Full report

Original page 1

NASA/DoD AerospaceKnowledge DiffusionResearchProject NASATechnical Memorandum 110181 Report Number 34 How Early Career-StageU.S.Aerospace Engineersand Scientists Produce and Use Information Thomas E.Pinelli NASALangleyResearchCenter Hampton,Virginia RebeccaO. Barclay RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute Troy,New York John M. Kennedy IndianaUniversity Bloomington,Indiana September 1995 NASA-TM-l 101S1 19960000999 LIBRARYCOPY I OCT 6 1995 I J i LANGLEYRESEARCHCENTER : LIBRARYNASA t,b,,_-,Ok VII_GINIA'7 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Original page 2

Original page 3

JIJiiiiiiif iiIIll 3 1176014229638 HOW EARLY CAREER-STAGE U.S. AEROSPACE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS PRODUCE AND USE INFORMATION 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 U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who had changed their American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) membership from student to professional in the past five years. INTRODUCTION NASA and the DoD maintain scientific and technical information (STI) systems for acquiring, processing, announcing, publishing, and transferring the results of governmentperformed and government-sponsored research. Within both the NASA and DoD STI systems, the U.S. government technical report is considered a primary mechanism for transferring the results of this research to the U.S. aerospace community. However, McClure (1988) concludes that we actually know little about the role, importance, and impact of the technical report in the transfer of federally funded R&D because little empirical information about this product is available. We are examining the system(s) used to diffuse the results of federally funded aerospace R&D as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This project investigates, among other things, the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, the factors that influence the use of STI, and the role played by U.S. government technical reports in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace STI (Pinelli, Kennedy, and Barclay, 1991; Pinelli, Kennedy, Barclay, and White, 1991). The results of this investigation could (1) advance the development of practical theory, (2) contribute to the design and development of aerospace information systems, and (3) have practical implications for transferring the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to the U.S. aerospace community. The project fact sheet is Appendix A.

Original page 4

In this report, we 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 survey of early career-stage U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. We summarize the findings of our investigation into the production and use of information by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who had changed their American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (A/AA) membership from student to professional in the past five years. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Although they have the potential for increasing technological innovation, productivity, and competitiveness, U.S. government technical reports may not be utilized because of limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. According to Ballard, et al., (1986), the current system "virtually guarantees that much of the Federal investment in creating STI will not be paid back in terms of tangible products and innovations." They further state that "a more active and coordinated role in STI transfer is needed at the Federal level if technical reports are to be better utilized." Characteristics of Technical Reports The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different roles in communication within and between organizations. The technical report has been defined etymologically, according to report content and method (U.S. Department of Defense, 1964); behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al., 1964); and rhetorically, according to the function of the report within 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 priming 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 Technical Report The development of the [U.S. government] technical report as a major means of communicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey 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 Papers of the United States Geological Survey, and the Technological Papers of the National Bureau of Standards (Auger, 1975) are early examples of U.S. government technical reports. Perhaps the first U.S. government publications officially created to document the results of federally funded (U.S.) R&D were the technical reports first published by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1917. Auger (1975) statesthat "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 (Pinelli, 1991a). The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded R&D are made available to the scientific community and are added to the literature of 3

Original page 6

science and technology (President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, 1962). McClure (1988) points out that "although the [U.S.] government technical report has been variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, there is no real knowledge base regarding the role, production, use, and importance [of this information product] in terms of accomplishing this task." Our analysis of the literature supports the following conclusions reached by McClure: • The body of available knowledge is simply inadequate and noncomparable to determine the role that the U.S. government technical report plays in transferring the results of federally funded R&D. • 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 FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Three paradigms -- appropriability, dissemination, and diffusion -- have dominated the transfer of federally funded (U.S.) R&D (Ballard, et al., 1989; Williams and Gibson, 1990). Whereas variations of them have been tried within different agencies, overall Federal (U.S.) STI transfer activities continue to be driven by a "supply-side," dissemination model. The Appropriability Model The appropriability model emphasizes the production of knowledge by the Federal government that would not otherwise be produced by the private sector and competitive market pressures to promote the use of that knowledge. This model emphasizes the production of basic research as the driving force behind technological development and economic growth and assumes that the Federal provision of R&D will be rapidly assimilated by the private sector. Deliberate transfer mechanisms and intervention by information intermediaries are viewed as unnecessary. Appropriability stresses the supply (production) of knowledge in sufficient quantity to attract potential users. Good technologies, according to this model, sell themselves and offer clear policy recommendations regarding Federal priorities for improving technological development and economic growth. This model incorrectly assumes that the results of federally funded R&D will be acquired and used by the private sector, ignores the fact that most basic research is irrelevant to technological innovation, and dismisses the process of technological innovation within the firm. The Dissemination Model The dissemination model emphasizes the need to transfer information to potential users and embraces the belief that the production of quality knowledge is not sufficient to ensure its fullest 4

Original page 7

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

Original page 8

Surrogates Producers • DTIC • DoD • CAB • DROLS • NASA _ • CASI • DoD/NASA • STAR contractors • RECON & grantees • NTIS • GRA & I • NTISfile Formal Informal(Collegial) Information Users Intermediades • Aerospace • Librarians engineers andscientists_-I • Gatekeepers • Aerospace • Linking engineering agents facultyand J students • Knowledge brokers Figure 1. The U.S. Government Technical Report in a Model Depicting the Dissemination of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. Information (CASI), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). These surrogates have created a variety of technical report announcement journals such as CAB (Current Awareness Bibliographies), STAR (Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports), and GRA&/ (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 6

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 process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition, empirical data on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. The impact of information intermediaries is likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context. According to Roberts and Frohman (1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion of technological innovation. They claim that the numerous Federal STI programs are "highest 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, 1991b). 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

been attributed to the lack of a unifying theory, a standardized methodology, and the common definitions (Rohde, 1986). Despite the fact that numerous "information use" studies have been conducted, the information-seeking behavior of engineers and information use in engineering are neither broadly known nor well understood. There are a number of reasons (Berul, et al., 1965): (1) many of the studies were conducted for narrow or specific purposes in unique environments such as experimental laboratories; (2) many, if not most, of them focused on scientists exclusively or engineers working in a research environment; (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 in terms of a library and/or specific information packages such as professional journals rather 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 EARLY CAREER-STAGE AIAA MAIL SURVEY This research was conducted as a Phase 1 activity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Survey participants consisted of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who had changed their AIAA membership from student to professional inthe past five years. 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 U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. The Indiana University staff prepared an envelope for each individual that contained an ll-page questionnaire, a cover letter, and self-addressed, franked reply envelope. The cover letter provided a toll-free telephone number that respondents could call if they needed additional information. The envelopes were packaged and mailed to NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) on March 19, 1995, for mailing. The envelopes were mailed from NASA LaRC on April 13, 1995. 8

Original page 11

The sample size was 700 and consisted of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who had changed their AIAA membership from student to professional in the past five years. Between April 25, 1995 and July 19, 1995, we heard from 163 AIAA members who indicated that they were either (1) unemployed, (2) not working in aerospace, or (3) that the survey was not applicable to them. Some surveys were returned bearing the notation "no longer employed or terminated." By July 27, 1995, the survey cut-off date, 264 usable questionnaires had been received; the adjusted completion rate for the survey was 49%. 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 264 responses, the total number of useable questionnaires received by the established cut-off date.

Original page 12

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS A total of 264 usable surveys were received by the established cut-off date. Of the respondents, 52% (136 respondents) worked in industry, 32% (83 respondents) worked in government, 9% (24) worked in academia, and 8% (20 respondents) had some other affiliation. Survey demographics for the 264 appear in Table 1. The following "composite" participant profile was developed for the respondents: works in industry (51.7%), has a bachelor's degree (51.9%), has an average of 2.4 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (98.1%, 85.2%), works in design/development (49.4%), and is a male (89%). 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 (45.8%) were categorized as design/development. About 22.1% and 12.6% of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as research and other respectively. Most respondents (79.7%) worked with others (did not work alone) in completing their most important job-related project, task,, or problem. Number of Groups and Group Size. On average, respondents worked with 2.1 groups; each group contained an average of 5.4 members (table 2). A majority of respondents (80.8%) performed engineering duties while working on their most important job-related project, task, or problem. About 7% performed management duties. Project, Task, Problem Complexity and Uncertainty. Respondents were asked to rate the overall complexity of their most important job-related project, task, or problem. The mean complexity score was 3.8 (of a possible 5.0). 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 3.2 (of a possible 5.0). 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 InformationUse. Respondents were given a list of the following information sources used to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem: (1) used personal stores of technical information, (2) spoke with coworkers inside the organization, (3) spoke with colleagues outside of the organization, (4) spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist, (5) used literature resources in the organization's library and (6) searched an electronic data base in the library. They were asked to identify the steps 10

Original page 13

Table 1. Survey Demographics [n = 264] Demographics Do You CurrentlyWork In: Industry Government Academia Other Your Highest Level Of Education: No Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Post-Doctorate Other Type Of Degree Your Years In Aerospace: Less Than 1 1 - 2 3 - 5 More Than 5 Mean = 2.4 Years Median = 2.0 Years Your Education: Engineer Scientist Other Your Primary Duties: Engineer Scientist Other Is Your Work Best Classified As: Teaching/Academic Research Management Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Service/Maintenance Sales/Marketing Other Your Gender: Female Male 11 Percentage Number 51.7 136 31.6 83 9.1 24 7.6 20 0.4 1 51.9 139 34.1 90 10.6 28 2.7 7 0.4 1 10.0 21 52.1 110 30.3 64 7.6 16 98.1 259 0.8 2 1.1 3 85.2 225 4.9 13 9.8 26 2.3 6 20.2 53 8.0 21 49.4 130 3.8 10 0.4 1 li 3 14.8 39 11.0 29 89.0 235

Original page 14

Table 2. Project, Task, or Problem Categorization Factors Categories Of Project, Task, Or Problem: Research Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Computer Applications Management Other Worked On Project, Task Or Problem: Alone With Others Mean Number Of Groups = 2.1 Mean Number of People/Group = 5.4 Nature Of Duties Performed: Engineering Science Management Other Percentage Number 22.1 58 45.8 120 5.7 15 8.4 22 5.3 14 12.6 33 20.3 53 79.7 208 80.8 211 5.4 14 7.3 19 6.5 17 Table 3. Correlation of Project Complexity and Technical Uncertainty by Type of Project, Task, or Problem Complexity- Uncertainty Correlation Overall** Education/Research Design/Development Manufactudng/Production Management ComputerApplications r values are statisticallysignificant at p a 0.05. Number r 260 0.41" 58 0.27 118 0.39* 15 0.75* 14 0.25 22 0.44* ** Overall mean complexity (uncertainty) score = 3.8 (3.2) out of a possible 5.0. they followed to obtain needed information by sequencing these items (e.g., #1,#2,#3,#4, and #5). (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 First Second Information Source % % Personal Store Of Technical Information 39.3 29.1 Spoke With Coworker(s) Inside The Organization 48.8 36.2 Spoke With Colleagues Outside Of The Organization 3.7 16.5 Used Literature Resources In My Organization's Library 5.4 12.5 Spoke With A Librarian/ Technical Information Specialist 0.4 2.6 Searched (Or Had Someone Search For Me) An Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Base 3.0 3.8 Used Used Used Used Not Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Used % % % % 16.2 5.7 2.0 0.4 7.3 9.3 2.0 1.6 0.0 2.0 32.6 13.6 4.5 2.9 26.0 19.6 19.6 5.8 2.1 35.0 4.7 6.0 6.8 5.6 73.9 8.1 11.0 8.9 3.0 62.3 Use of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. About 57% (148) 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 45% (115) of respondents who answered "yes" were asked about the importance of these results in completing the project, task, or problem. A 5-point scale (1.0 = very unimportant, 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. The mean importance rating was 4.0. Almost two-thirds of those who used federally funded R&D (respondents) responded with an importance rating of "4" or "5". Sixtythree 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. SourcesUsedto Learn About the Resultsof FederallyFundedAerospaceR&D [n = 115] Source Percentage* Number 1. Professional And Society Meetings 25.6 23 2. Coworkers Inside My Organization 95.3 101 3. Trade Journals 17.4 16 4. NASA And DoD Technical Reports 65.7 65 5. Colleagues Outside My Organization 62.0 62 6. NASA And DoD Contacts 56.3 54 7. Professional And Society Meetings 48.5 47 8. Searches Of Computerized Data Bases 41.5 39 9. NASA And DoD Sponsored Conferences And Workshops 25.0 23 10. Visits To NASA And DoD Facilities 34.8 31 11. Publications Such As STAR 6.8 6 *Includes combined "frequently" and "sometimes" responses. The respondents who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem were asked which problems, if any, they encountered in using these results (see table 6). Respondents were given a list of six problems from which to choose. About 46% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem. About 43% reported that the "time and effort it took to physically obtain the results" was a problem. About 17% indicated that "accuracy, precision, and reliability of the results" was a problem, and about 24% reported that "distribution limitations or security restrictions" constituted a problem. About 18%/14% 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 Soent. The mean importance rating was 4.6; approximately 92% of respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical information effectively. Respondents were also asked to report the total number of hours per week they had spent communicating technical information, both in written form and orally, during the past 6 months. Respondents reported spending slightly more time on producing oral discussions (an average of 14

Original page 17

Table 6. Problems Related to Use of Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D [n = 1151 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 46.1 53 42.6 49 16.5 19 24.3 28 18.3 21 13.9 16 10.5 hours/week) than written materials (an average of 9.7 hours/week). Approximately 72% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information to others had increased over the past 5 years. About 6% 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 9.9 hours/week) than with technical information received orally from others (an average of 8.0 hours/week). Approximately 66% 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 5% 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 (X = 71.2) and the median percent was 80.0.] About 58% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. [The mean percent was (X = 14.1) and the median percent was 10.0.] About 44% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. [The mean percent was (X = 11.2) and the median percent was 0.0.] About 13% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of more than five people. [The mean percent was (X = 3.2) and the median percent was 0.0.] 15

Original page 18

Table 7. Technical Communications: Importance, Time Spent, and Change Over Time [n = 264] CommunicationAnd Receipt Of Information ImportanceOf Communicating Technical Information: Unimportant Neither importantNor Unimportant Important Mean = 4.6 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 = 9.7 Median = 8.0 Time Spent Communicating Technical Information Orally: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Through 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Hours Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = 10.5 Median = 10.0 Change Over Past 5 Years In The Amount Of Time Spent Communicating Technical Information To Others: Increased Stayed The Same Decreased Time Spent Working With Written Technical Information Received From Others: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Through 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Hours Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = 9.9 Median = 8.0 Percentage Number 2.7 7 5.3 14 92.0 243 1.6 4 39.7 102 29.6 76 11.3 29 12.5 32 5.2 14 2.0 5 33.7 85 31.7 80 ILl 28 16.3 41 5.2 13 71.5 181 22.5 57 6.0 15 0.8 2 40.7 103 31.2 79 11.9 30 8.7 22 6.7 17 Time Spent Working with Technical Information Received Orally From Others: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Through 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Hours Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = 8.0 Median = 5.0 2.0 5 49.3 124 33.7 84 4.4 11 6.0 15 4.0 10 Professional Advancement And Changes In Amount Of Time Spent Working With Technical Information Received From Others: Increased Stayed The Same Decreased 65.5 167 29.0 74 5.5 14 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, more of the respondents indicated that writing with a group is more productive than writing alone. About 39% indicated that a group is more productive and about 12% indicated that a group is less productive. About 19% indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. Table 8. Influence of Group Participation on Writing Productivity In =181] How Productive Percentage Number A Group Is More Productive Than Writing Alone 38.5 99 A Group Is About As Productive As Writing Alone 19.1 49 A Group Is Less Productive Than Writing Alone 11.7 30 I Write Alone (Only) 30.7 79 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 44% (112 respondents) indicated "yes" they had worked with the same group, and about 24% indicated that they had worked with various groups and 31% indicated that they only write alone. Of those who indicated that they had worked in the same group, these respondents were asked how many people were in the group. About 83% (93 respondents) indicated a group size of 2-5 people and about 13% (14 respondents) indicated a group size of 6-10 people. The mean number of people in the group was X = 3.6 and the median was 3.0. Those 61 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 32% (19 respondents) reported working with 2 groups, about 42% (25 respondents) reported working with 3 groups, about 12% (7 respondents) reported working with 4 groups, about 7% (4 respondents) reported working with 5 groups, and about 3% (2 respondents) reported working with 6-10 groups. The average (mean) number of groups was X = 3.0 and the median number of groups was 3.0. The number of people in each group varied. About 90% of the respondents reported working with a group of 2-5 people and about 5% reported working with a group of 6-10 people. The average (mean) number of people per group was X = 3.4 and the median number of people per group was 3.0. Technical Information Products Produced. Survey participants were given a list of technical information products. They were asked to indicate the number of these products they had written or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months and if those products had been written or prepared as part of a group. The 10 most frequently produced (alone) technical information products appear in table 9. 17

Original page 20

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 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 In = 115] Products Memoranda Letters Drawings/Specifications Abstracts Audio/Visual Materials Technical Manuals Computer Program Documentation Conference/Meeting Papers Technical Talks_resentations Technical Proposals Mean Median 8.9 3.0 8.7 2.0 9.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 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. 18

Original page 21

Table 10. Technical Information Products Written or Produced as Part of a Group in the Past 6 Months [n = 264 Information Products Drawings/Specifications Letters Memoranda Audio/Visual Material Conference/Meeting Papers Abstracts Technical Talks!Presentations Computer Programs and Documentation Technical Manuals Technical Proposals Average Number of In A Group People Per Group Mean Median Mean Median 2.7 0.0 3.1 3.0 0.5 0.0 2.4 2.0 0.6 0.0 2.7 2.0 0.5 0.0 3.1 3.0 0.4 0.0 2.7 2.0 0.3 0.0 2.8 3.0 1.1 0.0 4.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 3.4 3.0 0.4 0.0 4.1 3.0 1.1 0.0 3.7 3.0 Table 11. Technical Information Products Used in the Past 6 Months In = 264] Information Products Drawings/Specifications Memoranda Letters Trade/Promotional Literature Technical Manuals Conference Papers Technical Talks/Presentations Journal Articles Audio/Visual Materials Computer Programs And Documentation Communications Skills The literature on engineering education Mean Median 45.7 6.0 14.6 5.0 10.5 2.0 4.8 0.0 19.4 3.0 4.0 0.0 6.2 1.0 6.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 12.8 2.0 establishes the importance of effective communications skills to professional success (Black, 1994; Morrow, 1994; Evans, et. al., 1993; Katz, 1993; Garry, 1986; Devon, 1985). Survey respondents were asked to assess the importance of selected communications skills to professional success, to indicate if they had received instruction in these skills, and to rate the helpfulness (usefulness) of that instruction. 19

Original page 22

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of six communications skills to professional career success (table 12). Survey respondents assigned the highest importance ratings to the ability to use computer, communication and information technology ('X= 6.3). Oral and written technical communications skills received the next highest importance ratings. The mean ratings for these skills were about 6.2. Having a knowledge and understanding of engineering/science information resources and materials also received a mean importance rating of about 5.7. Table 12. Importance of Communications Skills to Professional Success Skills Effectively Communicate Technical Information In Writing Effectively Communicate Technical Information Orally Meana Number 6.2 262 6.2 263 Have A Knowledge And Understanding Of Engineering\Science Resources And Materials 5.7 263 Be Able To Search Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Bases Know How To Use A Library That 4.3 259 Contains Engineering\Science Resources And Materials Effectively Use Computer, Communication And Information Technology 4.6 262 6.3 262 aSurvey respondents used a 7-point scale to rate importance, where 7 indicates the highest rating. Table 13 shows the percentage of respondents who have received communications skills instruction. About 84.4% of survey respondents have received instruction in the use of computer, communication, and information technology. Approximately 84.8% of the respondents have had technical writing instruction. About 74.5% of respondents have received instruction in speech/oral communication, using engineering/science information resources and materials, or using a library that contains engineering/science information resources and materials. Survey respondents who had received communications skills instruction were asked to rate the helpfulness (usefulness) of that instruction (table 14). For the most part, respondents reported that the instruction was helpful. Respondents assigned the highest ratings to instruction in using computer, communication, and information technology. 20

Original page 23

Table 13. Communications Skills Instruction Skills Technical Writing\Communication Speech/Oral Communication Using Engineering\Science Information Resources And Materials Searching Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Bases Using A Library Containing Engineering\Science Information Resources and Materials Using Computer, Communication And Information Technology Percentage Number 84.4 224 75.4 199 80.6 212 60.8 160 75.3 198 84.4 222 Table 14. Helpfulness of Communications Skills Instructiona Skills Technical Writing\Communication Speech/Oral Communication Using Engineering\Science Information Resources And Materials Mean b Number 5.5 224 5.6 201 5.1 212 Searching Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Bases 4.6 167 Using A Library Containing Engineering\Science Information Resources and Materials 4.8 201 Using Computer, Communication, and Information Technology 6.1 225 alncludes ratings only for those respondents who received training in each communication skill. bHelpfulness was rated using a 7-point scale, where 7 indicates the highest rating. Impediments to PreparinKWritten Technical Communications We asked respondents the extent to which a lack of knowledge/skill about certain communications principles impedes their ability to write (table 15). Overall, respondents did not report serious problems with their writing skills, at least to the point that any deficiencies might impede the technical writing process. 21

Original page 24

Table 15. Impediments to the Production of Written Technical Communications Principles Mean a Number Defining The Purpose Of The Communication 3.6 239 Assessing The Needs Of The Reader 3.9 238 Preparing/Presenting Information In An Organized Manner 4.0 241 Developing Paragraphs (Introductions, Transitions, Conclusions) 3.4 243 Writing Grammatically Correct Sentences 3.3 243 Notetaking And Quoting Editing And Revising 2.8 230 3.5 237 aThe extent to which each principle impedes was measured using a 7-point scale, where 7 indicates the highest rating. Survey respondents appear to have the least difficulty with those writing skills that most respondents have the opportunity to use frequently. Grammar skills, notetaking and quoting, and skills related to editing and revising received the lowest "impedance" scores (means range closely around 3.2). Skill areas where the survey respondents report the most difficulty are in assessing the needs of the reader and problems presenting information in an organized manner. The mean difficulty scores for these skill areas is just under 4.0. Areas in which respondents report midrange difficulties (mean scores less than X = 3.8) include defining the purpose of the communication and developing paragraphs. Collaborative Writing Most of the respondents in this study have experience in collaborative writing. Over 75% of the survey respondents report that they have produced written technical information as part of a group (table 16). Table 16 also indicates the percentage of writing that is required to be collaborative. Just over 33% of writing projects assigned to survey respondents is required to be collaborative. Table 16. Percentage of Writing that is Collaborative Group Writing Writing Done In Groups Writing Required To Be Collaborative Mean % Number 28.8 253 33.1 176 22

Original page 25

We also asked survey respondents who write collaboratively to compare the productivity of group writing to the productivity of writing alone. A high percentage of respondents indicated that group writing is more productive than writing alone (table 17). Over 43% of survey respondents reported that writing in a group is more productive than writing alone. Less than 18% of all respondents reported that group writing is less productive, and about 39% reported that group writing was as productive as writing alone. Table 17. Productivity of Collaborative Writing Productivity of Group Writing More Productive Than Writing Alone About the Same As Writing Alone Less Productive Than Writing Alone Percentage Number 43.3 84 39.5 76 17.5 34 Use and Importance of Libraries and Technical Reports This section examines the use and importance of libraries and the use of domestically and foreign produced technical reports. We examine the frequency of the survey respondents' library use, their reasons for not using a library, and the effectiveness of the information obtained from the library in meeting their engineering/science information needs. Table 18 reports the frequency of library use during the past 6 months. Nearly 29% of the survey respondents indicated that they had not used the library at all. Overall, survey respondents averaged 7.3 trips to the library during the past 6 months. Table 18. Use of A Library in the Past 6 Months Visits 0 Times 1- 5 Times 6 - 10 Times 11 - 25 Times 26 - 50 Times 51 Or More Times Mean Median 23 Percentage Number 28.4 63 40.9 105 14.8 38 10.1 26 3.9 10 1.9 5 7.3 3.0

Original page 26

We also asked respondents who had not used a library during the past 6 months to indicate their reasons for non-use. The percentages of non-users by the reason for not using a library appear in table 19. About 51% of non-users reported that they had no information needs. About 87% of non-users indicated that their information needs were more easily met by sources other than the library, and about 15% of non-users reported that they had tried the library before but had difficulty finding the information they needed. Table 19. Reasons Respondents Did Not Use A Library in the Past 6 Months Reasons I Had No Information Needs My Information Needs Were More Easily Met Some Other Way Tried The Library Once Or Twice Before Percentage Number 50.7 34 86.8 59 But I Couldn't Find The Information I Needed 14.8 9 - The Library Is Physically Too Far Away 28.3 17 The Library Staff Is Not Cooperative Or Helpful 3.5 2 The Library Staff Does Not Understand My Information Needs 3.5 14 The Library Did Not Have The Information I Need 25.5 19 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 32.8 19 10.5 6 3.4 2 We Are Discouraged From Using The Library 3.4 2 Effectiveness of Information Respondents who had used the library during the past 6 months were asked to rate the effectiveness of the information obtained in the library for meeting their engineering and science information needs (table 20). Effectiveness was measured using a 7-point scale, where 7 was very effective. Almost 35% of the respondents indicated that the information was very effective. 24

Original page 27

Table 20. Effectiveness of Information Obtained From the Library in Meeting Engineering/Science Information Needs Effectiveness Very Effective Neither Effective Nor Ineffective Very Ineffective Mean Percentage Number 34.4 64 62.3 116 3.2 6 5.0 Survey respondents were whether they use technical reports produced in the U.S. and foreign counties (table 21). Almost 60% of respondents reported using U.S. technical reports. Less than 20% reported using technical reports produced in the foreign countries. Table 21. Use of Foreign and Domestically Produced Technical Reports Country/Organization NATO AGARD Reports British ARC And RAE Reports Dutch NLR Reports ESA (European Space Agency) Reports Indian NAL Reports French ONERA Reports German DFVLR, DLR, And MBB Reports Japanese NAL Reports Russian TsAGI Reports U.S. NASA Reports Percentagea Number 19.2 40 14.0 29 5.0 10 12.6 26 0.5 1 8.9 18 8.4 17 2.5 5 5.5 11 59.2 142 apercentagesexcluderespondentswho indicatedthatthey do not have accessto technicalreports from each given country. Use of Computer and Information Technology The use of use computer technology to prepare (written) technical communications was investigated. Survey respondentswere asked abouttheircurrentand anticipateduse of selected informationtechnologies. Specifically, respondentswere asked about their use of electronic networks, their use of electronic networks for specific purposes, and their use of electronic networks to exchange messages and files. 25

Original page 28

Use of Computers to Prepare Written Technical Communications Nearly all of the respondents (98.9%) we surveyed use computers when they prepare written technical communications. Survey respondents who do not use computer technology to prepare written technical communication most often (66.7%) gave lack of access to computer technology as the reason for "non-use". Table 22. Use and Non-use of a Computer to Prepare Written Technical Communications Factor Do You Use A Computer To Prepare Written Technical Communication? Never Yes Sometimes Frequently Always Your Reason(s) For Not Using A Computer No/Limited Computer Access Percentage Number 1.1 3 98.9 260 6.8 18 17.5 46 74.5 196 66.7 2 Lack of Knowledge/Skill Using A Computer ..... Prefer Not To Use A Computer Other Use of Selected Information Technologies ..... 33.3 1 Survey respondents were asked about their use and non-use of a wide range of information technologies (table 23). Specifically, they were asked to indicate if they "already use it," "don't use it but may in the future," and "don't use it and doubt if I will." Respondents reported the greatest use of computer-based information technologies such as electronic publishing, electronic mail, desktop publishing, FAX/TELEX, and electronic data bases. 26

Original page 29

Table 23. Use, Non-Use, and Potential Use of Information Technologies Don't Use It, Don't Use It, But May In And Doubt If Already Use It Future Will Information Technologies % Audio Tapes And Cassettes 6.2 Motion Picture Films 3.5 Videotape 36.2 Desktop/Electronic Publishing 87.8 Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes 35.2 Electronic Mail 82.8 Electronic Bulletin Boards 47.3 FAX or TELEX 92.7 Electronic Data Bases 71.7 Video Conferencing 20.2 Computer Conferencing 10.9 Micrographics And Microforms 33.6 Use of Electronic (Computer) Networks (n) % (n) % (n) 16 17.4 45 76.4 197 9 27.0 69 69.5 178 93 44.7 115 19.1 49 230 9.9 26 2.3 6 90 30.1 77 34.8 89 217 16.8 44 0.4 1 122 47.3 122 5.4 14 240 6.6 17 0.8 2 185 26.7 69 1.6 4 52 68.1 175 11.7 30 28 76.3 196 12.8 33 86 35.2 90 31.3 80 Nearly all the respondents surveyed have access to electronic (computer) networks. Almost 85% of the survey respondents indicated that they use electronic (computer) networks (see table 24). Approximately 4% of the respondents use networks through an intermediary. Survey respondents for a variety of purposes (see table 25.) About 56% of survey respondents use networks for logging onto bulletin boards or conferences and for information search and data retrieval (75%). Table 24. Use of Electronic (Computer) Networks Factor Yes, I Personally Use Them Yes, I Use Them But Through An Intermediary No No, Because I Do Not Have Access To Electronic Networks No, But I May Use Them In The Future 27 Percentage Number 85.4 223 3.8 10 1.9 5 3.4 9 5.4 14

Original page 30

Table 25. Use of Electronic Networks for Specific Purposes Purpose Percentage Number Connect To Geographically Distant Sites 78.6 180 Electronic Mail 94.8 219 Electronic Bulletin Boards Or Conferences 55.7 128 Log On To Remote Computers 94.4 218 Control Remote Equipment 67.4 155 Access/Search The Library's Catalog 19.4 44 Order Documents From The Library 61.9 143 Search Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Bases 24.8 57 Information Search And Data Retrieval 74.5 172 Prepare Scientific And Papers With Colleagues At Geographically Distant Sites 26.6 61 Survey participants who used electronic networks were asked to identify the groups with whom they exchanged messages or files (table 26). About 86% 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. Table 26. Use of Electronic Networks to Exchange Messages or Files Exchange With -- Percentage Number Members Of Own Work Group 85.8 199 Others In Your Organization But Not In Your Work Group 82.3 190 Others In Your Organization, Not In Your Work Group, At A Geographically Different Site 68.7 158 People Outside Your Work Group 83.5 193 Professional Aspirations Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of 15 goals to a successful career. The list includes aspirations that are classified as either engineering, science, or management goals. Table 27 shows the mean importance ratings for each goal. The majority of survey respondents reported that engineering goals are most important to a successful career. 28

Original page 31

Table 27. Importance of Career Goals and Aspirations Goals Percentagea Number Engineering Have The Opportunity To Explore New Ideas About Technology Or Systems Attain A High Level Staff Technical Position Have The Opportunity To Work On Complex Technological Knowledge Work On Projects That Require Learning New Technical Knowledge Work On Projects That Utilize The Latest Theoretical Results Science Establish Professional Reputation Outside Of The Organization Receive Patents For Your Ideas Be Evaluated On The Basis Of Your Technical Ideas Publish Articles In Technical Journals Communicate Your Ideas To Others In Your Profession By Presenting Papers At Professional Meetings Management Be A Technical Leader Of A Group Of Less Experienced Professionals Plan And Coordinate The Work Of Others Become A Manager Or Director Plan Projects Or Make Decisions Affecting The Organization Advance To A Policy- Making-Position In Management 76.1 198 44.1 114 78.9 181 70.0 184 39.4 103 _ 49.8 129 15.6 40 54.0 141 26.1 67 29.7 76 48.1 125 39.5 103 39.1 101 46.8 121 32.5 83 aSurvey respondents used a 7-point scale to rate importance, where 7 indicates the highest rating. The percentages listed are the respondents who rated the factor as either a "6" or a "7". 29

Original page 32

FINDINGS 1. The "average" participant works in industry (51.7%), has a bachelor's degree (51.9%), has an average of 2.4 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (98.1%, 85.2%), works in design/development (49.4%), and is male (89%). 2. Their most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months was categorized as design/development (45.8%); 79.7% of the participants worked on this project, task, or problem with others. The mean number of groups involved was 2.1, and the mean number of people in a work group was 5.4. Engineering duties predominated (73%) followed by management duties (7.3%) in the completion of the most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months. 3. A positive and significant correlation was found between the overall complexity and technical uncertainty of the most important job-related project, task, or problem that respondents had worked on in the past 6 months. 4. To complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem, respondents first and second, spoke with coworker(s) inside the organization (48.8%, 36.2%); third, spoke with colleagues outside of the organization (32.6%); fourth, used literature resources in the organization's library (19.6%); fifth, searched an electronic data base in the library (8.9%); and sixth, spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist (5.6%). 5. Approximately 57% of the respondents reported using the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in their work. Of the four sources most frequently used to find out about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D, three involve interpersonal communication and one involves formal (written) communication. Three of 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. 6. About 45% 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 two-thirds of this group indicated that federally funded aerospace R&D was "important" or "very important" for completing this work. About 63% (72) of those who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem indicated that the results were published in either a NASA or DoD technical report. 7. Of the respondents who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem, 46% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem, and 43% reported that the "time and effort it took to obtain the results" was a problem. 30

Original page 33

1. About 92% of the respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical information effectively; respondents spent an average of 9.7 hours per week producing written material and 10.5 hours per week communicating information orally. Over the past 5 years approximately 72% have increased the amount of time they spend communicating information to others. Survey respondents reported spending an average of 9.9 hours per week working with written information received from others and an average of 8.0 hours per week working with information received orally from others. More than 65% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spend receiving technical information from others has increased over the past 5 years. 9. About 30% of the respondents reported that all of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. About 58% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. About 44% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. About 13% 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 39% indicated that a group is more productive and about 12% indicated that a group is less productive. About 19% 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 indicated that the six communication skills were important to professional success, most respondents had received communications skills training, and most found the training to be helpful. 13. Surveyrespondentsreported "preparing/presentinginformationin a organizedmanner"and assessingthe needs of the reader" as the greatest impedimentsto producingwritten technical communication. 14. Survey respondents reported using a library about 7.3 times in a six month period. My information needs were more easily met some other way was the reason given most often for not using a library. About 62% of the respondents reported that the information they received from the library was neither effective nor ineffective in meeting their engineering/science information needs. 15. Overall use of foreign produced technical reports by-survey respondents was low. 16. About 99% of the respondents use a computer to prepare written technical communications. About an equal number use electronic (computer) networks; most use them for electronic mail. 31

Original page 34

REFERENCES Adam, R. "Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a 1975 Science Information System." International Social Journal 27(3): 519-531. Alien, 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, CI_: Archon 1975 Books. Ballard, S., et. al. Innovation Through Technical and Scientific Information: 1989 Government and Industry Cooperation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Ballard,S., et. al. Improving the Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical 1986 Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 - Problems and Issues in the Transfer and Use of 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 Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis and H.M. Trice of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 1982 591-622. Bikson, T.K., Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Option. B. E. Quint, and Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from L. L. Johnson NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note 1984 2131.) Black, K.M. "An Industry View of Engineering Education." Journal of 1994 Engineering Education, 83:1, 26-28. Branscomb, L.G. "America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva 30:3 1992 (August): 317-336. 32

Original page 35

Branscomb, L.G. "Toward a U.S. Technology Policy." Issues in Science and 1991 Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55. David, P.A. "Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial 1986 Competitiveness." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Devon, R. "Industry's Advice for the First Two Years." Engineering 1985 Education, 76:2, 112-114. Evans, D.L., "Attributes of Engineering Graduates and Their Impact on G. C. Bleakley, Curriculum Design." Journal of Engineering Education, 82:4, 203- P. E. Crouch, and 211. G. T. Yamaguchi 1993 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. Garry, F.W. "A Business Look at Engineering Education." Engineering 1986 Education, 76:4, 203-205. Gibb, J. M. and Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." Journal E. Phillips of Communication Studies 1: 225-234. 1979 Godfrey, L. E. and Dictionary of Report Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries H.F. Redman Association. 1973 Goldhor, R. S. and "University-to-Industry Advanced Technology Transfer: A Case R. T. Lund Study." Research Policy 12: 121-152. 1983 33

Original page 36

Katz, S. "The Entry-Level Engineer: Problems in Transition from Student 1993 to Professional." Journal of Engineering Education, 82:3, 171-174. Mathes, J. C. and Designing Technical Reports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. D. W. Stevenson 1976 McClure, C.R. "The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and 1988 Issues." Government Information 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 Morrow, R.M. "Issues Facing Engineering Education." Journal of Engineering 1994 Education, 83:1, 15-18. Mowery, D.C. "Economic Theory and Government Technology Policy." Policy 1983 Sciences 16: 27-43. Mowery, D. C. and "The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical N. Rosenberg Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research Policy 8(2): 1979 102-153. National Academy Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National of Sciences - Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the National Academy Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. of Engineering Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the SATCOM 1969 Report. Pinelli, T.E. "The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers." 1991b Science and Technology Libraries 11(3): 5-25. Pinelli, T.E. The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical 1991a 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. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; N9118898.) Pinelli, T.E., "The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge diffusion Research J. M. Kennedy, and Project." Government Information Quarterly 8(2): 219-233. R. O. Barclay 1991 34

Original page 37

Pinelli, T.E., "Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." Worm Aerospace J. M. Kennedy, Technology '91: The International Review of Aerospace Design R. O. Barclay, and Development 1(1): 31-34. and T. F. White 1991 President's Special Scientific and Technological Communication in the Government. Assistant for Science Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; AKA the Crawford and Technology Report. 1962 Redman, H.F. "Technical Reports: Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian 1965/1966 23: 11-17. Roberts, E.B. "Strategies for Improving Research Utilization." Technology and A. L. Frohman Review 80 (March/April): 32-39. 1978 Rohde, Nancy F. "Information Needs." In Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 14. W. 1986 Simonton, ed. NY: Academic Press, 49-73. 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 TechnologyLibraries 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 35

Original page 38

APPENDIX A NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Fact Sheet The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information (STI), which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us that timely access to STI can increase productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills. These same studies indicate, however, that we know little about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn more 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. This research is endorsed by several aerospace professional societies including the AIAA, RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned by the AGARD and AIAA Technical Information Panels. This 4-phase project is providing descriptive and analytical data about the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels used to communicate STI and the social system of the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. Phase 1 investigates the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, in particular their use of government-funded aerospace STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government interface and emphasizes the role of the information intermediary in the knowledge diffusion 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 Rebecca O. Barclay Mail Stop 180A Center for Survey Research Dept. of Language, Lit. & Communication NASA Langley Research Center Indiana University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Hampton, VA 23681-0001 Bloomington, IN 47405 Troy, NY 12180 (804) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 (804) 399-5666 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 Fax (804) 397-4635 T.E.Pinelli@lare.nasa.gov kennedyJ@indiana.edu barelay@infi.net 36

Original page 39

APPENDIX B: AIAA SURVEY PHASE 1 OF THE NASA/DOD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Technical Communications in Aerospace: How Early Career Stage Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Obtain Information AIAA Study SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WITH THE COOPERATION OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AND THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA) 37

Original page 40

The first group of questions ask about your use of technical information. 1. In your work, how important is it for you to conmmnicate (e.g., producing written materials or oral discussions) technical informationeffectively? (Circle number) Not at all Important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important 2. In the past 6 months, how many hours did you spend each week communicating(producing) technical information? (Output) hours per week writing hours per week communicatingorally 3. Comparedto5 years ago, how has theamountof time you havespentcommunicating technicalinformation changed? (Circle ONE number) 1 Increased 2 Stayed the same 3 Decreased 4. In the past 6 months, how many hours did you spend each week working with technical information received from others? (Input) hoursper week working with written information hours per week receiving informationorally 5. As you have advancedprofessionally,how has the amountof time you have spent working with technical information received from others changed? (Circle ONE number) 1 Increased 2 Stayedthe same 3 Decreased 6. What percentageof your written technical communicationsinvolved: Writing alone Writingwith one other person Writing with a group of 2 to 5 people % ---_ (If 100%, go to Question 9.) % % Writing with a group of more than5 people % 100 % 7. In general, do you find writing as partof a group more or less productive(i.e., producingmore written productsor better written products)thanwriting alone? (C_'cleONE number) 1 A group is less productivethan writing alone 2 A group is about as productiveas writing alone 3 A group is more productivethanwriting alone 4 Difficult to judge; no experiencepreparingtechnical 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 groupsdid you work? _ number of groups About how many peoplewere in each group? _ number of people 38

Original page 41

1. Approximatelyhowmanytimesin thepast6 monthsdid you writeor preparethe followingaloneor in a group? (If in a group,how manypeoplewerein eachgroup?) Times inPast6 Months Alone -a. Abstracts b. JournalArticles c. Conference/MeetingPapers d. Trade/PromotionalLiterature e. Drawings/Specifications f. AudioNisualMaterials g. Letters h. Memoranda i. TechnicalProposals j. TechnicalManuals k. ComputerProgramDocumentation 1. DoDTechnicalReports m. NASATechnicalReports n. TechnicalTalks/Presentations AverageNumber In a Group of People 10. Approximatelyhowmanytimesin the past6 monthsdidyou use the following? a. Abstracts b. JournaAlrticles c. Conference/MeetinPgapers d. Trade/Promotional Literature e. Drawings/Specifications f. Audio/VisuaMatlerials g. Letters h. Memoranda i. TechnicalProposals j. TechnicalManuals k. ComputerProgramDocumentation 1. DoD TechnicaRleports m. NASA Technical Reports n. Technical Talks/Presentations TimesUsedin Past6 Months 11. In yourwork,howimportantis it foryouto: (Circlenumber) Very Unimportant Effectivelycommunicatetechnical informationin writing ............ 1 2 Effectivelycommunicatteechnical informationorally ............... 1 2 Have a knowledgeandunderstanding of engineering/scienceinformation resourcesandmaterials ........... 1 2 B¢ ableto searchelectronic (bibliographicd)atabases.......... 1 2 Knowhowto usea librarythatcontains engineering/scienceinformation resourcesandmaterials ........... 1 2 Effectivelyuse computerco,mmunication, and informationtechnology ........ 1 2 39 Very Don't Important Know 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original page 42

1. As part of your academic preparation, did you receive training or course work in: (Circle number) No Instruction Yes No Available Technicalwriting/communication.................. 1 2 8 "Speech/oracolmmunication....................... 1 2 8 Usinga librarythat containsengineering/science informationresourcesandmaterials................ 1 2 8 Usingengineering/scienceinformation resourcesandmaterials ........................ 1 2 8 Searchingelectronic(bibliographic) databases .................................. Using computer,communicationa,nd 1 2 8 informationtechnology ........................ 1 2 8 13. If youreceivedtrainingorinstructionin anyof thefollowingas partof youracademicpreparation,hasit helpedyouperformyourpresentprofessionalduties?(Circlenumber) Did Not Not Very Don't Receive Helpful Helpful Know Training Technicalwriting/communication............ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Speech/oralcommunicatio.................n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Usinga librarythat containsengineering/science informationresourcesandmaterials.......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Usingenginceringiscieneeinformation resourcesandmaterials .................. Searchingelectronic(bibliographic) databases............................ Using computerc,ommunicationan,d informationtechnology .................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 The following questions pertain to the academic preparation of aerospace engineering and science students. 14. Do you think that undergraduate aerospace engineering and science students should have training or course work in technicalcommunications(for example,technical writing/oralpresentations)? (Circle the , appropriatenumber) 1 Yes No _ Go to Question21. 3 Don If you answered"yes"to Question14, pleaseanswerQuestions15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. 15. Do you thinka technicalcommunicationcoursesfor undergraduaateerospaceengineeringandscience studentsshouldbe: (Circle the appropriate number) 1 Takenforacademiccredit 2 Nottakenforacademiccredit 3 Don'tknow 16. Do yon thinkthe technicalcommunicationscourseshouldbe: (Circle the appropriate number) 1 Takenas part of a requiredcourse 2 Takenas partof an electivecourse 3 Don'tknow 4O

Original page 43

1. Do you think the technical communicationscourse Should be: (Circle the appropriatenumber) 1 Taken as partof an engineering course (for example, Engineering201) 2 Taken as a separatecourse (for example,Technical Writing 101) 3 Taken as part of another course (that is, neitherEngineering or English) 4 Don't know 18. Whichof the followingprinciples shouldbe includedin an undergraduatetechnicalcommunicationscourse for aerospaceengineering andscience students? (Circle the appropriatenumbers) Yes No Defining the purpose of the communication ....................... 1 2 Assessing the needs of the reader .............................. 1 2 Organizing information ..................................... 1 2 Developing paragraphs(introductions,Uansitious, and conclusions) ....... 1 2 Writingsentences ......................................... Notetaking and quoting ..................................... Editingand revising ........................................ 1 2 1 2 1 2 Choosing words (avoiding wordiness,jargon, slang, and sexist terms) ..... 1 2 Other (specify) 19. Which of the following mechanics shouldbe includedin an undergraduatetechnical communicationscourse for aerospace engineering andscience students? (Circle the appropriate numbers) Abbreviations ............................................ Acronyms ............................................... Capitalization ............................................ Numbers ................................................ Punctuation .............................................. References .............................................. Spelling ................................................ Symbols ................................................ Other (specify) Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 20. Which of the following on-the-job skills should be includedin an undergraduatetechnicalcommunications coursefor aerospace engineeringandscience students? (Circletheappropriatneumbers) Abstracts ............................................... Letters ................................................. Memoranda ............................................... Technical instructions ....................................... Journalarticles ........................................... Conference/Meeting papers ................................... Literaturereviews ......................................... Technical manuals ......................................... Newsletter/newspaperarticles ................................. Oral (technical) presentations ................................. Technicalspecifications ..................................... Technical reports .......................................... Use of informationsources ................................... Other (specify) 41 Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Original page 44

These next questions ask about the preparation of wl'itten technical communication as part of your professional duties. 21. Whatpercentageof yourwrittentechnicalcommunicationinvolvescollaborativwreiting(i.e.,writingas a memberof a group)? % (If 100%of yourwritingis donealone,go to Question23.) If you do writeas a memberof a group,whatpercentageof yourwrittentechnicalcommunicationis requiredtobe collaborative? % 22. In general, do you trmdwriting as part of a group more or less productive(quantity/quality)thanwriting alone? (Circle number) 1 Less productivethan writing alone 2 About as productive as writing alone 3 More productivethan writing alone 23. To what extentdoes lack of knowledge/skill abouteach of the followingcommunication principlesimpede your ability to produce(i.e., quality/quantity)writtentechnical communication? (Circle all that apply) Does Not Greatly Don't Impede Impedes Know Defining the purpose of the communication ................. Assessing the needs of the reader ....................... Preparing/presentinginformation in an organized manner ........... Developing paragraphs (introductions, translations, and conclusions) ................ Writing grammatically correct sentences ................ Notetaking and quoting ............ Editing and revising ............... Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 24. Do you usecomputertechnologyto preparewrittentechnicalinformation?(CircleONEnumber) 1 Never • Go to Question25 2 Some_e--_ 3 Frequently[--Go to Question26 4 Always.._ 25. If NEVER,whichoneof the followingbestexplainsyourreasonsfornon-use? (Circlenumbers) 1 No/Limitedcomputeraccess 2 Lackof knowledge/skillusinga computer 3 Prefernot to use a computer 4 Other(specify) 42

Original page 45

These questions ask about your use of electronic and information technologies. 26. Describe your use of the following electronic/informationtechnologies in communicating technical information? (Circle the appropriatenumberfor each) Already InformationTechnologies Use Audio tapes and cassettes ........... 1 Motion picture film ............... 1 Video tape ..................... 1 Desktop/electronicpublishing ........ I Computercassette/cartridgetapes ..... 1 Electronic mail .................. 1 Electzonic bulletinboards ........... 1 FAX or TELEX ................. 1 Electronic databases .............. 1 Video conferencing ............... 1 Computerconferencing ............ 1 Micrographicsand microforms ....... I Don't use Don't use butmay 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 27. Do you ever use electronic (computer)networks? (Circle number) 1 Yes, I personally use them 2 Yes, I use them but throughan intermediary i 4 No, because I do not have access to electronic networks Go to Question 30. 53 NoNo, but I may use them in the future . If you answered "no" to Question 27, please go to Question 30. If you answered "yes" to Question 27, please continue to Question 28. 28. Do you use electronicnetworks for the following purposes? (Circle theappropriatenumber for each) Yes No To connect to geographically distantsites ......................... 1 2 For electronic mail ......................................... 1 2 For electronic bulletinboards or conferences ...................... 1 2 For electronic t'detransfer ................................... To log into computersfor such things as 1 2 computationalanalysisor to use design tools ..................... I 2 To controlequipmentsuch as laboratory instrumentsor machinetools ................................ 1 2 To access/search a h'brarycatalog .............................. 1 2 To order documentsfrom a l_rary ............................. I 2 To preparescientific and technical paperswith colleagues at geographicallydistantsites ........................ 1 2 For information search and data retrieval with the following protocols: FI'P ................................ 1 2 gopher .............................. 1 2 WAIS ................... -............ 1 2 World Wide Web (WWW) ................ 1 2 43

Original page 46

1. At your workplace, do you use electronic (computer)networksto communicate with: (Circle the appropriatenumberfor each) Yes No Members of your work group ................................. 1 2 Other people in your organizationat the SAME geographical site who are NOT in your work group.......................... 1 2 Other people in your organizationat geographically DIFFERENT site who are NOT in your work group ............... 1 2 People outside your workgroup ............................... 1 2 These questions ask about your use of libraries and library services in the performance of your present professional duties. 30. Duringthepast six months,abouthow manytimes haveyou used a libraryto meet your engineering/science informationneeds? numberof times ffyou answered "0" times to Question 30, please go to Question32. If you answered "1 or more" times to Question 30, please continue to Question 31. 31. During the past six months, how effective was the information obtained from the [-_ Go to library for meeting your engineering/scienceinformation needs? (Circle number)[ Question 33 Very Ineffective 1 2 3 4 5 Very Don't Effective Know 6 '7 8 32. Which of the following statements describe your reasons for not using a l_rary during the past six months? (Circle ALL that apply) Yes No I had no information needs ................................... 1 2 My information needs were met more easily met some other way ........ 1 2 Tried the library once or twice before but I couldn't t'md the information I needed ................................ 1 2 The library is physically too far away ........................... 1 2 The library staff is not cooperative or helpful ...................... 1 2 The library staff does not understand my information needs ............ 1 2 The library did not have the information I needed ................... 1 2 I have my own personal library and do not need another l_rary ......... 1 2 The library is too slow in getting the information I need .............. 1 2 We have to pay to use the library .............................. 1 2 We are discouraged from using the l_rary ............. _ .......... 1 2 44

Original page 47

1. Do you use the following technical reports in performingyour present professional duties? (Circle the appropriatenumbers) Yes AGARD reports .................... 1 British ARC and RAE reports ........... 1 Dutch NLR reports .................. 1 ESA reports ....................... 1 Indian NAL reports 1 French ONERA reports ............... 1 German DFVLR, DLIL and MBB reports... 1 Japanese NAL reports ................ 1 Russian TsAGI reports ................ 1 U.S. NASA reports .................. 1 Don't Have No Access 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 34. Think of the most important job-related project, task, or problem you have worked on in the past six months. Which category best describesthis work? (Circle only ONE number) 1 Research (either basic or applied) 2 Design/Development 3 Manufacturing/Production 4 Quality Assurance/Control 5 Computer Applications 6 Management(e.g., planning, budgeting, and managing research) 7 Other (specify): 35. Howwouldyoudescn'bethe overallcomplexityof the technicalproject,task,orproblemyou categorized in Question34? (CircleONEnumber) Very Simple 1 2 3 4 5 VeryComplex 36. How would you rate the amount of technical uncertaintythat you faced when you stated the technical project, task,or problemcategories in Question 34? (Circle ONE number) Little Uncertainty 1 2 3 4 5 Great Uncertainty 37. While you were involved in the 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? 38. Which of the following best describes the kinds of duties you performed while working on the project categorized in Question34? (Circle ONE number) 1 Engineering 2 Science 3 Management 4 Other (specify): 45

Original page 48

1. What steps did you follow to get the information you needed for this project, task, or problem? [Please sequence these items (e.g., #1, #2, #3) and put an X beside the steps you did not use.] Used my personal store of technical 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., conference papers, journals, technical reports) found in my organization's l_rary Used none of the above steps 40. Do you use the results of federally-fundedaerospaceR&D in your work? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 41. Did you use the results of federally-fundedaerospaceR&D in completing the project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 34? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No _ Go to Question46 42. How important were these results in completing the project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 34? (Circle ONE number) Very Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important 43. Were these results published in either a NASA or DoD technical report? 1 Yes 2 No 44. Fromwhich of the following sourcesdid you learn about/obtainthe resultsof the federally-fundedaerospace R&D you used in completingthe project_task_orproblem? (Circle the appropriatenumber forONLY those sources used in this incident.) Yes No Coworkersinside 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 andworkshops .......................... 1 2 NASA andDoD technical reports .................... .......... 1 2 Professionaland society journals ............................... 1 2 Librariansinside my organization .............................. 1 2 Trade journals ............................................ 1 2 Searches of computerizeddata bases ............................ 1 2 Professional and society meetings .............................. 1 2 Visits to NASA and DoD facilities ............................. 1 2 46

Original page 49

1. Which,if anyof thefollowingproblemweresassociatedwithusingtheseresults?(CheckALLthatapply) Thetimeandeffortit tookto locate the results Thetimeandeffortit tookto physicallyobtainthe results The accuracy,precision,andreliabilityof the results The leg_ilityorreadabilityof the results The organizationor formatof the results The distributiolinmitationsor securityrestrictionsof the results These datawill beusedto determinewhetherpeoplewithdifferentbackgroundshavedifferentinformation. seekingbehaviorsand informationpractices. 46. Yourgender:(Circlenumber) 1 Female 2 Male 47. Yourage: (Enternumber) 48. The highestcollegedegreeyouhold: (Circlenumber) 1 No collegedegree 4 Doctorate 2 Bachelor's 5 Post-Doctorate 3 Master's 6 Other(specify): 49. Whichof the followingbestdescn'besyourprimaryprofessionadluties? (CircleONEnumber) 1 Teaching/Academi(mcayincluderesearch) 2 Research 3 Design/Development 4 Manufacturing/Production 5 QualityAssurance/Control 6 Service/Maintenance 7 Marketing/Sales 8 PrivateConsultant 9 Management/Supervision 10 Other(specify): 50. Typeof organizationwhereyouwork: (CircleONEnumber) 1 Academic 4 Industry 2 Government(civilian) 5 PrivateConsultant 3 Government(military) 6 Other(specify): 51. Was youracademicpreparatioas ann: (CircleONEnumber) 1 Engineer 2 Scientist 3 Other(specify): 52. In yourpresentposition,do youconsideryourselfprimarilyan: (CircleONEnumber) 1 Engineer 2 Scientist OVER 3 Other(specify): 47

Original page 50

Is Englishyourfirst(native)language:(Circlenumber) 1 Yes 2 No Your years of continuous professional AIAA membership: (Enter number) -Your years of permanent (full-time) employment in aerospace: (Enter number) Your years of permanent (full-time) employment with present employer: (Enter number) Is any of your current work funded by the federal government? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don't know To have a successful career, how important will it be for you to: (Circle number) Unimportant Important Know 1 Have the oppor_d2xity to explore new ideas about technology or sy_ems ............. 2 Advance to a high-level staff technical position ......... 3 l_ve the opportunity to work on complex technical problems ..... 4 Work on projects that u_'ilize the latest theoretical results in your specialty ............. 5 Work on projects that require learning new technical knowledge ............ 6 Establish a reputation outside your or_uiz_on as an authority in your field ............. 7 Receive patents for your ideas .... 8 Publish articles in technical journals ............. 9 Communicate your ideas to others in your profession through papers delivered at professionaJ society meetings ............. 10 Be evaluated on the basis of your technical cont_ribwrions ....... ll co a manage_or director in your line of wurk ........ 12 Plan and coordina_ the work of others ............. 13 Advance toa policy-making position in management ...... 14 Plan projects and make decisions affecting the organization ...... 15 Be thetechnicalealderofa group Very Very Don't 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 } 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 of less experienced professionals . . . i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 THANK YOU! Mail to: NASA/DoD Aerospace knowledge Diffusion Research Project NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop I80A Hampton, VA 23681-0001 48

Original page 51

Original page 52

FormApproved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo0704.-0188 Publicreportingburdenfor thiscolleotionof informationis estimatedto average1 hour per response,includingthe time for reviewinginstructions,searchingexistingdata sources, gatheringand maintainingthe data needed,and completingandreviewingthe collectionof information. Sendcommentsregardingthisburdenestimate or any otheraspect of this ;ollectionof information,includingsuggestionsfor reducingthis burden,to WashingtonHeadquartersServices,Directoratefor InformationOperationsand Reports, 1215 Jefferson DavisHighway,Suite 1204, Arlington,VA22202-4302, and tothe Officeof Managarneotand Budget, PaperworkReductionProject(0704-0188), Washington,DC 205(_. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave b/ank) 2. REPORT DATE September 1995 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATESCOVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS How Early Career-Stage U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Produce and Use Information 6. AUTHOR(S) WU 505-90 Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-110181 *Report number 34 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 82 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports and provide a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report. We present results from our investigation of aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-_i-visthe U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-=i-visthe production and use of information by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who had changed their American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) membership from student to professional in the past five years. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; and U.S. 49 government technical reports 16.PRICECODE A03 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std,Z39-18 298-102

Original page 53

Original page 54

3 1176 01422 9638