Full report

Original page 1

r m NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Report Number 24 Project NASA Technical Memorandum 109088 p,,. The Technical Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace r_ Engineers and Scientists: Results Thomas E. Pinelli NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia Rebecca O. Barclay Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, New York John M. Kennedy Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana May 1994 National eo 0" of the Phase 1 SAE Mail Survey /1 I tO 0 I ,-.. N 4" U 0". _ 0 Z =) 0 pr'i m ,.J el! ,<[ r,7 Z_ A_ >. k,.¸ W ¢ ell ,.) .It": U ' k,-L ¢ u_c Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Original page 2

tt _ ," - , _F T

Original page 3

TIlE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS: RESULTS PRACTICES OF U.S. AEROSPACE OF THE PHASE 1 SAE MAIL SURVEY Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy ABSTRACT The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports, present a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-5.-vis the technical communication practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. INTRODUCTION NASA and the DoD maintain scientific acquiring, processing, announcing, publishing, performed and government-sponsored research. and technical information (STI) systems for and transferring the results of government- Within both the NASA and DoD STI systems, the U.S. government technical report is considered a primary mechanism for transferring the results of this research to the U.S. aerospace community. However, McClure (1988) concludes that we actually know little about the role, importance, and impact of the technical report in the transfer of federally funded R&D because little empirical information about this product is available. We are examining the system(s) used to diffuse the results of federally funded aerospace R&D as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This project investigates, among other things, the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, the factors that influence the use of STI, and the role played by U.S. government technical reports in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace STI (Pinelli, Kennedy, and Barclay, 1991; Pinelli, Kennedy, Barclay, and White, 1991). The results of this investigation could (1) advance the development of practical theory, (2) contribute to the design and development of aerospace information systems, and (3) have practical implications for transferring the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to the U.S. aerospace community. The project fact sheet is Appendix A.

Original page 4

In this report,we summarizethe literatureon technicalreports,provide a model thatdepicts the transfer of federally funded aerospaceR&D throughthe U.S. governmenttechnicalreport, andpresentthe resultsof the Phase1 SAE mailsurvey. We summarizethe findingsof the Phase 1 SAE mail surveyin termsof the technicalcommunicationpracticesof U.S.aerospaceengineers andscientists. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Although they have the potential for increasing technological innovation, productivity, and economic competitiveness, U.S. government technical reports may not be utilized because of limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. According to Ballard, et al. (1986), the current system "virtually guarantees that much of the Federal investment in creating STI will not be paid back in terms of tangible products and innovations." They further state that "a more active and coordinated role in STI transfer is needed at the Federal level if technical reports are to be better utilized." Characteristics of Technical Reports The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different roles in communication within and between organizations. The technical report has been defined etymologically, according to report content and method (U.S. Department of Defense, 1964); behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al., 1964); and rhetorically, according to the function of the report within Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical a system for communicating STI (Mathes and report literature are difficult to establish because of wide variations in the content, purpose, and audience being addressed. The nature of the report -- whether it is informative, analytical, or ,assertive -- contributes to the difficulty. Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many shapes, sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary; they might be brief (two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche, computer printouts or vugraphs, and often they are loose leaf (with periodic changes that need to be inserted) or have a paper cover, and often contain foldouts. They slump on the shelf, their staples or prong fasteners snag other documents on the shelf, and they are not neat." Technical reports may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Gibb and Phillips, 1979; Subramanyam, 1981): • Publication is not through the publishing • Readership/audience is usually limited. • Distribution may be limited or restricted. trade. 2

Original page 5

• Contentmay includestatisticaldata,catalogs,directions,designcriteria, conferencepapersandproceedings,literature reviews,or bibliographies. • Publication may involve a variety of printing and binding methods. The SATCOM report (National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, 1969) lists the following characteristics • It is written for an individual or organization reports. • It is basically a stewardship report to some reported. of the technical report: that has the right to require such agency that has funded the research being • It permits prompt dissemination of data results on a typically flexible distribution basis. • It can convey the total research story, including exhaustive exposition, detailed tables, ample illustrations, and full discussion of unsuccessful approaches. History and Growth of the U.S. Government Technical Report The development of the [U.S. government] technical report as a major means of communicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey the establishment of the U.S. Office of Scientific and Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and Research and Development (OSRD). Further, the growth of the U.S. government technical report coincides with the expanding role of the Federal government in science and technology during the post World War II era. However, U.S. government technical reports have existed for several decades. The Bureau of Mines Reports of Investigation (Redman, 1965/66), the Professional Papers of the United States GeoIogical Survey, and the Technological Papers of the National Bureau of Standards (Auger, 1975) are early examples of U.S. government technical reports. Perhaps the first U.S. government publications officially created to document the results of federally funded (U.S.) R&D were the technical reports first published by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1917. Auger (1975) states that "the history of technical report literature in the U.S. coincides almost entirely with the development of aeronautics, the aviation industry, and the creation of the NACA, which issued its first report in 1917." In her study, Information Transfer in Engineering, Shuchman (1981) reports that 75 percent of the engineers she surveyed used technical reports; that technical reports were important to engineers doing applied work; and that aerospace engineers, more than any other group of engineers, referred to technical reports. However, in many of these studies, including Shuchman's, technical reports, non-U.S, government technical it is often unclear whether U.S. government reports, or both are included. The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded R&D are made available to the scientific community and are added to the literature of

Original page 6

science and technology (President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, 1962). McClure (1988) points out that "although the [U.S.] government technical report has been variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, there is no real knowledge base regarding the role, production, use, and importance [of this information product] in terms of accomplishing this task." Our analysis of the literature supports the following conclusions reached by McClure: • The body of available knowledge is simply inadequate and noncomparable to determine the role that the U.S. government technical funded R&D. • Further, most of the available knowledge report plays in transferring the results of federally is largely anecdotal, limited in scope and dated, and unfocused in the sense that it lacks a conceptual framework. • The available knowledge does not lend itself to developing "normalized" answers to questions regarding U.S. government technical reports. THE TRANSFER OF FEDERALLY FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Three paradigms -- appropriability, dissemination, and diffusion -- have dominated the transfer of federally funded (U.S.) R&D (Ballard, et al., 1989; Williams and Gibson, 1990). Whereas variations of them have been tried within different agencies, overall Federal (U.S.) STI transfer activities continue to be driven by a "supply-side," dissemination model. The Appropriability Model The appropriability model emphasizes the production of knowledge by the Federal government that would not otherwise be produced by the private sector and competitive market pressures to promote the use of that knowledge. This model emphasizes the production of basic research as the driving force behind technological development and economic growth and assumes that the Federal provision of R&D will be rapidly assimilated by the private sector. Deliberate transfer mechanisms and intervention by information intermediaries are viewed as unnecessary. Appropriability stresses the supply (production) of knowledge in sufficient quantity to attract potential users. Good technologies, according to this model, sell themselves and offer clear policy recommendations regarding Federal priorities for improving technological development and economic growth. This model incorrectly _ssumes that the results of federally funded R&D will be acquired and used by the private sector, ignores the fact that most basic research is irrelevant to technological innovation, and dismisses the process of technological innovation within the firm. The Dissemination Model The dissemination model emphasizes the need to transfer information to potential users and embraces the belief that the production of quality knowledge is not sufficient to ensure its fullest

Original page 7

use. Linkage mechanisms,such as information intermediaries,are neededto identify useful knowledge and to transfer it to potential users. This model assumes that if these mechanisms are available to link potential users with knowledge producers, then better opportunities exist for users to determine what knowledge is available, acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The strength of this model rests on the recognition that STI transfer and use are critical elements of the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is passive, for it does not take users into consideration except when they enter the system and request assistance. The dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-user transfer procedures that are seldom responsive in the user context. User requirements are seldom known or considered in the design of information products and services. The Knowledge Diffusion Model The knowledge diffusion model is grounded in theory and practice associated with the diffusion of innovation and planned change research and the clinical models of social research and mental health. Knowledge diffusion emphasizes "active" intervention as opposed to dissemination and access; stresses intervention and reliance on interpersonal communications as a means of identifying and removing interpersonal barriers between users and producers; and assumes that knowledge production, transfer, and use are equally important components of the R&D process. This approach also emphasizes the link between producers, transfer agents, and users and seeks to develop user-oriented mechanisms (e.g., products and services) specifically tailored to the needs and circumstances of the user. It makes the assumption that the results of federally funded R&D will be under utilized unless they are relevant to users and ongoing relationships are developed among users and producers. The problem with the knowledge diffusion model is that (1) it requires a large Federal role and presence and (2) it runs contrary to the dominant assumptions of established Federal R&D policy. Although U.S. technology policy relies on a "dissemination-oriented" approach to STI transfer, other industrialized nations, such as Germany and Japan, are adopting "diffusion-oriented" policies which increase the power to absorb and employ new technologies productively (Branscomb, 1991; Branscomb, 1992). The Transfer of (U.S.) Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D A model depicting the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. government technical report appears in figure 1. The model is composed of two parts -- the informal that relies on collegial contacts and the formal that relies on surrogates, information producers, and information intermediaries to complete the "producer to user" transfer process. When U.S. government (i.e., NASA) technical reports are published, the initial or primary distribution is made to libraries and technical information centers. Copies are sent to surrogates for secondary and subsequent distribution. A limited number of copies are set aside to be used by the author for the "scientist-to-scientist" exchange of information at the collegial level.

Original page 8

Informal (Collegial) Surrogates Producers • DTIC • DoD eCAB • DROLS • NASA 0 eCASI • DoD/NASA • STAR contractors • RECON & grantees eNTIS • GRA & I • NTIS file Formal Information Users Intermediaries • Aerospace • Librarians engineers and scientists • Gatekeepers o • Aerospace • Linking engineering agents faculty and students • Knowledge brokers t Figure 1. The U.S. Government Technical Report in a Model Depicting the Dissemination of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. Surrogates serve as technical report repositories or clearinghouses for the producers and include the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), the NASA Center for Aero Space Information (CASI), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). These surrogates have created a variety of technical report Awareness Bibliographies), STAR (Scientific announcement journals such as CAB (Current and Technical Aerospace Reports), and GRA&I (Government Reports Announcement and Index) and computerized retrieval systems such as DROLS (Defense RDT&E Online System), RECON (REsearch CONnection), and NTIS On-line that permit online access to technical report data bases. Information intermediaries are, in large part, librarians and technical information specialists in academia, government, and industry. Those representing the producers serve as what McGowan and Loveless (1981) describe as "knowledge brokers" or "linking agents." Information intermediaries connected with users act, according to Allen (1977), as "technological entrepreneurs" or "gatekeepers." The more "active" the intermediary, the more effective the transfer process becomes (Goidhor and Lund, 1983). Active intermediaries move information from the producer to the user, often utilizing interpersonal (i.e., face-to-face) communication in the process. Passive information intermediaries, on the other hand, "simply array information for the taking, relying on the initiative of the user to request or search out the information that may be needed" (Eveland, 1987). The overall problem with the total Federal STI system is that "the present system for transferring the results of federally funded STI is passive, fragmented, and unfocused;" effective knowledge transfer is hindered by the fact that the Federal government "has no coherent or systematically designed approach to transferring the results of federally funded R&D to the user" (Ballard, et al., 1986). In their study of issues and options in Federal STI, Bikson and her colleagues (1984) found that many of the interviewees believed "dissemination activities were

Original page 9

I afterthoughts, undertaken without serious commitment by Federal agencies whose primary concerns were with [knowledge] production and not with knowledge transfer;" therefore, "much of what has been learned about [STI] and knowledge transfer has not been incorporated into federally supported information transfer activities." Problematic to the informal part of the system is that knowledge users can learn from collegial contacts only what those contacts happen to know. Ample evidence supports the claim that no one researcher can know about or keep up with all the research in his/her area(s) of interest. Like other members of the scientific community, aerospace engineers and scientists are faced with the problem of too much information to know about, to keep up with, and to screen. Further, information is becoming more interdisciplinary in nature and more international in scope. Two problems exist with the formal part of the system. First, the formal part of the system employs one-way, source-to-user transmission. The problem with this kind of transmission is that such formal one-way, "supply side" transfer procedures do not seem to be responsive to the user context (Bikson, et al., 1984). Rather, these efforts appear to start with an information system into which the users' requirements are retrofit (Adam, 1975). The consensus of the findings from the empirical research is that interactive, two-way communications are required for effective information transfer (Bikson, et al., 1984). Second, the formal part relies heavily on information intermediaries to complete the knowledge transfer process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition, empirical data on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. The impact of information intermediaries is likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context. According to Roberts and Frohman (1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion the numerous Federal STI programs are "highest of technological innovation. They claim that in frequency and expense yet lowest in impact" and that Federal "information dissemination activities have led to little documented knowledge utilization." Roberts and Frohman also note that "governmental programs start to encourage utilization of knowledge only after the R&D results have been generated" rather than during the idea development phase of the innovation process. David (1986), Mowery (1983), and Mowery and Rosenberg (1979) conclude that successful [Federal] technological innovation rests more with the transfer and utilization of knowledge than with its production. THE INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF ENGINEERS The information-seeking behavior of engineers and scientists has been variously studied by information and social scientists, the earliest studies having been undertaken in the late 1960s m (Pinelli, 1991). The results of these studies have not accumulated to form a significant body of knowledge that can be used to develop a general theory regarding the information-seeking | .

Original page 10

behavior of engineers and scientists. The difficulty in applying the results of these studies has been attributed to the lack of a unifying theory, a standardized methodology, and the common definitions (Rohde, 1986). Despite the fact that numerous "information use" studies have been conducted, the information-seeking behavior of engineers and information use in engineering are neither broadly known nor well understood. There are a number of reasons (Berul, et al., 1965): (1) many of the studies were conducted for narrow or specific purposes in unique environments such as experimental laboratories; (2) many, if not most, of them focused on scientists exclusively or engineers working in a research environment; especially engineers working in manufacturing (3) few studies have concentrated on engineers, and production; (4) from an information use standpoint, some engineering disciplines have yet to be studied; (5) most of the studies have concentrated on the users' use of information packages such as professional journals rather in terms of a library and/or specific information than how users produce, transfer, and use information; and (6) many of the studies, as previously stated, were not methodologically sophisticated and few included testable hypotheses or valid procedures for testing the study's hypotheses. Further, we know very little about the diffusion of knowledge in specific communities such as aerospace. In the past 25 years, few studies have been devoted to understanding the information environment in which aerospace engineers and scientists work, the information-seeking behavior of aerospace engineers and scientists, and the factors that influence the use of federally funded aerospace STI. Presumably, the results of such studies would have implications for current and future aerospace STI systems and for making decisions regarding the transfer and use of federally funded aerospace STI. RESULTS OF THE PHASE 1 SAE MAlL SURVEY This research was conducted as a Phase 1 activity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Three SAE surveys were conducted. The first two were telephone surveys (Pinelli and Glassman, September 1992; Pinelli, Kennedy, and White, October 1992). The third utilized survey research in the form of a self-administered (self-reported) mail questionnaire. Survey participants consisted of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were on the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) mailing list (not necessarily members of the SAE). The survey instrument appears as Appendix B. The Survey The questionnaire used in this study was jointly prepared by the project team and representatives from Continental Research. On July 7, 1991, 35 pretest surveys were sent to U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists across the country along with a form to voice their opinions about the survey. Of the pretest surveys that were returned, comments indicated only a few minor concerns. Telephone follow-ups were also completed with pretest participants.

Original page 11

After final approval, 2,000 surveys were printed and mailed on August 6-7, 1991. Included in the envelope were an ll-page questionnaire; a cover letter; and a self-addressed, franked reply envelope. A toll-free telephone number was provided in the cover letter for respondents to call if the survey was not relevant to them. "Address Correction Requested" was stamped on the outside of each envelope so undeliverable mail would be returned. Five hundred forty-one survey responses were generated from August 7 to September 6, 1991. Several people used the toll-free number to inform Continental Research that the survey was not relevant. Some respondents returned their completed surveys while others sent them back incomplete with a note indicating that the survey was not relevant. Some surveys were returned with a note indicating the person to whom the envelope was addressed was no longer with the company. The returned "Address Correction Requested" surveys were re-addressed and remailed. On September 6, 1991, follow-up post cards were sent to the 1,459 individuals who had not yet responded to encourage them to complete and return the survey. By October 1, 1991, the mailings had yielded 764 completed survey responses. A reminder letter with a second copy of the survey was mailed to the 1,236 individuals who had not responded to the first mailing or the post card reminder. Between October 30 and November 6, 1991, telephone calls were made to each person on the sample list who had not responded. All calls were made at the Continental Research central telephone facility by professional staff interviewers between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. By November 29, 1991, the cut-off date, 946 completed surveys were received. The adjusted completion rate for the = survey was 67 percent. Data Collection and Analysis A variation of Fianagan's (1954) critical incident technique was used to guide data collection. According to Lancaster (1978), the theory behind the critical incident technique is that it is much easier for people to recall accurately what they did on a specific occurrence or occasion than it is to remember what they do in general. Respondents were asked to categorize the most important job-related projects, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. The categories included (1) educational, (2) research, (3) design/development, (4) manufacturing/production, (5) computer applications, (6) management, and (7) other. Respondents were also asked to rate the amount of technical uncertainty and complexity they faced when they started their most important project, task, or problem. Technical uncertainty and complexity were measured on 5-point scales (1.0 = little uncertainty; 5.0 = great uncertainty; 1.0 = little complexity, 5.0 = great complexity). Survey participants were also asked to indicate whether they worked alone or with others in completing/solving the most important job-related project, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. Technical uncertainty, complexity, and the importance of federally funded aerospace R&D were measured using ordinal scales. Hours spent communicating and the number of journal articles, conference-meeting papers, and U.S. government technical reports used were measured 9

Original page 12

on an interval scale. Use of formal information sources and federally funded aerospace R&D were measured using a nominal scale. Data analysis was based on 946 responses, the total number of respondents. Descriptive Findings A total of 946 usable surveys was received by the established cut-off date. Of the 946 respondents, 872 (92.2%) worked in industry, 63 (6.7%) worked in government, 6 (0.6%) worked in academia, and 5 (0.5%) had some other affiliation. Survey demographics for the 946 respondents appear in table 1. The following "composite" participant profile was developed for the respondents: works in industry (92.2%), has a bachelor's degree (52.7%), has an average of 18.7 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (90.8%, 90.1%), and works in design/development (60.1%). Project, Task, Problem Survey participants were asked to categorize the most important job-related project, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. The categories and responses are listed in table 2. A majority of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems (56%) were categorized as design/development. About 11 percent and 14 percent of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as manufacturing/production and management, respectively. Most respondents (83%) worked with others (did not work alone) in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem. Number of Groups and Group Size. On average, respondents worked with 2.72 groups; each group contained an average of 6.6 members (table 2). A majority of respondents (72%) performed engineering duties while working on their most important job-related project, task, or problem. About 24 percent performed management duties. proiect, Task, Problem Complexit¥ and Uncertainty. Respondents were asked to rate the overall complexity of their most important job-related project, task, or problem. The mean complexity score was 3.72 (of a possible 5.00). Respondents were also asked to rate the amount of technical uncertainty they faced when they started their most important project, task, or problem. The average (mean) technical uncertainty score was 3.19 (of a possible 5.00). Correlation coefficients (Pearson's r) were calculated to compare (1) the overall "level of project, task, or problem complexity" and "technical uncertainty" and (2) the level of "project, task, or problem complexity by category" and "technical uncertainty." The correlation coefficients appear in table 3. Positive and significant correlations were found for both comparisons. These findings support the hypothesis that there is a (positive) relationship between technical uncertainty and complexity. Proiect, Task, or Problem and Information following information sources used to complete 10 Use. Respondents were given a list of the their most important job-related project, task, or

Original page 13

Table 1. Survey [n = 946] Demographics Do you currently work in: Industry Government Academia Not-for-Profit Your highest level of education: No degree Technical/Vocational degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree Doctorate Other type of degree Your years in aerospace: 1 through 5 years 6 through 10 years 11 through 20 years 21 through 40 years 41 or more years Mean = 18.7 years Median = 16.0 years Your education: Engineer Scientist Other Your primary duties: Engineer Scientist Other Is your work best classified as: Teaching/Academic Research Management Design/Development Manufacturi ng/Production Service/Maintenance Sales/Marketing Other il Demographics Percentage Number 92.2 872 6.7 63 0.6 6 0.5 5 5.6 53 2.5 23 52.7 498 27.0 255 5.1 48 7.3 69 10.5 98 24.1 224 24.5 227 39.1 362 1.8 18 90.8 859 7.2 68 2.0 19 90.1 852 2.5 24 7.4 70 0.3 3 7.0 66 15.4 146 60.1 569 11.6 110 2.7 26 1.3 12 1.4 14

Original page 14

problem: (1) used personal store of technical information, (2) spoke with coworkers inside the organization, (3) spoke with colleagues outside of the organization, (4) spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist, and (5) used literature resources in the organization's library. They were asked to identify the steps Table 2. Project, Task, In = 946] Factors Categories of Project, Task, or Problem: Educational Research Design Development Manufacturing/Production Computer Applications Management Other Worked on Project, Task or Problem: Alone With others Mean number of groups = 2.72 Mean number of people/group = 6.58 Nature of duties performed: Engineering Science Management Other Table 3. they followed to obtain needed information by or Problem Categorization Percentage Number 1.7 16 9.3 88 30.7 290 25.3 239 11.1 105 4.2 40 14.3 135 3.5 33 17.0 161 83.0 758 71.7 678 2.9 27 24.0 227 1.5 14 Correlation of Project Complexity and Technical Uncertainty by Type of Project, In = 946] Complexity - Unceaainty Correlation Overall** Education/Research Design Development Manu facturing,/Production Ma nagement Computer Applicatiolts * r values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. Task, or Problem n r 946 .4563* 104 .3581" 290 .4716" 239 .4781" 105 .4830* 135 .4235* 40 .2326 ** Overall mean complexity (uncertainty) score = 3.72 (3.19) out of a possible 5.00. 12

Original page 15

sequencing these items (e.g., #1,#2,#3,#4, and #5). They were instructed to place an "X" beside the step(s) (i.e., information source) they did not use. The results appear in table 4. Table 4. Information Sources Used to Solve Project, Task, or Problem Used Used Used Used Not Used Second Third Fourth Fifth Used First Information Source % Personal Store of Technical 17.5 10.5 Information 59.5 Spoke With Coworker(s) 45.2 12.3 26.8 Inside the Organization Spoke With Colleagues Outside of the 16.2 32.1 13.3 6.0 26.7 5.6 Organization Used Literature Resources in My Organization's 4.9 Library Spoke With a Librarian/ Technical Information 3.2 Specialist % % % % % 11.1 19.3 20.2 8.7 35.8 3.7 7.6 12.8 15.9 56.9 Use of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. About 44 percent (412) of the participants used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in their work. Respondents who used federally funded aerospace R&D in their work were given a list of 12 sources. They were asked to indicate how often they had learned about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D from each of the 12 sources. A 4-point scale (4.0 = frequently; 1.0 = never) was used to measure frequency. In table 5, the "frequently" and "sometimes" responses were combined to determine the overall use of the 12 sources. Of the six most frequently used sources, half involve interpersonal communication and half are formal (written) communication. Three of the five "federal initiatives" were the sources used least to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. The respondents who reported using the results of federally funded aerospace R&D were asked if they used these results in completing the most important job-related project, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. The 26 percent (250) of respondents who answered "yes" were asked about the importance of these results in completing the project, task, or problem. A 5-point scale (1.0 = very unimportant, 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. The mean importance rating was 3.5. Almost one-half of those who used federally funded R&D (123 respondents) responded with an importance rating of "4" or "5". Sixty-three percent (157) of those who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing 13

Original page 16

Table 5. Sources Most Frequently Used to Learn About the Results of Federally [n = 412] Source 1. Professional and Society Journals 2. Coworkers Inside My Organization 3. Trade Journals 4. NASA and DoD Technical Reports Funded Aerospace R&D Percentage* Number 78.8 325 78.2 322 71.6 295 70.9 292 5. Colleagues Outside My Organization 56.6 233 6. NASA and DoD Contacts 7. Professional and Society Meetings 53.4 220 41.0 169 8. Searches of Computerized Data Bases 37.2 153 9. NASA and DoD Sponsored Conferences and Workshops 36.4 150 10. Visits to NASA and DoD Facilities 30.9 127 11. Publications such as STAR 26.0 107 *Includes combined "frequently" and "sometimes" responses. 2 E their most important job-related project, task, or problem indicated that the results were published [ in either a NASA or DoD technical report. L [ The respondents who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem were asked which problems, if any, they encountered in using these results (see table 6). Respondents were given a list of six problems from which to choose. About 52% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem. About 41% reported that the "time and effort it took to physically obtain the results" was a problem. About 24% indicated that "accuracy, precision, and reliability of the results" was a problem, and about 23% reported that "distribution limitations or security restrictions" constituted a problem. About 15%/9% indicated that "organization or format"/"legibility or readability" of the results Technical Communications Practices constituted a problem. m Data which describe factors concerning the production and use of technical information are summarized in table 7. Participants were asked to indicate the importance of communicating technical information effectively (e.g., producing _= written materials or oral discussions). A 5-point scale was used to measure importance (1.0 : very unimportant; 5.0 = very important). 14

Original page 17

Importance and Time Spent. The mean importance rating was 4.35; approximately 84 percent of respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical information effectively. Respondents were also asked to report the total number of hours per week they had Table 6. Problems Related to Use of Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D [n = 250] Problem Time and Effort to Locate Results Time and Effort to Obtain Results Accuracy, Precision and Reliability of Results Distribution Limitations or Security Restrictions of Results Organization or Format of Results Legibility or Readability of Results Percentage Number 52.0 130 40.8 102 23.6 59 22.8 57 14.8 37 9.2 23 spent communicating technical information, both in written form and orally, during the past 6 months. Respondents reported spending slightly average of 10.70 hours/week) than written Approximately 62 percent of the respondents more time on producing oral discussions (an materials (an average of 9.03 hours/week). indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information had increased over the past 5 years. About 7 percent indicated a decrease in the amount of time spent communicating technical information over the same period. Respondents were also asked to report the total number of hours per week spent working with technical information, both written and oral, received from others in the past 6 months (see table 7). Respondents reported spending slightly more time working with written technical information received from others (an average of 7.78 hours/week) than with oral materials (an average of 7.10 hours/week). Approximately 58 percent of the respondents indicated that, compared with 5 years ago, the amount of time spent working with technical information received from others had increased. About 11 percent indicated a decrease in the amount of time they spent communicating technical information when compared with 5 years ago. Collaborative Writing. An attempt was made to determine the amount of writing in U. S. aerospace that is collaborative. Survey participants written technical communications that involved were asked to indicate the percentage of their writing alone, with one other person, with a group of two to five people, and with a group of more than five people. About 41 percent of the survey respondents indicated that about 100 percent of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. [The mean percent was C)( = 78.25) and the median percent was 90.00.] About 45 percent indicated that their written technical communications involved 15

Original page 18

Table 7. TechnicalInformation: Importance,ProductionandUse, and ChangeOver Time [n = 946] Communication And Receipt Of Information Importance Of Communicating Information: Unimportant Neither important nor unimportant Important Mean = 4.35 Median = 5.00 Time Spent Producing Written Materlal: 0 hours per week 1 through 5 hours per week 6 through 10 hours per week 11 through 15 hours per week 16 through 20 hours per week 21 or more hours per week Mean = 9.03 Median = 8.00 Time Spent Communicating Information Orally: 0 hours per week 1 through 5 hours per week 6 through 10 hours per week 11 through 15 hours per week 16 through 20 hours per week 21 or more hours per week Mean = 10.70 Median = 10.013 Change Over Past 5 Years ill tile Amount of Time Spent Communicating Information: Increased Stayed the same Decreased Time Spent Working With Written Inforn|ation Received From Others: 0 hours per week 1 through 5 hours per week 6 through 10 hours per week 11 through 15 hours per week 16 through 20 hours per week 21 or more hours per week Mean = 7.78 Median = 5.00 Time Spent Receiving Information Orally From Others: 0 hours per week 1 through 5 hours per week 6 through 10 hours per week 11 through 15 hours per week 16 through 20 hours per week 21 or more hours per week Mean = 7.10 Median = 5.00 Change Over Past 5 Years In The Amount Of Time Spent Receiving lnfornlation: Increased Stayed tile same Decreased 16 Percentage Number 7.7 73 8.0 76 84.3 797 0.7 6 39.0 355 36.3 330 8.5 77 11.4 104 3.9 36 0.3 3 29.5 266 35.1 317 12.0 109 17.6 159 5.3 50 61.5 582 31.3 296 7.2 68 1.4 13 48.9 449 33.3 307 5.6 52 7.8 72 2.8 27 2.5 22 53.1 473 28.3 252 6.9 61 7.0 62 2.2 20 57.6 545 31.1 294 11.3 107 l

Original page 19

writing with one other person. [The mean percent was (X = 9.84) and the median percent was 0.0.] About 45 percent indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. [The mean percent was 02, = 9.84) and the median percent was 0.0.] About 39 percent indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of more than five people. median percent was 0.0.] [The mean percent was ('X = 3.25) and the Survey participants were asked if they find writing as part of a group more or less productive (i.e., producing more written products or producing better written products) than writing alone. The responses appear in table 8. Overall, slightly more of the respondents indicated that writing with a group is more productive than writing alone. About 22 percent indicated that a group is more productive and about 21 percent indicated that a group is less productive. About 16 percent indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. Table 8. Influence of Group Participation on Writing Productivity [n = 946] Selection A group is more productive than writing alone A group is about as productive as writing alone A group is less productive than writing alone I write alone (only) Percentage Number 22.3 211 16.2 153 20.5 194 41.0 388 Survey participants were asked if, during that 6 month period, they had worked with the same group of people when producing written technical communications. About 40 percent (376 respondents) indicated "yes" they had worked with the same group, about 19 percent indicated that they had worked with various groups, and 41 percent indicated that they only write alone. Of those who indicated that they had worked in the same group, these respondents were asked how many people were in the group. About 75 percent (283 respondents) indicated a group size of 2-5 people and about 17 percent (63 respondents) indicated a group size of 6-10 people. The mean number of people in the group was ,X = 5.75 and the median was 4.00. Those 182 respondents who indicated "no" meaning that they did not work with the same group during the past 6 months were asked with about how many groups they had worked. About 27 percent (48 respondents) reported working with 2 groups, about 35 percent (63 respondents) reported working with 3 groups, about 15 percent (27 respondents) reported working with 4 groups, about 10 percent (18 respondents) reported working with 5 groups, and about 13 percent (24 respondents) reported working with 6-10 groups. The average (mean) number of groups was X = 3.79 and the median number of groups was 3.0. The number of people in each group varied. About 75 percent of the respondents reported working with a group of 2-5 people and about 20 percent reported working with a group of 6-10 people. The average (mean) number of people per group was ,X = 4.77 and the median number of people per group was 4.0. 17

Original page 20

Technical Information Products Produced. Survey participants were given a list of technical information products. They were asked to indicate the number of these products they had written or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months and if those products had been written or prepared as part of a group. The 10 most frequently appear in table 9. Table 9. produced (alone) technical information products Technical Information Products Written or Produced Alone in the Past 6 Months [n = 946] Products Memoranda Letters Drawings/Specifications U.S. govemment technical reports Audio/Visual materials In-house technical reports Computer programs and documentation Conference/Meeting papers Technical talks/Presentations Technical proposals Mean (_) Median 18.2 8.0 13.3 4.0 7.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.3 1.0 1.6 0.0 Survey participants were also asked to indicate the number of these products they had written or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months as part of a group. The 10 most frequently prepared (as part of a group) technical information products appear in table ii. Data shown in table 10 include the number of products produced (mean and median) and the average (mean and median) numbers of people per group. A comparison of the data contained in tables 9 and 10 reveals more similarities than differences. The production numbers vary somewhat but the products included on both lists (products produced alone or as part of a group) are essentially identical. With the exception of the "group size" for technical proposals, the average numbers of people per group for the various products produced are fairly similar in size. Survey participants were given a list of technical information products. They were asked to indicate approximately how many times in the past 6 months they had used each of them. The 10 most frequently used technical information products appear in table 11. A comparison of the data contained in tables 9 (production) and 11 (use) reveals two differences. First, on average, more products are used than are produced. Second, there are slight differences in the types or kinds of products produced and used. 18 EE

Original page 21

Table 10. Technical Information Products Written or Produced as Part of a Group in the Past 6 Months [n = 946] Information Products Drawings/Specifications Letters Memoranda Audio/Visual material Conference/Meeting papers In-house technical reports Technical talks/Presentations Computer programs and documentation Technical manuals Technical proposals Average Number of In a Group People Per Group Median Mean (X) Median Mean CX} 3.5 0.00 4.31 3.00 0.7 0.00 2.64 2.00 0.6 0.00 4.27 2.00 0.9 0.00 4.21 3.00 0.6 0.00 3.33 2.00 0.9 0.00 4.31 3.00 1.0 0.00 5.06 3.00 0.3 0.00 3.25 2.00 0.4 0.00 4.55 3.00 1.0 0.00 8.59 4.00 Table 11. Product Used in the Past 6 Months Technical Information [n = 946] Information Products Drawings/Specifications Memoranda Letters Trade/Promotional literature Technical manuals Abstracts In-house technical reports Journal articles Audio/Visual materials Computer programs and documentation Mean (X) Median 31.9 10.0 22.2 5.0 14.9 2.0 7.8 0.0 7.5 1.0 3.2 0.0 9.7 5.0 7.1 2.0 4.8 0.0 4.5 0.0 Technical Information Products -- Use, Importance, and Frequency of Use Survey participants were asked several questions designed to obtain a greater understanding of the factors affecting the use of technical reports, in this study, technical reports were placed within the context of two technical information articles. AGARD, DoD, in-house, and NASA 19 products: conference/meeting papers and journal technical reports were included in this study.

Original page 22

Us..__e.Survey participants were asked if they used the aforementioned technical information products in performing their present professional duties. Table 12 includes data regarding use. Table 12. Technical Information Products Used [n = 946] Information Products Conference/Meeting papers Journal articles AGARD technical reports In-house technical reports DoD technical reports NASA technical reports X Percentage Number 1.40 59.7 565 1.37 63.2 598 1.17 11.5 109 1.89 83.4 789 1.56 44.4 420 1.56 44.4 420 .Importance. Survey participants were asked "how important is it for you to use the aforementioned technical information products Table 13 includes data regarding the importance in performing your present professional duties.'?" of use technical information products. A 5-point scale (1.0 = very unimportant; 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. Table 13. Importance of Technical Information Products [n = 946] Information Products Conference/Meeting papers Journal articles AGARD technical reports In-house technical reports DoD technical reports NASA technical reports Approximately 17 percent (164 respondents) Mean (X) Importance Number 2.54 946 2.65 946 1.92 682 3.28 946 2.67 832 2.57 854 indicated that the use of conference/meeting papers was "very or somewhat"important to their work. Approximately 21 percent (202 respondents) indicated that the use of journal articles was "very or somewhat" important to their work. Approximately 43 percent (410 respondents) indicated that in-house technical reports were "very or somewhat" important to their work. About equal numbers of respondents (206 and 181) indicated that DoD and NASA technical reports were "very or somewhat" important (25 and 21 percent) to their work. About 7 percent (46 respondents) indicated that AGARD technical reports 20

Original page 23

were "very or somewhat" important to their work. Data regarding use and importance are similar to findings reported for the two SAE telephone surveys (Pinelli and Glassman, September 1992; Pinelli, Kennedy, and White, October 1992). Frequency of Use. Survey participants were asked to indicate the number of times each of the five technical information products had been used in a 6 month period in the performance of their professional duties (table 14). Data are presented both as means and medians. In-house Table 14. Average Number of Times (Median) Technical Information Products Used in a 6 Month Period [n = 946] Information Products Conference/]VIeeting papers Journal articles AGARD technical reports In-house technical reports DoD technical reports NASA technical reports Mean (X) Use Median 4.13 2.00 6.90 2.00 0.29 0.00 9.72 5.00 3.09 0.00 2.40 0.00 technical reports were used (X = 9.72) to a much greater extent than were the other technical information products. Journal articles were used to a lesser extent ('X = 6.90) followed by conference/meeting papers, DoD, and NASA technical reports. Technical Information Products -- Ratings By Users and Non-Users Even if they did not use them, survey participants were asked to rate the six technical information products on eight characteristics. For example, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they thought that conference/meeting papers are easy/difficult to physically obtain. A 5-point scale (1.0 = easy to physically used to measure their opinions. The higher products were considered by survey participants obtain; 5.0 = difficult to physically obtain) was the number, the more difficult the information to physically obtain. An overall mean C)_) rating was calculated. A mean (X) rating for users and non-users is presented. Conference/MeetingPapers. The highest overall ratings for conference/meeting papers were associated with (1) good/poor technical quality, inexpensive/expensive, (4) relevant/irrelevant information (table 15). Statistically significant users for the following five characteristics: (2) good/bad prior experiences using them, (3) to my work, and (5) complete/incomplete differences were found between users and non- (1) easy/difficult to physically obtain, (2) easy/difficult to use or read, (3) comprehensive/incomplete information, (4) relevant/irrelevant to my work, and (5) good/bad prior experiences using them. With one exception, non-users rated 21

Original page 24

conference/meetingpapersmore favorably (e.g., easy/difficult to use and read)than did those respondents who actually used the product. Table 15. Rating of Conference/Meeting Papers [n = 946] Factors Being easy/difficult to physically obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality Having comprehensive/incomplete information Being relevant/irrelevant to my work Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. Journal Articles. The ratings for journal Use r Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n -- 565 n = 381 n = 946 2.92* 2.72* 2.84 3.09* 2.76* 2.95 3.01 3.04 3.02 3.19 3.13 3.17 3.02* 2.85* 2.96 3.20* 2.69* 3.00 2.84 2.73 2.80 3.18" 2.81" 3.03 articles appear in table 16. The highest overall ratings were associated with (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) easy/difficult to physically obtain, (3) inexpensive/expensive, (4) good/bad prior experiences using them, and (5) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location. Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users for seven of the eight characteristics. Overall, non-users rated journal articles lower (e.g., easy/difficult to physically obtain) than did those respondents who actually used the product. In-House Technical Reports. The highest overall ratings for in-house technical reports were associated with (1) inexpensive/expensive (2) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location, (3) easy/difficult to physically obtain, (4) relevant/irrelevant to my work, and (5) good/bad prior experiences using them. (table 17). Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of in-house technical reports on all eight characteristics. Non-users rated in-house technical reports more favorably (e.g., easy/difficult to use and read) than did those respondents who actually used the product. 22

Original page 25

Table 16. Rating [n = 946] ,Factors Being easy/difficult to physically obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality Having comprehensive/incomplete information Being relevant/irrelevant to my work Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05 of Journal Articles User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating ('X) n = 598 n = 348 n = 946 3.57* 3.08* 3.39 3.29* 2.94* 3.16 3.51" 3.15" 3.38 3.55* 3.36* 3.48 3.10 3.02 3.07 3.22* 2.53* 2.97 3.42* 2.99* 3.26 3.55* 3.04* 3.36 Table 17. Rating of In-house Technical Reports [n = 946] Factors Being easy/difficult to physically obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality Having comprehensive/incomplete information Being relevant/irrelevant to my work Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating 0() Rating (X) n = 789 n = 157 n = 946 3.96* 3.48* 3.88 3.48* 3.03* 3.41 4.36* 4.02* 4.30 3.47* 3.08* 3.40 3.42* 3.03* 3.35 3.75* 2.90* 3.61 4.16" 3.64* 4.07 3.59* 2.97* 3.49 AGARD Technical Reports. The highest overall ratings for AGARD technical reports were associated with (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) comprehensive/incomplete information, (3) easy/difficult to read and use, (4) good/bad prior experiences using them, and (5) | inexpensive/expensive (table 18). Statistically significant differences were found between users | | | 23

Original page 26

andnon-usersof AGARD technicalreportson all but two of theeightcharacteristics-- beinginexpensive/expensiveandobtainingthemat a nearby/distantlocation. Table18. Ratingof AGARD TechnicalReports [n = 946] Factors Beingeasy/difficultto physicallyobtain Beingeasy/difficultto useor read Beinginexpensive/expensive Beingof good/poortechnicalquality Havingcomprehensive/incompleteinformation Beingrelevant/irrelevantto my work Obtainingthemat a nearby/distantlocation Havinggood/badprior experiencesusingthem * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. DoD Technical Reports. The highest overall with (1) inexpensive/expensive, (2) good/poor User Non-User Overall Rating) Rating_) Rating(X) n = 109 n = 837 n = 946 2.87* 2.58* 2.63 3.26* 2.99* 3.04 3.08 2.98 3.00 3.49* 3.18" 3.24 3.41" 3.13" 3.18 3.40* 2.81" 2.91 2.86 2.76 2.78 3.41" 2.95* 3.03 ratings for DoD technical reports were associated technical quality, (3) comprehensive/incomplete information, (4) relevant/irrelevant to my work, (5) good/bad prior experiences using them (table 19). Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of DoD reports on all eight characteristics. Table 19. Rating of DoD Technical Reports [n = 946] Factors Being easy/difficult to physically obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality Having comprehensive/incomplete information Being relevant/irrelevant to my work Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. 24 User Non-User Overall Rating _) Rating _) Rating _) n = 420 n = 526 n = 946 3.01" 2.58* 2.80 3.17" 2.87* 3.03 3.52* 3.06* 3.30 3.37* 3.16" 3.27 3.34* 3.13" 3.24 3.51" 2.87* 3.20 3.10" 2.72* 2.92 3.33* 3.00* 3.17

Original page 27

NASA Technical Reports. The highest overall ratings for NASA technical reports were associated with (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) inexpensive/expensive, (3) comprehensive/ incomplete information, (4) easy/difficult to read, (5) good/bad prior experiences using them (table 20). Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of NASA technical reports on all eight characteristics. Table 20. Rating of NASA Technical Reports [n = 9463 Factors Being easy/difficult to physically obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality Having comprehensive/incomplete information Being relevant/irrelevant to my work Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. User Non-User Overall Rating 0_) Rating 07,) Rating ('X) n = 420 n = 526 n = 946 3.51" 2.95* 3.23 3.54* 3.15" 3.35 3.76* 3.26* 3.52 3.68* 3.48* 3.59 3.52* 3.36* 3.44 3.50* 2.79* 3.15 3.28* 2.78* 3.04 3.54* 3.09* 3.33 Technical Information Products -- Factors Affecting Use Even if they did not use them, survey participants were asked if they were deciding whether or not to use any of the six technical information products in performing their present professional duties, how important each of the eight characteristics (factors) would be in making that decision. For example, respondents were asked tp indicate how important the factor, "they are easy to physically obtain," would be in making a decision to use conference/meeting papers. A 5-point scale (1.0 = very unimportant; 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. The higher the number, the greater the influence of the factor on the use of conference/meeting papers. An overall mean CX) rating was calculated. A mean () rating for users and non-users of each product is presented. .= Conference/Meetin Papers. The importance factor ratings for conference/meeting papers appear in table 21. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) good technical quality ('X = 4.08), (2) relevant to my work Q( = 4.06), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.02), (4) easy to use or read _ = 3.71), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.58). One statistically significant difference was found between users and non-users of conference/meeting papers and easy to use or read. i m 25

Original page 28

Table 21. Factors Affecting the Use of Conference/Meeting Papers [n = 946] Factors Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or read Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work Can be obtained at a nearby location or source Had good prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating CX) Rating (X) n = 565 n = 381 n = 946 3.55 3.61 3.58 3.64* 3.82* 3.71 3.08 2.96 3.03 4.05 4.12 4.08 3.98 4.07 4.02 4.05 4.08 4.06 3.28 3.30 3.29 3.10 3.11 3.11 Journal ArticleS. The importance factor ratings for journal articles appear in table 22. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work C)_ = 4.11), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.10), (3) comprehensive or read (X = 3.74), and (5) easy to physically differences were found between users and experiences using them. Table 22. Factors Affecting [n = 872] Factors Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or read Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work Can be obtained at a nearby location or source Had good prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. 26 data and information ('_ = 4.03), (4) easy to use obtain (X = 3.61). Statistically significant non-users of journal articles and good prior the Use of Journal Articles User Non-User Overall Rating ('X) Rating (X) Rating ('X) n = 598 n = 348 n = 946 3.63 3.59 3.61 3.73 3.75 3.74 3.07 3.01 3.04 4.14 4.01 4.10 4.05 4.01 4.03 4.15 4.04 4.11 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.26* 2.97* 3.15

Original page 29

In-House Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for in-house technical reports appear in table 23. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.06), (2) good technical quality (X -- 4.04), (3) comprehensive data and information ('_ = 4.04), (4) easy to use or read (X = 3.71), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.61). Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of in-house technical reports and good prior experiences using them. Table 23. Factors Affecting the Use of In-house Technical Reports [n = 946] Factors Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or read Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work Can be obtained at a nearby location Had good prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. Non-User Overall User Rating ('X) Rating C_) Rating (X) n = 731 n = 141 = 946 3.58 3.73 3.61 3.68 3.85 3.71 2.90 2.97 2.91 4.04 4.03 4.04 4.04 4.03 4.04 4.09 3.95 4.06 3.37 3.54 3.40 3.28* 3.04* 3.24 AGARD Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for AGARD technical reports appear in table 24. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) good technical quality (X = 3.89), (2) comprehensive data and information (X = 3.86), (3) relevant to my work m ('_ = 3.84), (4) easy to use or read C_ = 3.61), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.53). i Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of AGARD technical reports and good prior experiences using them DoD TechniCal Reports. The importance and relevant to my work. factor ratings for DoD technical reports appear in table 25. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work C_ = i 4.02), (2) good technical quality C_ = 4.01), (3) comprehensive data and information C)_=3.98), I (4) easy to use or read (X = 3.67), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.54). Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of DoD technical reports and i i good prior experiences using them. II i l 27

Original page 30

Table 24. Factors Affecting the Use of AGARD Technical Reports [n = 946] Factors Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or read Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work Can be obtained at a nearby location or source Had good prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p <_0.05. User Non-User Overall Rating () Rating (X) Rating 0) n = 109 n = 837 n = 946 3.57 3.52 3.53 3.73 3.59 3.61 2.99 3.07 3.06 4.10 3.85 3.89 4.06 3.82 3.86 4.07* 3.80* 3.84 3.28 3.31 3.30 3.31" 3.05* 3.09 Table 25. Factors Affecting the Use of DoD Technical Reports In = 946] Factors Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or read Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work Can be obtained at a nearby location or source Had good prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. Use r Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating OT,) Rating (X) n = 420 n = 526 n = 946 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.07 3.05 3.06 4.04 3.98 4.01 4.03 3.93 3.98 4.05 3.98 4.02 3.29 3.31 3.30 3.32* 3.01" 3.17 NASA Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for NASA technical reports appear in table 26. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) good technical quality ( = 4.07), (2) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.04), (3) relevant to my work (X = 4.03), (4) easy to use or read (X = 3.72), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.54). No statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of NASA technical reports and the eight characteristics or factors. 28

Original page 31

Table 26. FactorsAffecting the Use of NASA TechnicalReports [n = 946] Factors Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or read Are expensive Have good technical quality Having comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work | Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ) | Had good prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p 5_ 0.05. ) Technical Information Products -- Influence Conventional wisdom considers accessibility behavior and in the information seeking-behavior User Non-User Overall Rating 0_) Rating (X) Rating (X) n = 420 n = 526 n = 946 3.47 3.61 3.54 3.65 3.79 3.72 2.99 3.16 3.08 4.08 4.06 4.07 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.03 4.04 4.03 3.26 3.32 3.29 3.21 3.14 3.17 of Accessibility. to be a dominant factor in information-seeking of engineers. Buckland (1983, p. 114;173) states that "it is known that accessibility is a dominant factor in information-gathering behavior." Buckland cites research by Rosenberg (1967), to support his position. Gerstberger and Allen (1968), and Harris (1966) In a survey of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists belonging to the AIAA, relevance and technical quality or reliability exerted greater influence on the use of conference/meeting papers, i journal articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports than did i accessibility (Pinelli, January 1991). In the first SAE telephone survey, relevance, technical ) ) accuracy, and reliable data exerted greater influence on the use of conference/meeting papers, ) journal articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports than did i accessibility (Pinelli and Glassman, September 1992). Technical Information Products -- Usage and Product Ratings Usage and Product Rating. Correlation coefficients (Pearson's r) were calculated. The correlation compared "past month's usage" with "opinion" ratings for each of the six technical information products. A positive and significant correlation (p < 0.05) was found between the i ! use of the six information products and tile following rating factors: 29

Original page 32

Conference/Meeting Papers r • easy to use or to read .1236" • good prior experiences .1135" • relevant to my work .1661" In-House Technical Reports • easy to physically obtain .0666* • comprehensive data and information .0728* • relevant to my work .1649" • nearby location or source .0801" • good prior experiences .1260" DoD Technical Reports • easy to physically obtain .0680* • inexpensive .1102" • relevant to my work .1429" • nearby location or source .0496* • good prior experiences .1420" r values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. 30 Journal Articles • good prior experiences .1870" • easy to physically obtain .1464" • relevant to my work .1870" • easy to use or read .1305" • nearby location or source .0813" AGARD Technical Reports • good technical quality .1280" • comprehensive data and information .1020" • relevant to my work .1799" • good prior experiences .2524 • easy to read or use .0830* NASA Technical Reports • easy to physically obtain .1691" • ease to read or use .1111" • inexpensive .1444" • good technical quality .0483* • comprehensive data and information .0184" • relevant to my work .2009* • nearby location or source .0295* • good prior experiences .1172"

Original page 33

FINDINGS Readers should note that the data contained in this report reflect the responses of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were on the Society of Automotive Engineers mailing list (not necessarily members of the SAE). The results, therefore, are not generalizable to (1) the membership of the SAE, (2) all U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists working in design/ development, or (3) all U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Further, the survey was conducted in July-November 1991, almost 3 years ago. The U.S. aerospace industry has undergone significant changes in the years since the research was conducted. 1. The "average" participant works in industry an average of 18.7 years of work experience (92.2%), has a bachelor's degree (52.7%), has in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (90.8%, 90.1%), and works in design/development (60.1%). 2. Their most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months was categorized as design/development (56.0%); 83.0% of the participants worked on this project, task, or problem with others. The mean number of groups involved was 2.72, and the mean number of people in a work group was 6.58. Engineering duties predominated (71.7%) followed by management duties (24.0%) in the completion or problem worked on in the past 6 months. 1 of the most important job-related project, task, 3. A positive and significant correlation was found between the overall complexity and technical uncertainty of the most important job-related worked on in the past 6 months. 4. To complete their most important job-related to their personal stores of technical information project, task, or problem that respondents had project, task, or problem, respondents first went (59.5%); next, spoke with coworker(s) inside the organization (45.2%); third, spoke with colleagues outside of the organization (32.1%); fourth, used literature resources in the organization's technical information specialist (15.9%). 5. Approximately 44% of the respondents library (20.2%); and last, spoke with a librarian/ reported using the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in their work. Of the six sources most frequently used to find out about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D, half involve interpersonal communication and half are formal (written) communication. Three of five "federal initiatives" were the sources used least to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. 6. About 26% of the respondents had used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to J complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem during the last 6 months. | About half of this group indicated that federally important" for completing this work. Sixty-three i federally funded aerospace R&D in completing funded aerospace R&D was "important" or "very percent (157) of those who used the results of their most important job-related project, task, or J problem indicated that the results were published in either a NASA or DoD technical report. 31

Original page 34

1. Of the respondentswho usedthe resultsof federally funded aerospaceR&D in completing their mostimportantjob-relatedproject,task,or problem,52%indicatedthatthe "time andeffort it took to locatethe results"was a problem,and41% reportedthat the "time and effort it took to obtain the results"was a problem. 8. More than 84% of the respondentsindicatedthatit was importantto communicatetechnical informationeffectively; respondentsspentan averageof 9.03 hoursper weekproducingwritten material and 10.70hoursper week communicatinginformation orally. Over the past 5 years approximately62% haveincreasedthe amountof time they spendcommunicatinginformation to others. Surveyrespondentsreportedspendingan averageof 7.78hoursperweekworking with written information receivedfrom othersandan averageof 7.10 hoursper week working with information receivedorally from others. More than 57% of the respondentsindicatedthat the amountof time they spendreceivinginformationfrom othershasincreasedover the last 5 years. 9. About 41% of the respondentsreportedthat all of the written technicalcommunicationsthey preparedinvolved writing alone. About 45% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. About 45% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. About 39% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of more than five people. 10. In terms of the perceived productivity of collaborative writing, slightly more of the respondents indicated that writing with a group 22% indicated that a group is more productive is more productive than writing alone. About and about 21% indicated that a group is less productive. About 16% indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. 11. A comparison of the technical information products produced and used reveals that on average, the survey respondents use more products than they produce. There are also slight differences in the types of technical information 12. Survey respondents were asked to indicate products produced and used. their use of and the importance to them of six technical information products. In-house technical reports were used most frequently and were rated most important. NASA and DoD technical respondents and were rated about equal in importance. reports were used by approximately 44% of the 13. Both users and non-users of the six information products were asked to rate them on eight characteristics. The highest overall ratings for these products follow. Conference/meeting papers -- (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) inexpensive/expensive, (3) good/bad prior experiences using them, (4) relevant/irrelevant to my work, and (5) complete/ incomplete information. Journal articles -- (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) easy/difficult to physically obtain, (3) inexpensive/expensive, (4) good/bad prior experiences using them, and (5) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location. 32

Original page 35

In-house technical reports -- (1) inexpensive/expensive (2) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location, (3) easy/difficult to physically obtain, (4) relevant/irrelevant to my work, and (5) good/ bad prior experiences using them. AGARD technical reports -- (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) easy/difficult to read and use, (3) comprehensive/incomplete information, (4) good/bad prior experiences using them, and (5) inexpensive/expensive. DoD technical reports -- (1) inexpensive/expensive, (2) comprehensive/incomplete information, (3) good/poor technical quality, (4) relevant/irrelevant to my work, (4) good/bad prior experiences using them. NASA technical reports -- (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) inexpensive/expensive, (3) comprehensive/incomplete information, (4) easy/difficult to read, (5) good/bad prior experiences using them. i_ 14. Both users and non-users of the six information products were asked to indicate about the importance of eight factors in deciding whether to use any of the six information products. The factors exerting the greatest influence on decisions to use products follow. Conference/meeting papers -- (1) good technical quality, (2) relevant to my work, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. Journal articles -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. In-house technical reports -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. AGARD technical reports -- (1) good technical quality, (2) comprehensive data and information, (3) relevant to my work, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. DoD technical reports -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. NASA technical reports -- (1) good technical quality, (2) comprehensive data and information, (3) relevant to my work, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. 15. Use of the six technical information products was correlated with product ratings. For all v but one product (i.e., AGARD technical reports), the highest correlation (r value) was "relevant | to my work." In the case of AGARD technical reports, the highest correlation (r value) was "good prior experiences" in using these reports. 33

Original page 36

REFERENCES Adam, R. "Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a 1975 Science Information 519-531. Allen, T. J. System." InternationalSocialJournal 27(3): Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the 1977 Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Auger, C. P. Use of Technical 1975 Books. Reports Literature. Hamden, CT: Archon Ballard, S., et. al. Innovation Through Technical and Scientific Information: 1989 Government and Industry Cooperation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Ballard, S., et. al. Improving the Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical 1986 Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 - Problems and Issues in the Transfer and Use of STI. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. 87-14923.) Berui, L. H., et. al. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB- DoD User-Needs Study, Phase 1. Volume 1: Management Report, 1965 Conduct of the Study, and Analysis of Data. Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach Corporation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; AD-615 501. Beyer, J. M. "The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis and H.M. Trice of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 1982 591-622. Bikson, T. K., Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Option. B. E. Quint, and Washington, DC: L. L. Johnson NTIS, Springfield, 1984 2131.) National Science Foundation. (Available from VA; PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note Branscomb, L. G. "America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva 1992 (August): 317-336. 34 30:3

Original page 37

I Branscomb, L. G. "Toward a U.S. Technology Policy." Issues in Science and 1991 Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55. = Buckland, M. K. Library Services in Theory and Content. NY: Pergamon Press. 1983 David, P.A. "Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial 1986 Competitiveness." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Eveland, J. D. Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and 1987 Findings. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Not available from NTIS.) Fry, B. M. Library Organization and Management of Technical Reports 1953 Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Gerstberger, P. G. by Research and Develoment Engineers in the "Criteria Used and T. J. Allen Selection of an 1968 Psychology. 52:4 Information Source." Journal of Applied (August): 272-279. Gibb, J. M. and Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." Journal E. Phillips of Communication 1979 z Studies 1: 225-234. Godfrey, L. E. and Dictionary of Report Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries H.F. Redman Association. | I 1973 i Goldhor, R. S. and "University-to-Industry ! i R. T. Lund Study." Research ! ! 1983 Advanced Technology Transfer: A Case Policy 12: 121-152. Harris, I. W. The Influence of Accessibility on Academic Library Use. Ph.D. 1966 Diss., Rutgers University, 1966. UMi 67-5262. 7. Z Mathes, J. C. and Designing TechnicaIReports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. | D. W. Stevenson 1976 35

Original page 38

McClure, C. R. "The FederalTechnical Report Literature: ResearchNeeds and 1988 Issues." Government Information Quarterly. 5(1): 27-44. McGowan, R. P. and "Strategies for Information Management: The Administrator's S. Loveless Perspective." PublicAdminstration Review 41(3): 331-339. 1981 Mowery, D. C. "Economic Theory 1983 Sciences 16: 27-43. and Government Technology Policy." Policy Mowery, D. C. and "The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical N. Rosenberg Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research Policy 8(2): 1979 102-153. National Academy Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National of Sciences - Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the National Academy Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. of Engineering Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the SATCOM 1969 Report. Pinelli, T. E. "The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers." 1991 Science and Technology Librar&s 11(3): 5-25. Pinelli, T. E. The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical 1991 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. N9118898.) (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; Pinelli, T. E. and Source Selection and Information Use by U.S. Aerospace Engineers N. A. Glassman and Scientists: Results of a Telephone Survey. Washington, DC: 1992 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM- 107658, September. 92N33299.) Pinelli, T. E., "The NASA/DoD (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; Aerospace Knowledge diffusion Research J.M. Kennedy, and Project." Government Information Quarterly 8(2): 219-233. R. O. Barclay 1991 36

Original page 39

Pinelli, T. E., "Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." World Aerospace J. M. Kennedy, Technology '91: The International Review of Aerospace Design R. O. Barclay, and Development 1(1): 31-34. and T. F. White 1991 Pinelli, T. E., Engineering Work and Information Use in Aerospace: Results of J. M. Kennedy, and a Telephone Survey. T. F. White Space Administration. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and NASA TM-107673, October. (Available 1992 from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 92N34233.) President's Special Scientific and Technological Communication in the Government. Assistant for Science Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; AKA the Crawford and Technology Report. 1962 Redman, H. F. "Technical Reports: 1965/1966 23: 11-17. Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian Technology Roberts, E. B. "Strategies for Improving Research Utilization." and A. L. Frohman Review 80 (March/April): 32-39. 1978 Rohde, Nancy F. "Information Needs." In Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 14. W. 1986 Simonton, ed. NY: Academic Press, 49-73. | ! Ronco, P. G., et. al. Characteristics of Technical Reports That Affect Reader Behavior: = 1964 A Review of the Literature. Boston, MA: Tufts University, Institute for Psychological Research. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB- 169 409.) "Factors Affecting Rosenberg, V. the Preferences of Industrial Personnel for 1967 Information Gathering Methods." Information Storage and Retrieval 3: 119-127. Shuchman, H. L. Information Transfer in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The 1981 Futures Group. "Interaction Within Smith, R. S. Science the Technical Report Community." 1981 and Technology Libraries 1(4): 5-18. Marcel Subramanyam, K. Scientific and Technical Information Resources. NY: 1981 Dekker. i i i ! 37

Original page 40

U.S. Department Glossary of Information Handling. Defense Logistics Agency, of Defense Defense Documentation Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA. 1964 Williams, F. and Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective. Newbury D. V. Gibson Park, CA: Sage Publications. 1990 38

Original page 41

APPENDIX A: PROJECT FACT SHEET NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information (STI), which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined 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 indicate, however, 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 Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project is being conducted by researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center, the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, and Rensseiaer Polytechnic Institute. space professional societies including the AIAA, by the AGARD and AIAA Technical Information This 4-phase project is providing descriptive This research is endorsed by several aero- RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned Panels. :. L and analytical data about 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 I diffusion process. Phase 1 investigates the informationseeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, in particular i STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government their use of government-funded aerospace interface and emphasizes the role of the i information intermediary in the knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academici government interface and emphasizes the information intermediary-faculty-student interface. Phase 4 explores the information-seeking behaviors of non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists from Western European nations, India, Israel, Japan, and the former Soviet Union. The results of this research project will help us to understand the flow of STI at the ! individual, organizational, national, and international levels. The findings 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. These results will contribute to increasing productivity and to improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. shared freely with ih0se who participate in the study. Dr. Thomas E. Pinelli Dr. John M. Kennedy Center for Survey Research Mail Stop 180A NASA Langley Research Center Indiana Unlvcrslty Hampton, VA 23681-0001 Bloomington, IN 47405 (804) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 T,E.Pinelli@larc.nasa.gov kennedy@isrmail.soc.indiana.edu The results of our research are being Ms. Rebecca O. Barclay Electronic Information Age, Inc. 462 Washington Street Portsmouth, VA 23704 (804) 399-5666 Fax (804) 465-0828 barclay@infi.net 39

Original page 42

APPENDIX B: SAE QUESTIONNAIRE 4O

Original page 43

1. Think of the most important job-related project, task, or problem you have worked on in the past 6 months. Which category best describes this work? (Check ONLY ONE Box) [] Educational (e.g., for professional development [] Research (either basic or applied) [] Design [] Development [] Manufacturing [] Production [] Computer applications or preparation of a lecture) [] Management (e.g., planning, budgeting, and managing research) [] Other (specify) 2. How would you describe the overall complexity of the technical project, task, or problem you categorized in Q.I? (Circle Number) Very Simple 1 2 3 4 5 Very Complex , How would you rate the amount Of technical uncertainty that you faced when you started the technical project, task, or problem categorized in Q.I? (Circle Number) Little Uncertainty 1 2 3 4 5 Great Uncertainty 4. While you were involved in the technical project, task, or problem, did you work alone or with others? (Check Box) r [] Alone [] With others _ 7_ L / _' About how many people were in each group? In how many groups did you work? 5° Which of the following best describes the kinds of duties you performed while working on the project? (Check Box) [] Engineering [] Science [] Management [] Other (specify) ! . What steps did you follow to get the informati0n ou needed for this project, task, or problem? Please sequence these items (e.g., #1, #2, #3, #4, #5) or put an X beside the steps = you did not use. | Sequence I Used my personal store of technical information, including Sources I keep in my office ! i __ Spoke with co-workers or people ! __ Spoke with colleagues outside my organization my organization __ Spoke with a librarian or technical information specialist __ Used literature resource s (e.g., conference papers, journals, technical reports) found in my organization's library (If you used none of the above steps, check 4] here )

Original page 44

1. Approximately how many times in the past 6 months did you write or prepare the following alone or in e group? (If in a group, how many people were in each group?) Times in Past 6 Months Produced Alone In a group a Abstracts b Journal articles c Conference/Meeting papers d Trade/Promotional literature e Drawings/Specifications f Audio/Visual materials g Letters h Memoranda i Technical proposals j Technical manuals k Computer program documentation I AGARD technical reports m U.S. Government technical reports n In-house technical reports o Technical talks/Presentations times times ___ Average No. of People 21. Approximately how many times in the past 6 months did you use the following? a Abstracts b Journal articles c Conference/Meeting papers d Trade/Promotional literature e Drawings/Specifications f Audio/Visual materials g Letters h Memoranda i Technical proposals j Technical manuals k Computer program documentation I AGARD technical reports m U.S. Government technical reports n In-house technical reports o Technical talks/Presentations 44 Times used in 6 months

Original page 45

What is your opinion of _ ARTICLES? (Circle Number) 22. (Even if you don't use them...) 1 2 They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 They are easy to use or to read 1 2 They are inexpensive 1 2 They are of good technical quality 1 2 They have comprehensive data and information 1 2 They are relevant to my work 1 2 They can be obtained at a nearby location or source 1 2 I've had good prior experiences using them 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 3 4 5 They are difficult to use or to read 3 4 5 They are expensive 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and information 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a distant location or source 3 4 5 I've had bad prior experiences using them 23. If you were deciding whether or not to use JOURNAL ARTICLES in your work, how important would the following factors be? (Check Box) Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or to read Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work ! Can be obtained at a nearby location or source Had good prior experiences using them 24. In your work, how important is it for you to use Very Unimportant 1 2 3 4 i Very Very Unimportant Important [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] JOURNAL ARTICLES? (Circle Number) 5 Very Important 25. Do you use JOURNAL ARTICLES in your work? (Check Box) [] Yes [] No (Skip to Q.27) 26. How many times in the past 6 months have you used JOURNAL Times in the Past 6 Months 45

Original page 46

1. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of _ or MEETING p_j__J_? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 They are easy to use or to read 1 2 They are inexpensive 1 2 They are of good technical quality 1 2 They have comprehensive data 1 2 and information They are relevant to my work 1 2 They can be obtained at a 1 2 nearby location or source I've had good prior experiences 1 2 using them 28. 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 3 4 5 They are difficult to use or to read 3 4 5 They are expensive 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and information 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a distant location or source 3 4 5 I've had bad prior experiences using them If you were deciding whether or not to use _ or _ P___EP_ in your work. how important would the following factors be? (Check Box} Are easy to physically obtain Are easy'to use or to read Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work Can be obtained at a nearby location or source Had good prior experiences using them 29. Very Very Unimportant Important Factor Factor [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] in y0ur-work, how important is it for you to use O_LF.;;I or _ P_J_l_F.? (Circle Number) Very Unimportant 1 2 3 4 30. 5 Very Important Do you use _ or MEETING PAPERS in your work? (Check Box) [] Yes [] No (Skip to Q.32) 31. How many times in the past 6 months have you used _ or MEETING PAPERS? Times in the Past 6 Months 46

Original page 47

1. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 They are easy to use or to read 1 2 They are inexpensive 1 2 They are of good technical quality 1 2 They have comprehensive data 1 2 and information They are relevant to my work 1 2 They can be obtained at a 1 2 nearby location or source I've had good prior experiences 1 2 using them opinion of IN-HOUSE _ REPORT_? 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 3 4 5 They are difficult to use or to read 3 4 5 They are expensive 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and information 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a distant location or source 3 4 5 I've had bad prior experiences using them 33. If you were deciding whether or not to use IN-HOUSE _ REPORTS in your work, how important would the following factors be? (Check Box) Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or to read Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work Can be obtained at a nearby location or source Had good prior experiences using them 34. In your work, how important is it for you to use (Circle Number) 4 5 Very Important Very Unimportant 1 2 3 Very Very Unimportant Important Factor Factor [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] IN-HOUSE T_ REPO___P.Q.B_T._? 35. Do you use IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS in your work? (Check Box) [] Yes [] No (Skip to Q.37) 36. How many times in the past 6 months have you used IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS? Times in the Past 6 Months 4?

Original page 48

1. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of NASA _ ]O]IT? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 They are easy to use or to read 1 They are inexpensive 1 They are of good technical quality 1 They have comprehensive data 1 and information They are relevant to my work 1 They can be obtained at a 1 nearby location or source I've had good prior experiences 1 using them 8. 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to use or to read 2 3 4 5 They are expensive 2 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality 2 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and information 2 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work 2 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a distant location or source 2 3 4 5 I've had bad prior experiences using them If you were deciding whether Or no_t to use _ _ REPORTS in your work, how important would the following Are easy to physically obtain Are easy to use or to reaci Are inexpensive Have good technical quality Have comprehensive data and information Are relevant to my work factors be? (Check Box) Very Very Unimportant Important Factor Factor [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Can be obtained at a nearby location or source [] [] [] [] [] Had good priorexperiences using them 49. [] [] [] [] [] In your w0rk, how important is it for you to use NASA TECHNICAL REPORTS? (Circle Number) Very Unimportant 1 2 3 50. Do you use _ _ REPORTS 4 5 Very Important in your work? (Check Box) [] Yes [] No (Skip to Q.52) 51. How many times in the pest 6 months have you used NASA TECHNICAL REPORTS? Times in the Past 6 Months ..... i !!::i_i::ii_i:!i :.... __' over --

Original page 49

The following data will be used to determine whether different technical communication practices. 52. Please list all of your degrees. I | [] No degree i [] Bachelors in [] Masters in [] MBA people with different backgrounds have [] J D ri Doctorate in [] Other (specify) 53. Your years of professional aerospace work experience: Years 54. The type of organization where you work: (Check ONLY ONE Box) [] Academic [] Industry [] Government [] Not-for-profit [] Other (specify) 55. Which of the following BEST describes your primary professional duties? (Check ONLY ONE Box) [] Research [] Administration/Mgt (private sector) [] Administration/Mgt (not-for-profit) [] Design/Development [] Teaching/Academic (may include research) 56. Your academic preparation was as a(n): [] Manufacturing/Production [] Private consultant [] Service/Maintenance [] Marketing/Sales [] Other (specify) [] Engineer [] Scientist [] Other (specify) 57. In your present job, you consider yourself primarily a(n): [] Engineer [] Scientist [] Other (specify) 58. The SAE aerospace membership categories that best classifies your organization. [] Airplanes i [] Helicopters [] Space vehicles (incls. missiles & satellites) [] Parts, accessories, &component mfg. [] Operations & maintenance are listed below' Please check the ONE box [] Avionics, electronic, and electrical systems [] Ground support [] Air transportation - trunk, regional & int'l J: E [] Air transportation - business & general Z aviation ,ta tj [] Other (specify) P a. Reply to: NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop 180 A Hampton, VA 23665-5225 51

Original page 50

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average i hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, ncluding suggestions for reducing this burden, toWashington Headquarters Services. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington. VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-01S8). Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY(Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE May 1994 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum S. FUNDING NUMBERS The Technical Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 1 SAE Mail Survey* 6. AUTHOR(S) Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 WU 505-90 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES *Report number 24 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-109088 Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Renssclaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 82 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) IN. 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports and provide a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report. We present results from our investigation of aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-.-vis the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-_.-vis the technical communications practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists affiliated with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; and 52 U.S. government technical reports 17. sEcURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 16. PRICE CODE A04 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION ! 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Standard Form 298(Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std z3q-18 298-102