Full report

Original page 1

/" / = ./ / / ¢: ,// NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge t Diffusion Research Project Report Number 31 NASA Technical Memorandum 109169 The Technical Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 1 SME Mail Survey 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 December 1994 ,o O" 0 u_ ,,t" e,J O', I O U ,,t at, t- O Z o N a3 w uJ uJ :E i,- k- *¢ ¢_ z J O I-c( < E l-.j C3 U- k- v c_ k- OUJU. <[ ,_ LU I,,- b-_ ,,_ UP, ZUa_ O c3 0 ::3 LU t_ >- L :l. UUJUJ c_ ZC_ Ovc_ C3 v'> (._ U t w ,_ ua v'_ .J r I cLm_ I,- <I_ I,. Z_ZZ ra v_ (D u_ TD_ ¢ ZWLU U.: LL U :IE I,,- ED v) v} _d National Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Original page 2

Original page 3

• Content may include statistical data, catalogs, directions, design criteria, conference papers and proceedings, 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 Geological 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% 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, it is often unclear whether U.S. government technical reports, non-U.S, government technical 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 4

science and technology (President's Special McClure (1988) points out that "although variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, Assistant for Science and Technology, 1962). the [U.S.] government technical report has been 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. report plays in transferring the results of federally • Further, most of the available knowledge 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 U.S. GOVERNMENT FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D AND THE 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. search as the driving force behind technological This model emphasizes the production of basic redevelopment 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 assumes 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 4

Original page 5

use. Linkage mechanisms,such as information intermediaries,are neededto identify useful knowledgeandto transferit to potentialusers.This modelassumesthatif thesemechanismsare availableto link potential userswith knowledgeproducers,then better opportunitiesexist for usersto determinewhat knowledgeis available,acquireit, and apply it to their needs. The strengthof this model restson the recognitionthat STI transferandusearecritical elementsof the processof technologicalinnovation. Its weaknesslies in the fact thatit is passive,for it does not takeusersinto considerationexceptwhenthey enterthe systemandrequestassistance.The dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-usertransfer proceduresthat are seldom responsivein the usercontext. Userrequirementsareseldomknownor consideredin the design of informationproductsandservices. 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 fi_rmal 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. Surrogates serve as technical report repositories or clearinghouses for the producers and include the Defense Technical Information Center 5 (DTIC), the NASA Center for Aero Space

Original page 6

Informal (Collegial) t Surrogates Producers eDTIC • DoD •CAB eDROLS • NASA eCASI • DoD/NASA • STAR contractors • RECON & grantees *NTIS eGRA &l • NTIS file Formal t t Information Users Intermediaries • Aerospace • Librarians engineers and scientists Gatekeepers • Aerospace Linking engineering agents faculty and students Knowledge brokers Figure 1. The U.S. Government Technical Report in a Model Depicting the Dissemination of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. 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 (Goldhor 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 afterthoughts, undertaken without serious commitment by Federal agencies whose primary

Original page 7

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 knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. intermediaries and the role(s) they play in 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 The information-seeking behavior of engineers BEHAVIOR OF ENGINEERS and scientists has been variously studied by information and social scientists, the earliest studies having been undertaken in the late 1960s (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 behavior of engineers and scientists. The difficulty in applying the results of these studies has 7

Original page 8

beenattributedto the lack of a unifying theory,a standardizedmethodology,andthe common definitions(Rohde, 1986). Despitethe fact that numerous"information use" studieshavebeenconducted,the information-seekingbehaviorof engineersand information use in engineeringare neither broadly known nor well understood.Thereare a numberof reasons(Berul, et al., 1965): (1) manyof the studieswere conductedfor narrow or specific purposesin unique environmentssuch as experimentallaboratories;(2) many, if not most,of them focusedon scientistsexclusivelyor engineersworking in a researchenvironment;(3) few studieshaveconcentratedon engineers, especially engineersworking in manufacturingand production;(4) from an information use standpoint,someengineeringdisciplineshave yet to be studied;(5) most of the studieshave concentratedon the users' useof information in termsof a library and/orspecific information packagessuch as professionaljournals ratherthan how usersproduce,transfer,anduse information;and(6) manyof thestudies,aspreviouslystated,werenot methodologicallysophisticated and few included testablehypothesesor valid proceduresfor testingthe study's hypotheses. Further,we know very little aboutthe diffusion of knowledgein specific communitiessuch as aerospace.In the past25 years,few studieshavebeendevotedto understandingthe informationenvironmentin which aerospaceengineersandscientistswork, the information-seeking behaviorof aerospaceengineersandscientists,andthe factorsthat influencethe useof federally funded aerospaceSTI. Presumably,the resultsof such studieswould have implications for currentandfutureaerospaceSTI systemsandfor makingdecisionsregardingthe transferanduse of federallyfundedaerospaceSTI. RESULTS OF THE PHASE 1 SME MAIL SURVEY This research was conducted as a Phase 1 activity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Survey participants consisted of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were on the SME mailing list of subscribers to Manufacturing Engineering (not necessarily members of the SME), and whose SIC code (i.e., 3921, 3924, and 3728) indicated they were employed in an aerospace organization. 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 the Indiana University Center for Survey Research (CSR). The survey was pretested on a group of aerospace engineers and scientists across the country. The Indiana University staff prepared an envelope for each individual that contained an 11-page questionnaire, two cover letters, and self-addressed, franked reply envelope. The cover letter provided a tollfree telephone number that respondents could call if they needed additional information. The envelopes were packaged and mailed to NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) on May 24, 1994, for mailing. The envelopes were mailed from NASA LaRC on June 1, 1994. 8

Original page 9

Between June 1, 1994 and July 5, 1994, 193 completed questionnaires were returned. Fiftyfive were returned with notes attached indicating person to whom the envelope had been addressed that the survey was not applicable or that the no longer worked at that company. On July 6, 1994, a follow-up postcard was prepared for the 1,252 individuals who had not yet responded to encourage them to complete and return the questionnaire. The postcards were packaged and mailed to NASA LaRC on July 6, 1994, and mailed from NASA LaRC on July 7, 1994. Included on the postcard was a toll-free telephone number for the CSR. From July 6, 1994 through July 25, 1994, 17 questionnaires were remailed as a result of telephone requests from potential respondents. On July 28, 1994, the CSR staff prepared a follow-up mailing for the 1,106 individuals who had not responded to the first mailing or the postcard reminder. Each envelope in the mailing contained a reminder letter, a second copy of the questionnaire, and a self-addressed, franked reply envelope. The envelopes were prepared, packaged, and shipped to NASA LaRC on July 28, 1994. By October 21, 1994, the survey cut-off date, 465 completed questionnaires had been received at the Indiana University CRS. The adjusted completion rate for the survey was 41%. Data Collection and Analysis A variation of Flanagan'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) research, (2) design, (3) development, (4) manufacturing, (5) production, (6) quality assurance/control, (7) computer applications, (8) management, and (9) 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 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 465 responses, the total number of respondents received by the established cut-off date.

Original page 10

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS Survey demographics for the 465 respondents appear in table 1. The following "composite" participant profile was developed for the respondents: works in industry (100%), has a bachelor's degree (45.9%), has an average of 16.5 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (73.3%, 71.3%), works in manufacturing and production (51.0%), and is male (96.3%). 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 (47.1%) were categorized as manufacturing/production. About 12.5% and 9.9% of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as development and management, respectively. Most respondents (73.4%) 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 3.0 groups; each group contained an average of 5.5 members (table 2). A majority of respondents (61.3%) performed engineering duties while working on their most important job-related project, task, or problem. About 26% performed management duties. Project, Task, Problem Complexity 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 3.85 (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 3.21 (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. Project, Task, or Problem and Information following information sources used to complete problem: (1) used personal stores of technical Use. Respondents were given a list of the their most important job-related project, task, or information, (2) spoke with coworkers inside the organization, (3) spoke with colleagues outside of the organization, (4) spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist, (5) used literature resources in the organization's library (6) searched (or had someone search for me) an electronic (bibliographic) data base. They were 10

Original page 11

Table 1. Survey [n = 465] Demographics Do You Currently Work In: Industry Is Any Of Your Work Funded By The Govermnent: Yes No Your Highest Level Of Education: No Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Other Type Of Degree Your Years In Aerospace: 0 years 1 Through 5 Years 6 Through 10 Years 11 Through 20 Years 21 Through 40 Years 41 Or More Years Mean = 16.5 Years Median = 15.0 Years Your Education: Engineer Scientist Other Your Primary Duties: Engineer Scientist Other Is Your Work Best Classified As: Quality Control/Assurance Research Administration/Management Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Service/Ma intena nce Marketing/Sales Private Consultant Other Your Gender: Female Male 11 Demographics Percentage Number 100.0 465 41.4 192 47.8 222 24.6 114 45.9 213 19.4 90 1.3 6 8.8 41 1.1 5 13.2 66 23.1 107 31.1 144 30.3 140 1.1 5 73.3 329 2.4 11 24.3 109 71.3 328 1.1 5 27.6 127 8.4 39 2.6 12 13.5 63 15.9 74 51.0 237 1.9 9 0.6 3 0.6 3 5.4 25 3.7 17 96.3 445

Original page 12

Table 2. Project, Task, or Problem Categorization Factors Categories Of Project, Task, Or Problem: Quality Assurance/Control Research Design Development Manufacturing/Production Computer Applications Management Other Worked On Project, Task Or Problem: Alone With Others Mean Number Of Groups = 3.0 Mean Number of People/Group = 5.5 Nature Of Duties Performed: Engineering Science Management Other Percentage Number 8.9 41 4.5 21 7.8 36 12.5 58 47.1 218 3.9 18 9.9 46 5.4 25 26.6 123 73.4 340 61.3 284 2.2 10 25.5 118 11.0 51 Table 3. Correlation of Project Complexity and Technical Uncertainty by Type of Project, Task, or Problem Complexity - Uncertainty Correlation Overall** Quality Assurance/control Research Design Development Manufacturing/Production Management Computer Applications Other * r values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. n r 462 0.27* 41 0.37* 21 0.30 36 0.20 58 0.24 217 0.24* 46 0.38* 18 0.25 25 0.41" ** Overall mean complexity (uncertainty) score = 3.9 (3.2) out of a possible 5.00. asked to identify the steps they followed to obtain needed information by 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. 12

Original page 13

Table 4. Information Sources Used to Solve Project, Task, or Problem Used Used Used Used Used Not Used Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Used First % % % % % Information Source % Personal Store Of Technical Information 54.1 20.0 16.7 2.6 0.9 0.7 5.1 Spoke With Coworker(s) Inside The Organization 34.6 46.7 9.0 3.2 1.8 1.2 3.5 Spoke With Colleagues Outside Of The Organization 20.4 37.1 8.7 4.5 2.6 20.4 6.3 Used Literature Resources In My Organization's Library 5.4 14.8 19.5 10.9 4.4 40.2 4.7 Spoke With A Librarian/ Technical Information Specialist 3.6 5.9 10.8 9.0 6.2 64.4 0.0 Searched (Or Had Someone Search For Me) An Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Base 1.3 4.4 7.4 13.8 7.9 4.6 60.5 Use of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. About 31.4% (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. Four of the five "federal initiatives" were the sources used least to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. NASA and DoD technical reports were the exception. 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 18.6% (85) 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 3.7. Almost one-half of those who used federally funded R&D (51 respondents) responded with an importance rating of "4" or "5". About 57% (46) of those who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem indicated that the results were published in either a NASA or DoD technical report. 13

Original page 14

Table5. SourcesUsedto LearnAbout the Resultsof FederallyFundedAerospace R&D In = 465] Source 1. Professional And Society Journals 2. Coworkers Inside My Organization 3. Trade Journals Reports 53.4 39 4. NASA And DoD Technical Percentage Number 66.7 5O 88.3 68 64.9 48 Organization 70.7 53 5. Colleagues Outside My 6. NASA And DoD Contacts 7. Professional And Society Meetings Bases 38.4 28 8. Searches of Computerized Data 9. NASA And DoD Sponsored Conferences And Workshops 40.8 31 45.9 34 20.5 15 10. Visits To NASA And DoD Facilities 21.1 15 11. Publications Such As STAR 12. Librarians Inside My Organization 16.2 12 39.7 29 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 46% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem. About 46% reported that the "time and effort it took to physically obtain the results" was a problem. About 36% indicated that "accuracy, precision, and reliability of the results" was a problem, and about 24% reported that "distribution limitations or security restrictions" constituted a problem. About 24/21% indicated that "organization or format"/"legibility or readability" of the results Technical Communications Practices constituted a problem. Data which describe factors conceming 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). Importance and Time Spent. The mean importance rating was 4.5; approximately 89% 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 spent communicating technical information, both in written form and orally, during the past 6 months. Respondents reported spending slightly more time on producing oral discussions (an average of 14

Original page 15

Table 6. ProblemsRelatedto Use of Federally-FundedAerospaceR&D Problem Time And Effort To LocateResults 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 45.7 42 45.7 42 35.9 33 23.9 22 23.9 22 20.7 19 12.6 hours/week) than written materials (an average of 10.5 hours/week). Approximately 67% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information to others had increased over the past 5 years. About 5% indicated a decrease in the amount of time spent communicating technical information to others 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 10.4 hours/week) than with technical information received orally from others (an average of 8.2 hours/week). Approximately 68% of the respondents indicated that, as they have advanced professionally, the amount of time spent working with technical information received from others had increased. About 8% indicated a decrease in the amount of time they spent working with 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 were asked to indicate the percentage of their written technical communications in the past 6 months that involved writing alone, with one other person, with a group of two to five people, and with a group of more than five people. About 40% of the survey respondents indicated that about 100% of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. [The mean percent was (X = 76.0) and the median percent was 90.0.] About 83% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. [The mean percent was (X = 18.8) and the median percent was 15.0.] About 66% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. [The mean percent was C_ = 14.0) and the median percent was 6.0.] About 29% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of more than five people. [The mean percent was (X = 4.1) and the median percent was 0.0.] 15

Original page 16

Table 7. Technical Communications: Importance, Time Spent, and Change Over Time Communication And Receipt Of Information Importance Of Communicating Technical Information: Unimportant Neither important Nor Unimportant Important Mean : 4.5 Median = 5.0 Time Spent Producing Written Technical Information: 0 Hours Per Week I 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 = 10.5 Median = 8.0 Time Spent Communicating Technical Information Orally: 0 Hours Per Week I 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 = 12.6 Median = 10.0 Change Over Past 5 Years In The Amount Of Time Spent Communicating Technical Information To Others: Increased Stayed The Same Deca'eased Time Spent Working With Written Technical Information 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 = 10.4 Median = 8.0 Percentage Number 4.5 21 6.0 28 89.4 414 1.6 7 33.8 151 35.5 158 8.4 38 11.4 51 8.9 41 0.7 3 23.0 99 34.8 150 ! 1.6 50 17.2 74 12.6 55 66.6 307 28.2 130 5.2 24 1.3 6 41.3 188 29.3 134 7.9 36 10.5 48 9.5 44 Time Spent Working with Technical Information Received Orally From Others: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Through 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Tin'ough 15 Hours Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = 8.2 Median = 5.0 1.2 5 52.1 221 28.2 120 6.7 28 7.2 31 4.4 19 Professional Advancement And Changes In Amount Of Time Spent Working With Technical Information Received From Others: Increased Stayed The Same Decreased 68.3 314 23.5 108 8.3 38 16

Original page 17

Survey participants who write collaboratively 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 42% indicated that a group is more productive is more productive than writing alone. About and about 37% indicated that a group is less productive. About 21% indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. Table 8. Influence of Group Participation on Writing Productivity How Productive Alone 42.2 142 A Group Is More Productive Than Writing Alone 20.6 64 A Group Is About As Productive As Writing Alone 37.2 129 A Group Is Less Productive Than Writing Percentage Number 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 60% (161 respondents) indicated "yes" they had worked with the same group, and about 34% indicated that they had worked with various groups. Of those who indicated that they had worked in the same group, these respondents were asked how many people were in the group. About 74% (118 respondents) indicated a group size of 2-5 people and about 13% (21 respondents) indicated a group size of 6-10 people. The mean number of people in the group was X = 4.6 and the median was 3.0. Those 106 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 25% (25 respondents) reported working with 2 groups, about 32% (32 respondents) reported working with 3 groups, about 17% (17 respondents) reported working with 4 groups, about 7% (7 respondents) reported working with 5 groups, and about 9% (9 respondents) reported working with 6-10 groups. The average (mean) number of groups was X = 3.6 and the median number of groups was 3.0. The number of people in each group varied. About 75% of the respondents reported working with a group of 2-5 people and about 21% reported working with a group of 6-10 people. The average (mean) number of people per group was X = 4.5 and the median number of people per group was 4.0. 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 produced (alone) technical information products appear in table 9. 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 10. Data shown in table 10 17

Original page 18

includethe numberof productsproduced(meanandmedian)andthe average(meanandmedian) numbersof peopleper group. Table 9. Technical InformationProductsWritten or ProducedAlone in the Past6 Months Products Memoranda Letters Drawings/Specifications DoD Technical Reports AudioNisual Materials In-houseTechnical Reports ComputerProgramDocumentation Conference/MeetingPapers TechnicalTalks/Presentations TechnicalProposals Mean_) Median 21.5 12.0 16.9 10.0 21.7 10.0 1.9 0.0 7.9 4.0 8.8 3.0 10.7 2.0 6.8 2.0 6.2 3.0 7.6 3.0 A comparisonof the data containedin tables 9 and 10 reveals more similarities than differences. The productionnumbersvary somewhatbut the productsincluded on both lists (productsproducedaloneor aspart of a group)areessentiallyidentical. With the exceptionof the "groupsize" for technicalproposals,the averagenumbersof peoplepergroup for the various productsproducedare fairly similar in size. Surveyparticipantsweregiven a list of technicalinformation products.They wereaskedto indicateapproximatelyhow manytimes in the past6 monthsthey hadusedeachof them. The 10 mostfrequentlyusedtechnicalinformationproductsappearin table11. A comparisonof the datacontainedin tables9 (production)and 11 (use)revealstwo differences. First, on average, moreproductsare usedthan areproduced. Second,thereare slight differencesin the typesor kindsof productsproducedandused. 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. DoD, in-house, and NASA technical products: conference/meeting papers and journal reports were included in this study. Use. Survey participants were asked if they used the aforementioned technical information products in performing their present professional duties. Table 12 includes data regarding use. 18

Original page 19

Table 10. TechnicalInformationProductsWritten or Producedas Part of a Group in the Past6 Months InformationProducts !Drawings/Specifications Letters Memoranda Audio/Visual Material Conference/Meeting Papers In-house technical Reports Technical Talks/Presentations Computer Program Documentation Technical Manuals Technical Proposals Average Number of In a Group People Per Group Mean OR) Median Mean C)_) Median 12.6 4.0 3.9 3.0 7.2 2.0 3.6 2.0 6.6 3.0 3.8 3.0 5.1 3.0 4.7 4.0 3.2 2.0 4.7 3.0 6.3 2.0 3.8 3.0 3.4 3.0 4.8 4.0 3.8 1.0 4.6 3.0 3.9 1.0 4.8 4.0 7.2 3.0 4.6 4.0 Table 11. Technical Information Product Used in the Past 6 Months Information Products Drawings/Specifications Memoranda Letters Trade/Promotional Literature Technical Manuals Abstracts Audio/Visual Materials Computer Program Documentation Technical Proposals Technical Talks/Presentations Mean (X) Median 80.2 25.0 32.4 15.0 21.3 10.0 17.3 6.0 20.3 6.0 3.9 2.0 16.4 5.0 21.0 6.0 8.1 3.0 6.7 4.0 Table 12. Technical Information Products Used Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports 19 Percentage Number 62.7 271 72.0 122 83.3 369 34.6 143 22.7 92

Original page 20

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 Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical reports NASA Technical reports Mean (') Importance Number 2.9 443 3.0 444 3.7 451 2.3 427 2.1 416 Approximately 37% (163 respondents) indicated that the use of conference/meeting papers was "very or somewhat"important to their work. Approximately 36% (160 respondents) indicated that the use of journal articles was "very or somewhat" important to their work. Approximately 64% (290 respondents) indicated that in-house important to their work. Approximately 22% technical reports were "very or somewhat" (92 respondents) and 13% (56 respondents), respectively, indicated that DoD and NASA technical reports were "very or somewhat" important to their work. 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 Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports Mean CX) Use Median 8.51 3.00 7.40 5.00 12.56 5.00 4.47 0.00 1.89 0.00 technical reports were used (X = 12.56) to a much greater extent than were the other technical information products. Conference/meeting papers were used to a lesser extent C = 8.51) followed by journal articles (X = 7.40), DoD O_ = 4.47), and NASA technical reports (X = 1.89). 2O

Original page 21

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 five 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 to 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 ('X) rating was calculated. A mean (X) rating for users and non-users of each product is presented. Conference/Meeting Papers. The importance factor ratings for conference/meeting papers appear in table 15. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.5), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.3), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.3), (4) easy to use or read (X = 4.1), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.9). Table 15. Factors Affecting the Use of Conference/Meeting Papers 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 Source 3.7 3.8 3.7 iCan Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating ) Rating (X) Rating ('X) n = 268 n = 154 n = 422 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.5 3.7 3.6 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 Journal Articles. The importance factor ratings for journal articles appear in table 16. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.4), (2) good technical quality C) -- 4.3), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.3), (4) easy to use or read 07, = 4.1), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.9). 21

Original page 22

Table 16. FactorsAffecting the Use of JournalArticles Factors Are EasyTo Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Source 3.7 3.5 3.6 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating ('X) Rating ('X) Rating CX) n = 310 n= 114 n = 424 4.0 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.6 3.4 3.6 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 In-House Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for in-house technical reports appear in table 17. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.5), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.4), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.4), (4) easy to use or read (X = 4.2), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 4.0). DoD Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for DoD technical reports appear in table 18. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.3), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.2), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.2), (4) easy to use or read (X = 4.0), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.9). Table 17. Factors Affecting the Use of In-house Technical Reports 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 User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating ('X) Rating (X) n = 359 n=66 n = 425 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.2 3.1 3.6 3.2 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 22

Original page 23

Table 18. FactorsAffecting the Useof DoD Technical Reports 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 Source 3.6 3.6 3.6 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n= 140 n = 245 n = 385 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.3 3.5 3.3 3.4 NASA Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for NASA technical reports appear in table 19. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X - 4.2), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.2), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.1), (4) easy to use or read (X = 3.9), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.8). Table 19. Factors Affecting the Use of NASA Technical Reports 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 Source 3.6 3.5 3.5 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them 23 User Non-User Overall Rating ('X) Rating (X) Rating CX) n=87 n = 288 n = 375 4.0 3.7 3.8 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.6 4.0 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.2 3.5 3.3 3.3

Original page 24

Use and Importance of Computer and Information Technology Survey participants were asked if they use computer technology to prepare (written) technical communications. Almost all (95.3%) (443) of the survey respondents use computer technology to prepare (written) technical information. About 39.6% (184) of the respondents "always" use computer technology to prepare (written) technical information. About 98% (456) indicated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information. About 76% (353) of the respondents stated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information "a lot". From a prepared list, survey respondents were asked to indicate which computer software they used to prepare written technical communication (table 20). Word processing software was used most frequently by survey respondents, followed by spelling checkers, business graphics, grammar and style checkers, and a thesaurus. Outliners and prompters and desktop publishing computer software were "least frequently" used to prepare written technical communication. Table 20. Use of Computer Software to Prepare Written Technical Communication Software Percentage Number Word Processing 96.1 415 Outliners And Prompters 24.7 68 Grammar And Style Checkers 64.1 216 !Spelling Checkers 88.1 353 Thesaurus 61.2 200 Business Graphics 69.3 232 Scientific Graphics 60.4 198 Desktop Publishing 46.3 145 Survey respondents were also given a list of information technologies and asked, "How do you view your use of the following information technologies in communicating technical information?" Their choices included "already use it"; "don't use it, but may in the future"; and "don't use it and doubt if I will". (See table 21.) The aerospace engineers and scientists in this study use a variety of information technologies. The percentages of "I already use it" responses ranged from a high of 95% (FAX and TELEX) to a low of 11% (motion picture films). 24

Original page 25

A list, in descendingorder,follows of the information technologies most frequently used. FAX or TELEX 95% Electronic Data Bases 70 Electronic Mail 62 Electronic Networks 63 Videotape 58 A list, in descending order, follows of the information technologies "that are not currently being used but may be used in the future." Laser Disk/Video Disk/CD-ROM 56% Video Conferencing 53 Electronic Bulletin Boards 49 Micrographics and Microforms 45 Desktop/Electronic Publishing* 41 Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes* 41 * Indicates a tie. Table 21. Use, Nonuse, and Potential Already Information Technologies % Audio Tapes And Cassettes 31.0 Motion Picture Films 11.4 Videotape 58.4 Desktop/Electronic Publishing 48.9 Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes 33.7 Electronic Mail 63.2 Electronic Bulletin Boards 34.1 FAX or TELEX 94.7 Electronic Data Bases 69.7 Video Conferencing 29.7 Micrographics And Microforms 31.8 Laser Disk/Video Disk/CD-ROM 27.4 Electronic Networks 62.8 25 Use of Information Technologies Don't Use It, Don't Use It, But May In And Doubt If Use It Future Will (n) % (n) % (n) 132 27.5 117 41.5 177 47 26.5 109 62.1 256 251 28.6 123 13.0 56 206 41.3 174 9.7 41 139 41.3 170 25.0 103 278 31.4 138 5.5 24 142 48.8 203 17.1 71 427 4.2 19 1.1 5 295 25.1 106 5.2 22 124 53.2 222 17.0 71 130 45.0 184 23.2 95 113 56.3 232 16.3 67 268 29.5 126 7.7 33

Original page 26

Use and Importance of Electronic Networks Survey participants were asked if the use electronic networks in their workplace in performing their present duties. About 73.9% of the respondents use electronic networks in performing their present duties and about 26.2% either do not use (14.4%), or do not have access to (11.8%) electronic networks. Survey respondents used electronic networks an average of 14.3 hours per week. (See table 22.) Table 22. Use of Electronic Networks in One Week Use 0 Hours 10 Hours 11 - 25 Hours 26 - 50 Hours 51 Or More Hours Mean 14.3 Median 10.0 Percentage Number 2.1 7 53.3 180 24.7 83 19.1 64 0.9 3 Respondents who use them were also asked to rate the importance of electronic networks in performing their present duties (table 23). Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important. networks important. About 14% rated them rated electronic networks as very unimportant. Table 23. Importance Importance Very Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Very Unimportant About 80% of the respondents rated electronic neither important nor unimportant, and about 7% of Electronic Networks Percentage Number 79.6 270 13.6 46 6.8 23 Respondents were asked how they accessed electronic networks (table 24): mainframe terminal, personal computers, and workstations. Access via personal computer (72%) was most frequently reported. Access via mainframe terminal and workstation was reported by less than 50% of the survey respondents. 26

Original page 27

THE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS: RESULTS PRACTICES OF U.S. AEROSPACE OF THE PHASE 1 SME 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-a-vis the technical communication practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists affiliated with, not necessarily members of, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME). INTRODUCTION NASA and the DoD maintain scientific and technical information (STI) systems for acquiring, processing, announcing, publishing, and transferring the results of governmentperformed and government-sponsored research. 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 development of aerospace information systems, theory, (2) contribute to the design and 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 28

In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports, provide a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of the Phase 1 SME mail survey. We summarize the findings of the Phase 1 mail survey in terms of the technical communication practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists affiliated with, not necessarily members of, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME). THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Although they have the potential for increasing technological innovation, productivity, and economic competitiveness, U.S. government limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. technical reports may not be utilized because of 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 a system for communicating STI (Mathes and Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical of wide variations in the content, purpose, report -- whether it is informative, analytical, report literature are difficult to establish because and audience being addressed. The nature of the 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 trade. • Readership/audience is usually limited. • Distribution may be limited or restricted.

Original page 29

Table 24. How Electronic Access Mainframe Terminal Personal Computer Workstation Networks are Accessed % (n) 47.8 165 72.2 249 42.6 147 Respondents using them were asked to indicate the purpose(s) for which they used electronic networks (table 25). Survey respondents indicated that information search and retrieval (79.6%) electronic mail (74.5%), log on to remote computers (59.5%), connect to geographically distant sites (53.1%), and accessing/searching the library's catalog (52.0%) represented their greatest use of electronic networks. Also noticeable is the lack of electronic network use for controlling remote equipment, acquiring (ordering) documents data bases. from the library, and searching (bibliographic) Table 25. Use of Electronic Networks for Specific Purposes Purpose Distant Sites 53.1 165 Connect To Geographically Electronic Mail Conferences 42.4 129 Electronic Bulletin Boards Or Log On To Remote Computers Control Remote Equipment Catalog 52.5 165 Access/Search The Library's Library 36.2 110 Order Documents From The Search Electronic (Bibliographic) Retrieval 79.6 257 Information Search And Data Prepare Scientific And Papers With Distant Sites 20.1 61 Colleagues At Geographically Percentage Number 74.5 243 59.5 188 34.1 103 Data Bases 39.3 119 Survey participants who used electronic networks were asked to identify the groups with whom they exchanged messages or files (table 26). About three-quarters of the survey respondents used electronic networks to exchange files with members of their own work group, others in their organization but not in their work group, and people outside their organization. 27

Original page 30

Table 26. Use of Electronic Networks to Exchange Messages or Files Exchange With -- Members Of Own Work Group Others In Your Organization But Not In Your Work Group Percentage Number 78.4 257 75.2 248 Others In Your Organization, Not In Your Work Group, At A Geographically Different Site Group 71.0 233 People Outside Your Work Use and Importance of Libraries/Technical 52.8 169 Information Centers Almost all of the survey respondents indicated that their organization has a library/technical information center. About 47% of the survey respondents indicated that the library/technical information center was located in the building where they worked. About 37% of the respondents indicated that the library/technical information center was located outside the building in which they worked. Sixteen percent of the respondents reported that their organization did not have a library/technical information center. For 33% of the respondents, the library/technical information center was located 1 mile or less from where they worked. For about 67% of the respondents, the library/technical information center was located more than one mile from where they worked. Survey respondents were also asked if the proximity of their work setting (e.g., office to their organization's library/technical information center) affected their use of that facility (table 27). The importance of proximity was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = unimportant and 5 = very important. About 39% of the respondents indicated that proximity was "not at all" important. About 29% indicated that proximity was neither important nor unimportant. Thirty-two percent of the respondents indicated that proximity was very important. Overall, survey respondents were about equally divided on the extent to which proximity of the work setting to the library/technical information center influence its use. Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of the organization's library/technical information center in terms of performing their professional duties. Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important 56% of the aerospace engineers and scientists and 5 = very important (see table 28). About in the study indicated that their organization's library/technical information center was important or very important in performing their present professional duties. Approximately 24% of the survey respondents indicated that their library was neither important nor unimportant to performing their present professional duties. About 20% of respondents indicated that their organization's library/technical information center was very unimportant to performing their present professional duties. 28

Original page 31

Table 27. The Influence of Proximity of the Organization's Library/Technical Information Center on Use Percentage Number Proximity Not At All Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Very Important Mean 2.8 Median 3.0 39.4 117 28.6 85 32.0 95 Table 28. Importance of the Organization's Library/Technical Information Center on Use Percentage Number Importance Not At All Important _Neither Important Nor Unimportant Very Important Survey respondents were asked to report 55.9 166 23.9 71 20.2 60 the number of times they had used their organization's library/technical information center in the past 6 months (see table 29). On average, survey respondents used their library/technical information center about 12 times in the past 6 months. About 24% of the survey respondents did not use their library's library/technical information center in the past 6 months. Reasons for not using the organization's library/ technical information center are shown in table 30. About 87% of the respondents were more easily met some other way. About 42% indicated that they had no information needs. About 34% indicated that the library did not have the information they needed. Table 29. Use of the Organization's Library/Technical Information Center in the Past 6 Months Visits Percentage Number 0 Times 1- 5 Times 6 - 10 Times 11 - 25 Times 26 - 50 Times 51 - 94 Times 95 Or More Times Mean 11.8 Median 4.0 29 23.8 91 34.4 132 13.3 51 17.3 66 7.4 28 0.6 2 3.4 13

Original page 32

Table30. ReasonsRespondentsDid Not UseA Library During the Past6 Months Reason 1Had No InformationNeeds My InformationNeedsWere More Easily Met SomeOther Way Tried The Library Once Or Twice Before But I Couldn't Find The InformationI Needed Percentage Number 41.8 82 86.6 175 11.0 20 The Library Staff Is Not CooperativeOr Helpful 3.8 7 The Library Staff DoesNot UnderstandMy InformationNeeds 7.6 14 The Library Did Not HaveThe InformationI Need 33.9 63 I HaveMy Own PersonalLibrary And Do Not NeedAnother Library The Library Is Too Slow In Getting The Information I Need We Have To Pay To Use The Library We Are Discouraged From Using The Library FINDINGS 26.9 50 15.3 28 1.1 2 1.1 2 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 Manufacturing Engineers (SME) mailing list (not necessarily members of the SME). The results, therefore, are not generalizable to (1) the membership of the SME, (2) all U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists working in manufacturing/production, or (3) all U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Further, the survey was conducted during the time when the U.S. aerospace industry was undergoing significant changes. Many organizations had merged or had gone out of business. Many members of the sample had left their jobs. 1. The "average" participant works in industry (100%), has a bachelor's degree (46.7%), has an average of 16.5 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (73%, 71%), and works in manufacturing/production (51%), and is male (96%). 2. Their most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months was categorized as manufacturing/production (47%); 73% of the participants worked on this project, task, or problem with others. The mean number of groups involved was 3.0, and the mean number of people in a work group was 5.5. Engineering duties predominated (61%) followed by management duties (26%) in the completion or problem worked on in the past 6 months. 3O of the most important job-related project, task,

Original page 33

1. A positive and significant correlation was found between the overall complexity and technical uncertainty of the most important job-related project, task, or problem that respondents had worked on in the past 6 months. 4. To complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem, respondents first went to their personal stores of technical information organization (47%); third, spoke with colleagues (54%); next, spoke with coworker(s) inside the outside of the organization (37%); fourth, and fifth, used literature resources in the organization's library (20%); and sixth, spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist (6%). About 64% and 61%, respectively, did not speak to a librarian or search (or have searched) electronic data bases to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem. 5. Approximately 31% of the respondents 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. Four of five "federal initiatives" were the sources used least to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. DoD and NASA technical reports were the exception. 6. About 19% of the respondents had used the results of fc,,derally funded aerospace R&D to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem during the last 6 months. About 50% of this group indicated that federally funded aerospace R&D was "important" or "very important" for completing this work. About 57% (46) of those who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem indicated that the results were published in either a NASA or DoD technical report. 7. Of the respondents who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem, 46% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem, and 46% reported that the "time and effort it took to obtain the results" was a problem. 8. About 90% of the respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical information effectively; respondents spent an average of 10.5 hours per week producing written material and 12.6 hours per week communicating approximately 67% have increased the amount to others. Survey respondents reported spending information orally. Over the past 5 years of time they spend communicating information an average of 10.4 hours per week working with written information received from others and an average of 8.2 hours per week working with information received orally from others. More than 68% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spend working with technical as they have advanced professionally. information received from others has increased 9. About 40% of the respondents reported that all of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. About 83% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. 31 About 66% indicated that their written technical

Original page 34

communicationsinvolved writing with a groupof two to five people. About 29% 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 is more productive than writing alone. About 42% indicated that a group is more productive productive. About 21% indicated that a group 11. A comparison of the technical information and about 37% indicated that a group is less is about as productive as writing alone. 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 five technical information products. In-house technical reports were used most frequently (X = 12.6) and were rated most important (_ = 3.7). DoD and NASA technical reports were used by about 35% and 25% of the respondents and were rated about equal in importance (X = 2.3, X = 2.1). 13. Both users and non-users of the five information products were ,asked to indicate about the importance of eight factors in deciding whether to use any of the five information products. Overall, 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. 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) 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. 14. About 95% of the survey participants used computer technology to prepare written technical communications; about 98% of them indicated that computer technology had increase their ability to communicate technical information. 15. Word processing and spelling checkers were the computer software used most often in preparing written technical information. 32

Original page 35

1. FAX or TELEX, electronic data bases, electronic mail, electronic networks, and videotape were the information technologies used most frequently by survey respondents. 17. About 74% of the survey participants used electronic networks in performing their present professional duties; they use electronic networks 80% rated them important in terms of performing an average of 14.3 hours per week; and about their present professional duties. • 18. About 70% of the respondents access electronic networks via personal computer; about 75% use electronic networks for electronic mail and to search and retrieve information and data; and about 78% use electronic networks to exchange messages and files with members of their own group. 19. Survey respondents (56%) indicated that the organization's library/technical information center was important in performing their present professional duties. 20. On average, survey respondents visited their organization's library/technical information center 11.8 times in a 6 month period; survey respondents were about equally divided as to whether proximity of the work setting to the organization's library/technical information center influenced its use. 21. The most common reasons for not using the organization's library/technical information center included "my information needs were more easily met some other way," "I had no information needs," and "the library did not have the information I needed." 33

Original page 36

REFERENCES Adam, R. "Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a 1975 Science Information 519-531. System." International SociaI Journal 27(3): Allen, T. J. 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. ai. 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.) (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB- Berul, L. H., et. al. DoD User-Needs Study, Phase I. Volume I: 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.) Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva 30:3 Branscomb, L. G. "America's 1992 (August): 317-336. Branscomb, L. G. "Toward a U.S. National Science Foundation. (Available from VA; PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note Technology Policy." Issues in Science and 1991 Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55. 34

Original page 37

David, P. A. "TechnologyDiffusion, Public Policy, andIndustrial 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. Gibb, J. M. and Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." Journal E. Phillips of Communication Studies 1: 225-234. 1979 Godfrey,L. E. and Dictionary of Report Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries H.F. Redman Association. 1973 Goldhor,R. S. and "University-to-Industry Advanced Technology Transfer: A Case R. T. Lund Study." Research Policy 12: 121-152. 1983 Mathes,J. C. and Designing Technical D. W. Stevenson 1976 Reports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. McClure,C. R. "The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and 1988 Issues." Government lnformation Quarterly. 5(1): 27-44. McGowan,R. P. and "Strategies for Information Management: The Administrator's S. Loveless Perspective." Public 1981 Mowery, D. C. "Economic Theory 1983 Sciences 16: 27-43. Administration Review 41(3): 331-339. 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. 35

Original page 38

NationalAcademy 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 Libraries 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.) 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 Pinelli, T. E., "Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." Worm Aerospace J. M. Kennedy, Technology "91: R. O. Barclay, and Development and T. F. White 1991 The International Review of Aerospace Design 1(1): 31-34. 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: Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian 1965/1966 23: 11-17. Roberts, E. B. "Strategies for Improving Research Utilization." Technology 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. 36

Original page 39

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.) Shuchman,H. L. Information Transfer 1981 Futures Group. Smith, R. S. "Interaction Within in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The the Technical Report Community." Science 1981 and Technology Libraries 1(4): 5-18. Subramanyam,K. Scientific and Technical Information Resources. NY: Marcel 1981 Dekker. U.S. Department Glossary of Information Handling. Defense Logistics Agency, of Defense Defense Documentation 1964 Williams, F. and Technology Transfer: Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA. A Communication Perspective. Newbury D. V. Gibson Park, CA: Sage Publications. 1990 37

Original page 40

APPENDIX A: PROJECT FACT SHEET NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Fact Sheet 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 ,bout 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 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This research is endorsed by several aerospace professional societies including the AIAA, RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned by the AGARD and AIAA Technical Information Panels. This 4-phase project is providing descriptive 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 diffusion process. Phase 1 investigates the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, in particular their use of government-funded aerospace STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government interface and emphasizes the role of the information intermediary in the knowledge diffusion government interface and emphasizes the information Phase 4 explores the information-seeking behaviors process. Phase 3 concerns the academicintermediary-faculty-student interface. 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 prodt, ctivity and to improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. The results of our research are being shared freely with those who participate in the study. Dr. Thomas E. Pinelli Dr. John M. Kennedy Mail Stop 180A Center for Survey Research NASA Langley Research Center Indiana University Ilampton, VA 23681-0001 Bloominglon, IN 47405 (804) 864-24t}1 (812) 855-2573 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 Rebecca O. Barclay Dept. of Language, Lit. & Communication Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 1218(I (804) 3t-5666 Fax (804) 3t}7-4635 T.E.Pi nelli@larc.nasa.gov kenncdyO_'isrmail .soc.i ndiana edu I_lrclay(winfi.net 38

Original page 41

APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT PHASE 1 OF THE NASA/DOD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Technical Communications in Aerospace: A Manufa_g and Production Perspective The SME Study SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WITH THE COOPERATION OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY AND THE SOCIETY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS (SME) 39 ORIGINAL PAGE' B!_.AL-'K. AND WHJTF. ;, _" :

Original page 42

The first group of questions ask about your use of technical information. 1. In your work, how important is it for you to communicate (e.g., produce written materials or oral discussions) technical information effectively? (Circle number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very hnportant . In the past 6 months, about how many hours did you spend each week communicating (producing) technical hlformation? (Output) hours per week writing hours per week communicating orally 3. Compared to 5 years ago, how has the amount of time you spend communicating technical information changed? (Circle ONE number) 1 Increased 2 Stayed the same 3 Decreased 4. In the past 6 mouths, about how many hours did you spend each week working with technical information received from others? (Input) hours per week working with written information hours per week receiving iuformation orally ° As you have advanced professionally, how has the amount of time you spend working with technical information received from others changed? (Circle ONE number) 1 Increased 2 Stayed the same 3 Decreased 6. In the past 6 months, about what percentage of your written technical communications involved: Writing alone Writing with one other person Writing with a group of 2 to 5 people Writing with a group of more than 5 people . % _ (If 100%, go to question 9.) % % % 100 % In general, do you find writing as part of a group more or less productive (i.e., producing more written products or better written products) than writing alone? (Circle ONE number) A group is less productive than writing alone A group is about as productive as writing alone A group is more productive than writing alone Difficult to judge; no experience preparing technical information 40

Original page 43

g° In the past 6 months, did you work with the same group of people when producing written technical information? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes _ About how many people were in the group? number of people 2 No -_ With about how many groups did you work? number of groups About how many people were in each group7 number of people . Approximately how many times in the past 6 months did you write or prepare the following alone or in a group? (If in a group, how many people were in each group?) Times Wrote or.Prepared in Past 6 Months Average Number of Alone In a Group People in 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 1. In-house Technical Reports m. DoD Technical Reports n. NASA Technical Reports o. Technical Talks/Presentations 10. Approximately how many times ill the past 6 mouths did you use the following as part of your professional duties? Times Used in Past 6 Months a. Abstracts b. Journal Articles c_ Conference/Meeting Papers d. Trade/promotional Literature e. Drawings/Specifications f. Audio/Visual Materials g. Lette/s h. Memoranda i. Technical Proposals j. Technical Manuals k. Computer Program Documentation 1. In-house Technical Reports m. DoD Technical Reports n. NASA Technical Reports o. Technical Talks/Presentatio_ts 41

Original page 44

few questions about computer use. technical information? (Circle ONE number) Do you use computer technology to prepare 2 Usually -'- Go to question 12 1 Always ] 3 Sometimes 4 Never p Go to question 14 1Z Has computer technology increased your ability to communicate technical information? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes, a lot 2 Yes, a little 3 No 13. Do you use any of the following software to prepare written technical information? (Circle the appropriate number for each) Yes Word processing packages .......... 1 Oufliners and prompters ............ 1 Grammar and style checkers ........ 1 Spelling checkers ................. 1 Thesaurus ...................... 1 Business graphics ................ 1 Scientific graphics ................ 1 Deslcop publishers ................ 1 14. How do you view your USE of the following No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 electronic/information technologies in communicating technical information? (Circle the appropriate number for each) Already Information Technologies Use Audio tapes and cassettes ........... 1 Motion picture films .............. 1 Video tape ..................... 1 Desktop/electronic publishing ........ 1 Computer cassette/cartridge tapes ..... 1 Electronic mail .................. 1 Electronic bulletin boards ........... 1 FAX or TELEX ................. 1 Electronic data bases .............. 1 Video conferencing ............... 1 Micrographics and microfonns ....... 1 Laser disc/video disc/CD-ROM ....... 1 Electronic networks ............... 1 Don't use Don't use but may in and doubt the future if I will 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 42

Original page 45

1. At your workplace, do you use electronic networks in perfonning your present duties? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 3 No, because I do not have 2 No ] access to electronic networks P Go to question 16 _ Go to question 21 16. At your workplace, how do you access electronic networks? (Circle all that apply) By using a mainfranle terminal By using a personal computer By using a workstation 17. How important is the use of electronic networks ill performing your present duties? (Circle number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very hnportant 18. In the past week, about how many hours did you USE your electronic networks? Hours in the past week 19. Do you use electronic networks for the following purposes? (Circle appropriate number for each) Yes No To connect to geographically distant sites ......................... 1 For electronic mail ......................................... 1 For electronic bulletin boards or couferencing ...................... 1 To log into remote computers for such things as computational analysis or to use design tools ..................... 1 To control remote equipmcnt such as laboratory instruments or machine tools ................................ To access/search a library catalog .............................. To order documents from a library ............................. To search electronic (bibliographic) data bases (e.g., Dialog) ........................................... 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 For hfformation search and data retrieval ......................... 1 2 To prepare scientific and technical papers with colleagues at geographically distant sites ........................ 1 20. Do you USE electronic networks to communicate with: Members of your work group ................................. Other people in your organizatio,i at the SAME geographical site who are NOT in your work group .......................... Other people in your organization at geographically Yes No 1 1 DIFFERENT sites who are NOT in your work group .............. 1 People outside your work group ............................... 43 1

Original page 46

We would also like to iolowabout your use of a library or technical information center. 21. Does your organization/company have a library/techllical information center? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes, ill my building _ Go to question 22 2 Yes, but not in my building miles minute walk _ Go to question 22 3 No _ Go to question 26 22. Ill the past 6 months, how often did you USE your organization's library/technical information center? Number of times in past 6 months If "0" times or you did not use your organization's library, go to question 25. 23. To what exteut does the proximity of your work setting (e.g., office) to your organization's library/technical information center affect your use of it? (Circle ONE number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very hnportant 24. In terms of perh_rming your present professional duties, how importa,lt is your organization's library/technical information cemer? (Circle ONE number) Not at all importam 1 2 3 4 5 Very hnportant'_ Go to question 26 5. Which of the following statemeuts describe your reasons fi_r not using a library during the past 6 months? (Circle appropriate uumber for each) I had no infonnation needs ................................... My information needs were more easily met some Tried the library once or twice before but I couldn't find the information I needed ................................ Yes No 1 2 other way ........... 1 2 1 The library staff is not cooperative or helpful ...................... 1 The library staff does not understand my information needs ............ 1 The library did not have the information I needed ................... 1 The library is too slow in getting the infonnation I need .............. 1 I have my own personal library and do not need another library ......... 1 We have to pay to use the library .............................. 1 We are discouraged from using the library ........................ 1 44

Original page 47

Please tell us about your use of specific information sources. 26. Do you use the following information sources in perfonning your present professional duties? (Circle appropriate number for each) Conference/Meeting papers ................................... Journal articles ........................................... Technical reports - In-house .................................. Technical reports - DoD ..................................... Technical reports - NASA ................................... Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 27. In terms of performing your present professional duties, how important is each of the following information sources? (Circle appropriate number for each) Conference/Meeting papers ....................... Journal articles ............................... Technical reports- In-house ...................... Technical reports- DoD ......................... Technical reports - NASA ....................... Not at all Very Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 28. If you were deciding whether or not to use conference/meeting papers in your work, how important would the following factors be? (Circle appropriate number) 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 experience using them ............... 29. If you were deciding whether or not to use journal following factors be? (Circle appropriate number) Are easy to physically obtain ..................... Are easy to use or read ......................... Are inexpensive ............................... Have good technical quality ...................... Have comprehensive data and infonuatiou ............ Are relevant to my work ........................ Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ......... Had good prior experience using them ............... 45 Not at all Very hnportant hnportant 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 articles in your work, how important would the Not at all Very hn porta nt hnporta nt 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Original page 48

1. If you were deciding whether or not to use in-house technical reports in your work, how important would the following factors be? (Circle appropriate number) Axe easy to physically obtain ..................... Axe easy to use or read ......................... Axe inexpensive ............................... Have good technical quality ...................... Not at all Very Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Have comprehensive data and information ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Axe relevant to my work ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Had good prior experience using them ............... 31. 1 2 3 4 5 If you were deciding whether or not to use DoD technical reports in your work, how important would the following factors be? (Circle appropriate number) Axe easy to physically obtain ..................... Axe easy to use or read ......................... Axe inexpensive ............................... Have good technical quality ...................... Not at all Very Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Have comprehensive data and infonnation ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Axe relevant to my work ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Had good prior experience using them ............... 32_ 1 2 3 4 5 If you were deciding whether or not to use NASA technical reports in your work, how important would the following factors be? (Circle appropriate number) Axe easy to physically obtain ..................... Are easy to use or read ......................... AXe inexpensive ............................... Have good technical quality ...................... Not at all Very hnportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Have comprehensive data and infonnation ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Axe relevant to my work ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Had good prior experience using them ............... 1 2 3 4 5 46

Original page 49

Next, we would like to know about the work you do. 33. Thiitk of the most important job-related project, task, or problem you have worked oil in the past 6 mouths. Which category best describes this work? (Circle only ONE nmnber) Research (either basic or applied) Desigu Development Manufacturing Production Quality Assurance/Control Computer Applications Managemeut (e.g., plamling, budgeting, attd mauaging research) Other (specify): 34. How would you describe the overall complexity of the technical project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 33? (Circle ONE number) Very Simple 1 2 3 4 5 Very Complex 35. How would you rate the amount of technical uncertainty that you faced when you started the technical project, task, or problem categorized in Question 33? (Circle ONE number) Little Uncertainty I 2 3 4 5 Great Uncertainty 36. While you were involved in this technical project, task, or problem, did you work alone or with others? 1 Alone 2 With others In how many groups did you work? About how mauy people were in each group? 37. Which one of the following best describes the kinds of duties you performed while working on the technical project, task, or problem categorized in Question 33? (Circle ONE number) 1 Engineering 2 Science 3 Management 4 Other (specify): 38. What steps did you follow to get tile iulbrmatio,i you needed for this project, task, or problem? [Please sequence these items (e.g., #1, #2, #3) and put an X beside the steps you did not use.] Used my personal store of technical iuformation, including sources I keep in my office Spoke with coworkers or people inside my organization Spoke with colleagues outside my organization Spoke with a librarian or technical information specialist Searched (or had someone search for me) an electronic (bibliographic) data base in the library Used literature resources (e.g., technical reports) found in my organization's library Used none of the above steps 47

Original page 50

1. Do you USE the results of federally-funded aerospace R&D in your work? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 40. Did you USE the results of federally-funded aerospace R&D in completing the technical project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 33? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No _- Go to question 45 41. How important were the results of federally-funded R&D in cx_mpleting the technical project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 33? (Circle ONE number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very hnportant 42. Were any of these results published ill either a NASA or DoD technical report? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 43. From which of the followi.g sources did you learn about/obtain the results of the federally-funded aerospace R&D you used in completing the technical project, task, or problem? (Circle appropriate number for each) Coworkers inside nay organization ............ Colleagues outside my orgauization ........... NASA and DoD contacts .................. Publications such as NASA STAR ............ NASA and DoD sponsored and cospottsored conferences and workshops ........ NASA and DoD technical reports ............ Professional and society journals ............. Librarians inside my organizations ............ Trade journals .......................... Searches of computerized data bases .......... Professional and society meetings ............ Visits to NASA and DoD facilities ........... Yes No 1 2 l 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 I 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 44. Which, if any, of the following problems were associated with using these results? (Check ALL that apply) The time and effort it took to locate the results The time and effort it took to physically obtain the results The accuracy, precision, and reliability of the results The legibility or readability of the results The organization or format of the results The distribution limitations or security restrictions of the results We're asking a few questions for the SME. 45. Are you a member of the Society of Manufacturing 1 Yes 2 No Go to question 52 Engineers (SME)? (Circle number) 48

Original page 51

1. How were you first made aware of SME? (Circle ONE number) 1 Word-of-mouth 4 2 School/student organization 5 SME brochure/literature SME seminars/conferences 3 Industry publications 6 Trade shows/expositions 47. Your primary reason for joining SME was? (Circle ONE number) 1 Career advaucement 4 2 Professional development 5 3 Discounts Peer pressure Other (specify): 8. Which of the following SME offerings/activities have you used/attended? (Check ALL that apply) Plant tours SME product discounts SME conferences/clinics/courses SME books/papers/videos SME shows/expositions SME News SME Education Foundatibn SME local chapter meetings SME Manufacturing Engineering Professional contacts SME library and INTIME SME credit card service SME sponsored health/life/auto insurance SME resume service SME On-line SME technical referral data base SME certification program Other (specify): 49. Which three (3) of the following SME offerings/activities are most important/least important to you? 1 Plant tours 10 2 SME product discounts 11 3 SME conferences/clinics/courses 12 4 SME books/papers/videos 13 5 SME shows/expositions 14 6 SME News 15 7 SME Education Foundation 16 8 SME local chapter meetings 17 9 SME Manufacturing Engineering 18 Most Important: Professional contacts SME library and INTIME SME credit card service SME sponsored health/life/auto insurance SME resume service SME On-line SME technical referral data base SME certification program Other (specify): Enter number of first choice: second choice: third choice: Least Important: Enter number of first choice: second choice: third choice: 50. Which features of SME On-line have you used? (Check ALL that apply) 1 Conference forums 5 Job applications programs 2 E-mail 6 Do not use SME On-line 3 Manufacturing technical interest areas 4 National job posting service 49 7 Do not have access to a computer/modem OVER b

Original page 52

1. How would you prefer to receive information from SME? (Circle ONE number) 1 Word-of-mouth 4 E-mail and electronic bulletin boards 2 Direct mail 5 Other (specify): 3 Telemarketing Survey Demographics 52. Gender: 1 Male 2 Female 53. Please indicate the highest college degree you hold. 1 No college degree 4 Doctorate 2 Bachelor's 5 Other (specify): 3 Master's 54. Years of aerospace work experience: years 55. Which of the following best describes your primary professional duties? (Circle ONE number) 1 Research 6 2 Administration/Management 7 3 Quality Assurance/Control 8 4 Design/Development 9 5 Manufacturing/Production Service/Maintenance Marketing/Sales Private Consultant Other (specify): 56. Was your academic preparation as an: (Circle ONE number) 1 Engineer 2 Scientist 3 Other (specify): 57. In your present job, do you consider yourself primarily an: (Circle ONE number) 1 Engineer 2 Scientist 3 Other (specify): 58. Is any of your current work funded by the federal govenunent? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don't know THANK Mail to: YOU: NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop lg0A Hampton, VA 23681.0001 5O

Original page 53

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE For,oprov OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collec_on of irffccrnabon is es'emated to average 1 hour per response, inOuding the I_me fo reviewing instructions, searching extst]ng data sources, gathering and maJntaining t/)e data needed, end completing and reviewing the collection of informat)on. Send oomrnents regarding this burden estimate or ar_y other aspect of this collec'0on of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Servmes, Direct_ate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Daws Highway. Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwo(k Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE December 1994 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS The Technical Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 1 SME Mail Survey* WU 505-90 6. AUTHOR(S) Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy :7. PERFORMINGORGANZATIONNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES) NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORIING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-109169 *Report number 31 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABIUTY STATEMENT Unclassified--Unlimited Subject Category 82 Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 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-_i-vis the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-a-vis the technical communications practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists affiliated with, not necessarily belonging to, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME). 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; and U.S. 51 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. UMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-.89) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 298-102

Original page 54