratories and agencies, and private sector manufacturers and consulting firms. The basic goal of engineering is to produce usable products in the shortest possible time at the lowest possible cost. This goal drives the work and communication activities of virtually all engineers, but it is manifested to a different degree in different employment settings. Engineering Knowledge What kinds of knowledge do engineers need to perform the tasks and activities described above? How is knowledge acquired? Engineering work and knowledge are so closely intertwined, that it is difficult to discuss one without the other. As noted by Vincenti, "... engineering knowledge cannot -- and should not -- be separated from engineering practice. The nature of engineering knowledge, the process of its generation, and the engineering activity it serves form an inseparable whole" (257). Engineering practice, in other words, involves both knowing and doing. Even the popular literature suggests the wide variety of knowledge needed by engineers, due to the diversity of their work: [The engineer's] task is not alone that of contrivance with material things, for which he must possess an extensive working knowledge of scientific principles and facts. He must also thoroughly understand the functions to be performed by the projected work when it is completed, the methods of its manufacture and construction, and the economics that govern its use. He must have an understanding of the crafts that are to be used and of the organization of the work. It is his responsibility to coordinate and guide the contributions of labor, machines, money, and ideas, and to exert the control necessary to attain his objectives within the prescribed limits of time, cost, and safety. (Hollister 18)

Original page 10

Scholarly literatureon the nature and generation of engineering knowledge reinforcessuch popular accounts. Donovan asserts that the range of scientificand technical knowledge used by engineers includes "not only the more formal types of experimental and theoretical knowledge but also allforms of practicalskilland tacitunderstanding as well ..." (678). S_chSn rejectsthe model of technical rationalitywhich is typicallyapplied to scientific and technical professionsand instead paints a differentpicture of engineering knowledge. He argues that the situations encountered by practicing professionalsare increasingly characterizedby "complexity, uncertainty,instability,uniqueness, and value conflicts"(14); such situationsrequireintuitive,artistic,and ethicalresponses in addition to purely technical and rationalones. SchSn labelsthismodel of professionalwork "tacitknowing-in-action" (49) and describes the development of a new process to produce a desired gunmetal color to illustratehis argument. He represents the activitiesof the mechanical engineers involved in this project as "a reflectiveconversation with the materials of the situation ... [that]wove itsway through stages of diagnosis,experiment, pilotprocess,and production design" (175). Throughout this process, experiments are used to explore puzzling phenomena, test the applicabilityof potentiallyuseful theories,or achieve particulartechnologicaleffects.These experiments, however, often produce unanticipated phenomena and outcomes, which then trigger new hypotheses, questions, and goals (177). SchSn's analysis of this and other examples suggests that the knowledge required to reach a technologicalsolutionis derived from the integrationof intuition,past experience, creativity(often in the form of analogy development), theory, experimentation, and reflectivethinking that occur in a particular problematic situation. He also argues that engineering solutions incorporate social and ethicalconsiderations. As these accounts suggest, the notion of tacit knowledge permeates discussions of engineering work. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that cannot be articulated. Polanyi describes tacit knowledge -- part experience, part intuition,part tactilesensation -- as combining "knowing what" and "knowing how" and declares that it is expressed in such 8

Original page 11

actions as expert diagnoses, the performance important type of engineering knowledge, visual manner. The importance of visual information by Ferguson and is also discussed by Breton of skills, and the use of tools (6-7). Another information, is also expressed in a nonverbal in technological work is the subject of a paper (1991). Layton describes this phenomenon, too: "technologists display a plastic, geometrical, and to some extent nonverbal mode of thought that has more in common with that of artists than that of philosophers" (37). The importance of these two nonverbal modes of thought is rooted in the essence of engineering as the production of physically how to make things, and the results of this in the technologies produced. Engineers rely encoded knowledge. Engineers must know knowledge are, first and foremost, encoded heavily on nontextual information, such as interpersonal communication, drawings, and the examination of physical objects, to acquire the knowledge they need to perform their work. Research from sociological, historical, communications, and management perspectives has shed light on the nature of engineering knowledge and communication. Several studies offer a close examination of the development of individual technologies. Holmfeld produced a sociological study of the communication behavior of 70 scientists and engineers working on the problem of combustion instability in liquid propellant rocket engines. He found that "technological knowledge is based to a high degree on intuition grounded in extensive individual experience" (121). Many of the engineers interviewed emphasized that an important aspect of engineering knowledge resided in the "feel" that one has for the objects of work. Holmfeld concluded that part of this feel is implicit (i.e., tacit), existing only in the mind and hands of the individual (127). The rest, however, was made explicit and resided in local records of test results, design variations, and other kinds of data. The content of this knowledge includes calculations based on empirical work, widely agreed upon rules of thumb and practice, and the vague statements that are used to try to express the tacit knowledge embodied in having a good feel for one's work. 9

Original page 12

Holmfeld found three commonmechanismsfor generatingneededknowledgein engineering work. Engineersrely on the "cut and try" method to refine and fine tune (129). They also frequently searchtheir memoriesfor familiar conceptsand designsin order to increase their confidencein somenew variation (134-135).Finally, they make use of that scientific knowledgewhich they deemto be relevant and readily applicable. This knowledgeis often in the form of a simple fact, such as the optimum hole size or speed rotation, resulting from scientific work (148). A number of other writers also note that engineersadopt, at times, the methodsusedby scientiststo generateknowledge.Florman describesengineering work as encompassingboth theory and empiricism (64). Ziman writes that "technological developmentitself has become'scientific': it is no longer satisfactory,in the designof a new automobile, say,to rely on rule of thumb, cut and fit, or simple trial and error. Data are collected, phenomenaare observed,hypothesesare proposed,and theories are tested in the true spirit of the hypothetico-deductivemethod." (130) Constantpresentsa detailedhistory of the origin of the modernjet engine,a revolutionary technologicaladvance. He presentsa '_variation-retention"model of technologicalchange that is based on the processof random variation and selective retention that occurs in biological organisms. Technologicalconjecture, which can occur as a result of knowledge gained from either scientific theory or engineeringpractice, yields potential variations to existing technologies. Thesevariations are subsequentlytested, and successfulvariations are retained (1980,6-7). In the caseof the turbojet revolution, technologicalconjecturewas basedon engineers'knowledgeof scientifictheories.The design,development,and testing of systemsthat resulted in the retention of the most successfulvariation involved, on the other hand, the technical and craft knowledgeneededto carry out thosetasks. Vincenti traces five "normal" (as opposedto revolutionary) developmentsin the history of aerospaceengineeringto detail what he calls "the anatomy of engineeringdesignknowlh edge" (9). His examplesrevealthat technologicaldevelopmentsrequire a rangeof scientific, technical, and practical knowledgeas well as information about social, economic,military, lO

Original page 13

andenvironmental issues.Vincenti conductsthree important analysesof engineeringknowledge. The first involves his own elaboration of the variation-selectionmodel of the growth of technologicalknowledge. Vincenti concludes,after examining numerousexamplesfrom history, that the mechanismsfor producing wriations in engineeringdesign include three types of cognitive activities (246): searchingpast experienceto find knowledgethat has proved useful, including the identification of variations that havenot worked;incorporating novelfeaturesthought to havesomechanceof working; and "winnowing" the conceivedvariations to choosethose most likely to work. Vincenti notesthat theseactivities occur in an interactive and disorderly fashion. Selectionoccursthrough physical trials such as everyday use, experiments,simulations (e.g., the useof wind tunnels), or analytical tests such as the production of sketchesof proposeddesigns,calculations,and other meansof imagining the outcomeof selectinga proposedvariation (247-248). Vincenti also proposesa schemafor engineeringknowledgethat categorizesknowledge as either descriptive (factual knowledge), prescriptive (knowledge of the desired end), or tacit (knowledge that cannot be expressedin words or pictures but is embodied in judgment and skills). Descriptive and prescriptive knowledgeare explicit; tacit knowledge is implicit. Both tacit and prescriptive knowledgeare procedural and reflect a "knowing how" (197-198).Finally, Vincenti enumeratesand defines specific engineeringknowledge categories: fundamental design concepts,criteria and specifications,theoretical tools (i.e., mathematical methods and theories and intellectual concepts),quantitative data, practical considerations, and design instrumentalities (i.e., procedural knowledge and judgmental skills) (208-222).He then presentsa matrix that details how each type of knowledge is acquired. The possiblesourcesof engineeringknowledgethat he describesinclude transfer from scienceor generation by engineersduring invention, theoretical and experimental engineeringresearch,designpractice, production, or direct trial and operation (235). Communicationsand managementstudiesconfirm the findings of historical and sociological researchabout the range of knowledge,information, and data neededin engineering 11

Original page 14

work. Ancona and Caldwell investigatedthe tasks and communicationof new product development teams in high technology companies. The authors note that such teams "are responsiblenot only for the specifictechnical designof a product, but alsofor coordinating the numerousfunctional areasand hierarchical levelsthat have information and resources necessaryto make the new product a success"(174). Ancona and Caldwell found that new product teams progressthrough three phasesof activity: creation, development,and diffusion. The communication- and information-intensive tasks that accompanythese phases include (184-185): • Getting to know and trust team members • Determining the availability of resources • Understandingwhat other functional groups think the product can/should be • Investigating technologiesfor building the product • Exploring potential markets • Solving technical problems • Coordinating the teams' work internally and externally • Keepingexternal groups informed • Building relationshipswith external groups that will receivethe teams' output • Promoting the product with manufacturing,marketing, and servicegroups. Ancona and Caldwell concludethat information systemsdesignedto support thesechanging activities must be flexible and support the team's need to identify and contact relevant externM groups, generateand evaluateideas,and coordinate work. Barczak and Wilemon alsolook at the communicationpatterns of newproduct developmentteamsandfind a similar range of communication purposes: to discussproduct features, technical issues,customer needs,manufacturing issues,schedulesand timing, financial issues,managerialissues,and resourceissues(101-109). 12

Original page 15

Computer Use in Engineering Computer networks are playing an increasingly important role in engineering work because they link design and analysis tools integrated engineering information systems with other important resources to create (EIS's) that can be used by engineers from their own desktops. Dirr and Stockdale describe 3M's transition from the use of CAD systems to a distributed computing strategy in which "[a]ll authorized users would have access to information anywhere in the network, and CAD and project management would be joined in a single integrated system" (50). Heiler and Rosenthal define an EIS as the combination of "software tools, data base managers, data bases and hardware to provide integrated environments for engineering design the rationale for such systems: and management" (431). They also describe Engineering environments can be extremely complex. They must support long, complex, and interdependent tasks that produce and manipulate highly specialized data. Often multiple representations of the same information are required to support different tasks. Moreover, more than one engineer may work concurrently on different aspects of the same design, which may introduce inconsistencies into the data. (431) The use of computers and networks to automate the manufacturing process is becoming more widespread. Boll describes the role of the manufacturing automation protocol (MAP) in accomplishing the integration of the manufacturing process: "machining, assembly, warehousing, quality assurance, packaging and dispatch." Schatz describes the increase in computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) investments worldwide, noting that they are expected to double between 1988 and 1992, reaching about $91 billion. Electronic data interchange (EDI) is used to exchange orders and invoices with vendors and suppliers, and contracts with clients and customers (Beckert; Purton). Thus, networks are also used in engineering environments to facilitate formal business communication outside the firm. Networks are used in some firms for information retrieval (IR) in connection with both in-house and commercial databases. Information retrieval systems have received mixed reviews from engineers. Christiansen discusses the results of an informal IEEE survey on how engineers obtain the information they need to do their jobs. He reports that engineers have 13

Original page 16

difficulty performing online searchesand often obtain inadequate results. He also interprets the tendency of engineers to "scan and save" large amounts of material as a response to their dislike of retrieval systems (21). Breton presents a more compelling argument for the underutilization of information retrieval systems (1981; 1991). He concludes that the informal and visual material that is important to engineers is not included in most IR systems and, further, that current indexing techniques fail to retrieve information according to those dimensions, such as "desired function," that are useful to engineers. Gould and Pearce describe the results of an assessment, based largely on interviews, intended to relate information needs in engineering to current systems for storing, organizing; and disseminating that information. Mailloux reviews current a variety of engineering systems and devotes literature on EIS. She provides an overview of considerable attention to a discussion of how EIS's support engineering work and communication behavior. Finally, the literature suggests that engineers also use electronic networks for a variety of interpersonal communication purposes. suggestions for improving in-house technical of ideas, provide a more stimulating work efforts (135). Beckert notes that engineers graphics to their colleagues and to automate Borchardt includes electronic mail among his communication in order to facilitate the sharing environment, and prevent the duplication of can use electronic mail to send text, data, and the notification status change process between engineering, manufacturing, and external entities. She notes that electronic communication eliminates telephone tag and problems associated with time-zone differences, and also saves time in scheduling meetings and responding to technical questions (68). Mishkoff describes computer conferencing as the answer to the problems corporations face when they employ geographically-dispersed work groups. He reports that Hewlett-Packard employs thousands of engineers in over 70 divisions, one-third of which are located outside the United States. Mishkoff describes how computer conferencing is used in place of more expensive mechanisms to allow groups of engineers to share their knowledge efficiently and coordinate their work (29). 14

Original page 17

The power of computer conferencingsystemsto form the base of "electronic expert networks in organizationsis describedby Stevens,although he doesnot focus exclusively on engineers. His discussion applies the assertions about the importance of informal communication in organizations to the electronic environment. He argues that electronic networks are an important source of expertise for employees because "It]he best answers frequently come from surprising sources. An unknown peer with relevant experience can sometimes provide better help than a more famous expert, who may be less accessible or less articulate" (360). Stevens also notes that "[w]hile expert networks can be used by traditional organizations to strengthen their effort to produce and provide products and services, expert networks also seem to represent almost a new form of organization" (369). Many organizations hope that by facilitating communication and improving coordination, electronic networks will decrease both the costs and the time needed by bringing products to market. Due to proprietary and security concerns, a number of engineering organizations have implemented their own private, high-speed networks that are used only by their own employees. The need for high-bandwidth, completely reliable electronic transfer of critical data also makes the use of most public commercial networks infeasible for some industries and applications. Werner and Bremer note that even companies involved in industry-academiagovernment R&D cooperatives prohibit electronic links to external consortium members for fear of security leaks (46). The National Research Council's Panel on Engineering Employment Characteristics (National Research Council 1985) conducted an informal survey of engineering employers in which they obtained employers' views on the impact of new tools on engineering productivity. Survey results indicated that about one-third of employers had widely available computeraided drafting or design systems in place, few had computer-aided manufacturing systems, and about 50 percent had engineering information systems. Fewer than one half of the respondents had formally evaluated their systems although they estimated productivity gains of about 100 percent for drafting systems, 50 percent for design systems, and 35 percent for 15

Original page 18

information systems(68). The Panelconcludedthat '%hesenewcomputer-aidedtools permit increasingly sophisticated products to be designedin less time with substantially greater accuracyand with greater cost-effectiveness"(27) although they alsonoted that "their net effect on engineeringand on industry as a whole cannot be forecastwith confidence(26). Computer Use in Aerospace The aerospace industry possesses a number of characteristics that make it a natural environment for the use of information technology. It is a high technology industry, already highly computerized. It involves significant activity. Further, its end products are highly R&D, which is a communication-intensive complex, calling for a great deal of work task coordination and the integration of information created by diverse people. In describing the business and technology strategy in place at British Aerospace, Hall emphasized the need for increased computing and communications capabilities in aerospace firms aiming to design, develop, make and market complex systems while maintaining a technical competitive edge, and reducing costs (16-2). He noted that a number of typical information technology opportunities were particularly relevant to the aerospace industry, such as "improved productivity, better competitive edge, reduced time scales, closer collaboration, more streamlined management, better commonality of standards across sites, more operational flexibility, [and] constructive change of work force skill levels" (16-2). Rachowitz et al. describe efforts at Grumman Aerospace to realize a fully distributed computing environment. Grumman's goal is to implement a system of networked workstations in order to "cost-effectively optimize the computing tools available to the engineers, while promoting the systematic implementation of concurrent engineering among project teams" (38). The network includes PC's and software to be used for communication. Grumman assumes that their computer/information integrated environment (CIE) will result in 16

Original page 19

"product optimization quality products manufacturedwith fewer errors in shorter time and at a lower cost" (66). Black presents a brief overview of the uses and advantages of computer conferencing systems, noting that computer conferencing is a '_very powerful tool for the transfer of information in all areas of research and development and "a natural for the AGARD community" (13-4). Molholm describes the application of the Department of Defense Computer-aided Acquisition and Logistics Support (CALS) initiative to the aerospace community. CALS mandates the use of specific standards for the electronic creation and transmission of technical information associated with weapons systems development. Eventually all Department of Defense contractors and subcontractors will be required to create and distribute in digital form all the drawings, sp_ifications, technical data, documents, and support information required over the entire life cycle of a military project. The CALS system may be a significant impetus to networking for aerospace firms. The literature reveals that a number of engineering organizations are using electronic networks for a variety of communication activities, distributed computing, and shared access to information resources. Networks are being implemented to serve organizational goals and business strategies, i.e., to achieve impacts in terms of better and faster product development and cost savings. Such motivations for network investments suggest factors that may encourage network use in particular engineering organizations and alleviate the need for them in others. The literature also hints at a number of factors that may hinder network use, such as security and proprietary concerns, the failure of indexing techniques to retrieve stored information in a way useful to engineers, and the substantial financial outlays required to implement networked systems. Descriptions of computer and information technology needs, uses, problems, and impacts in engineering environments are scarce. Furthermore, the literature is fragmentary and anecdotal, with few empirical studies having been reported in the literature. Shuchman conducted a broad-based investigation of information transfer in engineering. The respondents 17

Original page 20

represented14 industriesin the following major engineeringdisciplines: aeronautical,chemical and environmental, civil, electrical, industrial, and mechanical. As part of this study, Shuchmanexaminedthe useof computerand information technologyby engineersto "identify the attitudes [of engineers]toward and usepatterns of computer and information technology in an effort to forecast the potential value of new information technologies" (36). Overall the survey resultsindicated that computerand information technologyhashigh potential usefulnessbut relatively low use among engineers. In analyzing this finding, it is important to keepin mind that the state of the art in computerand information technology has changeddramatically sinceShuchman'sstudy wasreleased. In Shuchman'sstudy, respondentswereaskedto indicate the use,non-use,andpotential use of 21 computer and information technologiescategorizedinto four groups. Overall, aeronauticalengineersmadegreateruseof computerand information technologiesthan did the other respondents.Aeronautical engineersalsoreported the highest useof "information transmissiontechnologies"(fax, telex, teleconferencing,and video conferencing).They also hadthe highestuserate for what Shuchmanidentified as "recorded/pre-recordedinformation technologies."Of the emergingtechnologies(e.g., digital imaging), aeronautical engineers reported the highest rate of current useand predicted use. A pilot study conducted as part of Phase1 of the NASA/DoD AerospaceKnowledge Diffusion ResearchProject investigatedthe technical communicationshabits and practices of U.S. aerospaceengineersand scientists(Pinelli et al., 1989).One of the objectivesof this study was to determinethe useand importance of computer and information technologyto them. Approximately 91 percent of the respondentsreported using computer and information technologyto communicateSTI. Approximately 95 percent of those respondentswho reported using this technologyindicated that it had increasedtheir ability to communicate. The lowest rates of use for any technologywere those reported for the mature technologies (e.g., micrographics). The rate of use for maturing technologies(e.g., electronic data bases)was relatively high, approximately 60 percent. Overall, 50-60 percent of the respon- 18

Original page 21

dents predicted that they would use the nascentor emergingtechnologies(e.g., electronic networks) (72-73). PRESENTATION OF THE DATA The responsesto the surveyare presentedfor four surveytopics. The responsesare based on 430 completedresponses. Demographics Survey data demographics for the study appear in table 1. The following "composite" participant profile was based on these data. (85.6%), has a bachelor's and a master's degree and works in process or product development Nature of the Work About 77 percent (333) of the respondents The survey participant works in industry (85.6%), was trained as an engineer (87.7%), (62.8%). described their current work activities as aerospace-related, and about 13 percent (55) described their current work activities as non-aerospace-related. About 10 percent (42) of the respondents were retired. Of those performing aerospace related work, about 66 percent (220) considered themselves to be engineers (about 2 percent, or 5 respondents, considered themselves to be scientists) and about 24 percent (79) classified themselves as managers. Of those performing non-aerospace related work, about 58 percent (32) of the respondents classified themselves as engineers, about 2 percent (1) as scientists, about 22 percent (12) as managers, and 18 percent (10) as other. For both groups (respondents performing aerospace and non-aerospace related work) a majority were trained as engineers. For those performing aerospace-related work, about 88 percent (291) were trained as engineers, 6 percent (19) as scientists, and 6 percent (22) as something else. For those performing non-aerospace-related work, about 84 percent (46) were trained as engineers, 2 percent (1) as scientists, 19 and 14 percent (8) as something else. Of those

Original page 22

Table 1. SurveyDemographics [n = 430] Demographics Do you currently work in: Industry Government Academics Other Your highest level of education: No degree degree 17 4.0 Technical/Vocational Bachelor's degree Master's degree Doctorate Post Doctorate Other type of degree Your years in aerospace: 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-> Were you trained as: Aerospace (non-aerospace) Engineer Scientist Other Is your work best classified as: Basic research Applied research Number % 332 85.6 45 11.6 1 0.2 10 2.6 21 4.9 218 50.7 150 34.9 15 3.4 1 0.2 8 1.9 80 23.8 80 21.4 73 19.4 103 27.4 30 8.0 291 (46) 87.7 (83.6) 5.7 (1.8) 22 6.6 (14.6) 3 1.0 37 13.0 development 179 62.8 Process or product Manufacturing Production Service or maintenance Sales or marketing Something else 32 11.2 9 3.2 5 1.8 1 0.3 19 6.7 2O

Original page 23

who classifiedthemselvesas engineers,about two-thirds (190) had spent at least 51 percent of the previous weekperforming engineering-relatedactivities. Information-Seeking In the Workplace Respondents were asked some questions about the sources of information they use at work. The questions and responses appear in table 2. The intent was to see if Table 2. Information In = 440] Source Selection Employed in Not employed aerospace, in aerospace, % % When you perform your job, co-workers in your place of employment are more important sources of information to you than are outside sources of information. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Your preferred method for obtaining technical 36.8 40.0 42.1 34.5 15.1 25.5 6.0 0.0 information is to communicate with co-workers in your place of employment. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree In general, would you say your primary reason for using co-workers to obtain technical information is: Because they are accessible 33.3 21.8 47.3 54.4 15.3 20.0 4.0 3.6 13.3 16.7 Because the informationthey have isrelevant 49.8 59.5 to your job Because the informationthey have isof 17.1 14.3 high technicalquality A combination of above 21 19.8 9.5

Original page 24

there were differencesin the style that engineersuse to gather the information they need on the job. Most respondentsindicated that co-workersare important information sources, more so than outside resources. There were some differences between aerospaceand non-aerospaceengineers. All engineersin the study prefer co-workers as a source of information over other sources. About 10% more aerospaceengineersthan non-aerospaceengineersstrongly agreedthat they preferred co-workersas information sources. Nearly 60 percent of the non-aerospace engineersversus50 percentof the aerospaceengineerssaidrelevanceof information was the reasonthey relied on co-workers.Most of thosewho mentioneda combination of factorssaid that all three reasonscontributed to their useof co-workersas information sources. Respondentswere asked how the technical uncertainty of a project affected the need for information. The questionsand responsesappearin table 3. Most aerospaceengineers (71 percent) agreedthat uncertainty increasedthe need for information. Only 58 percent strongly agreedthat uncertainty increasedthe needfor internal information and 42 percent strongly agreedthat _t increasedthe need for external information. Non-aerospaceengineers also agreed that technical uncertainty increasedthe need for technical information (66 percent). Only 40 percent strongly agreedthat uncertainty increasedthe need for internal information, and 36 percent strongly agreedthat it increasedthe needfor external information. Use of Electronic Networks Respondents were asked a series of questions about their use of electronic networks. The questions related to (1) the types of network(s) available and used, (2) the frequency of use of particular network functions, (3) types of communication partners, and (4) the nature of electronic communication. 22 r

Original page 25

Table 3. Technical Uncertainty and Information Use In= n0] As the technical uncertainty associated with a Employed in Not employed aerospace, in aerospace, % % problem or project increases, so does the need for technical information. Do you: Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree As the technical uncertainty associated with a problem or project increases, so does the need 70.6 65.5 27.3 32.7 1.5 1.8 0.6 0.0 for technical information internal to the organization. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree As the technical uncertainty associated with a 57.5 40.0 36.1 52.7 5.7 7.3 0.6 0.0 problem or project increases, so does the need for technical information external to the organization Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree In general, survey results paint a picture 41.7 36.4 49.2 49.1 8.5 14.5 0.6 0.0 of the widespread use of electronic networks within the aerospace community, with relatively little variation among the broad types of work. A majority of respondents (83% overall) reported that networks were accessible to them in the workplace. Further, a majority (71% overall) indicated that they used an electronic network that allowed them to contact people at remote sites, i.e., across town or around the world. Forty-four percent of respondents indicated that they used electronic 23

Original page 26

networks on a daily basis, and only 7% reported that they never used networks. The remainder of the responseswere fairly evenly distributed betweenperceiveduse of "once a month or less," "severaltimes a month," and "severaltimes a week." Fewer "engineers" reported daily usethan did peoplein the other job categories. Overall, the most common response(32%) was that networks were used during 10-24% of the past work week, but the data suggest that "engineers" are much "managers." Close to 80% of the respondents reported more intensive users of networks than are using electronic mail, file transfer, and information or data retrieval related to commercial or in-house data bases. Overall, about 50% used one-to-many electronic communication mechanisms, such as bulletin boards, newsletters or conferencing systems, and 55% used networks for remote log-in to other computer systems. Only 16% reported using electronic networks for the remote control of experimental or manufacturing devices. Thus, the use of networks in engineering work, broadly defined, seems primarily devoted to communication activities, exchanges of data, designs, etc., and distributed computing. There appears to be some variation in network use by the type of work, with "engineers" reporting the least extensive use of networks for one-to-many communications (46%). Other survey questions further explored the nature of network communcation. About two thirds of the respondents reported that they communicated electronically with people in their work group or others in their organization, while fully half responded that they used networks to communicate with people outside their own organization. Engineers were most likely to use networks to communicate with work group members, but least likely to use networks to communicate with people outside their own organization. Finally, respondents were asked to recall and report the purpose of a recent electronic exchange. A majority of reported exchanges were related to what was termed "technical" communication, including such things as sending data, asking technical questions, receiving specifications, and solving technical problems. Somewhat fewer examples 24 of "administrative" communication were

Original page 27

noted, and substantially fewerrespondentsreported a recent exchangeasbeing what might be termed either "general" or "social" in nature. CONCLUDING The SAE telephone survey was undertaken activities of aerospace engineers and scientists, REMARKS to obtain information on the daily work to measure various practices used by aerospace engineers and scientists to obtain STI, and to ask aerospace engineers and scientists about their use of electronic networks. A majority of respondents were trained as engineers and performed aerospace-related work. Overall, the respondents (strongly or somewhat) agreed that the primary a goal of most engineers in aerospace is to develop or improve a product or process (98%), the primary goal of most scientists in aerospace is to generate and publish new information (69%), and their job requires contributions to the literature (36%). them to publish new ideas or make original Co-workers are important sources of information to respondents performing both aerospace- and non-aerospace-related work. non-aerospace-related work prefer to obtain place of employment. A majority of respondents _spondents performing both aerospace and needed information from co-workers in their in both groups prefer to use co-workers to obtain needed information because they have information that is relevant to their jobs. A majority of respondents in both groups (71%/66%) strongly agreed that as the technical uncertainty associated with a problem or project increases, so does the need for technical information. A majority of both groups strongly agreed (58%/40%) that as technical uncertainty increases so, too, does the need for information internal to the organization. A lesser percentage of the respondents in both groups (42%/36%) strongly agreed that as technical uncertainty increases so, too, does the need for information external to the organization. Popular and scholarly literatures have addressed the nature of engineering work, the nature and role of communication in science and technology and, increasingly, the characteristics 25

Original page 28

and effects of electronic communication in various communities. Few studies have appeared that examine networking in engineering. Networks appear to be used quite widely for both internal and external communication purposes by engineers in the aerospace industry, especially for technical and administrative exchanges. Although electronic communication is perceived to contribute to engineering efficiency and effectiveness, its use is limited (at least in terms of today's technology) by an engineer's need for immediate, highly interactive discussion of complex problems of both a technical and non-technical nature. Networks do not provide an adequate means to convey the multi-faceted, multimedia information that is typically exchanged in those situations where, for example, engineers discuss issues and solutions while simultaneously consulting drawings, contracts, financial data, test results, and physical devices. Use also appears to be limited by an organization's lack of experience with electronic communcation: while dangers are easy to imagine and costs easy to tally, benefits are hard to predict and quantify. 26

Original page 29

REFERENCES Adams, James, L. Flying Buttresses, Entropy, and O-rings, the World of an Engineer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Ancona, Deborah G. and David F. Caldwell. 1991. "Information Technology and Work Groups: The Case of New Product Teams." In Intellectual Teamwort:: Social and Technical Foundations of Cooperative Work. Jolene Galagher, Robert E. Kraut, and Carmen Egido, eds. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Eartbaum, 1990. 173-190. Beckert, Beverly A. "The Technical Office: Engineers Automate Design Office Tasks With Communication and Management Tools." 74. Computer-Aided Engineering 8:12 (1989): 70- Black, John B. "Computer Conferencing: Minds Meeting Anywhere/Anytime." Paper 13 in Electronic Transfer of Information and Its Impact on Aerospace and Defense Research and Development. AGARD Conference Proceedings (CP)-466. (Paris: AGARD, 1990), 13-1-13-4. Boll, Henry. "Mapping Out the Factory Floor." In Developing World Communications. London: Grosvenor Press International, 1988, 248-249. Borchardt, John K. "Improve In-House Communications." Chemical Engineering 97:2 (1990): 135-138. Breton, Ernest J. "Indexing for Invention." Journal of the American Society for Inform_ation Science 42:3 (April 1991): 173-177. Breton, Ernest J. "Why Engineers Don't Use Databases: Indexing Techniques Fail To Meet the Needs of the Profession." ASIS Bulletin Christiansen, Donald "The Chicken-and-Egg 21. 7:6 (August 1981): 20--23. Problem." IEEE Spectrum 28:4 (April 1991): Constant, Edward W., II. The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. Dirr, Timothy L. and R. Gordon Stockdale. Aided Engineering. 8:6 (1989): 46-54. "Distributed Computing at 3M." Computer- Donovan, Arthur. "Thinking About Engineering." Technology 8J Culture 27 (1986): 674-677. Fergnson, Eugene S. "The Mind's Eye: Nonverbal Thought in Technology." Science 197.4306 (1977): 827-836. Florman, Samuel C. The Civilized Engineer. NY: St. Martin's Press, 1987. Gould, Constance C. and Karla Pearce, Information Needs in the Sciences: An Assessment. (Mountain View, CA: Libraries Group, 1991.) Hall, K. "Information Technology Applications: A British Aerospace Military Aircraft Ltd View." Paper 16 in Electronic Transfer of Information and Its Irapact on Aerospace and Defense Research and Development. AGARD Conference Proceedings (CP)-466. (Paris: AGARD, 1990), 16-1-16-16. 27

Original page 30

Heiler, Sandra and Arnon Rosenthal. " Engineering Databases, Tools, and Management: An Integration Framework." In Digest of Papers, COMPCON 89: Intellectual Leverage, 3_th IEEE Computer Society International 431-437. Conference. (Washington, DC: IEEE, 1989), Hollister, Solomon C. Engineer: Ingenious Contriver of the Instruments of Civilization. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Holmfeld, John D. Communication Behavior of Scientists and Engineers Ph.D. Diss., Case Western Reserve University, 1970. UMI 70-25874. Kemper, John D. Engineers and Their Profession. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, 1990. Laudan, Rachel. Introduction. In The Nature of Technological Knowledge: Are Models of Scientific Change Relevant? Rachel Laudan, ed. Boston: D. Reidel, 1984. 1-26. Layton, Edwin T. "Technology as Knowledge." Technology and Culture 15.1 (1974): 31-33. Mailloux, Elizabeth N. "Engineering Information Systems." In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 24. Martha E. Williams, ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1989, 239-266. Mishkoff, Henry C. "The Network Nation Emerges." Management Review 75:8 (1986): 29-31. Molholm, Kurt M. "Applications to the Aerospace and Defense P_D Community -- the DoD Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support (CALS) Initiative." Paper 14 in Electronic Transfer of Information and Its Impact on Aerospace and Defense Research and Development. AGARD Conference 14-1-14-8. Murotake, David K. A Double-Edged Sword: Computer Tools and Project Performance. UMI.) Proceedings (CP)-466. (Paris: AGARD, 1990), Relationships Between the Engineering Use of Ph.D. Diss., MIT, 1990. (Not available from National Research Council. Improving Engineering Design: Designing for Competitive Advantage. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991. National Research Council. Engineering Education and Practice in the United States: Engineering Employment Characteristics, 1980-2000. Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1985. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-86-219-920.) Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca O. Barclay. Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study. Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101534, Part 1. February 1989. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 89N26772.) Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Rebecca O. Barclay. "The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project." 219-233. Government Information Quarterly 8.2 (1991): Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Purton, Peter. "The Story of EDI and Odette." In Developing World Communications London: Grosvenor Press International, 1988, 234-235. 28

Original page 31

Rachowitz,Bernard I., et al. "Using WorkstationsEfficiently: Distributed ComputingPower With Workstations Pavesthe Way for ConcurrentEngineeringWith High Productivity." IEEE Spectrum, 28:4 (1991)" 48,66. Rhode, N. F. "Information Needs." In Advances Academic Press, 1986. 49-73. in Librarianship 14. W. Simonton, ed. NY: Ritti, R. Richard. The Engineer in the Industrial Corporation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Schatz, Willie. "Making CIM Work." Datamation (Dec. 1, 1988): 18-21. Sch6n, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: Basic Books, 1983. How Professionals Think in Action. NY: Shuchman, Hedvah L. Information Transfer in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The Futures Group, 1981. Stevens, Chandler Harrison. " Electronic Organization and Expert Networks: Beyond Electronic Mail and Computer Conferencing." In Proceedings of the 1987 IEEE Conference on Management and Technology: Management of Evolving Systems. NY: IEEE, 1987, 360-370. Stoll, Henry W. In Managing the Design-Manufacturing Process. John E. Ettlie & Henry W. Stoll, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990, 73-119. U.S. Department of Labor. "Professional Specialty Occupations -- Engineers." In Occupational Outlook Handbook 1990-91 Edition Office, 1990, 62-70. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Vincenti, Walter G. What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies From Aeronautical History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. Werner, Jerry and Jack Bremer. "Hard Lessons and Technology 7:3 (1991): 44-49. in Cooperative Research." Issues in Science Ziman, John. An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of Science and Technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. 29

Original page 32

APPENDIX A NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Fact Sheet The production, transfer, and use of scientific and technical information (STI) is an essential part of aerospace R&D. We define STI production, transfer, and use as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us 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 remind us that we know little about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn more about this process, we have organized a research project to study knowledge diffusion. Sponsored by NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD), the NASA/DoD is being conducted by researchers at the NASA Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project Langley Research Center, the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This research is endorsed by several aerospace professional societies including the AIAA, RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned by the AGARD and AIAA Technical This 4-phase project is providing descriptive Information Panels. and analytical data regarding the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels used to communicate STI and the social system of the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. Phases 1 investigates the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and places particular emphasis on their use of government funded aerospace STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government interface and places special emphasis on the role of the information intermediary in the knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academic-government interface and places specific emphasis on the information intermediaryfaculty-student interface. Phase 4 explores aerospace engineers and scientists from Brazil, Soviet Union. the information-seeking behavior of non-U.S. Western Europe, India, Israel, Japan, and the The results will help us to understand the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. The results of our research will contribute to increasing productivity and to improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. They can be used to identify and correct deficiencies, to improve access and use, to plan new aerospace STI systems, and should provide useful information to R&D managers, information managers, and others concerned with improving access to and utilization of STI. The results of our research are being shared freely with those who participate in the study. We have presented our findings at international meetings and have published several papers. You can get copies by contacting Dr. Pinelli. Dr. Thomas E. Pinelli Dr. John M. Kennedy Rebecca O. Barclay Mail Stop 180A Center for Survey Research Dept. of Language, Literature & Communication NASA Langley Research Center Indiana University Hampton, VA 23665 Bloomington, IN 47405 (804) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 12180 (518) 276-8983 Fax (518) 276-6783 30

Original page 33

APPENDIX B NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT PUBLICATIONS REPORTS Report No. 1 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca O. Barclay. PART 1 Technical Communications in Ae[ospace: 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 Pineili, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Wal_er 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 a.nd Space Administration. NASA TM-101625. August 1989. 58 p. (Available from NTIS 90Nl1647.) 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 Profit Managers' and Nonprofit Managers' Responses. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101626. October 1989. 71 p. (Available from NTIS 90N15848.) 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 5 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.) 6 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 91Ni8898.) 3t

Original page 34

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.) 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. NASA TM-104085. June 1991. 8 p. (Available from NTIS 91N24943.) 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 Doty. 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. NASA "[M-101662. January 1992. 130 p. (Available from NTIS 92N17001.) 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.) 13 Pinelli, Thomas E. and Nanci A. Glassman. Source Selection and Information Use by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of a Telephone Survey. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-107658. September 1992. 27 p. (NTIS pending.) 14 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Engineering Work and Information Use in Aerospace: Results of a Telephone Survey. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics TM-107673. October 1992. 25 p. and Space Administration. NASA (NTIS Pending.) 32

Original page 35

PAPERS Paper No. 1 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 19, 1990, Strasbourg, France. (Available from AIAA 90A21931.) 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.) Kennedy, John M. and Thomas E. Pinelti. 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.) 7 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 (DTIC) 1990 Annual Users Training Conference, Alexandria, VA, November t, 1990. (Available from AIAA 91 N28033.) 33

Original page 36

Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Rebecca O. Barclay. The Role of the Information Intermediary in the Diffuslon 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. Information Intermediaries and the Transfer of Aerospace Scientific 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.) 10 Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Rebecca O. 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.) 13 Pinelli, Thomas E. The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of 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 Technical Communication, Volume 38, No. 3 (Third Quarter, August 1991): 324-335. (Available from NTIS 92N28116.) 34

Original page 37

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.) 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 (AAAS), 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: Engineering Faculty and Students. A Survey of U.S. Aerospace 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.) 23 Pinelli, Thomas E.; Rebecca O. Barclay; Ann P. Bishop; and John M. Kennedy. Information Technology and Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion: Exploring the Intermediary-End User Interface in a Policy Framework. Reprinted from Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy. 2:2 (Summer 1992): 31-49. (AIAA pending.) 35

Original page 38

APPENDIX C SAE TELEPHONE INSTRUMENT Qi .0 First, I am going to ask a few questions about your current work. Would you describe your current work activities as aerospace-related or would you use some other term to describe them? 1 aerospace-related [goto q2] 5 other term - what is it? [specify] 6 retired (VOLUNTEERED) [go to demr] 8 DK 9 RF ===>[goto q2a] Q2.0 We understand that people in the aerospace industry, no matter what their job titles, often perform a wide variety of tasks on a day-to-day basis. If you could use only one term to define what you do at work, would you say you are an engineer, a scientist, a manager, or something else? i engineer [goto trnl] 3 scientist [goto trnl] 5 manager 7 something else - what term would you use? [specify][goto trnl] 8 DK 9 RF [goto infl] Q2.1 Would you consider yourself closer to an engineer or a scientist or [bold]don't[normal] you consider yourself to be either? 1 engineer 3 scientist 5 neither 8 DK 9 RF Q2.2 Were you trained as an engineer, a scientist, or something else? 1 engineer 3 scientist 5 something else - whal was it? [specify] 8 DK 9RF ===>[goto JT01] 36

Original page 39

Q3.0 We understand that people, no matter what their job titles, often perform a wide variety of tasks on a day-to-day basis. We'd like to know more about the different kinds of activities you do at work. If you could use only one term to define what you do at work, would you say you are an engineer, a scientist, a manager, or somelhing else? 1 engineer 3 scientist 5 manager 7 something else - what term would you use? [specify] 8 DK 9 RF [goto eng5] Q3.1 Were you trained as an engineer, a scientist, or something else? 1 engineer 3 scientist 5 something else - what was it? [specify] 8 DK 9 RF --->[goto engS] Q3.2 Could you tell me a few of the activities you did in the last work week that you consider to be engineering? Please feel free to use terms that are easy for you to describe your work activities. ===> [specify] Q3.3 Please describe a few activilies you did in the last work week that you [bold]don't[normal] consider to be engineering. --_> [specify] Q3.4 About what percentage of the last work week did you spend doing activities that you consider to be engineering? 0-100 998 DK 999 RF = > Q4.0 I am going Io read you some broad classifications that engineers might use to describe their work. Please tell me which [bold]one[normal] of the following classifications best describes your current work. Would you say your work is: 01 basic research 02 applied research 03 process or product developmenl 04 manufacturing or 05 something else? [goto en4a] 98 DK [goto en4a] 99 RF ===>[goto enjo] 37

Original page 40

Q4.1 Couldyouclassifyyourcurrentworkas: 06 production 07 serviceor maintenance 08 salesor marketing,or 09somethingelse[gotoen4b] 98DK 99 RF ==.=>[goto enjo] Q4.2 (SPECIFY HERE:)[no erase] ,,,,,=>[specify][goto enjo] Q4.3 Could you tell me some activities you did in the last work week that you consider to be science-related? Please feel free to use terms that are easy for you to describe your work activities. ===> [specify] Q4.4 Please describe a few activities you did in the last work week that you [bold]don't[normal] consider to be science-related. --==> [specify] Q4.5 About what percentage of the last work week did you spend doing activities that you consider to be science-related? 0-100 998 DK 999 RF == =---- > Q4.6 I am going to read you some broad classifications that some people use to describe their work. Please tell me which [bold]one[normal] of the following classifications best describes your current work. Would you say your work is: 01 basic research 02 applied research 03 process or product development 04 manufacturing, or 05 something else? [goto sc4a] 98 DK [goto sc4a] 99 RF ------>[goto enjo] Q4.7 Could you classify your current work as: 06 production 07 service or maintenance 09 sales or marketing, or 97 something else [goto sc4b] 98 DK r 99 RF ===>[goto enjo] --->[specify] 38 F II-

Original page 41

Q5.0 I will now read a series of statements about activities you might do at work. For each statement, please tell me how much you agree or disagree. Q5.1 First, the primary goal of most engineers in aerospace is [bold]to develop or improve a product or process.[normal] Do you: 1 strongly agree 3 somewhat agree 5 somewhat disagree, or 7 strongly disagree with this stalement? 8 DK 9 RF Q5.2 The primary goal of most scientists in aerospace is [bold]to generate and publish new information.[normal] Do you: 1 strongly agree 3 somewhat agree 5 somewhat_disagree, or 7 strongly disagree? 8 DK 9 RF Q5.3 Your job requires you to publish new ideas or make original contributions to the literature. Do you: 1 strongly agree 3 somewhat agree 5 somewhat disagree, or 7 strongly disagree? 8 DK 9 RF Q5.4 When you perform your job, co-workers in your place of employment are more important sources of information to you than are outside sources of information. (Do you:) 1 strongly agree 3 somewhat agree 5 somewhat disagree, or 7 strongly disagree (VOLUNTEERED) 0 I work alone [goto TTT1] 8 DK 9 RF 39

Original page 42

Q5.5 Yourpreferredmethodfor obtainingtechnicalinformationis to communicatewithcoworkersin yourplaceof employment.(Doyou:) 1 stronglyagree[goloen5a] 3 somewhatagree[gotoen5a] 5 somewhatdisagree,or 7 stronglydisagree 8 DK 9 RF ===>[goto infl] Q6.0 Next, we would like to know about how you obtain technical information while performing your daily work activities. I am going to read you some slatements, for each please tell me how much you agree or disagree. Q6.1 When you perform your job, co-workers in your place of employment are more than are outside sources of information. (Do imporlant sources of information to you you:) 1 strongly agree 3 somewhat agree 5 somewhat disagree, or 7 strongly disagree (VOLUNTEERED) 0 I work alone [goto TTTI] 8 DK 9 RF Q6.2 Your preferred method for obtaining lechnical information is to communicate wilh coworkers in your place of employment. (Do you:) 1 strongly agree[goto en5a] 3 somewhat agree[golo en5a] 5 somewhal disagree, or 7 strongly disagree 8 DK 9RF --->[goto infl] Q6.3 In general, would you say your primary reason for using co-workers to obtain technical information is: 1 because they are accessible 2 because the information they have is relevant to your job, or 3 because the information they have is of high technical quality (VOLUNTEERED) 7 A combination (specify)[specify] 8 DK 9 RF ===>[goto infa] 4O ti-

Original page 43

Q7.0 Next, we would like to know about how you obtain technical information while performing your daily work activities. I am going to read you some statements, for each please tell me how much you agree or disagree. Type <1 > to proceed Q7.1 As the technical uncertainly associated with a problem or project increases [bold]so does Ihe need for technical information.[normal] Do you: 1 slrongly agree 3 somewhat agree 5 somewhat disagree, or 7 strongly disagree with this statement? 8 DK 9 RF Q7.2 As the technical uncertainty associated with a problem or project increases [bold]so does the need for technical information internal to the organization. [normal] (Do you:) 1 strongly agree 3 somewhat agree 5 somewhat disagree, or 7 strongly disagree 8 DK 9 RF P---==_ Q7.3 As the lechnical uncertainly associated with a problem or project increases [bold]so does the need for technical information external[bold] to the organization. [normal] (Do you:) 1 strongly agree 3 somewhat agree 5 somewhat disagree, or 7 strongly disagree 8 DK 9 RF Wm_ Q8.0 The next few questions deal with the use of electronic networks for such things as electronic mail, the control of remote equipment, and on-line information searching. We are interested in how the use of nelworks affects people's work. Q8.1 At your workplace, do you have access to electronic networks? 1 yes[goto cmc2] 5 no 8 DK 9 RF •,==>[goto dem0] 41 7

Original page 44

Q8.2 Abouthowoftendoyouusenetworks?Wouldyousay: 1 never[goto dem0] 2 once a month or less 3 several limes a month 4 several times a week, or 5 daily 8 DK 9 RF [goto dem0] Q8.3 Do you use a network that allows you to connect to geographically distant sites, which could be across town or around lhe world? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF ml== ::_ Q8.4 Now I'm going to list some functions that networks provide. Please tell me which you use, even if you don't use them often. Do you use electronic mail? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF Q8.5 Do you use electronic bulletin boards or conferences? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9RF Q8.6 (Do you use) nelworks for electronic file transfers? I yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF Q8.7 Do you use networks to log into _;emote computers for such things as computational analysis or the use of design tools? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF 42

Original page 45

Q8.8 (Do you use networks) to control remote equipment such as laboratory instruments or machine tools? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF Q8.9 (Do you use networks) for information searching or data retrieval? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF l= == ===_ Q8.10 Many people use electronic networks to communicate with other people. Do you exchange electronic messages or files with members of your work group? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF Q8.11 Do you exchange electronic messages or files with other people in your organization who are not in your work group? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF == =1== _ Q8.12 Do you exchange electronic messages or files with people outside your organization? 1 yes 5 no 8 DK 9 RF Q8.13 People can use electronic messages for many purposes, for example, to keep in touch with friends, to schedule meetings, and to ask technical questions, among other things. If you think about the last several messages you sent or received, how would you describe their functions? ===> [specify] 43

Original page 46

Q8.14 About what percentage of the last work week was spent using networks for any purpose at all? 0-1 00 998 DK 999 RF ===>[goto dem0] Q9.0 Although we would like to learn more about your work experience, this project focuses on engineers and scientists who are [bold]currently [normal] working in aerospace. Therefore, I have jus! a few more questions to ask you that will help us group answers for analysis. Q9.1 How would you classify the type of organization you are currently working for? Would you say it is: 1 industry 2 government 3 academic 4 not-for-profit, or 5 something-else - what would you call it?[specify] 8 DK 9 RF Q9.2 How many years of professional work experience do you have in aerospace? 0-49 years 50 more than 50 years 98 DK 99 RF Q9.3 What is the highest level of education that you have completed? 1 technical or vocational degree 2 bachelor's degree 3 master's degree 4 doctorate 5 post doctorate (VOLUNTEERED) 0 I don't have a degree 6 some other type of degree, specify[specify] 8 DK 9 RF ==, :> 44 h

Original page 47

Original page 48

/

Original page 49

REPORT DOCUMENTATION Form Approved PAGE OMBNo. 0704-0188 Public reportingburdenfor thiscollectionof ;nformationis estimatedto average1hour per response,includingthe time for reviewinginstructions,searchingexistingdata sources, gathering and ma;ntaining the data nec,ecl, and completing and reviewing the collection of ;nformation, Send comments r'egarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collectionof information, includingsuggestionsfor reducingthisburden,toWashingtonHeadquartersServices,Directoratefor InformationOperationsandReports,1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503, 1, AGENCY USE ONLY(Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE October 1992 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Engineering Work and Information Use in Aerospace: Results of a Telephone Survey* 6. AUTHOR(S) 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum i lllimnl 5. FUNDING NUMBERS WU 505-90 Thomas E. Pinelli, John M. Kennedy, and Terry F. White ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 REPORT NUMBER g. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S)AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 I1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-107673 *Report number 14 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; John M. Kennedy and Terry F. White: Indiana University Center for Survey Research, Bloomington, IN 47406. 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 who were on the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) mailing list was conducted between August 14-26, 1991. The survey was undertaken to obtain information on the daily work activities of aerospace engineers and scientists, to measure various practices used by aerospace engineers and scientists to obtain STI, and to ask aerospace engineers and scientists about their use of electronic networks. Co-workers were found important sources of information. Co-workers are used to obtain technical information because the information they have is relevant, not because co-workers are accessible. As technical uncertainty increases so does the need for information internal and external to the organization. Electronic networks enjoy widespread use within the aerospace community. These networks are accessible and they are used to contact people at remote sites. About 80% of the respondents used electronic mail, file transfer, and information or data retrieval related to commercial or in-house data bases. 14. 5UBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; Engineer; Information use; Technical Uncertainty; Electronic 45 networks 16. PRICE CODE A03 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIOI 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIOI_J 20. LIMITATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-2B0-5500 OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified UL Stand,_rd Form 298(Rev. 2-8g) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-I02 NASA-Langley,1992

Original page 50