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

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, 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 empirical information about this product is

available.

We are examining the system(s) used to diffuse the results of federally funded aerospace

R&D as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This project

investigates, among other things, the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers

and scientists, the factors that influence the use of STI, and the role played by U.S. government

technical reports in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace STI (Pinelli, Kennedy, and

Barclay, 1991; Pinelli, Kennedy, Barclay, and White, 1991). The results of this investigation

could (1) advance the development of practical theory, (2) contribute to the design and

development of aerospace information systems, and (3) have practical implications for

transferring the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to the U.S. aerospace community.

The project fact sheet is Appendix A.
In this report,we summarizethe literatureontechnicalreports,provideamodelthatdepicts

the transferof federally fundedaerospaceR&D throughthe 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.aerospacengineersandscientistswhoweremembersof theAmericanInstitute

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 technical reports may not be utilized because of

limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. According to Ballard, et al., (1986), the current

system "virtually guarantees that much of the Federal investment in creating STI will not be paid

back in terms of tangible products and innovations." They further state that "a more active and

coordinated role in STI transfer is needed at the Federal level if technical reports are to be better

utilized."

Characteristics of Technical Reports

The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different roles in

communication within and between organizations. The technical report has been defined

etymologically, according to report content and method (U.S. Department of Defense, 1964);

behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al., 1964); and rhetorically,

according to the function of the report within a system for communicating STI (Mathes and

Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical report literature are difficult to establish because

of wide variations in the content, purpose, and audience being addressed. The nature of the

report -- whether it is informative, analytical, or assertive - contributes to the difficulty.

Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many shapes,

sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary; they might be brief

(two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche, computer printouts or vugraphs,

and often they are loose leaf (with periodic changes that need to be inserted) or have a paper

cover, and often contain foldouts. They slump on the shelf, their staples or prong fasteners snag

other documents on the shelf, and they are not neat."

Technical reports may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Gibb and Phillips,

1979; Subramanyam, 1981):

• Publication is not through the publishing trade.

• Readership/audience is usually limited.

2
• Distribution may belimited 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 of the technical report:

• It is written for an individual or organization that has the right to require such

reports.

• It is basically a stewardship report to some agency that has funded the research being

reported.

• It permits prompt dissemination of data results on a typically flexible distribution basis.

• It can convey the total research story, including exhaustive exposition, detailed tables,

ample illustrations, and full discussion of unsuccessful approaches.

History and Growth of the U.S. Government Technical Report

The development of the [U.S. government] technical report as a major means of communicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey and Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and

the establishment of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). Further,

the growth of the U.S. government technical report coincides with the expanding role of the

Federal government in science and technology during the post World War II era. However, U.S.

government technical reports have existed for several decades. The Bureau of Mines Reports of

Investigation (Redman, 1965/66), the Professional Papers of the United States 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).
The U.S. governmenttechnicalreportis a primary meansby which the resultsof federally

fundedR&D aremadeavailableto the scientific communityand areaddedto the literatureof

science and technology (President'sSpecial Assistant for Science and Technology, 1962).

McClure (1988) points out that "although the [U.S.] government technical report has been

variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, there is no real knowledge base regarding the role,

production, use, and importance [of this information product] in terms of accomplishing this

task." Our analysis of the literature supports the following conclusions reached by McClure:

• The body of available knowledge is simply inadequate and noncomparable to determine

the role that the U.S. government technical report plays in transferring the results of federally

funded R&D.

• Further, most of the available knowledge is largely anecdotal, limited in scope and

dated, and unfocused in the sense that it lacks a conceptual framework.

• The available knowledge does not lend itself to developing "normalized" answers to

questions regarding U.S. government technical reports.

THE TRANSFER OF FEDERALLY FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D AND THE

U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

Three paradigms -- appropriability, dissemination, and diffusion -- have dominated the

transfer of federally funded (U.S.) R&D (Ballard, et al., 1989; Williams and Gibson, 1990).

Whereas variations of them have been tried within different agencies, overall Federal (U.S.) STI

transfer activities continue to be driven by a "supply-side," dissemination model.

The Appropriability Model

The appropriability model emphasizes the production of knowledge by the Federal government that would not otherwise be produced by the private sector and competitive market pressures to promote the use of that knowledge. This model emphasizes the production of basic research as the driving force behind technological development and economic growth and assumes

that the Federal provision of R&D will be rapidly assimilated by the private sector. Deliberate

transfer mechanisms and intervention by information intermediaries are viewed as unnecessary.

Appropriability stresses the supply (production) of knowledge in sufficient quantity to attract potential users. Good technologies, according to this model, sell themselves and offer clear policy

recommendations regarding Federal priorities for improving technological development and economic growth. This model incorrectly assumes that the results of federally funded R&D will be

acquired and used by the private sector, ignores the fact that most basic research is irrelevant to

technological innovation, and dismisses the process of technological innovation within the firm.
The Dissemination Model

The dissemination model emphasizes the need to transfer information to potential users and

embraces the belief that the production of quality knowledge is not sufficient to ensure its fullest

use. Linkage mechanisms, such as information intermediaries, are needed to identify useful

knowledge and to transfer it to potential users. This model assumes that if these mechanisms are

available to link potential users with knowledge producers, then better opportunities exist for

users to determine what knowledge is available, acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The

strength of this model rests on the recognition that STI transfer and use are critical elements of

the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is passive, for it does

not take users into consideration except when they enter the system and request assistance. The

dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-user transfer procedures that are seldom

responsive in the user context. User requirements are seldom known or considered in the design

of information products and services.

The Knowledge Diffusion Model

The knowledge diffusion model is grounded in theory and practice associated with the

diffusion of innovation and planned change research and the clinical models of social research

and mental health. Knowledge diffusion emphasizes "active" intervention as opposed to

dissemination and access; stresses intervention and reliance on interpersonal communications as

a means of identifying and removing interpersonal barriers between users and producers; and

assumes that knowledge production, transfer, and use are equally important components of the

R&D process. This approach also emphasizes the link between producers, transfer agents, and

users and seeks to develop user-oriented mechanisms (e.g., products and services) specifically

tailored to the needs and circumstances of the user. It makes the assumption that the results of

federally funded R&D will be under utilized unless they are relevant to users and ongoing

relationships are developed among users and producers. The problem with the knowledge diffusion model is that (1) it requires a large Federal role and presence and (2) it runs contrary to the

dominant assumptions of established Federal R&D policy. Although U.S. technology policy

relies on a "dissemination-oriented" approach to STI transfer, other industrialized nations, such

as Germany and Japan, are adopting "diffusion-oriented" policies which increase the power to

absorb and employ new technologies productively (Branscomb, 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
Surrogates

• DTIC

• CAB

• DROLS

• CASI

• STAR

• RECON

• NTIS

• GRA& I

• NTIS file

Producers

• DoD

• NASA

• DoD/NASA

contractors

& grantees

Informal (Collegial)

m--tin

Information

Intermediaries

• Librarians

• Gatekeepers

• Linking

agents

• Knowledge

brokers

Users

• Aerospace

engineers

and scientists

• Aerospace

eng_neermg

faculty and

students

Formal

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 Information Service (NTIS). These surrogates

have created a variety of technical report announcement journals such as CAB (Current

Awareness Bibliographies), STAB (Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports), and GRA&/

(Government Reports Announcement and Index) and computerized retrieval systems such as

DROLS (Defense RDT&E Online System), RECON (REsearch CONnection), and NTIS On-line

that permit online access to technical report data bases. Information intermediaries are, in large

part, librarians and technical information specialists in academia, government, and industry.

Those representing the producers serve as what McGowan and Loveless (1981) describe as

"knowledge brokers" or "linking agents." Information intermediaries connected with users act,

according to Allen (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
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 communications are required for effective

information transfer (Bikson, et al., 1984).

Second, the formal part relies heavily on information intermediaries to complete the knowledge transfer process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the

effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition,

empirical data on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in

knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. The impact of information intermediaries is

likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context.

According to Roberts and Frohman (1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization

have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion of technological innovation. They claim that

the numerous Federal STI programs are "highest in frequency and expense yet lowest in impact"

and that Federal "information dissemination activities have led to little documented knowledge

utilization." Roberts and Frohman also note that "governmental programs start to encourage

utilization of knowledge only after the R&D results have been generated" rather than during the

idea development phase of the innovation process. David (1986), Mowery (1983), and Mowery

and Rosenberg (1979) conclude that successful [Federal] technological innovation rests more with

the transfer and utilization of knowledge than with its production.
THE INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF ENGINEERS

The information-seeking behavior of engineers and scientists has been variously studied by

information and social scientists, the earliest studies having been undertaken in the late 1960s

(Pinelli, 1991b ). The results of these studies have not accumulated to form a significant body

of knowledge that can be used to develop a general theory regarding the information-seeking

behavior of engineers and scientists. The difficulty in applying the results of these studies has

been attributed to the lack of a unifying theory, a standardized methodology, and the common

definitions (Rohde, 1986).

Despite the fact that numerous "information use" studies have been conducted, the information-seeking behavior of engineers and information use in engineering are neither broadly

known nor well understood. There are a number of reasons (Berul, et al., 1965): (1) many of

the studies were conducted for narrow or specific purposes in unique environments such as

experimental laboratories; (2) many, if not most, of them focused on scientists exclusively or

engineers working in a research environment; (3) few studies have concentrated on engineers,

especially engineers working in manufacturing and production; (4) from an information use

standpoint, some engineering disciplines have yet to be studied; (5) most of the studies have

concentrated on the users' use of information in terms of a library and/or specific information

packages such as professional journals rather than how users produce, transfer, and use information; and (6) many of the studies, as previously stated, were not methodologically sophisticated

and few included testable hypotheses or valid procedures for testing the study's hypotheses.

Further, we know very little about the diffusion of knowledge in specific communities such

as aerospace. In the past 25 years, few studies have been devoted to understanding the information environment in which aerospace engineers and scientists work, the information-seeking

behavior of aerospace engineers and scientists, and the factors that influence the use of federally

funded aerospace STI. Presumably, the results of such studies would have implications for

current and future aerospace STI systems and for making decisions regarding the transfer and use

of federally funded aerospace STI.

RESULTS OF THE PHASE 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
pretestedon a group of aerospaceengineersand scientistsacrossthe country. The Indiana

Universitystaff preparedanenvelopefor eachindividualthatcontainedanll-page questionnaire

and the cover letter. A randomsampleof 500AIAA memberswho identified themselvesas

educatorswereselectedfrom thegroup. Theenvelopeswerepackagedandmailedto theNASA

Langley ResearchCenter(LaRC)on February9, 1996,for mailing. The envelopeswere mailed

from NASA LaRC on February13, 1996.

BetweenFebruary13andApril 16, 1996,324 usablequestionnaireswere returned. Thirtysevenquestionnaireswerereturnedasunusablebecause(1) therecipientwasnot aneducator,(2)

the surveywas not applicableto them, or (3) the recipientwas too busy to participatein the

study. The adjustedcompletionratefor thesurveywas72.2%.

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.
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 their most important job-related project, task, or

problem.

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 Use. Respondents were given a list of the

following information sources used to complete their most important job-related project, task, or

problem: (1) used personal stores of technical information, (2) spoke with coworkers inside the

organization, (3) spoke with colleagues outside of the organization, (4) spoke with a

librarian/technical information specialist, (5) used literature resources in the organization's library

(6) searched (or had someone search for me) an electronic (bibliographic) data base. They were

10
Table 1. Survey Demographics

[n = 324]

Demographics Percentage Number

Do You Currently Work In:

Academia 100.0 324

Is Any Of Your Work Funded By The Government:

Yes 70.7 229

No 29.3 95

Your Highest Level Of Education:

No Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Master's Degree

Doctorate

Other Type Of Degree

0.9

6.2

92.0

0.9

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

0.3

7.3

14.2

26.9

45.9

5.4

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

83.9

13.3

2.8

63.5

20.7

15.8

..°

74.8

6.5

3.7

2.8

12.1

5.0

95.0

3

20

298

3

I

23

45

85

145

17

271

43

9

205

67

51

241

21

12

9

39

16

307

11
Table 2. Project, Task, or Problem Categorization

Factors Percentage Number

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

74.8

3.7

2.8

6.5

12.1

24.4

75.6

65.0

18.6

8.4

8.0

241

12

n9

21

39

78

242

210

60

27

26

Table 3. Correlation of Project Complexity and Technical Uncertainty

by Type of Project, Task, or Problem

Complexity - Uncertainty Correlation n r

Overall a

Quality Assurance/Control

Research

Design/Development

Manufacturing/Production

Management

Computer Applications

Other

321

240

12

...

21

9

39

.000"*

.001"*

.416

.562

.284

.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
Table4. InformationSourcesUsedto SolveProject,Task,or Problem

InformationSource

PersonalStoreOf Technical

Information

SpokeWith Coworker(s)

InsideTheOrganization

SpokeWith Colleagues

OutsideOf The

Organization

UsedLiteratureResources

In My Organization's

Library

SpokeWithA Librarian/

TechnicalInformation

Specialist

Searched(Or HadSomeone

SearchFor Me)An Electronic

(Bibliographic)DataBase

Used

First

%

69.7

8.0

7.8

9.3

0.0

6.9

Used

Second

%

10.9

32.5

17.3

20.7

3.3

18.6

Used

Third

%

10.9

18.9

26.9

19.3

5.9

19.2

Used Used Used Not

Fourth Fifth Sixth Used

% % %

3.6 3.3 1.0 0.7

14.3 8.0 2.4 15.7

17.7 12.6 5.8 11.9

16.9 13.8 4.8 15.2

10.3 8.5 13.7 58.3

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. The 84% (231) of respondents who answered

"yes" were asked about the importance of these results in completing the project, task, or

problem. A 5-point scale (1.0 = 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
Table 5. Sources Used to Learn About

the Results of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D

Source Percentage

1. Professional And Society Journals

2. Coworkers Inside My Organization

3. Trade Journals

4. NASA And DoD Technical Reports

5. Colleagues Outside My Organization

6. NASA And DoD Contacts

7. Professional And Society Meetings

8. Searches of Computerized Data Bases

9. NASA And DoD Sponsored

Conferences And Workshops

10. Visits To NASA And DoD Facilities

11. Publications Such As STAR

12. Librarians Inside My Organization

89.6

61.4

27.6

76.0

78.6

75.2

86.7

68.3

62.1

57.7

24.0

25.9

Number

206

135

60

168

176

170

196

153

136

128

52

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
Table 6. ProblemsRelatedto Useof Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D

Problem Percentage Number

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

61.1

63.2

26.4

28.9

20.1

21.8

146

151

63

69

48

52

12.1 hours/week) than oral discussions (an average 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
Table7. TechnicalCommunications:Importance,Time Spent,andChangeOverTime

Communication And Receipt Of Information Percentage Number

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

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

Professional Advancement And Changes l. Amount Of Time Spent Working

With Technical Information Received From Others:

Increased

Stayed The Same

Decreased

1.5

8.0

90.5

0.9

22.0

40.3

11.6

16.4

8.8

1.3

22.8

36.9

16.3

16.7

6.1

52.6

42.1

5.3

0.3

36.9

42.6

7.3

9.5

3.5

3.4

73.4

18.4

1.7

3.1

0.0

57.2

32.5

10.3

5

26

293

3

70

128

37

52

28

4

71

115

51

52

19

169

135

17

1

117

135

23

3O

11

I0

215

54

5

9

0

183

104

33

16
Surveyparticipantswho write collaborativelywere askedif they find writing aspart of a

groupmoreor lessproductive(i.e.,producingmorewritten productsor producingbetterwritten

products)thanwriting alone. The responsesappearin table 8. Overall, slightly moreof the

respondentsindicatedthat writing with a group is moreproductivethanwriting 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

A Group Is More Productive Than Writing Alone

A Group Is About As Productive As Writing Alone

A Group Is Less Productive Than Writing Alone

Percentage

35.0

33.5

31.6

Number

92

88

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 in the group was X = 3.4 and the median was

3.0.

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) number of people per group was X = 3.5 and

the median number of people per group was 3.0.

Technical Information Products Produced. Survey participants were given a list of technical

information products. They were asked to indicate the number of these products they had written

or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months and if those products had been written or prepared

as part of a group. The 10 most frequently produced (alone) technical information products

appear in table 9.

Survey participants were also asked to indicate the number of these products they had written

or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months as part of a group. The 10 most frequently prepared

(as part of a group) technical information products appear in table 10. Data shown in table 10

17
includethe numberof productsproduced(meanandmedian)andtheaverage(meanandmedian)

numbersof peopleper group.

Table9. TechnicalInformationProductsWritten or ProducedAlone in the Past6 Months

Products MeanCx) Median

Memoranda

Letters

Drawings/Specifications

Abstracts

Audio/Visual Materials

In-house Technical Reports

Computer Program Documentation

Conference/Meeting Papers

Technical Talks/Presentations

Technical Proposals

18.9

33.7

1.4

1.3

4.8

0.5

0.4

0.8

5.3

1.5

2.0

10.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

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 products: conference/meeting papers and journal

articles. DoD, in-house, and NASA technical 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
Table 10. TechnicalInformationProductsWritten 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

In a Group

Mean (X)

0.8

1.1

0.4

1.1

1.6

0.4

1.0

1.4

1.4

0.9

Median

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

Average Number of

People Per Group

Mean (X)

2.7

4.2

2.1

3.6

2.9

4.1

4.1

2.5

2.5

3.0

Median

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

Table 11. Technical Information Product Used in the Past 6 Months

Information Products Mean C)_) Median

Journal Articles

Memoranda

Letters

Trade/Promotional Literature

Drawings/Specifications

Abstracts

Audio/Visual Materials

Computer Program Documentation

Conference/Meeting Papers

Technical Talks/Presentations

20.6

20.8

29.0

4.8

3.6

12.1

6.1

3.2

12.6

7.7

10.0

0.0

4.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

0.0

6.0

1.0

Table 12. Technical Information Products Used

Information Products Percentage Number

Conference/Meeting Papers

Journal Articles

In-house Technical Reports

DoD Technical Reports

NASA Technical Reports

95.3

97.2

53.7

56.4

81.1

305

312

158

171

253

19
Importance. Survey participants were asked "how important is it for you to use the

aforementioned technical information products 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 Mean CX) Importance Number

Conference/Meeting Papers

Journal Articles

In-house Technical Reports

DoD Technical Reports

NASA Technical Reports

4.2

4.5

2.6

2.8

3.4

322

322

303

307

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 Mean C)() Use Median

Conference/Meeting Papers

Journal Articles

In-house Technical Reports

DoD Technical Reports

NASA Technical Reports

12.6

20.6

1.1

1.2

2.5

6.0

10.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

articles were used (X = 20.6) to a much greater 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
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

Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Source

Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them

User

Rating (X)

n = 305

4.3

4.1

3.8

4.6

4.4

4.8

3.8

3.5

Non-User

Rating (X)

n=15

Overall

Rating (X)

4.3

4.0

3.8

4.1

3.9

4.7

3.8

3.5

n = 324

4.3

4.1

3.8

4.6

4.4

4.8

3.8

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
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 Source

Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them

User

Rating ('X)

n = 312

4.2

4.1

3.6

4.7

4.4

4.8

3.7

3.6

Non-User

Rating (X)

n=9

4.9

4.8

4.1

4.6

4.5

4.8

4.4

3.6

Overall

Rating (X)

n = 324

4.2

4.1

3.6

4.7

4.4

4.8

3.7

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

Rating 0()

n = 158

4.1

4.0

3.5

4.5

4.4

4.7

3.8

3.8

Non-User

Rating CX)

n = 136

Overall

Rating ('X)

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.8

3.7

3.9

3.3

2.8

n = 324

3.8

3.7

3.3

4.2

4.1

4.4

3.5

3.3

22
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

Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Source

Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them

User

Rating (X)

n = 171

4.1

4.0

3.8

4.5

4.3

4.6

3.6

3.5

Non-User

Rating ('X)

n = 132

3.9

3.7

3.4

4.2

4.1

4.4

3.6

3.2

Overall

Rating ('X)

n = 324

4.0

3.8

3.6

4.3

4.2

4.5

3.6

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

Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Source

Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them

User

Rating (X)

n = 253

4.2

4.1

3.7

4.6

4.4

4.7

3.8

3.7

Non-User

Rating (X)

n= 59

4.1

3.9

3.5

4.5

4.4

4.6

3.6

3.0

Overall

Rating CR)

n = 324

4.2

4.0

3.7

4.5

4.4

4.7

3.7

3.6

23
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

16.9

48.8

92.4

53.9

31.9

90.3

44.7

312

37

121

281

130

72

271

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
A list, in descendingorder,follows of the informationtechnologiesmost frequentlyused.

FAX or TELEX 97.5%

ElectronicMail 96.0

ElectronicNetworks 77.4

Videotape 65.7

ElectronicDatabases 62.2

A list, in descendingorder,follows of theinformationtechnologies"that arenot currentlybeing

usedbut maybe usedin the future."

Video Conferencing 66.7%

LaserDiskNideo Disk/CD-ROM 42.6

ElectronicBulletin Boards 40.5

MicrographicsandMicroforms 36.7

Desktop/ElectronicPublishing 34.0

Table 21. Use,Nonuse,andPotentialUseof InformationTechnologies

Information Technologies

Audio TapesAnd Cassettes

Motion Picture Films

Videotape

Desktop/Electronic Publishing

Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes

Electronic Mail

lElectronic Bulletin Boards

FAX or TELEX

Electronic Data Bases

Video Conferencing

!Micrographics And Microforms

iLaser Disk/Video Disk/CD-ROM

Electronic Networks

Already Use It

(n)

23.0 69

23.9 71

65.7 205

54.8 166

40.3 119

96.0 310

47.2 141

97.5 313

62.2 186

17.5 52

25.3 71

50.2 153

77.4 240

Don't Use It,

But May In

Future

% (n)

25.0 75

25.9 77

25.3 79

34.0 103

28.5 84

4.0 13

40.5 121

2.5 8

33.1 99

66.7 198

36.7 103

42.6 130

18.4 57

Don't Use It,

And Doubt If

Will

(n)

52.0 156

50.2 149

9.0 28

11.2 34

31.2 92

0.0 0

12.4 37

0.0 0

4.7 14

15.8 47

38.1 107

7.2 22

4.2 13

25
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 (Computer) Networks in One Week

Use Percentage Number

0 Hours

1 - 10 Hours

11 - 25 Hours

26 - 50 Hours

51 Or More Hours

0.4

71.5

17.6

9.5

1.1

1

203

5O

27

3

Mean 10.9

Median 6.0

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

82.8

11.5

5.5

Number

237

33

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
Table 24. How Electronic(Computer)NetworksareAccessed

Access % (n)

MainframeTerminal 16.0 46

Personal Computer 77.8 224

Workstation 42.7 123

Respondents using them were asked to indicate 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) Networks for Specific Purposes

Purpose Percentage Number

Connect To Geographically Distant Sites

Electronic Mail

Electronic Bulletin Boards Or Conferences

Access/Search The Library's Catalog

Order Documents From The Library

Search Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Bases

Prepare Scientific And Papers With

Colleagues At Geographically Distant Sites

For Information Search/Data Retrieval With The Following

FTP

Gopher

WAIS

World Wide Web (WWW)

88.4

99.3

54.9

83.5

33.9

70.5

54.1

79.2

51.5

12.1

89.8

244

284

146

233

86

189

140

209

124

26

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
Table 26. Useof Electronic(Computer)Networksto ExchangeMessagesor Files

ExchangeWith -- PercentageNumber

MembersOf Own Work Group

OthersIn Your OrganizationBut Not

In Your Work Group

OthersIn Your Organization,Not In Your

Work Group,At A Geographically

Different Site

PeopleOutsideYour Work Group

88.8

89.7

77.5

95.0

247

245

210

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 of the respondents reported that their organization

did not have a library/technical information 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
Table 27. The Influenceof Proximity of the Organization's

Library/TechnicalInformationCenteron Use

Proximity

Unimportant

NeitherImportantNor Unimportant

Important

Percentage

24.3

27.7

47.9

Number

71

81

140

Mean 3.3

Median 3.0

Table 28. Importanceof the Organization'sLibrary/TechnicalInformation Centerto

Performanceof PresentProfessionalDuties

Importance

Unimportant

NeitherImportantNor Unimportant

Important

Percentage

7.2

16.8

75.9

Number

21

49

221

Mean 4.2

Median 5.0

Surveyrespondentswere askedthenumberof timesthey 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

6.2

28.9

28.2

23.3

7.9

1.6

3.9

19

88

86

71

24

5

12

Mean

Median

15.9

10.0

29
areshownin 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 Percentage Number

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

The Library Staff Is Not Cooperative Or Helpful

The Library Staff Does Not Understand My

Information Needs

The Library Did Not Have The Information I Need

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

We Are Discouraged From Using The Library

26.7

93.8

15.4

0.0

7.7

33.3

21.4

46.2

0.0

7.7

4

15

2

0

1

4

3

6

0

1

FINDINGS

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
3. A positiveandsignificantcorrelationwas foundbetweentheoverall complexityandtechnical

uncertaintyof the most importantjob-related project, task, or problem that respondentshad

workedon in the past6 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 with colleagues outside of the organization

(26.9%/17.7%), and fifth, used literature resources 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, task, or problem during the last 6 months.

About 80% of this group indicated that federally funded aerospace R&D was "important" or

"very important" for completing this work. About 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, and 63.2% reported that the "time and effort

it took to obtain the results" was a problem.

8. About 90% of the respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical

information effectively; respondents spent an average of 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
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 were the computer software used most often in

preparing written technical information.

32
16.FAX orTELEX, electronicmail, electronicnetworks,videoconferencing,andelectronicdata

baseswere usedmost frequentlyby surveyrespondents.

17.About77%of thesurveyparticipantsusedelectronic(computer)networksin performingtheir

presentprofessionalduties;theyuseelectronicnetworksanaverageof 10.9hoursper week;and

about83% ratedthemimportantin termsof performingtheir presentprofessionalduties.

18.About78% of the respondentsaccesselectronic(computer)networksvia personalcomputer;

about99%useelectronic(computer)networksfor electronicmail.

19. About 76% of survey respondentsindicated that the organization's library/technical

informationcenterwas 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'slibrary/technicalinformation center did

influenceits use.

21. The most common reasonsfor not using the organization'slibrary/technicalinformation

centerincluded"my informationneedswere moreeasilymetsomeotherway," "the library was

too slow getting the information I needed,"and "the library did not have the information I

needed."

REFERENCES

Adam, R.

1975

"Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a

Science Information System." International Social Journal 27(3):

519-531.

33
Allen, T. J.

1977

Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the

Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D

Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Auger, C. P.

1975

Use of Technical Reports Literature. Hamden, CT: Archon

Books.

Ballard, S., et. al.

1989

Innovation Through Technical and

Government and Industry Cooperation.

Books.

Scientific Information:

Westport, CT: Quorum

Ballard, S., et. al.

1986

Improving the Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical

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; PB87-14923.)

Berul, L. H., et. al.

1965

DoD User-Needs 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.

and H.M. Trice

1982

"The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis

of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science Quarterly 27:

591-622.

Bikson, T. K.,

B. E. Quint, and

L. L Johnson

1984

Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Option.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA, PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note

2131.)

Branscomb, L. G.

1992

"America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva

(August): 317-336.

30:3

Branscomb, L. G.

1991

"Toward a U.S. Technology Policy." Issues in Science and

Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55.

David, P. A.

1986

"Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial Competitiveness." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology

for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

34
Eveland, J. D.

1987

Flanagan, J. C.

1954

Fry, B. M.

1953

Gibb, J. M. and

E. Phillips

1979

Godfrey, L. E. and

H.F. Redman

1973

Goldhor, R. S. and

R. T. Lund

1983

Lancaster, F. W.

1978

Mathes, J. C. and

D. W. Stevenson

1976

McClure, C. R.

1988

McGowan, R. P. and

S. Loveless

1981

Mowery, D. C.

1983

Mowery, D. C. and

N. Rosenberg

1979

Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and

Findings. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Not

available from NTIS.)

"The Critical Incident Technique." Psychology Bulletin 51:4

(July): 327-358.

Library Organization and Management of Technical Reports

Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America

Press.

"Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature."

Journal of Communication Studies 1: 225-234.

Dictionary of Report Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries

Association.

"University-to-Industry Advanced Technology Transfer: A Case

Study." Research Policy 12: 121-152.

Critical Incident Techniques. Urbana IL: University of Illinois

Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

Designing TechnicaI Reports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill.

"The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and

Issues." Government Information Quarterly. 5(1): 27-44.

"Strategies for Information Management: The Administrator's

Perspective." Public Administration Review 41(3): 331-339.

"Economic Theory and Government Technology Policy." Policy

Sciences 16: 27--43.

"The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical

Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research Policy 8(2):

102-153.

35
National Academy

of Sciences -

National Academy

of Engineering

1969

Pinelli, T. E.

1991(a)

Pinelli, T. E.

1991(b)

Pinelli, T. E.,

J. M. Kennedy, and

R. O. Barclay

1991

Pinelli, T. E.,

J. M. Kennedy,

R. O. Barclay,

and T. F. White

1991

President's Special

Assistant for Science

and Technology

1962

Redman, H. F.

1965/1966

Roberts, E. B.

and A. L. Frohman

1978

Rohde, Nancy F.

1986

Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National

Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the

Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication.

Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the SATCOM

Report.

"The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers."

Science and Technology Libraries 11(3): 5-25.

The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical

Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and Selected

Institutional and Sociometric Variables. Washington, DC:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM102774, January. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA;

N9118898.)

"The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge diffusion Research

Project." Government Information Quarterly 8(2): 219-233.

"Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." World Aerospace

Technology '91: The International Review of Aerospace Design

and Development 1(1): 31-34.

Scientific and Technological Communication in the Government.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; AKA the Crawford

Report.

"Technical Reports: Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian

23: 11-17.

"Strategies for Improving Research Utilization."

Review 80 (March/April): 32-39.

Technology

"Information Needs." In Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 14. W.

Simonton, ed. NY: Academic Press, 49-73.

36
Ronco,P. G., et. al.

1964

Shuchman,H. L.

1981

Smith, R. S.

1981

Subramanyam,K.

1981

U.S. Department

of Defense

1964

Williams, F. and

D. V. Gibson

1990

Characteristics of Technical Reports That Affect Reader Behavior:

A Review of the Literature. Boston, MA: Tufts University, Institute

for Psychological Research. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA

PB-169 409.)

Information Transfer in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The

Futures Group.

"Interaction Within the Technical Report Community." Science

and Technology Libraries 1(4): 5-18.

Scientific and Technical Information Resources. NY: Marcel

Dekker.

Glossary of Information Handling. Defense Logistics Agency,

Defense Documentation Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA.

Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications.

37
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

Mail Stop 180A

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-0001

(804) 864-2491

Fax (804) 864-8311

T. E. PineUi@lare. nasa.gov

Dr. John M. Kennedy

Center for Survey Research

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN 47405

(812) 855-2573

Fax (812) 855-2818

kennedyJ@indiana.edu

Rebecca O. Barclay

Knowledge Transfer International

462 Washington Street

Portsmouth, VA 23704

(804) 397-4644

Fax (804) 397-4635

barclay@infi.net

38
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
first group of questions ask about your use of technical ifo_

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7°

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

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

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

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

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

100

% _ (IfIOO%, go toquestion9.)

%

%

%

%

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

2

3

4

A group is/eas productive than writing alone

A groap is about as productive as writiag alone

A group is more productive than writ_ag alone

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
9.

10.

12-

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

Alone

_red in Past 6 Months

Average Number of

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_

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 questionsaboutcomputer 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

Has computer technology increased your ability to connnanicate technical informagon?

(Circle ONE number)

1 Yes, a lot

2 Yes, a little

3 No

41
13.

14.

15.

Do you use arty of the foliowkag software to prepare wriltea technical iaformalioa? (Circle the appropriate

number for each)

Yes No

Wind procesmg packages .......... 1 2

Outlkaets aad _ ............ 1 2

Cnammar amt style checkers ........ 1 2

Spellipg checkers ................. 1 2

Thesaurus ...................... 1 2

Busiaess gtaqpbi_ ................ 1 2

Scieatific graphics ................ 1 2

D=ktop p_ ................ 1 2

How do you view your USE of the following elecmmic(mfotmation technologies in comm_atiag

tedmical iaformatioa? (Circle the appropriate mmtber for each)

lafommtio_ Teclmologies

Doa't _ Doa't

Already but may in tad doubt

Use the fam_ ffI will

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

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

At your workplace, do you use electronic networks in perfonn/ng your present duties?

(Circle ONE aerobe 0

1 Yes ) Go to quest_m 16

2 No _e_ 3 No, because I do not • Go to question 21

access to electronic

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
19. Do you me electronic networks for the following purposes? (Circle appropriate number for each)

Yes No

1 To connect to geographicaJJy distant sites ......... 1 2

2 For electronicmail ................... 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 ........................... 2

Gopher ....................... i 2

WAIS ........................ 1 2

World Wide Web (WWW) ............... 1 2

Do you _ clcctr0nicuetwmLs to cemmunicatc with:

Yes No

Members of your work group ................................. 1 2

Other people in your organization at the SAME geographical

site who are NOT in your work group .......................... 1 2

Other people in your organization at geographically

DIFFERENT sites who are NOT in your work group .............. 1 2

People outside your work group ............................... 1 2

We would also 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 minute walk _ Go to question 22

3 No • Go to questic_ 26

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.

24.

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 5

In terms of performing your present professional duties,

h'brary/technical information center? (Circle ONE uumber)

Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very lmportant_-Go to question 26

Very Important

how important is your organization's

43
25. of the followiag statements _ your reasons for not using a h'btary during the past 6 months?

(Circle appropriate number for each)

Ye, No

I had no infonmaliem needs ................................... 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)

Yes No

Ceufez_o_/Meeting papers ................................... 1 2

Jouznal articles ........................................... 1 2

Tedmical reports - In-house .................................. 1 2

Tectmical reports - DoD ..................................... 1 2

Technical ztports - NASA ................................... 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)

Not at all Very

Important Important

Ctmfettnct/Meeting papexs ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

Journal articles ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Technical reports - In-house ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

Technical reports - DoD ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Technical reports - NASA ....................... 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)

Not at all Very

Important Important

Are easy to physically obtain ..................... 1 2 3 4 5

Are easy to use or read ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Are inexpensive ............................... I 2 3 4 5

Have good technical quality ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

Have compreheasive data and information ............ 1 2 3 4 5

Are relevant to my work ........................ 1 2 3 4 5

Can be obtained at a hereby location or source ......... 1 2 3 4 5

Had good prior experieace usiag them ............... 1 2 3 4 5

44
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 ..................... I 2 3 4 5

Are easy to use or read ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Are inexpensive ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Have good technical quality ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

Have comprehensive data and infonnatiou ............ 1 2 3 4 5

Are relevant to my work ........................ 1 2 3 4 5

Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ......... 1 2 3 4 5

Had good prior experience using them ............... 1 2 3 4 5

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 5

They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 4 5

They are in_ive 1 2 3 4 5

They are of _ood technical quality 1 2 3 4 5

They have comprehensive data

and information 1 2 3 4 5

They are .relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 5

They can be obtained at a

nea_v location or source 1 2 3 4 5

I've had _ prior experiences

usmg them 1 2 3 4 5

They are difficult to ph_,skally obtain

They are difficult to use or read

They are expensive

They are of tx)or technical quality

They have incomplete data

and information

They are irrelevant to my work

They must be obtained from a

distant location or source

I've had bad prior experiences

using them

34. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion

They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3

They are easy to use or read 1 2 3

They are inexpensive 1 2 3

They are of g._od technical quality 1 2 3

They have compreheztsive data

and information 1 2 3

They are relevant to my work 1 2 3

They can be obtaiaed at a

location or source 1 2 3

I've had _oud prior experiences

using them 1 2 3

of journal articles? (Circle Number)

4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain

4 5 They are difficult to use or read

4 5 They are expensive

4 5 They are of _ technical quality

They have incomplete data

4 5 and information

4 5 They are irrelevant to my work

They must be obtained from a

4 5 distan....._._t location or somme

I've had bad prior experknces

4 5 _ingtbem

45
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

(E_ven if ym dcm't use them...) What is your opinion

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

mmgthem 1 2 3

of DoD _ reports? (Circle Nmnt_)

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......__t location or source

I've had bad prior experiesces

4 5 usmg them

37. (Evea if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of NASA

They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 4 5

They are easy to me or read 1 2 3 4 5

They are inexpeasive 1 2 3 4 5

They ate of g..o_ techakal quality 1 2 3 4 5

They have comp_ea_ye data

gad information 1 2 3 4 5

They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 5

They can be obtaiaed at a

nearby iocalioa or somce 1 2 3 4 5

I've had _ood prior experieaces

u_ag them 1 2 3 4 5

tedmicai rel_rts? (Circle Number)

They are difficult to physically obtain

They are difficult to use or read

They are _ive

They are of poor tedmica] quality

They have incomplete data

and informafioa

They are _relevant to my work

They must be obtained from a

dislaat location or source

I've had bad prior experiences

_t_g them

46
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

2

3

4

5

6

7

Resear_ (either basic or applied)

Desiga/X_etopmeat

Maaufa_uction

Qua_ As_nc_/_ol

Computer Appficafioas

Management (e.g., planning, budgeting, and managing research)

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.

41.

42.

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

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?

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
44. 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 ............ 1 2

Colleagues outside my mganizatkm ........... 1 2

NASA ami DoD comacts .................. 1 2

Pablicalioas Sa,'h as NASA STAR ............ 1 2

NASA and DoD slmaum_ aad cosponsoredcoafereaces ,ad _ ........ Z 2

NASA and DoD techak:al reports ............ 1 2

Professkmal aad society jomaals ............. 1 2

I.a'bmmas iaside my orgaaizatioas ............ 1 2

Trade joumah .......................... 1 2

Searches of compatezized data bases .......... 1 2

Professional aad _ meetings ............ 1 2

Visits to NASA and DoD facilities ........... 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
Survey

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

57.

58.

59.

Demographics

Gender.

1. Female 2.

Highest college degree you hold:

1. Bachelor's

2. Master's

Your age:

Male

3. Doctorate

4. Other (Please Specify):

Years of professional work experience in aerospace:

Academia (may include research)

Government

Indusu_

Non Profit

Total years of aerospace work experience

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

Tenured:

1. Yes 2. No 3.

U.S. Citizen

1. Yes 2. No

Academic Rank (Circle ONLY one number)

1. Professor 3. Asst. Professor

2. Assoc. Professor 4. Other (please specify):

Not applicable

THANK YOU!

Mail to:

NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project

NASA Langley Research Center

Mail Stop 180A

Hampton, VA 23681-0001

49
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 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

July 1996 Technical Memorandum

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

The Technical Communications Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers

and Scientists: Results of the Phase 3 U.S. Aerospace Engineering WU 505-90

Educators Survey*

s. AUTHOR(S)

Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy

7. PP.HFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-0001

9. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAENCYNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-000]

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NASA TM-110238

11. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES

*Report number 45 under the NASA/DuD Aerospace 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

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTFIACT (Maximum 200 words)

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

Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; and U.S.

government technical reports

;17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

50

16. PRICE CODE

A03

20. UMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Presaribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

298-102