Full report

Original page 1

• • -7 //- NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Report Number 33 / Project NASA Technical Memorandum 110180 The Technical Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 1 AIAA 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 September 1995 National f_ 4" o_ m f_ t m t U ,43 (7, C O Z O N CO Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Original page 2

Original page 3

THE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS: RESULTS PRACTICES OF U.S. AEROSPACE OF THE PHASE 1 AIAA 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 who are members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). 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 available. empirical information about this product is We are examining the system(s) used to diffuse the results of federally funded aerospace R&D as part of the NASAIDoD 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 4

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 AIAA 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 who are members Astronautics (AIAA). of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 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 report literature are difficult to establish because of wide variations in the content, purpose, and audience being addressed. The nature of the report -- whether it is informative, analytical, or assertive -- contributes to the difficulty. Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many shapes, sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary; they might be brief (two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche, computer printouts or vugraphs, and often they are loose leaf (with periodic changes that need to be inserted) or have a paper cover, and often contain foldouts. They slump on the shelf, their staples or prong fasteners snag other documents on the shelf, and they are not neat." Technical reports may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Gibb and Phillips, 1979; Subramanyam, 1981): • Publication is not through the publishing trade. • Readership/audience is usually limited. • Distribution may be limited or restricted. 2

Original page 5

• 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 of the technical report: • It is written for an individual or organization that has the right to require such reports. • It is basically a stewardship report to some agency that has funded the research being reported. • 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 The development of the [U.S. government] Technical Report technical report as a major means of communicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey and Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and the establishment of the U.S. Office of Scientific 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 and the Technological Papers of the National examples of U.S. government technical reports. Papers of the United States Geological Survey, Bureau of Standards (Auger, 1975) are early 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 3 community and are added to the literature of

Original page 6

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 Approprlablllty Model The appropriability model emphasizes the production of knowledge by the Federal government that would not otherwise be produced by the private sector and competitive market pressures to promote the use of that knowledge. This model emphasizes the production of basic research as the driving force behind technological development and economic growth and assumes that the Federal provision of R&D will be rapidly assimilated by the private sector. Deliberate transfer mechanisms and intervention by information intermediaries are viewed as unnecessary. Appropriability stresses the supply (production) of knowledge in sufficient quantity to attract potential users. Good technologies, according to this model, sell themselves and offer clear policy recommendations regarding Federal priorities nomic growth. This model incorrectly assumes for improving technological development and ecothat 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 7

use. Linkage mechanisms, such as information intermediaries, are needed to identify useful knowledge and to transfer it to potential users. available to link potential users with knowledge This model assumes that if these mechanisms are producers, then better opportunities exist for users to determine what knowledge is available, acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The strength of this model rests on the recognition that STI transfer and use are critical elements of the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is passive, for it does not take users into consideration except when they enter the system and request assistance. The dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-user transfer procedures that are seldom responsive in the user context. User requirements of information products and services. The Knowledge Diffusion Model are seldom known or considered in the design The knowledge diffusion model is grounded in theory and practice associated with the diffusion of innovation and planned change research and the clinical models of social research and mental health. Knowledge diffusion emphasizes "active" intervention as opposed to dissemination and access; stresses intervention and reliance on interpersonal communications as a means of identifying and removing interpersonal barriers between users and producers; and assumes that knowledge production, transfer, and use are equally important components of the R&D process. This approach also emphasizes the link between producers, transfer agents, and users and seeks to develop user-oriented mechanisms (e.g., products and services) specifically tailored to the needs and circumstances of the user. It makes the assumption that the results of federally funded R&D will be under utilized unless they are relevant to users and ongoing relationships are developed among users and producers. The problem with the knowledge diffusion model is that (1) it requires a large Federal role and presence and (2) it runs contrary to the dominant assumptions of established Federal R&D policy. Although U.S. technology policy relies on a "dissemination-oriented" approach to STI transfer, other industrialized nations, such as Germany and Japan, are adopting "diffusion-oriented" policies which increase the power to absorb and employ new technologies productively (Branscomb, 1991; Branscomb, 1992). The Transfer of (U.S.) Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D A model depicting the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. government technical report appears in figure 1. The model is composed of two parts -- the informal that relies on collegial contacts and the formal that relies on surrogates, information producers, and information intermediaries to complete the "producer to user" transfer process. When U.S. government (i.e., NASA) technical reports are published, the initial or primary distribution is made to libraries and technical information centers. Copies are sent to surrogates for secondary and subsequent distribution. A limited number of copies are set aside to be used by the author for the "scientist-to-scientist" exchange of information at the collegial level. Surrogates serve as technical report repositories or clearinghouses for the producers and include the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC3, the NASA Center for Aero Space 5

Original page 8

Surrogates Producers • DTIC • DoD •CAB • DROLS • NASA 0 O • CASI • DoD/NASA • STAR contractors • RECON & grantees • NTIS =GRA& I • NTIS file! Formal Informal (Collegial) Information Users Intermediaries • Aerospace • Librarians engineers and scientists • Gatekeepers 0 • Aerospace • Linking engineering agents faculty and students • Knowledge brokers t Figure 1. The U.S. Govern_ment 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 announcement journals such as CAB (Current Awareness Bibliographies), STAR (Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports), and GRAJd (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 9

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 proce_. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition, empirical data on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. The impact of information intermediaries is likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context. According to Roberts and Frohman (1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion the numerous Federal STI programs are "highest of technological innovation. They claim that in frequency and expense yet lowest in impact" and that Federal "information dissemination activities have led to little documented knowledge utilization." Roberts and Frohman also note that "governmental programs start to encourage utilization of knowledge only after the R&D results have been generated" rather than during the idea development phase of the innovation process. David (1986), Mowery (1983), and Mowery and Rosenberg (1979) conclude that successful [Federal] technological innovation rests more with the transfer and utilization of knowledge than with its production. THE INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF ENGINEERS The information-seeking behavior of engineers and scientists has been variously studied by information and social scientists, the earliest studies having been undertaken in the late 1960s (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 10

beenattributedto the lack of a unifying theory, a standardized methodology, and the common definitions (Rohde, 1986). Despite the fact that numerous "information use" studies have been conducted, the information-seeking behavior of engineers and information use in engineering are neither broadly known nor well understood. There are a number of reasons (Berul, et al., 1965): (1) many of the studies were conducted for narrow or specific purposes in unique environments such as experimental laboratories; (2) many, if not most, of them focused on scientists exclusively or engineers working in a research environment; (3) few studies have concentrated on engineers, especially engineers working in manufacturing and production; (4) from an information use standpoint, some engineering disciplines have yet to be studied; (5) most of the studies have concentrated on the users' use of information packages such as professional journals rather in terms of a library and/or specific information than how users produce, transfer, and use information; and (6) many of the studies, as previously stated, were not methodologically sophisticated and few included testable hypotheses or valid procedures for testing the study's hypotheses. Further, we know very little about the diffusion of knowledge in specific communities such as aerospace. In the past 25 years, few studies have been devoted to understanding the information environment in which aerospace engineers and scientists work, the information-seeking behavior of aerospace engineers and scientists, and the factors that influence the use of federally funded aerospace STI. Presumably, the results of such studies would have implications for current and future aerospace STI systems and for making decisions regarding the transfer and use of federally funded aerospace STI. RESULTS OF THE PHASE 1 AIAA MAlL SURVEY This research was conducted as a Phase 1 activity of the NASAJDoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Survey participants consisted of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who are members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). All of the AlAA members in the sample were employed in the industry portion of U.S. aerospace. 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 (l.,aRC) on March 19, 1995, for mailing. The envelopes were mailed from NASA t,aRC on March 23, 1995. 8

Original page 11

BetweenApril 1, 1995 and June 15, 1995, 341 usable questionnaires were returned. Eightynine questionnaires were returned as unusable because (1) the recipient was unemployed, (2) the recipient was not working in aerospace, (3) the recipient had retired, (4) the survey was not applicable to them, or (5) the recipient was not employed at that company. By June 21, 1995, the survey cut-off date, 341 usable questionnaires had been received; the adjusted completion rate for the survey was 53%. 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 341 responses, the total number of respondents received by the established cut-off date. 9

Original page 12

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS Survey demographics for the 341 respondents appear in table 1. The following "composite" participant profile was developed for the respondents: works in industry (100%), has a master's degree (52.2%), has an average of 21.9 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (90.9%, 83.6%), works in design/development (53.4%), and is male (98.5%). 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 (52.9%) were categorized as design/development. About 52.9% and 23.1% of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as design/development and management, respectively. Most respondents (90.2%) 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 3.6 groups; each group contained an average of 6.8 members (table 2). A majority of respondents (72.8%) performed engineering duties while working on their most important job-related project, task, or problem. About 22% 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. Tiie mean complexity score was 4.00 (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 3.59 (of a possible 5.00). Correlation coefficients (Pearson's r) were calculated to compare (1) the overall "level of project, task, or problem complexity" and "technical uncertainty" and (2) the level of "project, task, or problem complexity by category" and "technical uncertainty." The correlation coefficients appear in table 3. Positive and significant correlations were found for both comparisons. These findings support the hypothesis that there is a (positive) relationship between technical uncertainty and complexity. Proiect , Task, or Problem and Information following information sources used to complete 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 13

Table 1. Survey [n = 341] Demographics Do You Currently Work In: Industry Is Any Of Your Work Funded By The Government: Yes No Your Highest Level Of Education: No Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Other Type Of Degree Your Years In Aerospace: O years 1 Through 5 Years 6 Through 10 Years 11 Through 20 Years 21 Through 40 Years 41 Or More Years Mean -- 21.9 Years Median = 22.0 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/Maintenance Marketing/Sales Private Consultant Other Your Gender: Female Male 11 Demographics Percentage Number 100.0 341 74.7 248 25.3 84 0.0 0 29.9 102 52.2 178 16.7 57 1.2 4 5.3 18 13.9 47 29.5 100 47.8 162 3.5 12 90.9 310 5.3 18 3.8 13 83.6 285 2.9 10 13.5 46 1.8 6 12.9 44 21.1 72 53.4 182 0.9 3 0.9 3 3.5 12 1.8 6 3.8 13 1.5 5 98.5 336

Original page 14

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 = 3.6 Mean Number of People/Group = 6.8 Nature Of Duties Performed: Engineering Science Management Other Percentage Number 1.5 5 12.8 42 52.9 174 0.9 3 3.0 10 23.1 76 5.8 19 9.8 32 90.2 294 72.8 238 2.1 7 22.3 73 2.8 9 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 Manufacturing/Production Management Computer Applications Other * r values are statistically significant at p .c 0.05. n r 328 0.48* 5 0.40 42 0.62* 174 0.40* 3 0.76 76 0.55* 10 0.24 18 0.51, ** Overall mean complexity (uncertainty) score = 4.0 (3.6) 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 15

Table 4. Information Sources Used to Solve Project, Task, or Problem Used Used Used Used Used Used Not First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Used Information Source % % % % % % Personal Store Of Technical Information 64.8 17.4 11.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 2.6 Spoke With Coworker(s) Inside The Organization 28.4 49.7 11.9 4_5 1.3 0.6 3_5 Spoke With Colleagues Outside Of The Organization 2.3 20.0 49.3 10.0 5.0 2.0 11.3 Used Literature Resources In My Organization's Library 3.1 7.3 11.8 22.6 13.6 5.9 35.5 Spoke With A Libimian/ Technical Information Specialist 0.0 2.4 4.9 9.0 10.8 10.1 62.8 Searched (Or Had Someone Search For Me) An Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Base 2.1 4.9 8.8 17.9 11.6 3.9 50.9 Use of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. About 73.2% (240) 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 they learned about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D from each of the 12 sources (Table 5). Of the six most frequently used sources, half involve interpersonal communication and half are formal (written) communication. Three of the five "federal initiatives" were the sources used least to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. NASA and DoD technical reports and NASA and DoD contacts 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 59.9% (197) 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 importan 0 was used to measure importance. The mean importance rating was 4.0. Almost one-half of those who used federally funded R&D (145 respondents) responded with an importance rating of "4" or "5". About 64% (124) 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 16

Table 5. Sources Used to Learn About the Results of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D [n = 240] Source 1. Professional And Society Journals Percentage Number 67.6 125 Organization 90.4 170 2. Coworkers Inside My 3. Trade Journals Reports 72.9 132 4. NASA And DoD Technical 42.0 76 Organization 73.5 133 5. Colleagues Outside My 6. NASA And DoD Contacts 68.1 128 Meetings 53.0 96 7. Professional And Society Bases 46.6 83 8. Searches of Computerized Data 9. NASA And DoD Sponsored Conferences And Workshops 41.6 74 10. Visits To NASA And DoD Facilities 50.3 92 11. Publications Such As STAR 12. Librarians Inside My Organization 12.6 22 33.9 61 The respondents who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem were asked which problems, if any, they encountered in using these results (see table 6). Respondents were given a list of six problems from which to choose. About 52% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem. About 52% reported that the "time and effort it took to physically obtain the results" was a problem. About 29% indicated that "accuracy, precision, and reliability of the results" was a problem, and about 17% reported that "distribution limitations or security restrictions" constituted a problem. About 24%/29% indicated that "organization or format"/"legibility or readability" of the results constituted a problem. Technical Communications Practices Data which describe factors concerning the production and use of technical information are summarized in table 7. Participants were asked to indicate the importance of communicating technical information effectively (e.g., producing written materials or oral discussions). A 5-point scale was used to measure importance (1.0 = very unimportant; 5.0 = very important). Importance and Time Spent. The mean importance rating was 4.7; approximately 95% 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 less time on producing oral discussions (an average of 14

Original page 17

Table 6. ProblemsRelatedto Use of Federally-FundedAerospace R&D Problem Time And Effort To Locate Results Time And Effort To Obtain Results Accuracy, Precision And Reliability Of Results Distribution Limitations Or Security Restrictions Of Results Organization Or Format Of Results Legibility Or Readability Of Results Percentage Number 51.8 102 52.3 103 29.4 58 16.8 33 24.4 48 28.9 57 11.0 hours/week) than written materials (an average of 11.5 hours/week). Approximately 58% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information to others had increased over the past 5 years. About 13% 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 9.8 hours/week) than with technical information received orally from others (an average of 8.3 hours/week). Approximately 61% 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 13% 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 30% of the survey respondents indicated that about 100% of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. [The mean percent was Q( = 72.8) and the median percent was 80.0.] About 55% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. [The mean percent was (_ = 12.5) and the median percent was 10.0.] About 48% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. [The mean percent was (_ = 10.3) and the median percent was 0.0.] About 21% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of more than five people. [The mean percent was (_ = 4.2) and the median percent was 0.0.] 15

Original page 18

Table 7. Technical Communications: Importance, Time Spent, and Change Over Time Communication And Receipt Of Information Importance Of Communicating Technical Information: Unimportant Neither imlxntant Nor Unimportant Important Mean = 4.7 Median = 5.0 Time Spent Producing Written Technical Information: 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 = 11.5 Median = 10.0 Tune Spent Communicating Technical Information Orally: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Throngh 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Houm Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = 11.0 Median = I0.0 Change Over Past 5 Years In The Amount Of Time Spent Communicating Technical Information To Others: Increased Stayed The Same ed Tune Spent Working With Written Technical Information Received From Others: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Throngh 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Hours Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = 9.8 Median = 8.0 Percentage Num_r 0.9 3 4.5 15 94.5 319 0.3 1 32.6 107 31.1 102 12.2 40 16.5 54 5.3 24 0.3 1 31.1 100 34,1 109 12.5 40 16.6 53 5.3 17 58.3 196 28.9 97 12.8 43 0.3 1 39.2 130 39.2 130 6.0 20 9.9 33 5.4 18 Tune Spent WoAing with Technical lnformntion Received Orally From Others: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Thn:msh $ Hours Per Week 6 Thmngh 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Hems Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean .v.8.3 Median = 6.0 1.2 4 46.3 149 35.7 115 5.9 19 7.8 25 3.1 10 Professional Advancement And C-'hans In Amount Of Tune Spenl Workin 8 With Technical Information Received From Others: ilmmteed Stayed The Same Decreased 60.5 2O2 25.7 86 13.8 46 16

Original page 19

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 productive. About 28% indicated that a group is more productive than writing alone. About and about 31% indicated that a group is less is about as productive as writing alone. Table 8. Influence of Group Participation on Writing Productivity How Productive Alone 41.6 96 A Group Is More Productive Than Writing Alone 27.7 64 A Group Is About As Productive As Writing Alone 30.7 71 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 51% (119 respondents) indicated "yes" they had worked with the same group, and about 49% 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 79% (87 respondents) indicated a group size of 2-5 people and about 15% (17 respondents) indicated a group size of 6-10 people. The mean number median was 4.0. of people in the group was X = 4.9 and the 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 22% (24 respondents) reported working with 2 groups, about 29% (32 respondents) reported working with 3 groups, about 17% (19 respondents) reported working with 4 groups, about 13% (15 respondents) reported working with 5 groups, and about 15% (16 respondents) reported working with 6-10 groups. The average median number of groups was 3.0. The number (mean) number of groups was X -- 4.5 and the of people in each group varied. About 76% of the respondents reported working with a group of 2-5 people and about 16% reported working with a group of 6-10 people. The average (mean) the median number of people per group was 4.0. number of people per group was X = 5.3 and 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 20

include the number of products produced (mean and median) and the average (mean and median) numbers of people per group. Table 9. Technical Information Products Written or Produced Alone in the Past 6 Months Products Memoranda Letters Drawings/Specifications DoD Technical Reports Audio/Visual Materials In-house Technical Reports Computer Program Documentation Conference/Meeting Papers Technical Talks/Presentations Technical Proposals Mean (X) Median 20.9 12.0 16.3 10.0 7.4 2.0 0.6 0.0 10.1 5.0 3.7 2.0 2.1 1.0 1.5 1.0 6.4 4.0 2.2 2.0 A comparison of the data contained in tables 9 and 10 reveals more similarities than differences. The production numbers vary somewhat but the products included on both lists (products produced alone or as part of a group) are essentially identical. With the exception of the "group size" for technical proposals, the average numbers of people per group for the various products produced are fairly similar in size. Survey participants were given a list of technical information products. They were asked to indicate approximately how many times in the past 6 months they had used each of them. The 10 most frequently used technical information products appear in table 11. A comparison of the data contained in tables 9 (production) and 11 (use) reveals two differences. First, on average, more products are used than are produced. Second, there are slight differences in the types or kinds of products produced and used. 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. Usj.. 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 21

Table 10. Technical Information Products Written or Produced as Part of a Group in the Past 6 Months Information Products Drawings/Specifications Letters Memoranda Audio/Visual Material Conference/Meeting Papers In-house technical Reports Technical Talks/Presentations Computer Program Documentation ITechnical Manuals Technical Proposals Table 11. Technical Information Information Products Drawings/Specifications Memoranda Letters Trade/Promotional Literature Technical Manuals Abstracts AudioNisual Materials Computer Program Documentation Technical Proposals Technical Talks/Presentations Average Number of In a Group People Per Group Mean (X) Median Mean (X) Median 8.9 3.0 5.3 3.0 8.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 8.8 4.0 3.3 0.0 7.8 4.0 4.7 3.0 1.5 1.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 7.1 3.0 4.7 3.0 1.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.3 4.0 3.0 2.0 10.4 5.0 Product Used in the Past 6 Months Mean C_) Median 29.3 10.0 41.0 15.0 26.0 10.0 14.3 5.0 12.6 4.0 8.7 2.0 20.0 8.0 11.9 5.0 6.4 3.0 11.7 5.0 Table 12. Technical Information Products Used Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Artieles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports 19 Percentage Number 74.8 247 71.5 236 92.3 310 56.5 182 60.4 198

Original page 22

Importance. Survey participants were aforementioned technical information products asked "how important is it for you to use the in performing your present professional duties?" Table 13 includes data regarding the importance 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 (X) Importance Number 3.2 336 2.9 334 4.1 336 2.8 321 2.9 328 Approximately 44% (144 respondents) indicated that the use of conference/meeting papers was "very or somewhat"important to their work. Approximately 34% (112 respondents) indicated that the use of journal articles was "very or somewhat" important to their work. Approximately 80% (268 respondents) indicated that in-house technical reports were "very or somewhat" important to their work. Approximately 36% (114 respondents) and 36% (117% 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 (X) Use Median 7.50 4.0 9.24 4.0 10.22 6.0 4.21 2.0 4.41 2.0 technical reports were used (X = 10.22) to a much greater extent than were the other technical information products. Conference/meeting papers were used to a lesser extent (X = 7.50) followed by journal articles (X = 92.4), NASA (X = 4.41), and DoD technical reports CX = 4.21). 20

Original page 23

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 CX = 4.7), (2) good technical quality CX = 4.4), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.3), (4) easy to use or read C_ = 4.0), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 4.0). Table 15. Factors Affecting the Use of Conference/Meeting Papers Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive IHave Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work User Non-User Overall Rating 0() Rating (X) Rating ('X) n = 247 n= 83 n = 330 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.3 3.2 3.3 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Source 3.5 3.6 3.5 Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them 3.4 3.1 3.3 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 = 4.7), (2) good technical quality Cx = 4.4), (3) comprehensive data and information Cx = 4.3), (4) easy to use or read (X = 4.0), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 3.9). 21

Original page 24

Table 16. Factors Affecting the Use of Journal Articles Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating Rating (X) Rating () n = 236 n= 94 n = 336 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.7 Source 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.3 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 = 4.6), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.3), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.3), (4) easy to physically obtain ( = 4.0), (5) and easy to use or read (X = 3.9). 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 Q( = 4.5), (2) good technical quality Q_ = 4.3), (3) comprehensive data and information ('X = 4.3), (4) easy to use or read ('X = 3.9), and (5) easy to physically obtain CX = 3.9). Table 17. Factors Affecting the Use of In-house Technical Reports Tactors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Axe Relevant To My Work Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating CTQ Rating Q_ Rating CX) n = 310 n= 26 n = 336 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 4.4 3.8 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.3 22

Original page 25

Table 18. Factors Affecting the Use of 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 3.4 3.2 3.3 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating CX) Rating (X) Rating (X) n = 182 n = 140 n = 332 4.0 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.4 3.0 3.2 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.4 3.0 3.2 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 = 4.6), (2) good technical quality ('X = 4.4), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.3), (4) easy to use or read C_ = 4.0), and (5) easy to physically obtain CX = 4.0). 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 3.5 3.4 3.4 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Ix)cation Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them 23 User Non-User Overall Rating _ Rating (/) Rating (i) n = 198 n = 130 n=328 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.3 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.1 3.3

Original page 26

Use and Importance of Computer and Information Technology Survey participants were asked if they use computer technology to prepare (written) technical communications. Almost all (96%) (314) of the survey respondents use computer technology to prepare (written) technical information. About 56% (184) of the respondents "always" use computer technology to prepare (written) technical information. About 99% (317) indicated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information. About 80% (256) 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, business graphics, and desktop publishing. followed by spelling checkers, scientific graphics, Outliners and prompters and grammar and style checkers 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 Outliners And Prompters Grammar And Style Checkers Spelling Checkers Thesaurus !Business Graphics Scientific Graphics Desktop Publishing 99.1 318 18.8 43 40.9 103 91.5 280 44.7 109 53.1 136 83.0 230 44.8 116 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 97% (FAX and TELEX) to a low of 15% (motion picture films). 24

Original page 27

A list, in descendingorder, follows of the informationtechnologies most frequently used. FAX or TELEX 97% Electronic Networks 76 Electronic Data Bases 67 Videotape 57 Video Conferencing 54 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 58% Electronic Bulletin Boards 52 Desktop/Electronic Publishing 39 Video Conferencing 38 Electronic Data Bases 29 Table 21. Use, Nonuse, and Potential Already Use It Future Will Information Technologies % Audio Tapes And Cassettes 19.4 Motion Picture Films 15.1 57.3 Videotape Desktop/Electronic Publishing 51.1 Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes 43.2 Electronic Mail 83.3 Electronic Bulletin Boards 36.4 FAX or TELEX 97.0 Electronic Data Bases 66.6 Video Conferencing 54.3 Micrographies And Microforms 21.7 Laser Disk/Video Disk/CD-ROM 28.4 Electronic Networks 75.5 25 Use of Information Technologies Don't Use It, Don't Use It, But May In And Doubt If (n) (n) (,1) 62 21.9 70 58.8 188 48 19.9 63 65.0 206 189 25.5 84 17.3 57 167 38.8 127 10.1 33 133 31.2 96 25.6 79 279 14.6 49 2.1 7 115 52.2 165 11.4 36 324 0.9 3 2.1 7 215 29.4 95 4.0 13 178 38.4 126 7.3 24 67 34.0 105 44.3 137 90 57.7 183 13.9 44 250 19.3 64 5.1 17

Original page 28

Use and Importance of Electronic Networks Survey participants were asked if the use electronic networks in their workplace in performing their present duties. About 86% of the respondents use electronic networks in performing their present duties and about 15% either do not use (8.0%), or do not have access to (6.5%) electronic networks. Survey respondents used electronic networks an average of 11.4 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 11.4 Median 7.0 Percentage Number 3.1 9 61.5 177 23.6 68 11.5 33 0.3 1 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. About 75% of the respondents rated electronic networks important. About 19% rated them neither important nor unimportant, and about 6% rated electronic networks as very unimportant. Table 23. Importance Importance Very Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Very Unimportant of Electronic Networks Percentage Number 74.5 216 19.3 56 6.2 18 Respondents were asked how they accessed electronic networks (table 24): mainframe terminal, personal computers, and workstations. Access via personal computer (80%) was most frequently reported. Access via mainframe terminal and workstation was reported by less than 50% of the survey respondents. 26

Original page 29

Table24. How Electronic Networks are Accessed [Access Mainframe Terminal Personal Computer Workstation % (n) 23.4 68 80.3 233 43.1 125 Respondents using them were asked to indicate the purpose(s) for which they used electronic networks (table 25). Survey respondents indicated that electronic mail (92.4%), connect to geographically distant sites (74.4%), log on to remote computers (56.8%), information search and retrieval (56.0%) and accessing/searching the library's catalog (43.3%) represented their greatest use of electronic networks. Also noticeable is the lack of electronic network use for controlling remote equipment, acquiring (ordering) documents from the library, and preparing scientific papers with colleagues at geographically distant sites. Table 25. Use of Electronic Networks for Specific Purposes Purpose Distant Sites 74.4 206 Connect To Geographically Electronic Mail Percentage Number 92.4 267 Electronic Bulletin Boards Or Conferences 41.2 110 Log On To Remote Computers Control Remote Equipment Catalog 43.3 117 Access/Search The Library's Library 19.0 50 Order Documents From The Search Electronic (Bibliographic) 56.8 150 4.7 12 Data Bases 34.3 91 Information Search And Data Retrieval 56.0 153 Prepare Scientific And Papers With Colleagues At Geographically Distant Sites 28.9 77 Survey participants who used electronic networks were asked to identify the groups with whom they exchanged messages or files (table 26). About 80% 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. Useof ElectronicNetworksto ExchangeMessages or Files Exchange With -iMembers Of Own Work Group Percentage Number 89.6 259 Others In Your Organization But Not In Your Work Group Others In Your Organization, Work Group, At A Geographically Different Site Group 80.1 226 People Outside Your Work Use and Importance of Libraries/Technical 84.5 44 Not In Your 69.1 195 Information Centers Almost all of the survey respondents indicated that their organization has a library/technical information center. About 40% of the survey respondents indicated that the library/technical information center was located in the building where they worked. About 50% of the respondents indicated that the library/technical building in which they worked. Ten percent did not have a library/technical information center. information center was located outside the of the respondents reported that their organization For 26% of the respondents, the library/technical information center was located 1 mile or less from where they worked. For about 74% 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 29% of the respondents indicated that proximity was "not at all" important. About 23% indicated that proximity was neither important nor unimportant. Forty-eight 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 and 5 = very important (see table 28). About 52% of the aerospace engineers and scientists in the study indicated that their organization's library/technical information center was important or very important in performing their present professional duties. Approximately 32% of the survey respondents indicated that their library was neither important nor unimportant to performing their present professional duties. About 16% 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 3.2 Median 3.0 28.7 65 22.9 52 48.5 110 Table 28. Importance of the Organization's Library/Technical Information Center to Performance of Present Professional Duties Percentage Number Importance I INot At All Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Very Important 15.9 36 31.7 72 52.4 119 Survey respondents were asked the number of times they had used their organization's library in the past 6 months (table 29). Survey respondents used their library/technical information center about 7.6 times in the past 6 months. About 25% of the survey respondents did not use their library's library/teehnical information center in the past 6 months. Reasons for not using the organization's library/technical information center are shown in table 30. About 89% of the respondents were more easily met some other way. About 48% indicated that they had no information needs. About 30% 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 7.6 Median 3.0 29 25.1 76 41.3 125 16.5 50 10.9 33 4.3 13 1.0 3 1.0 3

Original page 32

Table 30. Reasons Respondents Did Not Use A Library During the Past 6 Months Reason I Had No Information Needs My Information Needs Were More Easily Met Some Other Way Tried The Library Once Or Twice Before But I Couldn't Find The Information I Needed Percentage Number 47.5 28 89.4 59 20.0 10 Or Helpful 0.0 0 The Library Staff Is Not Cooperative The Library Staff Does Not Understand My Information Needs The Library Did Not Have The Information I Have My Own Personal Library And Do Not Need Another Library The Library Is Too Slow In Getting The Information I Need We Have To Pay To Use The Library Library 3.8 2 _We Are Discouraged From Using The FINDINGS 8.2 4 I Need 30.0 15 19.2 10 27.5 14 5.8 3 Readers should note that the data contained in this report reflect the responses of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). The results are not generalizable to (1) U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who are members of other professional societies, (2) all U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, or (3) aerospace engineers and scientists employed outside of the U.S. 1. The "average" participant works in industry (100%), has a master's degree (52.2%), has an average of 21.9 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (91%, 84%), works in design/development (53%), and is male (99%). 2. Their most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months was categorized as design/development (53%); 90% of the participants worked on this project, task, or problem with others. The mean number of groups involved was 3.6, and the mean number of people in a work group was 6.8. Engineering duties predominated (73%) followed by management duties (22%) in the completion of the most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months. 3O

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 to their personal stores of technical information organization (50%); third, spoke with colleagues project, task, or problem, respondents first went (65%); next, spoke with coworker(s) inside the outside of the organization (49%); fourth, and fifth, used literature resources in the organization's library (23%); and sixth, spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist (11%). About 63% and 51%, 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 73% 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. Three 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 and NASA and DoD contacts were the exception. 6. About 60% of the respondents had used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem during the last 6 months. About half of this group indicated that federally funded aerospace R&D was "important" or "very important" for completing this work. About 64% (124) 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, 52% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem, and 52% reported that the "time and effort it took to obtain the results" was a problem. 8. About 95% of the respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical information effectively; respondents spent an average of 11.5 hours per week producing written material and 11.0 hours per week communicating information orally. Over the past 5 years approximately 58% have increased the amount of time they spend communicating information to others. Survey respondents reported spending an average of 10.0 hours per week working with written information received from others and an average of 8.3 hours per week working with information received orally from others. More than 60% 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 30% of the respondents reported that all of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. About 55% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. About 48% indicated that their written technical 31

Original page 34

communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. About 21% 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 and about 31% indicated that a group is less productive. About 28% indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. 11. A comparison of the technical information products produced and used reveals that on average, the survey respondents used more products than they produce. There are also slight differences in the types of technical information products produced and used. 12. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their use of and the importance to them of five technical information products. In-house technical reports were used most frequently C_ = 10.2) and were rated most important (X = 4.1). DoD and NASA technical reports were used by about 57% and 60% of the respondents and were rated about equal in importance (X = 2.8, X = 2.9). 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) 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. 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 physically obtain, and (5) easy to use or read. 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 96% of the survey participants used computer technology to prepare written technical communications; about 99% of them indicated to communicate technical information. 15. Word processing and spelling checkers preparing written technical information. that computer technology had increase their ability were the computer software used most often in 32

Original page 35

1. FAX or TELEX, electronic mail, electronic networks, electronic data bases, and videotape information technologies used most frequently by survey respondents. 17. About 97% of the survey participants used electronic networks in performing their present professional duties; they use electronic networks an average of 11.4 hours per week; and about 75% rated them important in terms of performing their present professional duties. 18. About 80% of the respondents access electronic networks via personal computer; about 93% use electronic networks for electronic mail and to search and retrieve information and data; and about 56% use electronic networks to exchange group. messages and files with members of their own 19. Survey respondents (53%) 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 7.6 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 center included "my information needs were the organization's library/technical information 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 System." International SocialJournal 27(3): 519-531. 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 Reports Literature. Hamden, CT: Archon 1975 Books. Ballard, S., et. al. Innovation Through Technical and Scientifzc Information: 1989 Government and Industry Cooperation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Ballard, S., et. al. Improving the 1986 Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 - Problems and Issues in the Transfer and Use of STL Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB- 87-14923.) Berul, L. H., et. al. DoD User-Needs Study, Phase 1. Volume 1: Management Report, 1965 Conduct of the Study, and Analysis of Data. Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach Corporation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; AD-615 501. Beyer, J. M. "The Utilization and H.M. Trice Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings. 'i Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 1982 591-622. Bikson, T. K., Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Option. B. E. Quint, and Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from L. L. Johnson NTIS, Springfield, 1984 2131.) VA; PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note Branscomb, L. G. "America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva 1992 (August): 317-336. Branscomb, L G. "Toward a U.S. 30:3 Technology Policy." Issues in Science and 1991 Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55. 34

Original page 37

David, P. A. "Technology Diffusion, Public Poliey, and Industrial 1986 Competitiveness." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Eveland, J. D. Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and 1987 Findings. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Not available from NTIS.) Fry, B. M. Library Organization and Management of Technical Reports 1953 Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Gibb, J. M. and Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." Journal E. Phillips of Communication 1979 Godfi'ey, L. E. and Dictionary of Report H.F. Redman Association. 1973 Goldhor, R. S. and "University-to-Industry Studies 1: 225-234. Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries 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 Administration Review 41(3): 331-339. 1981 Mowery, D. C. "Economic Theory 1983 Sciences 16: 27-43. and Government Technology Policy." Policy Mowery, D. C. and "The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical N. Rosenberg Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research Policy 8(2): 1979 102-153. 35

Original page 38

National Academy Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National of Sciences - Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the National Academy Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. of Engineering Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the SATCOM 1969 Report. Pinelli, T. E. "The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers." 1991 Science and Technology 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: and Technology Report. 1962 Government Printing Office; AKA the Crawford 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. N-Y: 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 in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The 1981 Futures Group. Smith, R. S. "Interaction Within 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 Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA. 1964 Williams, F. and Technology Transfer: 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 The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information (STI), which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us that timely access to STI can increase productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills. These same studies indicate, however, that we know little about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STi. To learn more about this process, we have organized a research project to study knowledge diffusion. Sponsored by NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD), the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project is being conducted by researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center, the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. space professional societies including the AlAn,, This research is endorsed by several aero- 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 STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government their use of government-funded aerospace interface and emphasizes the role of the information intermediary in the knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academicgovernment interface and emphasizes the information intermediary-faculty-student interface. Phase 4 explores the information-seeking behaviors of non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists from Western European nations, India, Israel, Japan, and the former Soviet Union. The results of this research project will help us to understand the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. The findings can be used to identify and correct deficiencies; to improve access and use; to plan new aerospace STI systems; and should provide useful information to R&D managers, information managers, and others concerned with improving access to and utilization of STI. These results will contribute to increasing productivity and to improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. 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 Bloomington, IN 47405 (8(14) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 T.E.Pinelli@larc.nasa.gov kennedy@isrmail.soc.i ndiana.edu 38 Ms. Rebecca O. 'Barclay Ele.elronic Information Age, Inc. 462 Washington Street Portsmouth, VA 23704 (804) 399-5666 Fax (804) 465-0828 barclay@loft.net

Original page 41

APPENDIX B." AIA.A SURVEY PHASE 1 OF THE NASA/DOD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Technical Communications in Aerospace: A Research and Management Perspective The AIAA Study SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WITH THE COOPERATION OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY AND THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA) 39

Original page 42

1"be first group of questions ask about your use of technical information. 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 2. 4 5 Very Important In the past 6 months, about how many hours did you spend each week communicating (producbtg) technical information? (Output) hours per week writing hours per week communicating orally 3. Compared to 5 years ago, how has the amount of time you spend comm_cating technical information changed? (Circle ONE number) 1 Increased 2 Stayedthesame 3 Decreased 4. In the past 6 months, 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 information orally 5. 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 % 7. In general, do you find writing as part of a group more or less productive (Le., producing more written products or better written products) than writing alone? (Circle ONE number) A group is/ess 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 8. 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 1 About how many people were in each group? number of people. 4O

Original page 43

. Approximately how many times in the past 6 months did you wr/te or prepare the following alone or in a group? (If in a group, how many people were in each group?) Times Wrote or Pre mud in Past 6 Months Average Number of Alone In a Croup People in Croup a. Abstracts b. Journal Articles c. Conference/Meeting Papers d. Trade/promotional Literature e_ Drawings/Specifications f. AudioNlsnal 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 in the past 6 months did you use the following as part of your professional duties? Times Used in Past 6 Months a. Abslracts b. Journal Articles c. Conference/Meeting Papers d. Trade/Promotional Literature e. Drawings/Specifications f. AudioNlsnal Materials g. Letters h. Memoranda i. Technical Proposals j. Technical Manuals k. Computer Program Docmnentation I. In-house Technical Reports m. DoD Technical Reports n. NASA Technical Reports o. Technical Talks/Presentations Next, s few questions about computer use. 11. Do you use computer technology to prepare technical information? (Circle ONE number) 1 Always--" 7 2 Usually _ _ Go to question 12 3 Some___._.J 4 Never -- _ Go to question 14 12. Has computer technology increased your ability to communicate technical information? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes, a lot 2 Yes, a little 3 No 41

Original page 44

1. Do you use any of the following software to prepare written technical information? (Circle the appropriate number for each) Yes Word processing packages .......... 1 Outliners and prompters ............ 1 Grammar and style checkers ........ 1 Spelling checkers ................. 1 Thesaurus ...................... 1 Business graphics ................ 1 Scientific graphics ................ 1 Desktop publishers ................ 1 No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14. How do you view your USE of the following electronicfmfonnstion 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 microforms ....... 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 15. At your workplace, do you use electronic networks in performing your present duties? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes m 2 No 3 No, because I do not have access to electronic networks • 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 mainframe terminal By using a personal computer By using a workstation 17. How important is the use of electronic networks in performing your present duties? (Circle number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important 18. In the past week, about how many hours did you USE your electronic networks? Hours in the past week 42

Original page 45

1. Do you use electronic networks for the following purposes? (Circle appropriate number for each) Yes No ......................... 1 2 To connect to geographically distant sites For electronic mail ......................................... 1 2 For electronic bulletin boards or conferencing ...................... 1 2 To log into remote computers for such things as computational analysis or to use design tools ..................... 1 To control remote equipment such as laboratory instruments or machine tools ................................ To aceess/seareh a l_rary catalog .............................. To order documents from a i_rary ............................. To search electronic (bibliographic) data bases (e.g., Dialog) ........................................... 1 1 1 1 2 For information search and data retrieval ......................... 1 2 To prepare scientific and technical papers with colleagues at geographically distant sites ........................ 1 2 20. Do you USE electronic networks to communicate with: Members of your work group ................................. Other people in your organization at the SAME geographical Yes No 1 2 site who are NOT in your work group .......................... 1 2 Other people in your organization at geographically DIFFERENT sites who are NOT in your work group .............. 1 2 People outside your work group ............................... 1 2 We would also like to kaow about your use of u library or technical information center. 21. Does your organization/company have a library/technical information center? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes, in my building -----_ Go to question 22 2 Yes, but not in my building __ miles 3 No ) Go to question 26 __ minute walk _ Go to question 22 22. In 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 23. library, go to question 25. To what extent does the proximity of your work setting (e.g., office) to your organization's library/technical information center affect your use of it? (Circte ONE number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 24. In terms of performing your present professional library/technical information center? (Circle ONE number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 43 5 Very Important duties, how important is your organization's 5 Very lmportant.l_Go to question 26

Original page 46

1. Which of the following statements describe your reasons for not using a library during the past 6 months? (Circle appropriate number for each) I had no information needs ................................... •Yes No 1 2 My information needs were more easily met some other way ........... 1 2 Tried the library once or twice before but I couldn't find the information I needed ................................ 1 2 The library stsff is not cooperative or helpful ...................... 1 2 The library staff does not understand my information needs ............ 1 2 The I_rary did not have the information I needed ................... 1 2 The l_rary is too slow in getting the information I need .............. 1 2 I have my own personal library and do not need another l_rary ......... 1 2 We have to pay to use the h'brary .............................. 1 2 We are discouraged from using the h'brary ........................ 1 2 Please tell us about your use of specific information preducts. 26. Do you use the following information products in performing your present professional duties? (Circle appropriate number for each) Conference/Meeting papers ................................... Journal articles ........................................... Technical reports - In-house .................................. Technical reports - DoD ..................................... Technical reports - NASA ................................... 27. Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 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 aH Very Impo_amt 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 ........................ 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 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 ............... 44 1 2 3 4 5

Original page 47

1. If you were deciding whether or not to use journal articles 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 ........................ Not at aU 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 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 30. 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) 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 ............... Not at all Very Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I 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 31. 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) 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 ............... 45 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 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 NASA technical reports 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 ........................ 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 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 33. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of conference or meeting papers? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 They are inexpensive 1 2 3 They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 They have comprehensive data and information 1 2 3 They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 They can be obtained at a nea_v location or source 1 2 3 I've had good prior experiences using them 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 4 5 They are difficult to use or read 4 5 They are expensive 4 5 They are of poor technical quality They have incomplete data 4 5 and information 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obtained from a 4 5 distant location or source I've had bad prior experiences 4 5 using them 34. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of journal articles? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 They are inexpensive 1 2 3 They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 They have comprehensive data and information 1 2 3 They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 They can be obtained at a n_rbv location or source 1 2 3 I've had good prior experiences using them 1 2 3 46 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 4 5 They are difficult to use or read 4 5 They are expensive 4 5 They are of imor technical quality They have incomplete data 4 5 and information 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obtained from a 4 5 distan.......ttlocation or source I've had bad prior experiences 4 5 using them

Original page 49

1. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of in-house technical reports? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 ' 3 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 They are inexpensive 1 2 3 They are of g._od technical quality 1 2 3 They have comprehensive data and information 1 2 3 They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 They can be obtained at a nea_v location or source 1 2 3 I've had good prior experiences using them 1 2 3 36. 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 4 5 They are difficult to use or read 4 5 They are expensive 4 5 They are of _ technical quality They have incomplete data 4 5 and information 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obtained from a 4 5 distant location or source I've had bad prior experiences 4 5 using them (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of DoD technical reports? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 They are inexpensive 1 2 3 They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 They have comprehensive data and information 1 2 3 They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 They can be obtained at a nea_v location or source 1 2 3 I've had _ood prior experiences using them 1 2 3 37. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 4 5 They are difficult to use or read 4 5 They are expensive 4 5 They are of poor technical quality They have incomplete data 4 5 and information 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obtained from a 4 5 distant location or source I've had bad prior experiences 4 5 using them opinion of NASA technical reports? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to use or read They are inexpensive 1 2 3 4 5 They are expensive They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality They have comprehensive data They have incomplete data and information 1 2 3 4 5 and information They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They can be obtained at a They must be obtained from a nea_v location or source 1 2 3 4 5 distant location or source I've had good prior experiences I've had bad prior experiences using them 1 2 3 4 5 using them 47

Original page 50

Next, we would like to know about the work you do. 38. Think of the most important job-related project, task, or problem you have worked on in the past 6 months. Which category best describes this work? (Circle only ONE number) Research (either basic or applied) Design/_velopment Manufacturing/Production Quality Assurance/Control Computer Applications Management (e.g., planning, budgeting, and managing research) Other (specify): 39. How would you describe the overall complexity of the technical project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 38? (Circle ONE number) Very Simple 1 2 3 4 5 Very Complex 40. How would you rate the amount of technical uncertainty that you faced when you started the technical project, task, or problem categorized in Question 38? (Circle ONE number) Little Uncertainty 1 2 3 4 5 Great UnceRainty 41. 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 many people were in each group? 42. Which one of the following best descn'bes the kinds of duties you performed while working on the technical project, task, or problem categorized in Question 38? (Circle ONE number) 1 Engineering 2 Science 3 Management 4 Other (specify): 43. What steps did you follow to get the information you needed for this project, task, or problem? l'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 information, 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 (b_liographic) data base in the library Used literature resources (e.g., technical reports) found in my organization's library Used none of the above steps 48

Original page 51

1. Do you USE the results of federally-funded aerospace R&D in your work? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 45. Did you USE the results of federally-funded aerospace R&D in completing the technical project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 38? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No _ Go to question 50 4_° How important were the results of federally-funded R&D in completing the technical project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 38? (Circle ONE number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important 47. Were any of these results published in either a NASA or DoD technical report? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 4_° From which of the following 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) Yes No Coworkers inside my organization ............ 1 2 Colleagues outside my organization ........... 1 2 NASA and DoD contacts .................. 1 2 Publications such as NASA STAR ............ 1 2 NASA and DoD sponsored and cosponsored conferences and workshops ........ 1 2 NASA and DoD technical reports ............ 1 2 Professional and society journals ............. 1 2 L_mrians inside my organizations ............ 1 2 Trade journals .......................... 1 2 Searches of computerized data bases .......... 1 2 Professional and society meetings ............ 1 2 Visits to NASA and DoD facilities ........... 1 2 49. Which, ff 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 reslrictions of the results Over P!ease 49

Original page 52

Survey Dmogra_ks 50. Gender: 1 Male 2 Female 51. Please indicate the highest college degree you hold. 1 No college degree 4 Doctorate 2 Bachelor's 5 Other (specify): 3 Master's 52. Years of aerml_Ce woA experience: years 53. Which of the following best _ your primary professional duties? (Cirde ONE number) 1 Research 6 2 Administration/Manegement 7 3 Quality Assurance/Control 8 4 Design/Development 9 5 Manufacturing/Production Service/Maintenance Marketing/Sales Private Consultant Other (specify): 54. Was your academic preparation as an: (Circle ONE number) Engineer Scientist Other (specify): 55. In your present job, do you consider yourself primarily an: (Circle ONI_ number) 1 Engineer 2 Scientist 3 Other (specify): 56. Is any of your current work funded by the federal government? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don't know THANK YOU! Mail to: NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop 180A Hampton, VA 23681-0001 5O

Original page 53

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I r-o_o.,d OMB No. 0704-0188 I Pubic i/g,v;,,,o buraenfor thiscoli4..:,;OfInformationis estimatedto average1 hourper msix)nlm,inOudmgthe bme for reviewingmsttucttons,mrc_mg existingaala soutc gatheringand maJr-daJnlngthe ¢lmoneeded,and COml04eW_and revl_ tle collecbonofInfonnabon. Sendcommentsrllglrt]lingfflisburOenNlimele or o.nyother _ of coilecUonof Informabon,IncluOingsug_ for redtx_ngb'tlsbutffiln,to Wut_HlgtonHeadClUa.'lersServices,Diractorale1or IntommbonOI)eratlonsand Reports. 1215 Jel/em: Davis Highway.Suite 1204. Ar_on. VA 22202-4..q_2,and to the C)ffceof Managementand BudgeLPaperworkRe0uc'oonProject(0704-0188). warf, ngton.DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 12. REPORT DATE September 1995 4. TITLE AND SUu/i/LE 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 AIAA Mail Survey* s. AUTHOR(S) WU 505-90 Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSEES) NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONffo_ING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTF, S *Report number 33 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-110180 Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pineili: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. 12-,. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABIMTY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 82 13. AB_/HACT (Maximum 200 tvoi-ds) 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-_i-vis the technical communications practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who are members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; and U.S. 51 government technical reports 16. PRICE CODE A04 17. SECUR[i-¢ CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURVi-f CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURn'Y CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Standard Fofln 295 (Rev. 2-89) Pmscripedby ANSI SKI. Z39-18 2ge-lO2

Original page 54