Full report

Original page 1

m NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project NASA Technical Memorandum 110238 Report Number 45 The Technical Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 3 U.S. Aerospace Engineering Educators Survey Thomas E. Pinelli NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia Rebecca O. Barclay Knowledge Transfer International Portsmouth, Virginia John M. Kennedy Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana July 1996 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Original page 2

Original page 3

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

Original page 4

In this report, we summarizethe literatureon technicalreports,provide a model thatdepicts the transfer of federally funded aerospaceR&D through the U.S. governmenttechnicalreport, and present the results of the Phase3 AerospaceEngineeringEducatorsmail survey. We summarizethe findings of the Phase3 mail survey in terms of the technical communication practicesof U.S. aerospaceengineersandscientistswhoweremembersof the AmericanInstitute of AeronauticsandAstronautics(AIAA) andwereidentified as educators. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Although they have the potential for increasing technological innovation, productivity, and economic competitiveness, U.S. government limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. technical reports may not be utilized because of According to Ballard, et al., (1986), the current system "virtually guarantees that much of the Federal investment in creating STI will not be paid back in terms of tangible products and innovations." They further state that "a more active and coordinated role in STI transfer is needed at the Federal level if technical reports are to be better utilized." Characteristics of Technical Reports The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different roles in communication within and between organizations. The technical report has been defined etymologically, according to report content and method (U.S. Department of Defense, 1964); behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al., 1964); and rhetorically, according to the function of the report within a system for communicating STI (Mathes and Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical report literature are difficult to establish because of wide variations in the content, purpose, and audience being addressed. The nature of the report -- whether it is informative, analytical, or assertive - contributes to the difficulty. Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many shapes, sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary; they might be brief (two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche, computer printouts or vugraphs, and often they are loose leaf (with periodic changes that need to be inserted) or have a paper cover, and often contain foldouts. They slump on the shelf, their staples or prong fasteners snag other documents on the shelf, and they are not neat." Technical reports may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Gibb and Phillips, 1979; Subramanyam, 1981): • Publication is not through the publishing • Readership/audience is usually limited. trade. 2

Original page 5

• Distribution may be limited or restricted. • Contentmay includestatisticaldata,catalogs,directions,design criteria, conference papers and proceedings, literature reviews, or bibliographies. • Publication may involve a variety of printing and binding methods. The SATCOM report (National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, 1969) lists the following characteristics • It is written for an individual or organization reports. • It is basically a stewardship report to some reported. of the technical report: that has the right to require such agency that has funded the research being • It permits prompt dissemination of data results on a typically flexible distribution basis. • It can convey the total research story, including exhaustive exposition, detailed tables, ample illustrations, and full discussion of unsuccessful approaches. History and Growth of the U.S. Government Technical Report The development of the [U.S. government] technical report as a major means of communicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey the establishment of the U.S. Office of Scientific and Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and Research and Development (OSRD). Further, the growth of the U.S. government technical report coincides with the expanding role of the Federal government in science and technology during the post World War II era. However, U.S. government technical reports have existed for several decades. The Bureau of Mines Reports of Investigation (Redman, 1965/66), the Professional Papers of the United States GeologicaI Survey, and the Technological Papers of the National Bureau of Standards (Auger, 1975) are early examples of U.S. government technical reports. Perhaps the first U.S. government publications officially created to document the results of federally funded (U.S.) R&D were the technical reports first published by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1917. Auger (1975) states that "the history of technical report literature in the U.S. coincides almost entirely with the development of aeronautics, the aviation industry, and the creation of the NACA, which issued its first report in 1917." In her study, Information Transfer in Engineering, Shuchman (1981) reports that 75% of the engineers she surveyed used technical reports; that technical reports were important to engineers doing applied work; and that aerospace engineers, more than any other group of engineers, referred to technical reports. However, in many of these studies, including Shuchman's, it is often unclear whether U.S. government technical reports, non-U.S, government technical reports, or both are included (Pinelli, 1991a).

Original page 6

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

Original page 7

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 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 users to determine what knowledge is available, producers, then better opportunities exist for acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The strength of this model rests on the recognition that STI transfer and use are critical elements of the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is passive, for it does not take users into consideration except when they enter the system and request assistance. The dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-user transfer procedures that are seldom responsive in the user context. User requirements of information products and services. The Knowledge Diffusion Model The knowledge diffusion model is grounded are seldom known or considered in the design 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, 1992; Branscomb, 1991). 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

Original page 8

Informal (Collegial) Surrogates Producers • DTIC • DoD • CAB • DROLS • NASA • CASI • DoD/NASA • STAR contractors • RECON & grantees • NTIS • GRA& I • NTIS file Formal m--tin Information Users Intermediaries • Aerospace • Librarians engineers and scientists • Gatekeepers • Aerospace • Linking eng_neermg agents faculty and students • Knowledge brokers Figure 1. The U.S. Government Technical Report in a Model Depicting the Dissemination of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. 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 Information (CASI), and the National Technical have created a variety of technical report Awareness Bibliographies), STAB (Scientific Information Service (NTIS). These surrogates announcement journals such as CAB (Current 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 (197T), 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

Original page 9

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 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 information transfer (Bikson, et al., 1984). communications are required for effective Second, the formal part relies heavily on information intermediaries to complete the knowledge transfer process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition, empirical data on the effectiveness of information knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. intermediaries and the role(s) they play in The impact of information intermediaries is likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context. According to Roberts and Frohman (1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion 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.

Original page 10

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 (Pinelli, 1991b ). The results of these studies studies having been undertaken in the late 1960s 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 been attributed to the lack of a unifying theory, a standardized methodology, and the common definitions (Rohde, 1986). Despite the fact that numerous "information use" studies have been conducted, the information-seeking behavior of engineers and information use in engineering are neither broadly known nor well understood. There are a number of reasons (Berul, et al., 1965): (1) many of the studies were conducted for narrow or specific purposes in unique environments such as experimental laboratories; (2) many, if not most, of them focused on scientists exclusively or engineers working in a research environment; especially engineers working in manufacturing (3) few studies have concentrated on engineers, and production; (4) from an information use standpoint, some engineering disciplines have yet to be studied; (5) most of the studies have concentrated on the users' use of information packages such as professional journals rather in terms of a library and/or specific information than how users produce, transfer, and use information; and (6) many of the studies, as previously stated, were not methodologically sophisticated and few included testable hypotheses or valid procedures for testing the study's hypotheses. Further, we know very little about the diffusion of knowledge in specific communities such as aerospace. In the past 25 years, few studies have been devoted to understanding the information environment in which aerospace engineers and scientists work, the information-seeking behavior of aerospace engineers and scientists, and the factors that influence the use of federally funded aerospace STI. Presumably, the results of such studies would have implications for current and future aerospace STI systems and for making decisions regarding the transfer and use of federally funded aerospace STI. RESULTS OF THE PHASE 3 U.S. AEROSPACE ENGINEERING EDUCATORS MAIL SURVEY This research was conducted as a Phase 3 activity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Survey participants consisted of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and identified themselves as educators. 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

Original page 11

pretestedon a group of aerospaceengineersand scientistsacrossthe country. The Indiana University staff preparedan envelopefor eachindividualthatcontainedan ll-page questionnaire and the cover letter. A random sampleof 500 AIAA memberswho identified themselvesas educatorswereselectedfrom the group. The envelopeswerepackagedandmailedto the NASA Langley ResearchCenter(LaRC) on February9, 1996,for mailing. The envelopeswere mailed from NASA LaRC on February13, 1996. BetweenFebruary13 andApril 16, 1996,324 usablequestionnaireswere returned. Thirtysevenquestionnaireswerereturnedasunusablebecause(1) the recipientwasnot aneducator,(2) the survey was not applicableto them, or (3) the recipientwas too busy to participatein the study. The adjustedcompletionrate for the surveywas72.2%. 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 324 responses, the total number of usable surveys received by the established cut-off date.

Original page 12

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS Survey demographics for the 324 respondents appear in table 1. The following "composite" participant profile was developed for the respondents: works in academia (100%), has a doctorate (92.0%), has an average of 22 years of aerospace work experience, was educated as and works as an engineer (63.5%), and is male (95.0%). 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 (74.8%) were categorized as research. About 12.1% and 6.5% of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as other and management, respectively. Most respondents (75.6%) worked with others (did not work alone) in completing problem. their most important job-related project, task, or Number of Groups and Group Size. On average, respondents worked with 2.6 groups; each group contained an average of 4.4 members (table 2). A majority of respondents (65.0%) performed engineering duties while working on their most important job-related project, task, or problem. About 8.4% 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 4.3 (of a possible 5.00). Respondents were also asked to rate the amount of technical uncertainty they faced when they started their most important project, task, or problem. The average (mean) technical uncertainty score was 3.7 (of a possible 5.00). Correlation coefficients (Pearson's r) were calculated to compare (1) the overall "level of project, task, or problem complexity" and "technical uncertainty" and (2) the level of "project, task, or problem complexity by category" and "technical uncertainty." The correlation coefficients appear in table 3. Positive and significant correlations were found for both comparisons. These findings support the hypothesis that there is a (positive) relationship between technical uncertainty and complexity. Project, Task, or Problem and Information following information sources used to complete problem: (1) used personal stores of technical Use. Respondents were given a list of the their most important job-related project, task, or information, (2) spoke with coworkers inside the organization, (3) spoke with colleagues outside of the organization, (4) spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist, (5) used literature resources in the organization's library (6) searched (or had someone search for me) an electronic (bibliographic) data base. They were 10

Original page 13

Table 1. Survey Demographics [n = 324] Demographics Do You Currently Work In: Academia Is Any Of Your Work Funded By The Government: Yes No Your Highest Level Of Education: No Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Other Type Of Degree Your Years In Aerospace: 0 years 1 Through 5 Years 6 Through 10 Years 11 Through 20 Years 21 Through 40 Years 41 Or More Years Mean = 22.3 Years Median = 22.0 Years Your Education: Engineer Scientist Other Your Primary Duties: Engineer Scientist Other Is Your Work Best Classified As: Quality Control/Assurance Research Management Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Computer Applications Other Your Gender: Female Male 11 Percentage Number 100.0 324 70.7 229 29.3 95 0.9 3 6.2 20 92.0 298 0.9 3 0.3 I 7.3 23 14.2 45 26.9 85 45.9 145 5.4 17 83.9 271 13.3 43 2.8 9 63.5 205 20.7 67 15.8 51 ..° 74.8 241 6.5 21 3.7 12 2.8 9 12.1 39 5.0 16 95.0 307

Original page 14

Table 2. Project, Task, or Problem Categorization Factors Categories Of Project, Task, Or Problem: Quality Assurance/Control Research Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Computer Applications Management Other Worked On Project, Task Or Problem: Alone With Others Mean Number Of Groups = 2.6 Mean Number of People/Group = 4.4 Nature Of Duties Performed: Engineering Science Management Other Percentage Number 74.8 241 3.7 12 n- 2.8 9 6.5 21 12.1 39 24.4 78 75.6 242 65.0 210 18.6 60 8.4 27 8.0 26 Table 3. Correlation of Project Complexity and Technical Uncertainty by Type of Project, Task, or Problem Complexity - Uncertainty Correlation Overall a Quality Assurance/Control Research Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Management Computer Applications Other n r 321 .000"* 240 .001"* 12 .416 ... 21 .562 9 .284 39 .000 _* a Overall mean complexity (uncertainty) score = 4.3 (3.7) out of a possible 5.00. ** r values are statistically significant at p < 0.01. asked to identify the steps they followed to obtain needed information by sequencing these items (e.g., #1,#2,#3,#4, #5, and #6). 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

Table4. Information SourcesUsedto SolveProject,Task,or Problem Used Used Used Used Used Used Not First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Used InformationSource % % % % % % PersonalStoreOf Technical Information 69.7 10.9 10.9 3.6 3.3 1.0 0.7 SpokeWith Coworker(s) InsideThe Organization 8.0 32.5 18.9 14.3 8.0 2.4 15.7 SpokeWith Colleagues OutsideOf The Organization 7.8 17.3 UsedLiteratureResources In My Organization's Library 9.3 20.7 SpokeWith A Librarian/ TechnicalInformation Specialist 0.0 3.3 Searched(Or HadSomeone SearchFor Me)An Electronic (Bibliographic)DataBase 6.9 18.6 26.9 17.7 12.6 5.8 11.9 19.3 16.9 13.8 4.8 15.2 5.9 10.3 8.5 13.7 58.3 19.2 18.9 11.3 2.4 22.7 Use of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. About 85% (274) 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 leamed 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. One of the five "federal initiatives" was the source 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. "yes" were asked about the importance of these The 84% (231) of respondents who answered results in completing the project, task, or problem. A 5-point scale (1.0 = not at all important, 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. The mean importance rating was 4.2. Almost 80% of those who used federally funded R&D (185 respondents) responded with an importance rating of "4" or "5". About 68% (156) of those who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem indicated that the results were published in either a NASA or DoD technical report. 13

Original page 16

Table 5. Sources the Results of Federally Source 1. Professional And Society Journals 2. Coworkers Inside My Organization 3. Trade Journals Reports 76.0 168 4. NASA And DoD Technical Used to Learn About Funded Aerospace R&D Percentage Number 89.6 206 61.4 135 27.6 60 Organization 78.6 176 5. Colleagues Outside My 6. NASA And DoD Contacts 75.2 170 Meetings 86.7 196 7. Professional And Society 8. Searches of Computerized Data 9. NASA And DoD Sponsored Conferences And Workshops Bases 68.3 153 62.1 136 10. Visits To NASA And DoD Facilities 57.7 128 11. Publications Such As STAR 12. Librarians Inside My Organization 24.0 52 25.9 55 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 61% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem. About 63% reported that the "time and effort it took to physically obtain the results" was a problem. About 26% indicated that "accuracy, precision, and reliability of the results" was a problem, and about 29% reported that "distribution limitations or security restrictions" constituted a problem. About 20%/22% 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 = not at all important; 5.0 = very important). Importance and Time Spent. The mean importance rating was 4.8; approximately 90% 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 written materials (an average of 14

Original page 17

Table 6. ProblemsRelatedto Use of Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D Problem Time And Effort To Locate Results Time And Effort To Obtain Results Accuracy, Precision And Reliability Of Results Distribution Limitations Or Security Restrictions Of Results Organization Or Format Of Results Legibility Or Readability Of Results 12.1 hours/week) than oral discussions (an average Percentage Number 61.1 146 63.2 151 26.4 63 28.9 69 20.1 48 21.8 52 of 11.6 hours/week). Approximately 53% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information to others had increased over the past 5 years. About 5% indicated a decrease in the amount of time spent communicating technical information to others over the same period. Respondents were also asked to report the total number of hours per week spent working with technical information, both written and oral, received from others in the past 6 months (see table 7). Respondents reported spending more time working with written technical information received from others (an average of 9.4 hours/week) than with technical information received orally from others (an average of 5.0 hours/week). Approximately 57% 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 10% indicated a decrease in the amount of time they spent working with technical information received from others. 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 16% of the survey respondents indicated that about 100% of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. [The mean percent was (X = 59.8) and the median percent was 70.0.] About 72% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. [The mean percent was (X = 23.0) and the median percent was 20.0.] About 54% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. [The mean percent was ('X = 14.5) and the median percent was 5.0.] About 10% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of more than five people. [The mean percent was _ = 1.8) and the median percent was 0.0.] 15

Original page 18

Table7. Technical Communications: Importance,Time Spent,andChangeOverTime Communication And Receipt Of Information Importance Of Communicating Technical Information: Unimportant Neither important Nor Unimportant Important Mean = 4.8 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 = 12.1 Median = 10.0 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 = 11.6 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 = 9.4 Median = 10.0 Percentage Number 1.5 5 8.0 26 90.5 293 0.9 3 22.0 70 40.3 128 11.6 37 16.4 52 8.8 28 1.3 4 22.8 71 36.9 115 16.3 51 16.7 52 6.1 19 52.6 169 42.1 135 5.3 17 0.3 1 36.9 117 42.6 135 7.3 23 9.5 3O 3.5 11 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 = 5.0 Median = 4.0 3.4 I0 73.4 215 18.4 54 1.7 5 3.1 9 0.0 0 Professional Advancement And Changes l. Amount Of Time Spent Working With Technical Information Received From Others: Increased Stayed The Same Decreased 57.2 183 32.5 104 10.3 33 16

Original page 19

Surveyparticipantswho write collaborativelywere askedif they find writing as part of a groupmoreor lessproductive(i.e.,producingmorewritten productsor producingbetterwritten products)than writing alone. The responsesappearin table 8. Overall, slightly more of the respondentsindicatedthat writing with a group is more productivethan writing alone. About 35% indicated that a group is more productive and about 32% indicated that a group is less productive. About 34% indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. Table 8. Influence of Group Participation on Writing Productivity How Productive Alone 35.0 92 A Group Is More Productive Than Writing Alone 33.5 88 A Group Is About As Productive As Writing A Group Is Less Productive Than Writing Alone Percentage Number 31.6 83 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 46% (124 respondents) indicated "yes" they had worked with the same group, and about 54% indicated that they had worked with various groups. Of those who indicated that they had worked in the same group, these respondents were asked how many people were in the group. About 87% (107 respondents) indicated a group size of 2-5 people and about 7% (8 respondents) indicated a group size of 6-10 people. The mean number of people 3.0. in the group was X = 3.4 and the median was Those 143 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 21% (29 respondents) reported working with 2 groups, about 42% (59 respondents) reported working with 3 groups, about 16% (22 respondents) reported working with 4 groups, about 11% (16 respondents) reported working with 5 groups, and about 11% (15 respondents) reported working with 6-10 groups. The average (mean) number of groups was X = 3.7 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 4% reported working with a group of 6-10 people. The average (mean) the median number of people per group was 3.0. number of people per group was X = 3.5 and Technical Information Products Produced. Survey participants were given a list of technical information products. They were asked to indicate the number of these products they had written or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months and if those products had been written or prepared as part of a group. The 10 most frequently produced (alone) technical information products appear in table 9. Survey participants were also asked to indicate the number of these products they had written or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months as part of a group. The 10 most frequently prepared (as part of a group) technical information products 17 appear in table 10. Data shown in table 10

Original page 20

includethe numberof productsproduced(meanandmedian)andthe average(meanandmedian) numbersof peopleper group. Table9. TechnicalInformation ProductsWritten or ProducedAlone in the Past6 Months Products Memoranda Letters Drawings/Specifications Abstracts Audio/Visual Materials In-house Technical Reports Computer Program Documentation Conference/Meeting Papers Technical Talks/Presentations Technical Proposals MeanCx) Median 18.9 2.0 33.7 10.0 1.4 0.0 1.3 1.0 4.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 5.3 2.0 1.5 0.0 A comparison of the data contained in tables 9 and 10 reveals more similarities than differences. The production numbers vary but the products included on both lists (products produced alone or as part of a group) are essentially identical. The average numbers of people per group for the various products produced are fairly similar in size. Survey participants were given a list of technical information products. They were asked to indicate approximately how many times in the past 6 months they had used each of them. The 10 most frequently used technical information products appear in table 11. A comparison of the data contained in tables 9 (production) and 11 (use) reveals two differences. First, on average, more products are used than are produced. Second, there are slight differences in the types or kinds of products produced and used. Technical Information Products -- Use, Importance, and Frequency of Use Survey participants were asked several questions designed to obtain a greater understanding of the factors affecting the use of technical reports. In this study, technical reports were placed within the context of two technical information articles. DoD, in-house, and NASA technical products: conference/meeting papers and journal reports were included in this study. Us...___e.Survey participants were asked if they used the aforementioned technical information products in performing their present professional duties. Table 12 includes data regarding use. 18

Original page 21

Table 10. Technical InformationProductsWritten or Produced as Part of a Group in the Past 6 Months Information Products Drawings/Specificarlons Letters Memoranda Audio/Visual Materials Conference/Meeting Papers Trade/Promotional Literature Technical Talks/Presentations Abstracts Journal Articles Technical Proposals Average Number of In a Group People Per Group Mean (X) Median Mean (X) Median 0.8 0.0 2.7 2.0 1.1 0.0 4.2 2.0 0.4 0.0 2.1 2.0 1.1 0.0 3.6 2.0 1.6 1.0 2.9 2.0 0.4 0.0 4.1 2.0 1.0 0.0 4.1 2.0 1.4 0.0 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.0 3.0 3.0 Table 11. Technical Information Product Used in the Past 6 Months Information Products Journal Articles Memoranda Letters Trade/Promotional Literature Drawings/Specifications Abstracts Audio/Visual Materials Computer Program Documentation Conference/Meeting Papers Technical Talks/Presentations Mean C)_) Median 20.6 10.0 20.8 0.0 29.0 4.0 4.8 0.0 3.6 0.0 12.1 3.0 6.1 0.0 3.2 0.0 12.6 6.0 7.7 1.0 Table 12. Technical Information Products Used Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports 19 Percentage Number 95.3 305 97.2 312 53.7 158 56.4 171 81.1 253

Original page 22

Importance. Survey participants were aforementioned technical information products asked "how important is it for you to use the in performing your present professional duties?" Table 13 includes data regarding the importance of technical information products. A 5-point scale (1.0 = not at all important; 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. Table 13. Importance of Technical Information Products Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports Mean CX) Importance Number 4.2 322 4.5 322 2.6 303 2.8 307 3.4 320 Approximately 79% (254 respondents) indicated that the use of conference/meeting papers was "very or somewhat"important to their work. Approximately 90% (290 respondents) indicated that the use of journal articles was "very or somewhat" important to their work. Approximately 26% (78 respondents) indicated that in-house technical reports were "very or somewhat" important to their work. Approximately 28% (87 respondents) and 50% (160 respondents), respectively, indicated that DoD and NASA technical reports were "very or somewhat" important to their work. Frequency of Use. Survey participants were asked to indicate the number of times each of the five technical information products had been used in a 6 month period in the performance of their professional duties (table 14). Data are presented both as means and medians. Journal Table 14. Average Number of Times (Median) Technical Information Products Used in a 6 Month Period Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports articles were used (X = 20.6) to a much greater Mean C)() Use Median 12.6 6.0 20.6 10.0 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.5 0.0 extent than were the other technical information products. Conference/meeting papers C)( = 12.6) were used to a lesser extent followed by NASA C_ = 2.5), DoD technical reports C_ = 1.2), and in-house technical reports C_ = 1.1). 20

Original page 23

Technical Information Products -- Factors Affecting Use Even if they did not use them, survey participants were asked if they were deciding whether or not to use any of the five technical information products in performing their present professional duties, how important each of the eight characteristics (factors) would be in making that decision. For example, respondents were asked to indicate how important the factor, "they are easy to physically obtain," would be in making a decision to use conference/meeting papers. A 5-point scale (1.0 = not at all important; 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. The higher the number, the greater the influence of the factor on the use of conference/meeting papers. An overall mean C)) rating was calculated. A mean C) rating for users and non-users of each product is presented. Conference/Meeting Papers. The importance factor ratings for conference/meeting papers appear in table 15. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.8), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.6), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.4), (4) easy to physically obtain C)( = 4.3), and (5) easy to use or read C_ = 4.1). Table 15. Factors Affecting the Use of Conference/Meeting Papers Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Source 3.8 3.8 3.8 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n = 305 n=15 n = 324 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.4 3.9 4.4 4.8 4.7 4.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 Journal Articles. The importance factor ratings for journal articles appear in table 16. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work C_ = 4.8), (2) good technical quality ('X = 4.7), (3) comprehensive data and information C_ -- 4.4), (4) easy to physically obtain CX = 4.2), and (5) easy to use or read (X -- 4.1). 21

Original page 24

Table 16. Factors Affecting the Use of Journal Articles Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating ('X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n = 312 n=9 n = 324 4.2 4.9 4.2 4.1 4.8 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 Source 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 In-house Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for in-house technical reports appear in table 17. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.7), (2) good technical quality CX = 4.5), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.4), (4) easy to physically obtain (X = 4.1), and (5) easy to use or read (X = 4.0). DoD Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for DoD technical reports appear in table 18. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work CX = 4.6), (2) good technical quality CX = 4.5), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.3), (4) easy to physically obtain CX = 4.1), and (5) easy to use or read _ = 4.0). Table 17. Factors Affecting the Use of In-house Technical Reports Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality ]Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating 0() Rating CX) Rating ('X) n = 158 n = 136 n = 324 4.1 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.3 4.5 3.8 4.2 4.4 3.7 4.1 4.7 3.9 4.4 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.8 2.8 3.3 22

Original page 25

Table 18. Factors Affecting the Use of DoD Technical Reports Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Source 3.6 3.6 3.6 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating ('X) Rating ('X) n = 171 n = 132 n = 324 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.6 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.5 3.5 3.2 3.4 NASA Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for NASA technical reports appear in table 19. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work C)( = 4.7), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.6), (3) comprehensive data and information C_ = 4.4), (4) easy to physically obtain ('X = 4.2), and (5) easy to use or read ('X = 4.1). Table 19. Factors Affecting the Use of NASA Technical Reports iFactors Are Easy To Physically Obtain lAre Easy To Use Or Read Are Expensive Have Good Technical Quality Having Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Source 3.8 3.6 3.7 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them 23 User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating CR) n = 253 n= 59 n = 324 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.7 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.7 3.7 3.0 3.6

Original page 26

Use of Computer and Information Technology Survey participants were asked if they use computer technology to prepare (written) technical communications. Almost all (98%) (309) of the survey respondents use computer technology to prepare (written) technical information. About 70% (222) of the respondents "always" use computer technology to prepare (written) technical information. About 98% (309) indicated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information. About 82% (257) of the respondents stated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information "a lot". From a prepared list, survey respondents were asked to indicate which computer software they used to prepare written technical communication (table 20). Word processing software was used most frequently by survey respondents, followed by spelling checkers, scientific graphics, and thesauruses. Outliners and prompters and business graphics were "least frequently" used to prepare written technical communication. Table 20. Use of Computer Software to Prepare Written Technical Communication Software Percentage Number Word Processing Outliners And Prompters Grammar And Style Checkers Spelling Checkers Thesauruses Business Graphics Scientific Graphics Desktop Publishing 99.4 312 16.9 37 48.8 121 92.4 281 53.9 130 31.9 72 90.3 271 44.7 109 Survey respondents were also given a list of information technologies and asked, "How do you view your use of the following information technologies in communicating technical information?" Their choices included "already use it"; "don't use it, but may in the future"; and "don't use it and doubt if I will". (See table 21.) The aerospace engineering educators in this study use a variety of information technologies. The percentages of "I already use it" responses ranged from a high of 97.5% (FAX or TELEX) to a low of 17.5% (video conferencing). 24

Original page 27

A list, in descendingorder, follows of the information technologiesmost frequently used. FAX or TELEX 97.5% Electronic Mail 96.0 Electronic Networks 77.4 Videotape 65.7 Electronic Databases 62.2 A list, in descendingorder,follows of the informationtechnologies"that arenot currentlybeing usedbut may be usedin the future." Video Conferencing 66.7% LaserDiskNideo Disk/CD-ROM 42.6 Electronic Bulletin Boards 40.5 MicrographicsandMicroforms 36.7 Desktop/ElectronicPublishing 34.0 Table 21. Use, Nonuse,andPotentialUse of InformationTechnologies Already Information Technologies Audio TapesAnd Cassettes 23.0 Motion Picture Films 23.9 Videotape 65.7 Desktop/Electronic Publishing 54.8 Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes 40.3 Electronic Mail 96.0 lElectronic Bulletin Boards 47.2 FAX or TELEX 97.5 Electronic Data Bases 62.2 Video Conferencing 17.5 !Micrographics And Microforms 25.3 iLaser Disk/Video Disk/CD-ROM 50.2 Electronic Networks 77.4 25 Don't Use It, Don't Use It, But May In And Doubt If Use It Future Will (n) % (n) (n) 69 25.0 75 52.0 156 71 25.9 77 50.2 149 205 25.3 79 9.0 28 166 34.0 103 11.2 34 119 28.5 84 31.2 92 310 4.0 13 0.0 0 141 40.5 121 12.4 37 313 2.5 8 0.0 0 186 33.1 99 4.7 14 52 66.7 198 15.8 47 71 36.7 103 38.1 107 153 42.6 130 7.2 22 240 18.4 57 4.2 13

Original page 28

Use and Importance of Electronic (Computer) Networks Survey participants were asked if they use electronic (computer) networks in their workplace in performing their present duties. About 77% of the respondents use electronic networks in performing their present duties and about 23% either do not use (20%), or do not have access to (3%) electronic networks. Survey respondents used electronic networks an average of 10.9 hours per week. (See table 22.) Table 22. Use of Electronic Use 0 Hours 1 - 10 Hours 11 - 25 Hours 26 - 50 Hours 51 Or More Hours Mean 10.9 Median 6.0 (Computer) Networks in One Week Percentage Number 0.4 1 71.5 203 17.6 5O 9.5 27 1.1 3 Respondents who use them were also asked to rate the importance of electronic (computer) networks in performing their present duties (table 23). Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important. About 83% of the respondents rated electronic networks important. About 12% rated them neither important nor unimportant, and about 6% rated electronic networks as unimportant. Table 23. Importance of Electronic (Computer) Networks Importance Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Unimportant Percentage Number 82.8 237 11.5 33 5.5 16 Respondents were asked how they accessed electronic (computer) networks (table 24): mainframe terminal, personal computers, and workstations. Access via personal computer (77.8%) was most frequently reported. Access via mainframe terminal/workstation was reported by 16.0%/42.7% of the survey respondents. 26

Original page 29

Table 24. How Electronic (Computer)Networksare Accessed Access Mainframe Terminal Personal Computer Workstation Respondents using them were asked to indicate % (n) 16.0 46 77.8 224 42.7 123 the purpose(s) for which they used electronic (computer) networks (table 25). Survey respondents indicated that electronic mail (99.3%), WWW (89.8%), connect to geographically distant sites (88.4%), accessing/searching the library's catalog (83.5%), and information search and retrieval using FTP (79.2%) represented their greatest use of electronic networks. Noticeable is the lack of electronic network use for acquiring (ordering) documents from the library and preparing scientific papers with colleagues at geographically distant sites. Table 25. Use of Electronic (Computer) Purpose Connect To Geographically Distant Sites Electronic Mail Electronic Bulletin Boards Or Conferences Access/Search The Library's Catalog Order Documents From The Library Bases 70.5 189 Search Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Prepare Scientific And Papers With Sites 54.1 140 Colleagues At Geographically Distant Networks for Specific Purposes Percentage Number 88.4 244 99.3 284 54.9 146 83.5 233 33.9 86 For Information Search/Data Retrieval With The Following FTP Gopher WAIS World Wide Web (WWW) 79.2 209 51.5 124 12.1 26 89.8 247 Survey participants who used electronic (computer) networks were asked to identify the groups with whom they exchanged messages or files (table 26). An average of 89% of the survey respondents used electronic networks to exchange files with members of their own work group and others in their organization but not in their work group. 27

Original page 30

Table 26. Useof Electronic(Computer)Networksto ExchangeMessagesor Files ExchangeWith -- PercentageNumber MembersOf Own Work Group 88.8 247 OthersIn Your OrganizationBut Not In Your Work Group 89.7 245 OthersIn Your Organization,Not In Your Work Group,At A Geographically Different Site 77.5 210 PeopleOutsideYour Work Group 95.0 264 Use and Importance of Libraries/Technical Information Centers Almost all of the survey respondents indicated that their organization has a library/technical information center. About 23% of the survey respondents indicated that the library/technical information center was located in the building where they worked. About 73% of the respondents indicated that the library/technical information center was located outside the building in which they worked. Four percent did not have a library/technical information of the respondents reported that their organization center. For 91% of the respondents, the library/technical information center was located 1 mile or less from where they worked. For about 9% of the respondents, the library/technical information center was located more than one mile from where they worked. Survey respondents were also asked if the proximity of their work setting (i.e., distance from their office to their organization's library/technical information center) affected their use of that facility (table 27). The importance of proximity was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important. About 13% of the respondents indicated that proximity was "not at all" important. About 28% indicated that proximity was "neither important nor unimportant." Twenty-one percent of the respondents indicated that proximity was "very important." Overall, survey respondents were about equally divided on the extent to which proximity of the work setting to the library/technical information center influence its use. Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of the organization's library/technical information center in terms of performing their professional duties. Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important (see table 28). About 76% of the aerospace engineers and scientists in the study indicated that their organization's library/technical information center was important or very important in performing their present professional duties. Approximately 17% of the survey respondents indicated that their library was neither important nor unimportant to performing their present professional duties. About 7% of respondents indicated that their organization's library/technical information center was not at all important to performing their present professional duties. 28

Original page 31

Table 27. The Influenceof Proximity of the Organization's Library/TechnicalInformationCenteron Use Percentage Number Proximity Unimportant Neither Important Nor Unimportant Important Mean 3.3 Median 3.0 24.3 71 27.7 81 47.9 140 Table 28. Importanceof the Organization'sLibrary/TechnicalInformation Centerto Performanceof PresentProfessionalDuties Percentage Number Importance Unimportant Neither Important Nor Unimportant Important Mean 4.2 Median 5.0 7.2 21 16.8 49 75.9 221 Surveyrespondentswere askedthe numberof times they hadusedtheir organization's library in the past 6 months (table 29). Survey respondents used their library/technical information center about 16 times in the past 6 months. About 6% of the survey respondents did not use their organization's library in the past 6 months. Reasons for not using the organization's library Table 29. Use of the Organization's Library/Technical Information Center in the Past 6 Months Number of Visits Percentage Number 0 1- 5 6 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 94 95 or More Mean 15.9 Median 10.0 29 6.2 19 28.9 88 28.2 86 23.3 71 7.9 24 1.6 5 3.9 12

Original page 32

are shownin table30. About 94%of the respondents' information needs were more easily met some other way. About 46% indicated that the library was too slow in getting the information they needed. About 33% indicated that the library did not have the information they needed. Table 30. Reasons Respondents Did Not Use A Library During the Past 6 Months Reason I Had No Information Needs My Information Needs Were More Easily Met Some Other Way Tried The Library Once Or Twice Before But I Couldn't Find The Information I Needed Helpful 0.0 0 The Library Staff Is Not Cooperative Or The Library Staff Does Not Understand My Information Needs The Library Did Not Have The Information I Have My Own Personal Library And Do Not Need Another Library The Library Is Too Slow In Getting The Information I Need We Have To Pay To Use The Library Library 7.7 1 We Are Discouraged From Using The FINDINGS Percentage Number 26.7 4 93.8 15 15.4 2 7.7 1 I Need 33.3 4 21.4 3 46.2 6 0.0 0 Readers should note that the data contained in this report reflect the responses of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the AIAA and were identified as educators. The results are not generalizable to (1) all U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who are members of the AIAA or other professional societies, (2) all U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, or (3) aerospace engineers and scientists employed outside of the U.S. 1. The "average" participant works in academia (100%), has a doctorate (92.0%), has an average of 22.3 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (83.9%/63.5%), works in research (74.8%), and is male (95%). 2. Their most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months was categorized as research (74.8%); 75.6% of the participants worked on this project, task, or problem with others. The mean number of groups involved was 2.6, and the mean number of people in a work group was 4.4. Engineering duties predominated (65.0%) followed by science duties (18.6%) in the completion of the most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months. 30

Original page 33

1. A positive andsignificantcorrelationwas foundbetweenthe overall complexityandtechnical uncertainty of the most importantjob-related project, task, or problem that respondentshad worked on in the past 6 months. 4. To complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem, respondents first went to their personal stores of technical information (69.7%); next, spoke with coworker(s) inside the organization (32.5%), third and fourth, spoke (26.9%/17.7%), and fifth, used literature resources with colleagues outside of the organization in the organization's library (13.8%). About 58% and 23%, respectively, did not speak to a librarian or search (or have searched) electronic data bases to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem. 5. Approximately 85% of the respondents reported using the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in their work. Of the six sources most frequently used to find out about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D, three involve interpersonal communication and three involve formal communication. Of the five "federal initiatives," NASA and DoD technical reports were used most often to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. 6. About 84% of the respondents had used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to complete their most important job-related project, About 80% of this group indicated that federally "very important" for completing this work. About task, or problem during the last 6 months. funded aerospace R&D was "important" or 68% (156 respondents) 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, 61.1% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem, it took to obtain the results" was a problem. and 63.2% reported that the "time and effort 8. About 90% of the respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical information effectively; respondents spent an average of 12.1 hours per week producing written material and 11.6 hours per week communicating information orally. Over the past 5 years approximately 53% have increased the amount of time they spend communicating information to others. Survey respondents reported spending an average of 9.4 hours per week working with written information received from others and an average of 5.0 hours per week working with information received orally from others. About 57% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spend working with technical information received from others has increased as they have advanced professionally. 9. About 16% of the respondents reported that all of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. About 72% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. About 54% indicated that their written technical 31

Original page 34

communicationsinvolvedwriting with a groupof two to five people. About 10% 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 35% indicated that a group is more productive and about 32% indicated that a group is less productive. About 34% indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. 11. A comparison of the technical information products produced and used reveals that on average, the survey respondents used more products than they produce. There are also slight differences in the types of technical information products produced and used. 12. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their use of and the importance to them of five technical information products. Journal articles were used most fi'equently (X = 20.6) and, along with conference/meeting papers, were rated most important Q( = 4.5/4.2). DoD and NASA technical reports were used by about 56% and 81% of the respondents and the mean importance ratings were 2.8 and 3.4, respectively. 13. Both users and non-users of the five information products were asked to indicate about the importance of eight factors in deciding whether to use any of the five information products. Overall, the factors exerting the greatest influence on decisions to use products follow. Conference/meeting papers -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to physically obtain, and (5) easy to use or read. Journal articles -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to physically obtain, and (5) easy to use or read. In-house technical reports -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to physically obtain, and (5) easy to use or read. DoD technical reports -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to physically obtain, and (5) easy to use or read. NASA technical reports -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to physically obtain, and (5) easy to use or read. 14. About 98% of the survey participants used computer technology to prepare written technical communications; about 98% of them indicated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information. 15. Word processing and spelling checkers preparing written technical information. were the computer software used most often in 32

Original page 35

16.FAX or TELEX, electronicmail, electronicnetworks,videoconferencing,andelectronicdata baseswere usedmost frequentlyby surveyrespondents. 17.About 77%of the surveyparticipantsusedelectronic(computer)networksin performingtheir presentprofessionalduties;they useelectronicnetworksanaverageof 10.9hoursper week; and about83% ratedthem importantin termsof performingtheir presentprofessionalduties. 18.About 78% of the respondentsaccesselectronic(computer)networksvia personalcomputer; about99%useelectronic(computer)networksfor electronicmail. 19. About 76% of survey respondentsindicated that the organization's library/technical information centerwas importantin performingtheir presentprofessionalduties. 20. On average,survey respondentsvisited their organization'slibrary/technical information center 16.9 times in a 6 month period; about 48% of survey respondentsindicated that the proximity of the work setting to the organization's library/technicalinformation center did influenceits use. 21. The most common reasonsfor not using the organization'slibrary/technicalinformation centerincluded "my informationneedswere moreeasily metsomeotherway," "the library was too slow getting the information I needed,"and "the library did not have the information I needed." REFERENCES Adam, R. "Pulling the Minds 1975 Science Information 519-531. 33 of Social Scientists Together: Towards a System." International Social Journal 27(3):

Original page 36

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

Original page 37

Eveland, J. D. Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and 1987 Findings. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Not available from NTIS.) Flanagan, J. C. "The Critical Incident Technique." Psychology Bulletin 51:4 1954 (July): 327-358. Fry, B. M. Library Organization and Management of Technical Reports 1953 Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Gibb, J. M. and "Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." E. Phillips Journal of Communication Studies 1: 225-234. 1979 Godfrey, L. E. and Dictionary of Report H.F. Redman Association. 1973 Goldhor, R. S. and "University-to-Industry Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries Advanced Technology Transfer: A Case R. T. Lund Study." Research Policy 12: 121-152. 1983 Lancaster, F. W. Critical Incident Techniques. Urbana IL: University of Illinois 1978 Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Mathes, J. C. and Designing TechnicaI D. W. Stevenson 1976 Reports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. 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 1981 Administration Review 41(3): 331-339. 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. 35

Original page 38

National Academy Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National of Sciences - Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the National Academy Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. of Engineering Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the SATCOM 1969 Report. Pinelli, T. E. "The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers." 1991(a) Science and Technology Libraries 11(3): 5-25. Pinelli, T. E. The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical 1991(b) 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 Pinelli, T. E., "Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." World Aerospace J. M. Kennedy, Technology '91: The International Review of Aerospace Design R. O. Barclay, and Development 1(1): 31-34. and T. F. White 1991 President's Special Scientific and Technological Communication in the Government. Assistant for Science Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; AKA the Crawford and Technology Report. 1962 Redman, H. F. "Technical Reports: Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian 1965/1966 23: 11-17. Roberts, E. B. "Strategies for Improving Research Utilization." Technology and A. L. Frohman Review 80 (March/April): 32-39. 1978 Rohde, Nancy F. "Information Needs." In Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 14. W. 1986 Simonton, ed. NY: Academic Press, 49-73. 36

Original page 39

Ronco,P. G., et. al. Characteristics of Technical Reports That Affect Reader Behavior: 1964 A Review of the Literature. Boston, MA: Tufts University, Institute for Psychological Research. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-169 409.) Shuchman,H. L. Information Transfer 1981 Futures Group. Smith, R. S. "Interaction Within in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The the Technical Report Community." Science 1981 and Technology Libraries 1(4): 5-18. Subramanyam,K. Scientific and Technical Information Resources. NY: Marcel 1981 Dekker. U.S. Department Glossary of Information Handling. Defense Logistics Agency, of Defense Defense Documentation 1964 Williams, F. and Technology Transfer: Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA. A Communication Perspective. Newbury D. V. Gibson Park, CA: Sage Publications. 1990 37

Original page 40

APPENDIX A: PROJECT FACT SHEET NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Fact Sheet The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information (STI), which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us that timely access to STI can increase productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills. These same studies indicate, however, that we know little about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn more 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 aero- space 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 academic-government interface and emphasizes the information intermediaryfaculty-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 Knowledge Transfer International NASA Langley Research Center Indiana University 462 Washington Street Hampton, VA 23681-0001 Bloomington, IN 47405 Portsmouth, VA 23704 (804) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 T. E. PineUi@lare. nasa.gov kennedyJ@indiana.edu (804) 397-4644 Fax (804) 397-4635 barclay@infi.net 38

Original page 41

APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT PHASE 1 OF THE NASA/DOD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Technical Communications in Aerospace: The U.S. Aerospace Engineering Faculty Perspective The American institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Survey SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WITH THE COOPERATION OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY 39

Original page 42

first group of questions ask about your use of technical ifo_ 1. In your work, how important is it for you to _ (e.g., produce written ma_ or oral discussions) technical infor_on ef/ea/vely? (Ckck number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important In the past 6 months, about how many bouts did you spend each week communicating (prcMuc/ng) technical information? (Output) houri per week wring hours per week commnnicating orally 3. Compared to 5 yea_ ago, bow has the mount of time yon spend g technical information changed? (Circle ONE number) 2 Stayed the same 3 4. In the past 6 months, about how many hours did you spend each week working with tedmicaI information rece/ved from ochers? (Input) bouts per week working with written information hours per week _ information orally 5. As you have advanced l__y, bow has the amouat of rime you spaad working with technical infmtion re:e/vat from odters dunged? (Ckde ONE amber) 1 laceeased 2 Stayed the same 3 6. In the past 6 months, about what percentage of your written tectmical c(momunications involved: Writtag alone Writing with one oth pets_ Wriling with a group of 2 to 5 people Writing with a group of more than 5 people % _ (IfIOO%, go toquestion9.) % % % 100 % 7° In genend, do yoa find writing as part of a group more or _ l.uuductiv- (X.e., producing more written products or bet_ wrimm products) than writing aioae? (Circle ONE number) 1 A group is/eas productive than writing alone 2 A groap is about as productive as writiag alone 3 A group is more productive than writ_ag alone 4 Difficult to judge;no experieacepreparingtedmicalinformation 8. In the past 6 months, did you work with the same group of people wheat producing written tedmieal information? (Ckcte ONE number) 1 Yes ) About how many people were in the group? number of people 2 No • With about bow many groups did you work? number of groups About how many people were in each group? number of people 40

Original page 43

1. Approximately bow many times in the past 6 months did yon wr_ or prepare the following alone or in a group? Of in a group, how many people we,re in each group?) Times Wrote or Pre red in Past 6 Months Average Number of Alone In a Group People in Group a. AbsU_cts b. JournalArgdes c. Conference/Meeting Papers d. Trade/Promotional IAtmaUn'e e Drawi_/Specifica_ns £ Audio/Visual Materials g. I.eue_ h. Memoranda i. Tedmi_ Proposals j. Techaical Maneals L Computer Program Documentation L In-honse Teehaical Repom ,',1 DoD Tedmkal NASA Tedmkal Repor_ o. Tec_dcalT_tago_ 10. App_ximalely how many times in the past 6 months did you use the foll_ as part of your professional duties? "I'emesUsed in Past 6 Mouths a. AbsUacts b. Journal Articles c. Confe_ace/Meeting Papers d. Trade/Pmmmional IAteramre e. Dnwi_,ede_tions f. AudioNisual Materials g. L_Ue_ h. Memmanda L Tedmical Pmposals j. T_ Manu_ k. Computer Progntm Documentation L In-house Technical Repots m. DoD Tedmical Reports n. NASA Technical Reports o. Tedmical Talks/Presentations few questionsabout computer use. Do you use computer technology to prepare tedmk:al information? (Circle ONE number) 1 2 Usually I _ Go to question 12 3 Some__.. 4 Never _ Go to question 14 12- Has computer technology increased your ability to connnanicate technical informagon? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes, a lot 2 Yes, a little 3 No 41

Original page 44

1. Do you use arty of the foliowkag software to prepare wriltea technical iaformalioa? (Circle the appropriate number for each) Yes Wind procesmg packages .......... 1 Outlkaets aad _ ............ 1 Cnammar amt style checkers ........ 1 Spellipg checkers ................. 1 Thesaurus ...................... 1 Busiaess gtaqpbi_ ................ 1 Scieatific graphics ................ 1 D=ktop p_ ................ 1 14. No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 How do you view your USE of the following elecmmic(mfotmation technologies in comm_atiag tedmical iaformatioa? (Circle the appropriate mmtber for each) Already lafommtio_ Teclmologies Use Aadio mpes and casseU_ ........... 1 Motion pictare fihns .............. 1 Video rope ..................... 1 Dcsk__c publis_g ........ 1 Computer cmseue/cartridge tapes ..... 1 Electronic ma,'l .................. 1 EI_ belletia boards ........... 1 FAX or TELEX ................. 1 ElecSmmic databases .............. 1 W_dee coafe_acimg ............... 1 phics and micmforms ....... 1 disc/video ROM ....... 1 EI aetworks ............... 1 Doa't _ Doa't but may in tad doubt the fam ffI will 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 15. At your workplace, do you use electronic networks in perfonn/ng your present duties? (Circle ONE aerobe 0 1 Yes 23 NoNo, because I do not e access to electronic ) Go to quest_m 16 • Go to question 21 At your workplace, how do you access elecm_c networks? (Circte all that apply) By using a maiaframe terminal By esiag a pezsomd computer By using a workstation 17. How impomat is the use of decuonic networks ia performing your present duties? (Circle number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important l& In the past week, about how many hoers did you USE your electronic networks? Hours in the past week 42

Original page 45

1. Do you me electronic networks for the following purposes? (Circle appropriate number for each) 1 To connect to geographicaJJy distant sites ......... 2 For electronicmail ................... Yes No 1 2 I 2 3 For electronicbulletinboards or conferences ........ 1 2 4 To access/searchthe library'scatalogue .......... i 2 5 To order documents from the libra." . .......... I 2 6 To search electronic(bibliographic)databases ....... I 2 7 To prepare scientificand technicalpapers with colleaguesat geographicallydistantsites .......... i 2 8 For informationsearch and data retrievalwith the following: FTP ........................... Gopher ....................... WAIS ........................ World Wide Web (WWW) ............... Do you _ clcctr0nicuetwmLs to cemmunicatc with: Members of your work group ................................. Other people in your organization at the SAME geographical site who are NOT in your work group .......................... Other people in your organization at geographically 2 i 2 1 2 1 2 Yes No 1 2 1 2 DIFFERENT sites who are NOT in your work group .............. 1 2 People outside your work group ............................... 1 2 We would also late to knew about your use uf a library or technical information muter. 21. Does your organization/company have a h'brary/techaical information centre? (Circle ONE umber) 1 Yes, in my building----Go to question 22 2 Yes, but not in my building _ miles 3 No • Go to questic 26 minute walk _ Go to question 22 22- In the past 6 mouths, how often did you USE your organization's library/technical information center? Number of limes in past 6 mon*,ha If "O" times or you did not use your organizatiou's liiwa_, go to question 25. 23. To what extent does the proximity of your work setling (e_g., office) to your organization's library/tedmical information ceater affect your use of it? (Circle ONE uumber) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 24. In terms of performing your present professional duties, h'brary/technical information center? (Circle ONE uumber) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 43 5 Very Important how important is your organization's 5 Very lmportant_-Go to question 26

Original page 46

1. of the followiag statements _ your reasons for not using a h'btary during the past 6 months? (Circle appropriate number for each) I had no infonmaliem needs ................................... Ye, No 1 2 My bfformation needs were mole easily met some other way ........... 1 2 Tried the _ once or twice before but I couida't fad the information I needed ................................ 1 2 The lfomry staff is not amimmlive or helpful ...................... 1 2 The h-omry surf does not udetstand my information meeds ............ 1 2 Tbe iftmury did not have the tmfotmation I needed ................... 1 2 The h'brary is too slow in getting the infommion I need .............. 1 2 I have my own personal h'brary and do not need another library ......... 1 2 We lurve to pay to use the library .............................. 1 2 We are discx3maged fxom using the librmy ........................ 1 2 Please tetl us about your use of specific information products. 26. Do you use the following ixformatJon products ht perfonni_ your present profcssioml duties? (Circle appropriate number for each) Ceufez_o_/Meeting papers ................................... Jouznal articles ........................................... Tedmical reports - In-house .................................. Tectmical reports - DoD ..................................... Technical ztports - NASA ................................... Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 27. In uams of perfonniag your present professional duties, how important is each of the following information sources? (Circle appropriate number for each) Ctmfettnct/Meeting papexs ....................... Journal articles ............................... Technical reports - In-house ...................... Technical reports - DoD ......................... Technical reports - NASA ....................... Not at all Very Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 28. If you were deciding whether or not to use confetmmee/meetimg papers in your work, how important would the following factors be? (CarJe appropriate number) Are easy to physically obtain ..................... Are easy to use or read ......................... Are inexpensive ............................... Have good technical quality ...................... Have compreheasive data and information ............ Are relevant to my work ........................ Can be obtained at a hereby location or source ......... Had good prior experieace usiag them ............... Not at all Very Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 44

Original page 47

37- If you were deciding whether or not to use NASA technical reports in your work, how important would the following facZors be? (Circle appropriate number) Not at all Very Important Important Are easy to physically obtain ..................... Are easy to use or read ......................... Are inexpensive ............................... Have good technical quality ...................... Have comprehensive data and infonnatiou ............ Are relevant to my work ........................ Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ......... Had good prior experience using them ............... I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 33. (Even ff you don't use them...) What is your opinion of confereace or meeting papers? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obmir. 1 2 3 4 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 4 They are in_ive 1 2 3 4 They are of ood technical quality 1 2 3 4 They have comprehensive data and information 1 2 3 4 They are .relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 They can be obtained at a nea_v location or source 1 2 3 4 I've had _ prior experiences usmg them 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to ph,skally obtain 5 They are difficult to use or read 5 They are expensive 5 They are of tx)or technical quality They have incomplete data 5 and information 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obtained from a 5 distant location or source I've had bad prior experiences 5 using them 34. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of journal articles? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 4 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 4 They are inexpensive 1 2 3 4 They are of g._od technical quality 1 2 3 4 They have compreheztsive data and information 1 2 3 4 They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 They can be obtaiaed at a location or source 1 2 3 4 I've had oud prior experiences using them 1 2 3 4 45 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 5 They are difficult to use or read 5 They are expensive 5 They are of _ technical quality They have incomplete data 5 and information 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obtained from a 5 distan......_tlocation or somme I've had bad prior experknces 5 _ingtbem

Original page 48

35_ (Evea ff you don't use them-.) What is your epiaioa They are easy to piwsicaHy obtam 1 2 3 They are easy to me or read 1 2 3 They are iaegpeasive 1 2 3 They are of g_ technical quality 1 2 3 They have ccmpreheasive data gad infotmatkm 1 2 3 They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 They can be obtaiaed at a hereby location or source 1 2 3 I've had good prior usiag them 1 2 3 of hi.heine teebai_ reports? (Ct_te Nmber) 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 4 5 They are difficult to use or read 4 5 They are expeasive 4 5 They ate of veer tecimical quality They have iacemplete data 4 5 and information 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be _ from a 4 5 di_ant iocatioa of source I've had bad prior experiences 4 5 mtag them your opinion of DoD _ reports? (Circle Nmnt_) (E_ven if ym dcm't use them...) What is They are easy to physically obtai_ 1 2 3 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 They are iaexpen_e 1 2 3 They are of _ techakal quality 1 2 3 They have cemmeheasive data tad i-formatioa 1 2 3 They are relevaat to my work 1 2 3 They can be obtained at a uea_,bv loca_oa or source 1 2 3 I've had _ood prior experknces 3 4 5 usmg them mmgthem 1 2 opinion of NASA tedmicai rel_rts? (Circle Number) 37. (Evea if you don't use them...) What is your 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to use or read They are easy to me or read 1 2 3 4 5 They are ive They are inexpeasive 1 2 3 4 5 They are of poor tedmica] quality They ate of g..o techakal quality 1 2 They have comp_ea_ye data 3 4 5 and informafioa gad information 1 2 3 4 5 They are _relevant to my work They are relevant to my work 1 2 They can be obtaiaed at a 3 4 5 dislaat location or source nearby iocalioa or somce 1 2 I've had _ood prior experieaces 3 4 5 t_g them u_ag them 1 2 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 4 5 They are diffioalt to ase or read 4 5 They are _ 4 5 They age of vo technical quality They have incomplete data 4 5 aad informafioa 4 5 They are irrelevaat to my work They must be obtained from a 4 5 distan......__tlocation or source I've had bad prior experiesces They have incomplete data They must be obtained from a I've had bad prior experiences 46

Original page 49

Next, we would like to know about the work you do. 38. Think of the most impcmaat job-related project, task, or problem you have worked on in the past 6 months. Which category best describes this work? (Circle only ONE number) 1 Resear_ (either basic or applied) 2 Desiga/X_etopmeat 3 Maaufa_uction 4 Qua_ As_nc_/ol 5 Computer Appficafioas 6 Management (e.g., planning, budgeting, and managing research) 7 Other (specify): 39. How would you descr the overall complexity of the technical project, task, or problem you catego0.zed in Question 38? (Circle ONE number) Very Simple 1 2 3 4 5 Very Complex 40. How would you rate the amount of technical uncertainty that you faced when you started the technical project, task, or problem categorized in Question 38?. (Cirde ONE number) Little Uncertainty 1 2 3 4 5 Great Uncertainty 41. While you were involved in this technical project, task, or problem, did you work alone or with others? 1 Alone 2 With others • In how many groups did you work? About how many people were in each group? 42. Which one of the following best descfft_ the kinds of duties you performed while working on the techaica] project, task, or problem categorized in Question 38?. (C_cle ONE number) 1 Eagtmeering 2 Scieace 3 Mmuagement 4 Other (specify): 43. 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. 03) and put an X beside the steps you did not use.] Used my nal store of tedmical information, induding sources I keep in my office Spoke with cowotker or people inside my organization •Spoke with colleagues outside my organization •Spoke with a h'brarian or tedmical information specialist Searched (or had someone search for me) an elecuenic Cm'bliographic) data base in the h'brary Used fiterature resomces (e.g., technical reports) found in my organization's library Used none of the above steps 47

Original page 50

1. Do you USE the results of fedenlly-fuaded aerospace R&.D i, your work? (Circle ONE amnbex) 1 Yes 2 No 45. Did you USE the resalts of federally-fuded aerospace R&D ia completing the technical project, lask, or problem yoe categorized in Question 38?. (Circle ONE umber) 1 Yes 2 No • Go to qaestioa 50 46. How impmlaat were the results of federally-faded R&D in completing the teckaical project, task, or problem you categmiz_ ia Qaestion 38?. (Circle ONE number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Imporumt 47. Were amy of these resul;s published in either a NASA or DoD technical t_ort? (Circle ONE numbe_) 1 Yes 2 No 48. From which of the following sources did you learn about/obtain the results of the federally-funded aerospace R&D you used in completing the technical project, task, or problem? (Circle aplm3priate number for each) Yes No Coworkers inside my organization ............ Colleagues outside my mganizatkm ........... NASA ami DoD comacts .................. Pablicalioas Sa,'h as NASA STAR ............ NASA and DoD slmaum_ aad cosponsoredcoafereaces ,ad _ ........ NASA and DoD techak:al reports ............ Professkmal aad society jomaals ............. I.a'bmmas iaside my orgaaizatioas ............ Trade joumah .......................... Searches of compatezized data bases .......... Professional aad _ meetings ............ Visits to NASA and DoD facilities ........... 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Z 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 49. Which, ff any, of the fallowing problems weze associated with using these results? (Check ALL that apply) The time aad effort it took to locate the results The time aad effort it took to physically obtaia the resale; The accaracy, precision, and rdiabflity of the The legfl_ity or readability of the resells The orgaaizatioa or format of the resalls The distn'bution limitations or security reslricfioas of the resalls Over P!ease 48

Original page 51

Survey Demographics 50. Gender. 1. Female 2. Male 51. Highest college degree you hold: 1. Bachelor's 3. Doctorate 2. Master's 4. Other (Please Specify): 52. Your age: 53. Years of professional work experience in aerospace: Academia (may include research) Government Indusu_ Non Profit Total years of aerospace work experience 54. Was your academic preparation as an: (Circle ONLY one number) 1. Engineer 2. Scientist 3. Other (please specify): In your present position, do you consider yourself primarily an: (Circle ONLY one number) 1. En_neer 2. Scientist 3. Other (please specify): Is any of your current work funded by the (U.S.) federal government? (Circle ONLY one number) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don' t know 57. Tenured: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not applicable 58. U.S. Citizen 1. Yes 2. No 59. Academic Rank (Circle ONLY one number) 1. Professor 3. Asst. Professor 2. Assoc. Professor 4. Other (please specify): THANK YOU! Mail to: NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop 180A Hampton, VA 23681-0001 49

Original page 52

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormA_o_=d OMB No. 0704-0188 PaJ_ic reporbng burdefl for this collecl]on of infornlabon is esbmated o avtrage 1 hour pet resl:onse, including the time tot reviewing instrucl_ns, searching e_isting data sources. ga_ering and maintaining_e dala needed, and completing and rev_wing IP co_lecbonof informa_on. Senticomments regarding¢ds burden esbmate o_ any otheraspect of this collec_onof int_ma_o_, includingsu_s forreducingIbisburaen, to Washing_0n Headquarters Sennoes, Director_et_ Inf_xmalionOpeca_ons and Repo¢. 1215 Jef'so_ Davis Highway, Suite1204, Arlington,VA 2220_-4302, and to the Officeof Management and Budget. Paperwork RecluclionPro_ect(0704-0188).Wasl_ington,De 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORTDATE July 1996 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS The Technical Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 3 U.S. Aerospace Educators Survey* s. AUTHOR(S) Engineering WU 505-90 Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy 7. PP.HFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES) NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S)AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-000] 11. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES *Report number 45 under the NASA/DuD Aerospace AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-110238 Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Knowledge Transfer International, Portsmouth, VA; John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABIUTY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 82 13. ABSTFIACT (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-a-vis the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-_i-vis the technical communications practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and identified themselves as educators. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; and U.S. 50 government technical reports ;17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 16. PRICE CODE A03 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. UMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Presaribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102

Original page 53

Original page 54