Full report

Original page 1

NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research project _ "" Report Number 5 NASA Technical Memorandum 102773 Summary Report to Phase 1 Respondents Including Frequency Distributions Thomas E. Pinelli NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia John M. Kennedy Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Terry F. White Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana January 1991 =_r (_A£A-TM-tO2773) S_IN_A_Y REP_T TO PHASE 1 •_9 I-L ,J98o RESPQNSENTS tNCLUPING FREQUENCY Z GISTRI#UTIQNS (NASA) 48 p NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration l Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY = CSCL 05R Unclas G3/_2 0003029 == Z 2 =

Original page 2

Original page 3

THE NASA/DOD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Report to Phase One Respondents Introduction This project, started in 1989, is designed to explore the diffusion of scientific and technical information (STI) throughout the aerospace industry. The increased international competition and cooperation in the industry promises to significantly affect the STI demands of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Therefore, it is important to understand the aerospace knowledge diffusion process itself and its implications at the individual, organizational, national and international levels. The project is planned in four phases. Phase 1, reported here, is designed to study the information-seeking methods of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Phase 2 is concerned primarily with the transfer of STI in government and industry and the role of librarians and technical information specialists in that transfer. Phase 3 looks at the use of STI in the academic aerospace community. Phase 4 will examine knowledge production, use, and transfer of STI among non-U.S, aerospace organizations and aerospace engineers and scientists. Part I Data Collection Methods In this initial phase of the study, we used three self-administered mailed questionnaires. The respondents' names were randomly drawn from the membership list of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and divided into three groups, one for each questionnaire. In Phase 1, we received responses from 3946 AIAA members. The adjusted response rates for the three questionnaires were: Questionnaire One, 67 percent; Questionnaire Two, 63 percent; and Questionnaire Three, 64 percent. The data were collected over a ten month period beginning in May, 1989 and extending to February, 1990. Description of the Participants We found that our participants were highly educated. Less than one percent did not have at least a Bachelor's degree. We found that 32 percent had a doctorate and 39 percent had a master's degree. Most worked in an industrial setting (51 percent). The next largest employer (22 percent) was government agencies. Twelve percent of the AIAA members in the sample were working in an academic setting. The years of professional work experience were broadly spread. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents had ten or fewer years experience. Twenty-one percent had between 11 and 20 years experience and 28 percent had 21 to 30 years experience. About one-quarter (22 percent) had more than 30 years experience. Most respondents (84 percent) reported that they had been trained as engineers, but only 67 percent classify their current duties as engineering in nature. Twelve percent had been trained as scientists. Less than five percent had neither form of training, but almost a quarter no longer considered their primary duties as engineering or science. The bulk of these respondents described their work as administrative, particularly "technical administrative/management in the profit sector." Over 80 percent of AIAA members received some federal funding for their research. The federal government supplied the largest portion of research funds for 75 percent of the survey respondents. Private industry supplied about one-fifth of research funds.

Original page 4

Part II The First Questionnaire There were 2016 AIAA members who returned the first questionnaire. The questions focused on four information sources used by engineers and scientists: conference and meeting papers, journal articles, in-house technical reports and government technical reports. Most respondents used all four information sources. Over half the participants rated each source as important for their professional duties. Use and Importance of Information Sources Information Sources Journal Articles .......................... (percents) Users Important 79.4 52.6 ................. 81.0 67.9 In-House Technical Reports .............. 79.3 55.2 Government Technical Reports ................. 79.7 54.6 Conference/Meeting Papers The factors that influenced use of particular accessibility, relevance and technical quality information sources varied slightly for each source, but or reliability were the most important factors for all four information sources. Cost was not an important factor for most of the AIAA members when choosing information sources. Non-users tended to rate all information sources lower than users did. The most marked differences were reflected in the ratings of accessibility and relevance. Non-users tended to rate each source as substantially less relevant than users and found the sources to be less accessible than users. It is probable that those who do not use a source do use them. regularly find it more difficult to access them when they The respondents were asked to describe their most important project over the last six months. More respondents (36 percent) reported working on a research project than any other type. A development project was most important for 21 percent. Additionally, most respondents indicated that the primary reason they used one of the four information sources was for research. We asked respondents to describe the steps they took in locating the information they needed to complete the most important technical project they had finished during the last six months. The survey participants indicated they tended to begin with their personal store of information sources, talk to colleagues informally, and then speak with a supervisor or other key person in their organization. They reported using the library only on the fifth or subsequent step. Ranking of Steps Taken In Locating Information Step Average Rank Used personal store of technical information ................ 7.59 Discussed the problem with a colleague in organization ........ 7.11 I discussed the problem with a key person in the organization ... 6.89 Discussed problem with my supervisor .................... 6.68 Intentionally searched library resources .................... 6.16 Searched a data base or had a data base searched ............. 6.13 Discussed the problem with a colleague outside the organization 6.01 Asked a librarian in the organization ..................... 5.27 Asked a librarian outside the organization .................. 4.12 2

Original page 5

Yet most of the participants (65 percent) considered the library to be important. When they did not use a library, it was usually because their needs could be more easily met some other way. The more informal and more immediate information sources were turned to first by the engineers and scientists before using the formal sources. The Second Questionnaire The second group (975 respondents) was also asked about their use and rating of various STI sources. Most respondents reported using DoD technical reports (59 percent) and NASA technical reports (74 percent). A smaller portion used AGARD technical reports (32 percent) and technical translations (25 percent). When asked to rate the importance of information sources for performing their professional duties, the AIAA members tended to rate the reports they used the most often as the most important. NASA technical reports and DoD reports were rated important by 51 percent and 41 percent, respectively. Use and Importance of Information Sources (percents) Information Source NASA Technical Reports ............. DoD Technical Reports ............... AGARD Technical Reports ............ Technical Translations ............... Users Important 73.5 51.0 58.7 40.9 32.2 16.8 24.5 8.3 Research was the primary reason cited for using these information sources. Management accounted for less than a quarter of the use of the various types one-fifth of the use of the information sources. of STI, and education accounted for about The primary reason cited for not using an information source was the lack of relevance to the respondent's research. Secondary reasons were problems with accessibility and availability. DoD, NASA and AGARD technical report use was influenced by accessibility and relevance. The participants reported that they found out most often about the NASA and DoD technical reports through citations in reports, journals or conference papers and that they obtained the reports most often by requesting them through the library. Non-users of NASA technical reports gave them much lower ratings in relevance, comprehensiveness and accessibility than users did. Non-users of DoD technical reports did not rate the reports much lower on most qualities than users did. There were much lower marks among non-users on accessibility, however. Surprisingly, non-users rated the DoD reports higher on ease of use than did users, indicating that once a report is obtained, it can be easily used. Actually obtaining the report was the more difficult problem. The Third Questionnaire The third questionnaire focused on the participants' use of various bibliographiesr databases and other sources of technical information, including STAR, NASA-SP 7037, CAB, GRA&I, RECON, DROLS, and NTIS File. There were 955 respondents. Most respondents did not extensively use many of the data sources we examined. Respondents who did not use the various data sources were, for the most part, not familiar with them.

Original page 6

Use and Familiarity With Aerospace Sources STAR ................................. NTIS ................................. RECON ................................ NASA SP-7037 .......................... GRA&I ............................... DROLS ............................... CAB ................................. Information Databases (percents) Familiar Using With Source Source 41.1 22.4 28.2 17.3 14.8 11,8 15.3 6.4 6.8 3.8 5.0 3.7 5.3 1.7 Respondents who used these information sources reported intermediaries often help them use the sources. Of the 12 percent who used RECON, 47 percent did all searches through intermediaries and 33 percent reported most RECON searches were done through intermediaries. Of those using DROLS (four percent), 53 percent used only intermediaries and 27 percent used intermediaries for most searches. Of the AIAA members who used NTIS File (17 percent), 54 percent reported using an intermediary for all searches and another 24 percent used an intermediary for most searches. The respondents tended to mention inaccessibility principal reasons they did not use these databases. Most respondents (60 percent) rated the and a reliance on others to do these searches as the results of federally-funded aerospace R&D as very important, and those who did not use it say it was not relevant for the work they did. Problems cited in obtaining federally-funded aerospace R&D related to difficulty in obtaining the information and limitations in the amount of time available to find the information. Part III Summary Phase 1 of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project is concerned primarily with the way aerospace engineers and scientists obtain and rate the information they need and use for their work. Some broad patterns have emerged. First, the AIAA members tended to use the STI they gather as part of their research projects. Most of the participants were involved in a major design or development. STI is, therefore, project within the last six months that involved research, crucial to the R & D process in the aerospace industry. Second, our respondents tended to begin with an informal search for information and to use their colleagues as an important information source. They turned to information specialists and librarians primarily when the use of databases was needed. Most or all database searches were conducted through intermediaries. Finally, accessibility, relevance, and technical quality were the most important factors affecting the use of information sources used by the AIAA members. Non-users gave the information sources lower marks in accessibility and relevance. The study participants tended to regard most of the information sources we examined as important, but they pointed out some barriers to the use of databases in locating STI. Since AIAA members turn to immediate sources first in their searches, we can assume they feel more comfortable with those sources. Sources for which assistance is needed are not as widely used nor as highly regarded. Difficulty of use limits the value of these sources.

Original page 7

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT Phase 2 of this project focuses on the role of industry and government information intermediaries, (librarians) and technical information specialists in the transfer of STI. Intermediaries from government and industry libraries with aerospace collections from across the United States and Canada were asked to evaluate many of the information sources reviewed by the AIAA members. In addition, they provided us with information about how information sources are used in their libraries. Analysis of these data is currently being conducted. Phase 3 of this project focuses on the academic sector of the aerospace community. Questionnaires were sent to undergraduate engineering students and to faculty in aerospace-related departments. Additionally, questionm,ires were sent to academic librarians in schools with aerospace programs. Each group was asked to evaluate aerospace STI and how STI is used. Analysis of these data is underway. Phase 4 began in summer, 1990 with a pilot study in Europe and Japan. A study of aerospace engineers and scientists in Britain is scheduled to begin in February, 1991. Additional surveys in NATO countries and Japan are planned. We have published a number of project reports and papers, a list of which is included with this report. If you would like additional information about any phase of this study or copies of the reports and papers that examine these data in more detail, please contact: John Kennedy Tom Pinelli Indiana University Mail Stop 180A Center for Survey Research NASA 1022 East Third Street Langley Research Center Bloomington, Indiana 47405 Hampton, VA 23665-5225 Telephone: (812) 855-2573 (804) 864-2491 FAX: (812) 855-2818 (804) 864-6131 INTERNET: kennedyj@ ucs.indiana.edu BITNET: kennedyj@iubacs We welcome your comments and suggestions.

Original page 8

NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT PUBLICATIONS Ream Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca O. Barclay. Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101534, Report 1, Part 1. February 1989. 106 p. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 89N26772.) Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca O. Barclay. Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101534, Report 1, Part 2. February 1989. 84 p. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 89N26773.) Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Rebecca O. Barclay; and Walter E. Oliu. Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study -- An Analysis of Managers' and Nonmanagers' Responses. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-101625, Report 2. August 1989. 58 p. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 90Nli647.) Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Rebecca O. Barclay; and Waiter E. Oliu. Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Managers' Responses. Washington, DC: Study -- An Analysis of Profit Managers' and Nonprofit National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM- 101626, Report 3. October 1989. 71 p. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 90N15848.) Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to Phase 1 Respondents. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-102772, Report 4. January 1991. 8 p. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA.) Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to Phase 1 Respondents Including Frequency Distributions. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-102773, Report 5. January 1991. 53 p. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA.) Pinelli, Thomas E. The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-102774, Report 6. January 1991. 350 p. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA.)

Original page 9

Pa_rs Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Rebecca O. Barclay; and Waiter E. Oliu. The Value of Scientific and Technical Information (STI), Its Relationship to Research and Development (R&D), and Its Use by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Paper 1. Paper presented at the European Forum "External Information: A Decision Tool" 19 January 1990, Strasbourg, France. Blados, Waiter R.; Thomas E. Pinelli; John M. Kennedy; and Rebecca O. Barclay. External Information Sources and Aerospace R&D: The Use and Importance of Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engin_rs and Scientists. Paper 2. Paper prepared for the 68th AGARD National Delegates Board Meeting, 29 March 1990, Toulouse, France. Kennedy, John M. and Thomas E. Pinelli. The Impact of a Sponsor Letter on Mail Survey Response Rates. Paper 3. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lancaster, PA, May 19, 1990. Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. Aerospace Librarians and Technical Information Specialists as Information Intermediaries: A Report of Phase 2 Activities of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 4. Paper presented at the Special Libraries Association, Aerospace Division - 81st Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 13, 1990. Pinelli, Thomas E.; Rebecca O. Barclay; John M. Kennedy; and Myron Glassman. Technical Communications in Aerospace: An Analysis of the Practices Reported by U.S. and European Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Paper 5. Paper presented at the International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), Post House Hotel, Guilford, England, September 14, 1990. Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion in the Academic Community: A Report of Phase 3 Activities of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 6. Paper presented at the 1990 Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education - Engineering Libraries Division, Toronto, Canada, June 27, 1990. Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project: The DoD Perspective." Paper 7. Paper presented at the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) 1990 Annual Users Training Conference, Alexandria, VA, November 1, 1990. 7

Original page 10

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF RESPONDENTS' ANSWERS The following tables reflect the actual number of respondents answering each question in a specific way rather than the percentages of respondents choosing an answer. For most questions, all respondents were eligible to respond. However, for some questions, only respondents answering a previous question in a specific way were eligible. In some cases, a large number of respondents did not answer a question, although eligible to do so. Most of these questions had yes-no answers and it is safe to assume that "no answer" means no or did not use the information sources. Using actual frequency of response should provide readers with a clearer picture of the meaning of the data. Question order (and in some cases, question text) has been slightly modified for ease of presentation and reader use. Any reader with particular interest in the data can contact the authors for additional information and assistance. The supplementary questions were sent six months later to every respondent in the sample. Not all of the original respondents completed the supplementary questionnaire. The frequencies can be viewed either as one set or as three sets. Here, for ease of use, they have been shown as three sets, reflecting the original three groups of respondents. Readers may wish to add them together for review. Again, requests for additional information and assistance in data interpretation are welcome. 8

Original page 11

Survey 1 2016 Respondents

Original page 12

Original page 13

SURVEY 1 Which of the following information sourcea do you use in performing duties? Yes Conference/Meeting Papers 1607 Journal Articles 1600 In-House Technical Reports 1633 Government Technical Reports 1599 In term_ of performing your present professional duties, how important Very Important 1 5O5 554 Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles 5O9 510 In-House Technical Reports 757 551 Government Technical Reports 438 631 your present professional No No Answer 264 144 273 142 225 157 270 146 are the following information sources? Very Unimportant 5 491 246 143 538 238 143 310 154 153 495 235 137 In the past six months, approximately how many times did you ule each of the following information sources in performing your present professional duties? 0 Times Once Twice 3-10 11 Plus Conference/Meeting Papers 273 226 262 741 363 Journal Articles 290 198 234 727 407 In-House Technical Reports 230 136 217 804 478 Government Technical Reports 292 252 235 774 308 Do you use the following types or kinds of information in performing Yes Basic Scientific and Technology Information 1752 In-House Technical Data 1734 1560 Computer Programs Technical Specifications 1369 Product & Performance Characteristics 1416 11 your present professional duties? No No Answer 213 50 220 62 389 67 565 82 528 72 PRECEDii"_G PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

Original page 14

To what extent was the use of Conference/Meeting Papers, Journal Articles, In-IIotme Technical Reports and Government Technical Reports influenced by: Greatly Conference/Meeting Papers Influenced I Accessibility 502 Ease of Use 274 Expense 132 Familiarity or Experience 327 Technical Quality or Reliability 409 Comprehensiveness 240 Relevance 572 Journal Articles Accessibility 519 Ease of Use 268 Expense 158 Familiarity or Experience 322 Technical Quality or Reliability 610 Comprehensiveness 325 Relevance 500 In-lIouse Technical Reports Accessibility 747 Ease of Use 408 Expense 255 Familiarity or Experience 499 Technical Quality or Reliability 456 Comprehensiveness 334 Relevance 797 Government Technical Reports Accessibility 468 Ease of Use 227 Expense 152 Familiarity or Experience 289 Technical Quality or Reliability 407 Comprehensiveness 309 Relevance 525 Not Influenced 5 616 407 128 60 618 499 215 103 259 439 430 446 683 425 185 91 694 434 118 59 600 548 231 85 671 319 116 29 616 337 115 51 629 510 183 66 294 437 377 393 660 443 158 77 648 304 70 35 626 473 189 43 631 383 114 30 489 234 108 92 587 391 171 109 209 280 290 631 610 329 139 89 663 443 126 51 611 502 210 79 555 268 78 34 538 434 205 78 616 543 242 91 237 459 378 488 669 487 194 82 672 474 132 43 629 547 181 55 668 388 112 31 12

Original page 15

SURVEY 1 In the past six months, what percentage of Conference/Meeting Papers, Journal Articles, h-Rouse Technical Reports and Government Technical Reports were used for: Conference/Meeting Papers 0_ 1-25_ 26-50_ 51-75_ 76-100_ Education 84 410 Research 40 192 Management 139 253 Other 128 159 Journal Articles Education 62 370 Research 38 216 Management 137 232 Other 128 133 ln-llouee Technical Reports Education 122 398 Research 50 203 Management 117 235 Other 127 145 Government Technical Reports Education 102 374 Research 41 182 Management 129 229 Other 125 145 13 319 70 113 364 163 499 181 46 82 44 18 29 338 87 152 376 150 461 172 31 65 56 14 27 240 28 51 335 150 504 240 71 132 61 20 61 242 43 73 352 144 541 202 51 97 64 15 48

Original page 16

SURVEY 1 In the past six months, approximately what percentage In-House Technical Data, Computer Progran_, Technical Char_cterlstics were found in the following information sources? 1-:S% 2e-so% Sl-TS% 76-10o% Basic Scientific and 0% Technology Information Conference/Meeting Papers 117 Journal Articles 113 In-ttouse Technical Reports 150 Government Technical Reports 136 In-llouse Technical Data Conference/Meeting Papers 256 Journal Articles 276 In-llouse Technical Reports 56 Government Technical Reports 249 Computer Programs Conference/Meeting Papers 470 Journal Articles 448 In-House Technical Reports 254 Government Technical Reports 406 Technical Specifications Conference/Meeting Papers 358 Journal Articles 352 In-House Technical Reports 127 Government Technical Reports 181 Product and Performance Characteristics Conference/Meeting Papers 313 Journal Articles 292 In-House Technical Reports 150 Government Technical Reports 238 of Basic Scientific and Technology Information, Specifications, and Product and Performance 800 441 77 27 760 447 95 72 633 406 155 116 878 346 43 21 582 164 30 11 545 147 17 12 297 328 184 662 509 246 28 16 278 125 25 19 307 116 27 51 264 201 85 429 331 145 20 46 278 83 12 5 250 86 8 19 253 326 99 300 302 309 80 149 401 125 12 13 371 132 32 53 265 310 116 280 370 246 47 47 14

Original page 17

SURVEY1 Does your organization have a fibrary and/or technical information center.'? Yes 1738 No 171 No Answer 107 llow far from it are you7 Less than 1/8 mile (220 yards) 820 1/8+ to 1/4 mile (I block} 258 1/4+ to 1/2 mile 184 Over 1/2 to 1 mile 141 1 to 2 miles 79 Over 2 to 5 miles 72 6 to 19 miles 70 20 to 100 miles 38 Over 100 miles 35 Ilow many times in the past six months have you: 0 Times Once Twice 3- I0 11 Plus Visited a library/technical information center 126 184 756 487 293 Sought the help of a staff member of L/TI 491 290 313 510 116 Been offered assistance by a staff member 729 212 206 380 86 Requested something in writing or electronically 590 235 230 466 145 Requested something by telephone 807 212 210 325 55 131 102 192 46 Requested something through a proxy 1025 Requested something or had a library request something from some other library 1495 68 18 8 427 Which of the following statements best describes any reasorm you did NOT visit or request something from a library or technical information center in the past six months. Ilad no information needs My information needs were more easily met some other way Tried them once or twice before but they were not able to help me Y_ No 63 78 126 25 16 110 The lib/tech info center is physically too far away from where I work 39 93 The lib/tech info center staff is not cooperative or helpful The lib/tech info center does not understand my information needs The lib/tech info center does not have the information I need 10 116 17 109 39 87 I have my own personal library and do not need a lib/tech info center 50 80 The lib/tech info center is too slow in getting the information I need We have to pay to use the lib/tech info center We are discouraged from using the lib/tech info center 15 26 99 8 118 2 124

Original page 18

SURVEY 1 In ternm of performing your present professional duties how important is a library or technical information center? Very_ Important 1 2 3 751 521 394 Very Unimportant 4 5 202 76 In performing your present professional duties how do you view your use of the following information technologies? I already use it I don't use it but I don't use it and Electronic Databases 1109 Electronic Networks 829 Laser Disc/Video Disc/CD-ROM 146 Micrographics and Microfilms 1229 Teleconferencing 974 Video Conferencing 388 Fax or Telex 1725 Electronic Bulletin Boards 568 Electronic Mail 1035 Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes 764 Floppy Discs 1607 Desktop/Electronie Publishing 1048 Video Tapes 1170 Motion Picture Films 548 Audio Tapes and Cassettes 716 may in the future doubt if I will 695 136 835 241 1212 524 380 322 642 309 1014 500 174 49 965 371 714 178 642 490 241 93 665 204 541 218 570 796 623 577 16

Original page 19

SURVEY 1 In completing your most important technical project during the past months, what steps did you follow in looking for the information you needed to complete the project, task or to solve the problem? I searched a database or had it searched for me I checked with a librarian/tech info specialist outside my organization I checked with a librarian/tech info specialist in my organization articles, 111 217 204 620 731 I consulted library sources (conference/meeting papers, journal technical reports) I spoke with a key person outside my organization to whom I usually look for new information I spoke with a key person in my organisation to whom I usually look for new information I discussed the problem with my supervisor I discussed the problem informally with a colleague(s) I 588 267 274 354 371 I used my personal store of technical information, including sources keep in my office Which of the following best characterizes the most important project, task or problem you have worked on in the past six months? Educational 77 Research 674 Design 364 Development 398 Manufacturing lg Production 35 Management 230 Computer Applications 89 Were government technical reports used to complete the task? Yes 1205 No 700 No Answer 110 six 1st 2nd Srd 4th or Not Step Step Step More Used 195 119 124 460 1026 21 34 34 32O 1532 5O 68 73 416 1317 86 154 158 533 970 183 224 232 368 898 247 140 127 324 1097 203 433 323 375 532 At what stage in the technical project or task or in solving the problem did you use the government technical report(s)? Yes Throughout the duration of the technical project 832 Near the beginning 521 Near the middle 272 Near the end 177 17 No 177 115 217 271

Original page 20

SURVEY1 How did you find out about the government technical report(s)? I used my personal store of technical information By intentional search of library resources By asking a colleague in my organization By asking a colleague outside my organi_ation By asking a librarian or technical information speciallst By asking my supervisor Someone informed me without my asking By accident, browsing or looking for other information I searched a database or had it searched for me YES NO 1026 75 613 283 712 200 616 261 376 411 281 454 294 462 323 428 547 327 To what degree wM the information found in the government technical report(s) effective or efficient in completing the technical task or in solving the problem? Extremely Effective 1 2 $ 170 514 484 Extremely Efficient 1 2 $ 94 440 593 Extremely Ineffective 4 5 75 6 Extremely Inefficient 4 5 102 13 18

Original page 21

SURVEY 1 Which is the highest level of education that you have completed? 10 No Degree Technical or Vocational Degree 9 Bachelor's Degree 543 Master's Degree 774 Doctorate 5O3 Postdoctorate 115 Other 26 Compare your educational preparation and present duties: Educational Preparation Present Professional Duties Engineer 1325 Engineer 1627 Scientist 168 Scientist 235 Other 99 Other The type of organigatlon where you work: 470 Academic 257 Industrial 1044 Government (DoD) 202 Not-for-Profit 84 Government (NASA} 200 Retired or Not Employed 28 Government (other} 52 Other What is your primary professional duty? 116 202 Technical Administrative/Management Academic/Teaching 219 Research 328 (govt., not-for-profit) 556 Administrative/Management (for profit) 73 Design/Development/RDTE Manufacturing/Production 20 Technical Administrative/Management Marketing/SMes 40 (for profit} 409 Services/Maintenance 7 Admlnistrative/Management 42 Other 85 (govt., not-for-profit) What is your principal AI.AA interest group? Aerospace Sciences 428 Space & Missile Systems 469 Aircraft Systems 267 Structures, Design & Test 212 Information & Logistics Systems 66 Other 241 Propulsion & Energy 282 19

Original page 22

SURVEY 1 Which of the following best characterizes your area of work or characterizes the application of your work? Aeronautics 494 Astronautics 208 Engineering 800 Geosciences 12 Life Sciences 10 Is any of your current work funded by the Federal (]ovemment ? Yes 1631 No 337 No Answer 48 Who supplies the largest proportion of funds for your current reseach/project (s)? Federal Government Private Industry Educational Institution Not-For-Profit Institution Other Mathematical & Computer Sciences 85 Materials & Chemistry 38 Physics 54 Space Sciences 77 Other 198 1461 382 49 11 46 20

Original page 23

Survey 1 Supplementary Questions 2016 Eligible Respondents 972 Did Not Respond 21

Original page 24

Original page 25

SURVEY 1 Please rate each of the information sources (Conference/Meeting Papers, Journal Articles, In-House Technical Reports, NASA Technical Reports and DoD Technical Reports} on their accessibility, ease of use and expense. Very Accessibility Accessible 1 132 306 Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles 403 394 In-House Technical Reports 298 222 NASA Technical Reports 180 283 DoD Technical Reports 60 170 Very Easy Ease of Use To Use 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 148 390 Journal Articles 194 449 ln-Itouse Technical Reports 170 355 NASA Technical Reports 145 432 DoD Technical Reports 54 268 Reasonably Expense Priced 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 139 237 Journal Articles 223 304 In-House Technical Reports 490 143 NASA Technical Reports 294 276 DoD Technical Reports 212 209 Accessibility, that is, the ease of getting to the information source. Ease of Use, that is, the ease of comprehending or utilizing the information. Expense, that is, low cost in comparison to other sources. 23 Not At All Accessible 5 29O 196 13 110 34 1 129 137 35 253 133 11 220 219 39 Not At All Easy To Use 5 309 78 10 227 65 4 231 51 5 233 36 8 285 72 12 Too Expensive 5 269 199 61 254 109 22 98 30 6 203 31 8 193 43 8 t_[,,,,=. INTENTIONAL I_LANK PRECEDING PAGE BLAFqK NOT F]Lr,_--.-D

Original page 26

SURVEY1 Pleaae rate each of the information sources (Conference/Meeting Papers, Journal Articles, In-House Technical Reports, NASA Technical Reports quality or reliability, comprehensiveness and relevance. Technical Quality Excellent or Reliability 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 57 Journal Articles 253 In-IIouse Technical Reports 89 NASA Technical Reports 191 DoD Technical Reports 60 Comprehensiveness Comprehensive 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 49 Journal Articles 127 In-House Technical Reports 91 NASA Technical Reports 134 DoD Technical Reports 6O Very Relevance Relevant 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 108 Journal Articles 141 In-House Technical Reports 197 NASA Technical Reports 145 DoD Technical Reports 90 and Dod Technical Reports on their technical Poor 5 328 426 113 10 517 151 21 1 353 309 52 7 429 206 27 3 275 294 60 4 Not Comprehensive 5 247 391 208 39 409 291 102 11 281 297 119 22 397 254 63 8 236 297 89 12 Not At All Relevant 5 308 362 146 382 309 104 349 198 6O 366 284 54 255 271 75 Technical Quality or Reliabilty, that is, the information sources were expected to be the best in terms of quality, accuracy and reliability. Comprehenmiveness, that is, the expectation that the information source would provide broad coverage of the available knowledge. Relevance, that is, the expectation that a high percentage of the information retrieved from the source would be used. 24

Original page 27

Survey 2 97S Respondents 25

Original page 28

Original page 29

SURVEY 2 Which of the following information sources do you use in performing duties? Yes Conference/Meeting Papers 820 Journal Articles 831 Technical Translations 239 Technical Reports - AGARD 314 Technical Reports - DoD 572 Technical Reports - NASA 717 In terms of performing your present profession duties, how important Very Important 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 306 265 Journal Articles 307 252 Technical Translations 22 48 Technical Reports - AGARD 47 94 Technical Reports - DoD 177 192 Technical Reports - NASA 219 257 your present professional No No Answer 117 38 105 39 520 216 478 182 283 120 184 74 is each of the following information sources? Not at all Important S 4 5 207 103 75 221 98 71 129 217 425 143 165 393 192 120 220 197 110 150 What percentage of the following were used in paper and what percentage in microfiche? Percentage in Paper 0% 1-25% Technical Translations 2 5 AGARD Technical Reports 0 4 DoD Technical Reports 0 9 NASA Technical Reports 1 8 Percentage in Microfiche Technical Translations 6 7 AGARD Technical Reports 9 10 DoD Technical Reports 13 48 NASA Technical Reports 14 51 What percentage of the following were used for education, research i , Percentage for Education Technical Translations 3 13 AGARD Technical Reports 2 11 DoD Technical Reports 5 39 NASA Technical Reports . 4 53 Percentage for Research Technical Translations 1 6 AGARD Technical Reports 1 11 DoD Technica] Reports 0 29 NASA Technical Reports 2 25 Percentage for Management Technical Translations 4 6 AGARD Technical Reports 4 6 DOD Technical Reports 5 31 NASA Technical Reports 9 36 27 FII.|NTENTIONAL 8LAHI_ 26-50% 51-76% 76-100% 13 3 120 15 4 187 30 20 420 36 22 533 15 1 17 12 5 17 34 6 25 39 11 20 or management.'/ 14 0 7 32 2 9 39 4 14 73 I0 29 17 7 111 27 16 153 55 27 311 74 38 391 11 0 6 11 1 6 50 12 33 28 8 26 PRECEDi_"_G PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

Original page 30

SURVEY2 How often do you usually obtain physical acceu to AGARD and NASA Technical Reports from each of these sources? AGARD Technical Reports Frequently AGARD sends them to me 16 The author sends them to me I0 I request them from the author 5 I request/order from my library 84 I request/order from NTIS 19 I get them from a colleague 29 They are routed to me by library 15 DoD Technical Reports DoD sends them to me 75 The author sends them to me 38 I request them from the author 2O I request/order from my library 174 I request/order from NTIS 65 I get them from a colleague 67 They are routed to me by library 29 NASA Technical Reports NASA sends them to me 107 The author sends them to me 53 I request them from the author 41 I request/order from my library 221 I request/order from NTIS 71 I get them from a colleague 88 They are routed to me by library 30 Technical Reports, DoD Technical Reports Sometimes Seldom Never 16 31 151 34 44 125 35 53 118 94 21 25 57 42 94 96 5O 45 25 36 138 115 79 215 102 112 227 134 147 174 193 79 41 133 116 159 224 124 68 61 104 271 145 106 240 168 127 247 182 150 214 231 76 77 143 119 252 291 135 84 72 107 362 28

Original page 31

SURVEY 2 How would you rate AGARD Technical Reports, DoD Technical Reports and NASA Technical Reports on each of the following characteristics? AGARD Technical Reports Excellent Good 62 139 Quality of information Precision/accuracy of data 45 151 Adequacy of 36 131 data/documentation Organization/format 45 109 Quality of graphics 29 113 Timeliness/currency 33 103 "Advancing the state of the art" in your discipline 34 92 DoD Technical Reports 63 338 Quality of information Precision/accuracy of data 50 340 Adequacy of 35 263 data/documentation 42 252 Organi_ation/format Quality of graphics 38 206 Timeliness/currency 50 231 "Advancing the state of the art" in your discipline 55 209 NASA Technical Reports Quality of information 166 413 Precision/accuracy of data 164 389 Adequacy of 115 359 data/documentation Organization/format 118 361 Quality of graphics 122 348 Timeliness/currency 114 318 "Advancing the state of the art" in your discipline 138 286 29 Fair Poor No opinion 23 25 50 6 63 5 66 17 65 2O 73 22 4 90 8 91 15 172 17 12 171 24 10 186 62 8 174 33 10 178 39 12 41 65 128 14 6 131 7 7 123 26 7 155 21 14 153 24 I1

Original page 32

SURVEY 2 To what extent has each of the following factors influenced Reports, DoD Technical Reports and NASA Technical Reports7 Greatly Technical Translations Influenced Accessibility 57 Ease of Use 23 Expense 8 Familiarity or Experience 31 Technical Quality or Reliability 27 Comprehensiveness 16 Relevance 46 AGARD Technical Reports Accessibility 57 Ease of Use 38 Expense 13 Familiarity or Experience 38 Technical Quality or Reliability 40 Comprehensiveness 42 Relevance 65 DoD Technical Reports Accessibility 156 Ease of Use 72 Expense 49 Familiarity or Experience 92 Technical Quality or Reliability 63 Comprehensiveness 51 Relevance 147 NASA Technical Reports Accessibility 262 Ease of Use 146 Expense 88 Familiarity or Experience 186 Technical Quality or Reliability 174 Comprehensiveness 134 Relevance 218 your use of Technical Translations, AGARD Technical Not Influenced 5 47 31 12 12 55 47 17 14 20 40 32 53 40 44 19 21 52 51 16 9 47 58 18 16 60 34 7 8 72 51 21 22 79 64 24 19 32 57 36 85 77 68 18 22 108 54 10 13 106 59 8 9 90 56 4 10 197 90 25 24 190 143 46 35 100 90 81 169 211 119 36 34 210 168 31 20 193 186 42 20 2O6 111 20 8 230 83 17 29 288 124 21 39 126 136 71 197 250 119 30 36 291 112 23 23 274 157 27 27 274 I00 20 11 30

Original page 33

SURVEY 2 How oRen do you find out about ACARD Technical ReporfJ, DoD Technical Reports and NASA Technical Reports from these sources? AGARD Technica] Reports Frequently Bibliographic database search 38 Announcement journal 43 Current awareness publication 16 Cited in a report/journal/ conference paper 79 Referred to me by colleague 50 Referred to me by librarian/ tech info specialist 17 Routed to me by library 15 By intentional search of library resources 53 By accident, by browsing, looking for other material 14 AGARD sends them to me 18 The author sends them to me I0 DoD Technical Reports Bibliographic database search 105 Announcement journal 57 Current awareness publication 37 Cited in a report/journal/ conference paper 157 Referred to me by colleague 126 Referred to me by librarian/ tech info specialist 46 Routed to me by library 38 By intentional search of library resources 120 By accident, by browsing, looking for other material 20 DoD sends them to me 67 The author sends them to me 35 NASA Technical Reports Bibliographic database search 147 Announcement journal 105 Current awareness publication 46 Cited in a report/journ_l] conference paper 239 Referred to me by colleague 16T Referred to me by librarian/ tech info specialist 45 Routed to me by library 30 By intentional search of library resources 162 By accident, by browsing, looking for other materiM 33 NASA sends them to me 91 The author sends them to me 43 31 Sometimes Seldom Never 83 53 43 56 58 63 40 58 98 105 28 11 i01 46 27 52 68 90 29 39 135 99 36 3O 71 78 54 20 19 161 28 51 127 182 119 67 142 128 142 87 141 193 221 82 26 210 106 42 117 155 151 66 106 255 181 115 61 163 190 97 104 71 232 97 106 230 188 128 117 154 135 192 120 135 276 267 7O 28 285 97 54 133 166 236 71 118 354 225 124 75 220 224 111 139 116 252 159 116 267

Original page 34

SURVEY2 In the past six months, about how many times did you use Technical Translations, AGARD Technical Reports, DoD Technical Reports and NASA Technical Reports? Once Technical Translations 38 AGARD Technical Reports 54 DOD Technical Reports 51 NASA Technical Reports 63 Twice 3 to 1O II Plus 37 51 5 53 74 9 71 235 67 95 287 76 In the past six months, if none, why did you not use Technical Translations, AGARD Technical Reports, DoD Technical Reports or NASA Technical Reports? Technical Translations Not Available/Accessible Not Relevant to my Research Not Used in my Discipline Not Reliable/Technically Inaccurate Not Reliable/Language Inaccurate Not Timely/Current Takes Too Long to Get Them AGARD Technical Reports Not Available/Accessible Not Relevant to my Research Not Used in my Discipline Not Reliable/Technically Inaccurate Not Timely/Current Other DoD Technical Reports Not Available/Accessible Not Relevant to my Research Not Used in my Discipline Not Reliable/Technically Inaccurate Not Timely/Current Other NAgA Technical Reports Not Available/Accessible Not Relevant to my Research Not Used in my Discipline Not Reliable/Technically Inaccurate Not Timely/Current Other Y_ No 278 529 366 441 205 602 27 780 47 760 152 655 214 593 212 525 297 440 181 556 8 729 44 693 75 662 127 336 194 278 85 387 I0 462 33 439 35 437 64 277 160 181 80 255 3 338 7 334 25 316 32

Original page 35

SURVEY 2 Which is the highest level of education that you have completed? No Degree 2 Doctorate 264 Technical or Vocational Degree 7 Postdoctorate 58 Bachelor's Degree 243 Other Master's Degree 379 Compare your educational preparation and present duties: 13 Educational Preparation Present Professional Duties An Engineer 803 An Engineer 610 A Scientist 104 A Scientist 86 Other 54 Other 219 Is the type of organization where you work: Academic 173 Industrial 476 Government (DoD) 103 Not-for-Profit 46 Government (NASA) 88 Retired or Not Employed 13 Government (other) 19 Other 47 What is your primary professional duty? Academic/Teaching 143 Tech Administrative/Management (gov't not-for-profit) 88 Research 140 Administrative/Management Design/Development/RDTE 259 Manufacturing/Production 8 (profit sector) 36 Tech Administrative/Management Marketing/Sales 17 Service/Maintenance 4 (profit sector) 197 Administrative/Management Private Consultant 20 (gov't not-for-profit) 17 Other What is your principal AIAA interest group? 33 Aerospace Sciences 207 Space & Missile Systems 230 Aircraft Systems 118 Structures, Design & Test 102 Information & Logistics Systems 32 Other 99 Propulsion & Energy 166 33 /

Original page 36

SURVEY 2 Which of the following best characterizes your area of work or the application of your work? Aeronautics Mathematical & Computer Sciences 37 269 Astronautics Materials & Chemistry 15 117 Physics 17 Engineering 382 G eosciences 7 Space Sciences 23 Life Sciences 8 Other 90 Who supplies the largest proportion of funds for your current research/project(s)? Federal Government 713 Not-for-Profit Institution 8 Private Industry 166 Other 35 Educational Institution 33 How many years of professional work experience in aerospace do you have? 0 to 10 years 262 II to 20 years 184 21 to 30 years 285 31 to 60 years 222 Is any of your current work funded by the Federal Government? YesNo E 774144 34

Original page 37

Survey 2 Supplementary Questions 975 Eligible Respondents 436 Did Not Respond 35

Original page 38

Original page 39

SURVEY 2 Please rate each of the information sources (Conference/Meeting Papers, Journal Articles, In-House Technical Reports, NASA Technical Reports and DoD Technical Reports on their accessibility, ease of use and expense. Very Accessibility Accessible 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 63 169 Journal Articles 218 193 In-House Technical Reports 106 104 NASA Technical Reports 88 173 DoD Technical Reports 28 87 Very Easy Ease of Use To Use 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 72 229 Journal Articles 103 220 In-House Technical Reports 65 155 NASA Technical Reports 91 217 DoD Technical Reports 31 129 Reasonably Expense Priced 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 79 106 Journal Articles 121 149 In-House Technical Reports 195 77 NASA Technical Reports 137 151 DoD Technical Reports 80 120 Accessibility, that is, the ease of getting to the information source. Not At All Accessible 5 150 103 2 65 ii 2 64 87 21 115 59 12 116 109 35 Not At All Easy to Use 4 5 142 39 129 32 117 32 114 17 149 36 Too Expensive 5 148 104 30 135 58 10 60 21 4 103 19 4 97 25 6 Ease of Use. that is, the ease of comprehending or utilising the information. I, Expense, that is, low cost in comparison to other sources. 37 PRECEDING PAGE BLANK E36_INTENTIONAL_ IL_'ANI NOT FILMED

Original page 40

SURVEY 2 Pleue rate each of the information sources (Conference/Meeting Papera, Journal Articles, In-House Technical Reports, NASA Technical Reports and DoD Technical Reports on their technical quality or reliability, comprehensiveness and relevance. Technical Quality Excellent or Reliability 1 169 229 52 Conference/Meeting Papers 31 Poor 2 $ 4 5 Journal Articles 124 265 90 6 In-House Technical Reports 43 161 132 32 95 218 114 10 NASA Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports 17 146 154 26 Comprehensiveness Comprehensive 1 129 213 100 15 Conference/Meeting Papers 27 Not Comprehensive 5 Journal Articles 225 146 43 4 70 In-House Technical Reports 141 137 59 6 31 68 202 137 29 2 NASA Technical Reports 128 159 37 3 DoD Technical Reports 19 Very Relevance Relevant 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 57 Not At All Relevant 5 178 185 66 Journal Articles 70 218 152 45 In-House Technical Reports 78 208 125 27 NASA Technical Reports 77 DoD TechnicM Reports. 45 164 111 20 133 146 21 Technical Quality or Reliabilty, that is, the information sources were expected to be the best in terms of quality, accuracy and reliability. Comprehensiveness, that is, the expectation that the information source would provide broad coverage of the available knowledge. Relevance, that is, the expectation that a high percentage of the information retrieved from the source would be used. 38

Original page 41

Survey 3 955 Respondents 39

Original page 42

Original page 43

SURVEY 3 yes Do you use: No Frequently STAR 714 36 NASA SP-7037 867 8 CAB 919 3 GRA&I 898 6 RECON 816 22 DROLS 895 4 NTIS File 766 2g Federally- Funded Aerospace R&D 338 280 Foreign Language Technical Reports 695 10 Are you familiar with: Yes No STAR 182 521 NASA SP-7037 85 77g CAB 34 867 G RA&I 30 855 RECON 50 760 DROLS 17 874 NTIS File 106 655 In terms of performing your present Very professional duties, how important are: Important STAR 32 NASA SP-7037 8 CAB 3 GRA&I 3 Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D 363 Foreign Language Technical Reports 19 41 yes Yes Not Sometimes Seldom Answered 112 63 2O 33 2O 15 6 8 10 14 15 12 47 42 16 18 9 18 82 52 16 238 78 13 6g 120 Somewhat Of Little Important Importance 121 64 37 15 g 5 18 12 208 30 106 70 1_, |NTENTIONAL['_fflLANK PRECEDING PAGE BLAi'4K NOT FILMED

Original page 44

SURVEY 3 Why don't you use: (Answered only by non-users familiar with bibliographic tools). STAR Not easily available/accessible Not relevant for what I do Don't use technical reports Can get the same information more easily from another source Rely on others to search for relevant/needed information Difficult to obtain what's in there NASA SP-7037 Not easily available/accessible Not relevant for what I do Don't use technical reports Can get the same information more easily from another source Rely on others to search for relevant/needed information Difficult to obtain what's in there CAB Not easily available/accessible Not relevant for what I do Don't use technical reports Can get the same information more easily from another source Rely on others to search for relevant/needed information Difficult to obtain what's in there G RA&I Not easily available/accessible Not relevant for what I do Don't use technical reports Can get the same information more easily from another source Rely on others to search for relevant/needed information Difficult to obtain what's in there Circled Not Circled 75 133 55 153 12 196 36 172 79 129 11 197 32 70 22 80 4 98 16 86 38 64 4 98 15 46 I0 51 3 58 53 15 46 2 59 13 42 9 46 5 50 48 12 43 2 53 42

Original page 45

SURVEY 3 ,.= ,,, Why don't you use, (Answered only by non-users familiac with bibliogrpahic tools). , . _ ', RECON Not easily available/accessible Not relevant for what [ do Skil! in using computer hardware/software Skill in using a database Not thnely/current Can get the same information more easily from another source Difficult to obtain what's in there The system is not "user friendly" DROLS Not easily available/accessible Not relevant for what I do Skill in using computer hardware/software Skill in using a database Not timely/current Can get the same information more easily from another source Difficult to obtain what's in there The system is not "user friendly" NTIS File Not emily available/accesslble Not relevant for what I do Skill ia using computer hardware/software Skill ill using a database Not timely/current Can get the same information more easily from another source Difficult to obtain what's in there The system is not "user friendly" ,, Circled Not Circled 21 49 16 54 4 66 6 64 0 70 15 55 1 69 0 70 29 33 35 36 36 33 36 36 38 85 47 76 3 120 6 117 4 119 26 97 4 119 0 123 Why don't you use: (Answered only by non-users familiar with bibliographic tools.) Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D Not easily available/accessible Not relevant for what I do Not timely/current Difficult to obtain Foreign Language Technical Reports Not easily available/accessible Not relevant for what I do Don't read the language Don't use technical reports Physical access, time required to obtain a translation Red tape involved in obtaining a foreign language technical report Not reliable/language translation inaccurate h_tellectual quality of the research 43 Circled Not Circled 106 237 180 168 14 334 39 309 261 442 221 484 390 315 40 665 180 525 59 646 39 666 15 690

Original page 46

SURVEY3 To what extent has each of the following factors influenced Greatly GRA&I Influenced I Accessibility Ease of Use Expense Familiarity or Experience Technical Quality or Reliability Comprehensiveness Relevance RECON Accessibility 44 Ease of Use 18 Expense 13 Familiarity or Experience 20 Technical Quality or Reliability 23 Comprehensiveness 26 Relevance 22 DROLS Accessibility Ease of Use Expense Familiarity or Experience Technical Quality or Reliability Comprehensiveness Relevance NTIS File Accessibility 55 Ease of Use 25 Expense 13 Familiarity or Experience 26 Technical Quality or Reliability 24 Comprehensiveness 27 Relevance 24 your use of GRA&I, RECON, DROLS and NTIS File? Not Influenced B 10 11 12 14 9 9 10 14 14 7 15 II 11 I0 36 13 6 4 42 21 10 9 22 17 13 34 30 30 14 35 28 7 45 21 7 44 26 6 13 3 3 14 6 3 6 7 5 8 12 1 7 9 3 10 I0 2 8 7 5 42 40 6 I0 50 43 15 16 28 36 22 45 47 43 13 19 60 51 5 10 61 41 11 9 59 44 12 9 44

Original page 47

SURVEY 3 What problems do you most encounter when seeking the results of federally-funded aerospace R&D. v Time required to find information Physical access: time required to obtain the information Physical quality of published information Intellectual quality of published information Limitations/restrictions/access to the information None Circled Not Circled 307 299 333 273 77 529 62 544 192 414 82 524 To what extent has each of the following factors influenced your use of STAR, NASA SP-7037 and CAB? Greatly STAR Influenced I 2 Accessibility 60 83 Ease of Use 37 97 Expense 29 40 Familiarity or Experience 42 80 Technical Quality or Reliability 30 92 Comprehensiveness 29 82 Relevance 29 91 NASA SP-7037 Accessibility 16 22 Ease of Use 14 2O Expense 11 9 Familiarity or Experience 7 16 Technical Quality or Reliability 11 22 Comprehensiveness 12 16 Relevance 9 14 CAB Accessibility Ease of Use Expense Familiarity or Experience Technical Quality or Reliability Comprehensiveness Relevance 45 Not Influenced $ 4 5 48 14 8 54 15 9 52 24 64 62 15 12 65 11 13 69 16 14 61 20 10 15 1 17 3 19 11 26 3 21 4 27 2 31 2

Original page 48

SURVEY 3 In the past six months, what percentage of your use of STAR, NASA SP-7037, CAB, GRA&I, RECON, DROLS AND NTIS File were used for educational, purposes, research and for management? Education 0_ 1-25_ STAR 10 50 NASA SP-7037 1 13 CAB 1 4 GRA&I 2 2 RECON 7 14 DROLS 0 6 NTIS File 12 26 Research STAR 19 NASA SP-7037 9 CAB 3 GRA&I 2 RECON 7 DROLS 2 NTIS File 11 Management STAR 13 34 NASA SP-7037 2 8 CAB 12 6 GRA&I 1 3 RECON 9 11 DROLS 0 5 NTIS File 10 16 Other STAR 17 14 NASA SP-7037 2 5 CAB 1 i GRA&I 2 0 RECON 9 6 DROLS 0 2 NTIS File 13 6 If you use RECON, DROLS or NTIS File do you: Do all searches yourself Do most searches yourself Do half by yourself and half through an intermediary Do most searches through an intermediary Do all searches through an intermediary 26-50_ 51-75_ 76-100_ 38 10 17 12 2 6 2 0 0 6 0 2 14 1 4 1 0 1 16 1 10 43 21 109 15 5 20 4 3 7 7 2 17 12 9 67 5 2 19 18 8 96 12 7 0 4 9 7 14 RECON DROLS NTIS File 1 6 14 6 0 ll 15 1 12 37 9 40 53 18 89 46

Original page 49

SURVEY 3 Which is the highest level of education that you have completed? No degree 7 JD I Technical or Vocational Degree 4 Doctorate 278 Doctorate 36 Bachelor's Degree 242 Post Master's Degree 336 Other MBA 36 Compare your educational preparation and present duties: 13 Educational Preparation Present Professional Duties An Engineer 808 An Engineer 624 A Scientist 113 A Scientist 81 Other 29 Other Which best describes the type of organisation where you work? Academic 130 Industrial 214 505 Government (DoD) 97 Not-for-Profit 40 Government (NASA) 99 Retired or Not Employed 7 Government (other) 12 Other What is your primary professional duty? 59 Academic/Teaching 104 Tech Administrative/Management not-for-profit) 97 Research 138 (gov't, Design/Development RDT&E 279 Ad minist rative/Man agement (profit sector) 31 Manufacturing/Production 9 Marketing/SMes 17 Tech Administrative/Management Service/Maintenance 7 (profit sector) 190 Administrative/Management Private (not-for-profit) 13 Other What is your primary AIAA interest group? Consultant 27 39 Aerospace Sciences 208 Space & Missile Systems 207 Aircraft Systems 134 Structures, Information & Logistic Systems 27 Other Propulsion & Energy 139 47 Design & Test 120 114

Original page 50

SURVEY3 Whichofthefollowingbestcharacteri_esyourareaofworkortheapplicationofyourwork? Math & Computer Sciences 46 Aeronautics 249 Materials & Chemistry 25 Astronautics 119 Engineering 377 Physics Space Sciences 34 Geosciences 4 2O Life Sciences Other 65 6 Who supplies the largest proportion of funds for your current research/project(s)? Federal Government 701 Educational Institution 20 Private Industry 179 Not-for-Profit Institution 6 Other 29 T_ How many years of professional work experience do you have? 0 to 10 years 265 11 to 20 years 212 21 to 30 years 274 31 to 40 years 169 41 to 60 years 20 Is any of your current research funded by the Federal Government? Yes 796 No 141 48

Original page 51

Survey 3 Supplementary Questions 955 Eligible Respondents 465 Did Not Respond 49

Original page 52

Original page 53

SURVEY 3 Please rate each of the following information sources (Conference/Meeting Papers, Journal Articles, In-House Technical Reports, NASA Technical Reports, DoD Technical Reports) on their accessibility, ease of use and expense. Very Accessibility Accessible 1 2 Conference/Meeting Papers 62 158 Journal Articles 204 143 In-ttouse Technical Reports 106 O0 NASA Technical Reports 81 127 DoD Technical Reports 27 67 Very Easy Ease of Use To Use 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 60 107 Journal Articles 87 215 In-House Technical Reports 69 150 NASA Technical Reports 78 185 DoD Technical Reports 19 115 Reasonably Expense Priced I Conference/Meeting Papers 82 102 Journal Articles 101 125 In-House Technical Reports 182 68 NASA Technical Reports 128 114 DoD Technical Reports 77 8O Accessibility, that is, the ease of getting to the information source. Not At All Accessible 3 4 5 132 74 9 59 19 3 52 77 23 116 58 10 95 92 24 Not At All Easy To Use 5 131 30 O0 24 91 28 104 20 125 35 Too Expensive 5 114 77 35 130 37 16 49 II 6 87 20 6 82 26 7 Ease of Use, that is,the ease of comprehending or utilizingthe information. Expense, that is,low cost in comparison to other sources. 51 (0 FF,_[ ____. iNTENTIONALLYSLANt PRECEDING PAGE BLAroK NOT FILMED

Original page 54

SURVEY 3 Please rate each of the information sources (Conference/Meeting Papers, Journal Articles, In-House Technical Reports, NASA Technical Reports and DoD Technical comprehensiveness and relevance. Technical Quality Excellent or Reliability 1 Conference/Meetlng Papers 39 Journal Articles 118 In-House Technical Reports 28 NASA Technical Reports 79 DoD Technical Reports 22 Comprehensivenems Comprehensive 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 22 Journal Articles 38 In-House Technical Reports 32 NASA Technical Reports 50 DoD Technical Reports 22 Very Relevance Relevant 1 Conference/Meeting Papers 48 Journal Articles 63 In-House Technical Reports 71 NASA Technical Reports 66 DoD Technical Reports 36 Reports) on their technical quality or reliability, Poor 2 3 4 5 138 189 60 2 220 74 12 0 164 121 19 6 202 89 15 1 107 137 25 2 Not Comprehe_e 5 117 177 96 19 203 138 42 4 130 121 48 6 183 124 26 2 93 129 40 8 Not At All Relevant 5 175 155 51 183 138 37 140 107 20 165 130 25 101 123 30 Technical Quality or Reliabilty, that is, the information sources were expected to be the best in terms of quality, accuracy and reliability. Comprehensiveness, that is, the expectation that the information source would provide broad coverage of the available knowledge. Relevance, that is, the expectation that a high percentage of the information retrieved from the source would be used. 52

Original page 55

Original page 56