NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 19940030098: NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 41: Technical communication practices of Dutch and US aerospace engineers and scientists: International perspective on aerospace

14 Pages·1.2 MB·English

by  NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

_ NASA-TN-109862.
• j
Aerospace Knowledge /_
Research Project
..... ;_1_,__
_ _ _ _J --s- __F_-_=_._-_ -
on Practices OfDutch andeS. Aerospace
Scientists: International Perspective on Aerospace
from the IEEE Transactions on Professio_ Communication
Number2 (dune 1994): 97-107. ............
tr ........
Institute
E. Pinelli
Research Center
Virginia
4 .rb-- - . , .
1
M. Kennedy
_diana University
Bloominqton, Indiana
2_....
National Aeronautics and Spae{
n
AEROSPACE Department d_nse
INDIANA
].
i +
• ." _; : |
.-+ _ "
r --
_ +_:++y ++ + ++_j+
+
• - _- ++
_ , + - ..... F
- _ +
+
_ _ .. -
+
_ + _
+ x
: \
+
T" -+
-.+ + ? - ++:_
+
. . -+
PM_IOtNQ I_.GE BL/I_iK NOT RLMED
IEEETRANSACTIONSONPROFESSIONALCOMMUNICATIONV,OL.37, NO.2,JUNE 1994 97
Technical Communication Practices of Dutch
and U.S. Aerospace Engineersand Scientists:
International Perspectives on Aerospace
Rebecca O. Barclay, Thomas E. Pinelli, and John M. Kennedy
Abstract--As part of Phase 4 of the NASA/DoD Aerospace increasingly important as industries such as aerospace be-
Knowledge Diffusion Research Project, studies were conducted
come increasingly international and collaborative in scope and
that investigated the technical communications practices of Dutch
operation [9, 10].
and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. The studies had
the following objectives: (1) to solicit the opinions of aerospace To remain competitive in a global economy and in a
engineers and scientists regarding the importance of technical multinational manufacturing environment, aerospace produc-
communication to their professions, (2) to determine the use and ers have to push forward with new technological develop-
production of technical communication by aerospace engineers ments, maximize the inclusion of those developments into
and scientists, (3) to investigate their use of libraries and tech-
the R & D process, and maintain and enhance the profes-
nical information centers, (4) to investigate their use of and the
importance to them of computer and information technology, (5) sional competency of their engineers and scientists. Meeting
to examine their use of electronic networks, and (6) to determine these objectives in timely fashion and at a reasonable cost
their use of foreign and domestically produced technical reports. depends on a number of factors, but largely on the ability
Self-administered (mall) questionnaires were distributed to Dutch
of aerospace engineers and scientists to communicate (i.e.,
aerospace engineers and scientists at the National Aerospace
produce, transfer, and use) technical information.
Laboratory (NLR) in the Netherlands, the NASA Ames Research
Center in the U.S., and the NASA Langley Research Center in To learn more about international technical communication
the U.S. Responses of the Dutch and U.S. participants to selected in aerospace, researchers at the NASA Langley Research
questions are presented in this paper. Center, the indiana University Center for Survey Research,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and institutions in selected
counties are studying the technical communication practices
of aerospace engineers and scientists. These studies com-
HE PRODUCTION, transfer, and use of technical in-
prise the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Re-
formation is of paramount importance to the process
of technological innovation. Rosenbloom and Wolek [1], for search Project, a four-phase study of the organization, culture,
and communications within the national and international
example, noted: "How well [the] objectives of research and
aerospace communities [11], [12]. This research has included
development (R & D) are met, and at what cost, depends
to an important degree on the ability of engineers and sci- exploratory studies of the technical communication practices
entists to acquire the technical information needed to do of aerospace engineers and scientists in Israel [13], Japan [14],
[15], selected Western European countries [16], Russia [17],
their jobs." Haeffer [2] noted that "Technical progress is
mainly due to the utilization by engineers and scientists of and the U.S. [18].
generally disseminated and easily accessible [and understood] This article presents selected results of a recent project
technical information for the creation and development of new undertaking, a study of the technical communication prac-
products, methods, and processes." A number of studies have tices of Dutch and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists
at three similar research facilities in Holland and the United
established strong relationships between the communication of
technical information and technical performance of engineers States. The Dutch/U.S. study included the following objec-
tives:
and scientists both at the individual [3, 4, 5] and group [6,
7, 8] levels. However, while a substantial body of literature 1) to solicit participants' opinions about the importance of
exists, few if any comparative studies have investigated the technical communication
technical communication practices of engineers and scientists 2) to determine the participants' use and production of
at the international level. The need for these studies becomes technical communication
3) to investigate their use of libraries and technical infor-
Manuscript received January 1994, revised March 1994. mation centers
Rebecca O. Barclay is with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N'Y 4) to investigate their use of and the importance to them of
USA.
Thomas E. Pinelli is with the NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, computer and information technology
VA 23681--0001 USA. 5) to examine their 9se of electronic networks
John M. Kennedy is with the Indiana University Center for Survey 6) to determine their use of foreign and domestically pro-
Research, Bloomington, IN USA.
IEEE Log Number 9402282. duced technical reports
0361-1434/94504.00 © 1994 IEEE
98 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 37, NO. 2, /LINE 1994
TABLE I
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
SURVEY DEMOURAPmCS [n = 109; 287]
The research was conducted at comparable aeronautical
research facilities: the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR) Mg]_T_bL U._.
in the Netherlands, the NASA Ames Research Center in the Fro#ors (e) ,m (11)
U.S., and the NASA Langley Research Center in the U.S. The Pmf_mio_l Dm_ 28 (3O) 6 (20
I:_il_,'_,,_lopm*nt 3 O) 11 07)
three facilities share similar missions and clientele. The NLR
iWmln bmmfiow'Mam_mgem_.m 63 (69) 82 (279)
Re*euch 6 07) * (3)
serves European and other aircraft industries, civil and military Ceb,er
aircraft users, space agencies, and non-aerospace industries;
Orpui_tio_l A_liation 100 (209) 100 (3_)
the NASA Centers serve many of the same types of clients, (]oven_mem!
the focus being on U.S. producers. Aerospace engineers and pmfsmiomw_a,._,q_r_a_ 3s (41) Is (s2)
scientists at the three facilities work in similar aerospace 1• s_m is 0_ 22 (74)
6. lo y_n 22 (24) 28 05)
subdisciplines and document their research findings. H- 2oyem _ (2"0 34 (*!5)
21- 4o_.mn o (0) 1 (4)
English-language, self-administered (self-reported) mail sur-
41or I_ ylsrs
veys were used to collect data from study participants. The
Mesa Y_rt Work Experle_ 12,2 16.8
instrument had been used previously in several other Western Medlu Y_m Work F.,x_r_nca 9.0 14.0
European countries and in Japan and Russia in adapted form to Edut:ttloe
address sociocultural differences. The instrument was pretested OndmteDegn_ 80 (ST) 73 (249)
before being distributed to 200 researchers at the NLR. A total Educationa1l4mpmmtion
of t09 surveys was received by the established cut-off date, En_i_mr 7_ (st) 8o (273)
sc.iee,_* 25 (2"0 rt (_)
for acompletion rate of 55%. Questionnaires were distributed i 0) _ (9)
00 558 researchers at the two NASA Centers, and 340 were Cha'mmDt,aim
received by the established cut-off date, for acompletion rate ._4rm_, ?S (_) _ (234)
Sc_ 22 (24) 27 (92)
of 61%. A follow-up survey containing additional questions oe_ 3 O) 4 (14)
about technical communication training, technical report use,
and foreign language proficiency was distributed to the U.S. T_k_ml Sooty _ (5o) 78 (_)
respondents. (These questions were initially included in the
r.e,m_ 4 (4) 15 (5o)
Dutch questionnaire.) Of the original 320 U.S. respondents,
287 completed and returned the follow-up survey. The study
at NLR was conducted during November and December
of 1992, and the studies at the NASA installations were
Demographic Information About the Survey Respondents
conducted during July and August of 1992 with the follow-up
in December 1992. Survey respondents were asked to provide information about
For purposes of this study, "technical communication" was their professional duties, years of professional work experi-
broadly defined to include the full range of activities, pro- ence, educational preparation, current professional duties, and
cesses, procedures, and technologies associated with the pro- gender. These demographic findings appear in Table I.
duction, transfer, and use of technical information. Ordinal Comparing the Dutch and U.S. groups reveals that the
scales were used to measure the majority of the responses. respondents differ significantly in terms of organizational
Importance and language proficiency (i.e., reading and speak- affiliation and professional/technical society membership, they
ing) were measured on a5-point scale (1.0 = very unimportant; are similar in years of professional work experience, current
passably and 5.0 = very important; fluently). A two-tailed t-test professional duties, amount and type of educational prepara-
was used to determine statistical significance involving mean tion, and gender.
(1) importance, (2) number of hours, (3) number of informa- The following "composite" participant profiles are based on
tion products used, and (4) the percentage using electronic the demographic data. The Dutch survey participant works as a
networks. The complete research design and methodology are researcher (63%), has a graduate degree (80%), was trained as
contained in NASA Technical Memorandum 107693 [19]. an engineer (74%) and currently works as an engineer (75%),
has an average of 12 years professional work experience, and
reads and speaks two foreign languages with considerable
fluency. The U.S. survey participant works as a researcher
DESCRIFI'IVEFINDINGS
(82%), has agraduate degree (73%), was trained as an engineer
This article presents selected results from the Dutch and (80%) and currently works as an engineer (69%), has an
U.S. studies, with the Dutch responses presented first, followed average of 17 years of professional work experience, and
by the U.S. responses. Demographic data are presented first, belongs to a professional/technical society (78%).
followed by data dealing with the importance of technical
communication, workplace use and production of technical
Time Spent Communicating Technical Information
communication, use of libraries and technical information
centers, use of computer and information technology, use Dutch aerospace engineers and scientists spent an average
of electronic networks, and use of foreign and domestically of 9.10 hours per week writing technical information and an
produced technical reports. average of 6.49 hours communicating technical information
BARCLAY et al.: TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF DUTCH & U.S. ENGINEERS 99
TABLE l](a) TABLEIf(b)
TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERS TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF AEROSPACE
ScnmwnsTs INarm NETBF.Rt-_'_S AND Urn'rED STATES: ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS INTHE NErtmm_Ar_3s Ar_
HouRs SPENT WEEKLY PRODUCING AND RECEIVING INFORMATION UNITED STATES2 IMPORTANCE AND CHANGE OVER TIME
Fm Feetofi
t4oura!;peat W_kJy Wri_ T_i_l laformatlm: anYour Work, Communicating TeclmJ_d Informadoe It:
160!1---20150 432023L...0t20 ((f4_2_9s3)))) 43i332v...842.9 0(15(16(5s5n)))) |UNmnepiiotmhretptronrttIamnptofttnl Not"Unimpoftlmt 8828...B93 ,, (6((t99))) 9_to...785 ((3(2o6683))
21-40 3.7 (4) zv (9) Mean 4,40 4.53
Mere 9.10 8.27 Coml_md m5YearnAlto, TheAmoem Of Time You
Slate weeldy _|catiq Tm_mtcsl Spend C_amunicatiag Tedmlcal loformatioo Ha:
'-rorma_
Incmued 6o.o (ee) 7e.o (23,)
0 3.'P (4) 2.9 0o) Stayed The Same 3s.o 08) 24.o (_o)
1- $ (47) 39.9 0_) s.o (s3 6.o (=_)
6-10 30.3 03) 353 (121)
11-20 13_ (ts3 17,6 (60) AIYou Have Advanced Prof_dontlly, The Amoum Of
21-40 o.o (o) 3.. (13) Time You SpendWorldng With Technical Infm'madon
Received Fro_ Odors Has:
Mace 6.49° 8.71"
ItmmtSpearWeeldyWorklssWiCnW'namTK_kal Inc_und 45.o (4_) (,5.o C_t)
lafomutiem Roce/wd Fn_ Ogstr_ Smyed'rhe Seme 5o.0 (st) 2_.o (87)
Deerea_d 5.o (6) 9.o (_2)
0 o.o io) z.s (6)
1- 5 _.6 (s3) 49.6 (169)
6- 10 4o.4 (44) 3o.6 (Io4)
11-20 83 (9) ts.2 (5s)
21-40 I.S (6)
Meal ?36 7.70 TABLE ITI(a)
TECm_CAL COMMU_C^T_ON PRAC'r_cES OF AEROSPACE E_GINE_RS
HoersSpearWeekly Wod_ Wll Tedmkal laformali_
Ittt.f/v_ Ond/y Frm_ oa_,z. AND Sc_rrts_s IN7_m NETHERLANDS Ar_ UmTED STATES:
COLLABORATIVE WRITING PRACTICES AND PRODU_
0 3..2 (zt)
1-5 7o._ 0'7) _.9 (tw)
6- I0 is_ (20) 29.2 (,_)
II-30 3._ (4) 8.s (3o) N_tl_rknds U.S.
21-40 o.o (o) 0.9 O)
blmm 4.28° 6..27°
Writlall Praclk_:
"p_O._. Alone 64.8 24 (26) 61.1 15 (50)
Onm_ of-
1 2o.I s5 0a) 2o.7 72 (246)
2mS 12.6 49 (54) 15.6 61 (20_)
MornThu 5 2.5 10 (11) 2-1 14 (47)
orally; U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists spent an aver- _,,me (3mup -- 49 (53) -- 47 (161)
age of 8.27 hours per week writing technical information and Die.at Gm_ -- 27 (30) -- 38 (129)
Writing i_ducdvi_y Wi_ Gmep:
an average of 8.71 hours communicating technical information um -- 2_ (31) -- 32 (1IO)
About TheSame -- 19 (21) -- 31 (10"/)
orally. See Table II(a). -- 25 (27) -- 2o (68)
Dutch aerospace engineers and scientists spent an average Difficult To JndtW -- 4 (4) -- 2 (5)
of 7.36 hours per week working with written technical in- • I_reen_p= donottoil i0o.
formation received from others and an average of 4.28 hours
per week working with technical information received orally
information received from others had stayed the same and
from others. U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists spent an
45% indicated that the amount of time had increased. Sixty-
average of 7.70 hours per week working with written technical
five percent of the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists
information received from others and an average of 6.27 hours
indicated that the amount of time spent working with technical
per week working with technical information received orally
from others. information received from others had increased, and 26%
indicated that the amount of time had stayed the same.
Importance of Communicating Technical
Information and Change Over 77me Collaborative Writing--Practices,
As indicated in Table II(b), about 89% of the Dutch and Productivity, and Group Size
about 91% of the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists Survey participants were asked whether they wrote alone or
indicated that, in their work, the ability to communicate as part of a group. The results are found in Table III(a).
technical information effectively is important. Approximately 24% of the Dutch respondents and 15% of
About 60% of the Dutch and 70% of the U.S. aerospace the U.S. respondents write alone. Although alower percentage
engineers and scientists indicated that, compared to five years of the Dutch than the U.S. respondents writes with a group of
ago, the amount of time they spend communicating technical 2 to 5 people or with a group of more than 5people, writing
information has increased. As they have advanced profession- appears to be a collaborative process for both groups.
ally, 50% of the Dutch aerospace engineers and scientists Of the respondents who wrote collaboratively, 49% of the
indicated that the amount of time spent working with technical Dutch group and 47% of the U.S. group worked with the
100 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE 1994
TABLE re(b) TABLE V
T_-_,OC.*,LCOMMUmC^TIOPN_CTICF_OFA_OSpXCE MEAN (MEDIAN) NtrMBER OFTECm_CXL I.m_RMATION PRODUC'rS
ENGmmatsANDScr_crt_ _ THEN_s xuo U_rrr_ PRODUCED (ALONE ORIN A GROUP) INTHE PAST 6 MorcrHS
STA'FF_: Ntn_ER oFPEot,t.£ANDNUMBEROFGROUPS BY AEROSPACE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Ne_herluds U.S. Avemge
F_tom Meam Ivleditn (a) Mean Median (u) Number of
Pentom Per
Number of - Alone In t Omup Group
inOmup 4._" 3.oo (s3) 3at" 3.oo (161)
om_ _ zee (3o) 2_2 3.00 (m) In_ormafio_ Produc_m Mean Median Mean Median Melm Median
People InEach Omep 3.67 3.110 (30) 3.00 3.00 (t:_) Al_acu o._ (0.00) 0.ee (o.00) 2.67 (2.00)
Iounud AnidN 0.26 (0.00) o.x_ (o.00) 2.74 (2.00)
*p£O.OS. C_f_rmc_d¢_ing lh_ o.14 (0.00) oa9 (0.00) z'_ (3.oo)
rnde/Lhomoeioeal ta_au_e o.o_ (0.00) o.ot (0.00) 2ao (2..-,o)
DntwlnKs_Spedflcaltous 2.o_ (0.00) o._ (0.00) 3m (2.oo)
_md_o/Visual Matend 161 (0.00) 1.3o (0.oo) z_ (zoo)
TABLE IV L,eUe_ 6.89 (4.oo) 0.65 (o.00) 7-32 (zoo)
(Mm_) Ntn_mtmoFTECrn_CXLkrFOm_TiON PRODUC'rS _4emonmda 9.07 (ZOO) o.6,) (0.oo) 7.55 42.co)
PHODtJffF.(DALONEORINAGROUP)INTHEPAST6 MONTHSBY r¢¢knieal Pmpomls 0.42 (0.00) 0.22 (o.00) 2.61 (2.00)
AEROSPACEENGINEERASNDSCIENTISTISNTHENETmmLANOS rCe_cmJmpul_tler MPromgurasm_ Documentltion 00..1_2i2 ((0o.0.00)0) Oo..1ll3 ((0o..0o0o)) 32..1315 4(z3o,o0)0)
In-house Tedmieal Repom 0.47 (0.00) o.19 (0.00) (2.oo)
AveraW _r,G._AmRD_.T,Tecaholiketa/lPRerpeomaentatlom02.._27 ((ol.0.000)) 0o..0_3 ((00..0000)) 33.4.3,m ((33.0.0o)o)
Number of
l=, o_,,
infmmmion Meal Mediaa Modiu M_n TABLE VI
14.34 (0.00) o2m (o.00) MF.XU(MEDIAN)NUMBEROFTECH_CXLINFORMATIOPNRODUCTS
JournalAnidea o.m (0.o0 o.m (o.00) 2.33 (zoo) PHODVCEDIN"rITEPAST6MONTHSBYAEROSPACEENGINEERS
C_ufe_ocea_ee_q Papem o_7 (o.oo) o2)9 (o.00) 3as ('2.oo) ANDSCIENTISTSIN"THENETHERLANDASNDTHE UNITEDSTATES
Trade/PmmaC_mml Limmtum o.13 (o.oo) o.o7 (o.00) s.00 (5.oo)
Dmwin_fleatiom o._ (0.00) o.4.¢ (o.00) 3.t7
ALumdmluo/VisualMatmlal o9.._63 ((04..0o0o)) o.s2 ((o0..oooo)) z2_2) ((z2o.ooo)) Netl_rIMds U.S.
Memoranda z3o (1.00) 0.41 (o.00) lnformazioe Products Meam Mcdiu M¢am Median
TTeeechhfnliJceaalPMIraonpumaallss oo...1_7 ((o0..0000))- oo..6t79 ((0o..0000)) 333.2_ (0Z.O00O)) Al_trzaml 14.72" 0.00 1.32" 1.00
compuu_J_p'am_¢umenQnou o.._2 (0.00) 0.35 (0.oo) 3_ (Z00) Ioumal Axltel_ 0.11 ° 0.00 0.61" 0.00
IATntOd-bAmoRiuDle,_tTToTecdahltakmisc/aPcltael_atalRlRemeelpmo_ma oo1...9o4541 (((o0l...m0000))) o0o...3o1744 (((000...0oo0oo))) 22..649o ((Z'20.o0)o) CTDAre.raodadi_oweftJ_Vilnei__eoiept__in¢og¢Siopme._IIfMlc[a__irolamIl..iItehtq,_ttmtme 00I0...7.9265(00" 0000....[O]00OO00 2031.6..9.0811"74 0011..0..0000000
I.attmu 10.4.5 4.C0 7-_3 4.00
2.72" 2.00 9.71" 2.00
technical _) 1.23 ° IJ_O 0.63" 0.00
same group when producing written technical communication, rectmical Manuals 0.34 OJ/O 0.23 0.OO
_o,mputer Prolptut Documeutttlee 0.07 0.00 0.74 0.00
as reflected in Table III(a). And as indicated in Table III(b), AOARD T_ch_d 0.07 OJXl 0.07 0.00
I_-ho_ T_chatcal R_ I..12" 1.00 0.65" 0.00
the average number of people in the Dutch group was 4.96; r_chnlcal T_d_atmi_ 1-_5" 1.00 3.21" 2.00
in the U.S. group, 3.21. O_md M_ 36a 32-5
Grad Median 14D 22.0
Twenty-seven percent of the Dutch respondents worked in
an average number of 2.87 groups, each group containing "p£0.0_.
an average of 3.47 people. Thirty-eight percent of the U.S.
respondents worked in an average of 2.82 groups, each group
containing an average of 3.03 people. As part of a working group, these Dutch aerospace engi-
Dutch and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists were neers and scientists most frequently produced letters, technical
asked about the influence of group participation on writing proposals, drawings/specifications, memoranda, and confer-
productivity. As shown in Table HI(a), only 28% of the Dutch ence/meeting papers. The average number of persons per group
respondents and 32% of the U.S. respondents indicated that ranged from a high of 5.00 to a low of 2.29.
collaborative writing is more productive than writing alone. As individual authors, U.S. respondents most frequently
Nineteen percent of the Dutch respondents and 31% of the produced memoranda, letters, audio/visual materials, technical
U.S. respondents found that collaborative writing is about as talks/presentations, and drawings/specifications (Table V).
productive as writing alone; 25% of the Dutch respondents and In groups, U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists
20% of the U.S. respondents found that collaborative writing most frequently prepared audio/visual material, technical
is less productive than writing alone. talks/presentations, abstracts, letters, drawings/specifications,
and memoranda. The average number of persons per group
ranged from a high of 3.46 to alow of 2.32. Table VI contains
Technical Information Production a comparison of technical information products produced
From a prepared list, both groups were asked to indi- by both groups.
cate the number of times they had produced, either alone
or as a member of a group, specific technical information
Technical Information Use
products. As individual authors, the Dutch respondents most
frequently produced abstracts, letters, memoranda, technical Abstracts, journal articles, conference/meeting papers, let-
talks/presentations, and drawings/specifications (Table IV). ters, and drawings/specifications were the technical informa-
BARCLAY eta/.: TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF DUTCH & U.$. ENGI_..I_RS 101
TABLE VII TABLE VIII
(MEDIAN) NUMBER OFTECHNICAL INFORMATION PRODUCTS USE AND IMPORTANCE OFTHE ORGANIZATION'S LIBRARY TOAEROSPACE
USED INTHE PAST 6MONTHS eV AJ_OSP^CE ENO_S AND ENO_S AND SCIENTISTS INTHE N_S AND THE UNn'ED STATES
S_ IN THE N_amLAZ_S AND TH_ Um'n_ STATES
Nctherlmds U.q.
N_medmda US,
I_ s (tO
In_rm*'ica Pn_lucts Man Median Me_ Median 0 s (s) 11 (37)
Abamc_l 24.76* l.O0 $.41" I_0 1- $ limes 2o ('_) 43 (t4s)
Journal Anlcks 15.95 lO.OO 12.26 S_0 6- 10 ttm_ 2g (30) 21 (72)
Confemnce/M_ing Pupem 9.18 $.00 9.99 6.00 11*25 times 35 Ourj 14 (49)
Litmtmz 2.06* O.OO 4.99* O.OO 26-SO times 6 ('7) 7 (_)
Dmwings/Spadflcadom "/.16 0.00 $.24 1.00 $1o¢mine times 6 (7) 1 (4)
Matedal 130 0.00 7.13 0,00 o (o) 3 (11)
LMreacemhmnaolsncMmdaPmpmaln 762..-73M96* 040...00_00 11204..,170203" 430...0_G00O lMbelce{u{*m iino.-0q* 942.0"
rechn/cal Mlammb* S.74 3.33 0.00 Nethedmds U.S.
Comput_ Pmznm Documemmm S.48 l.aO 8.02 1.00
Impo,n,_
_GARD T_ Rqxxm 2.05 0.00 O.92 0.00
Itnec-hhnoiwcael TTeddmksl/cParlesenRtemplmcml 42..9857"" 32..0000 37..I1M0"P* 052£}00 VNmd_t/lIwm_poImm_po_m norUnlmpommt _1.5o.6 ((1875)) _15.6 (_(2S)3)
9'7.$ 100.6 VeryUnimpom_ 63 (7) 12.9 (44)
50.0 63.0 Do NotHaveA I_lmm/ o.o (o) 3._ (11)
Mean 4.1 4.0
"p_ 0.05.
'Use _ the amm_r ofvist_ mthe oq_dza/ion's llbrm,/in •(_momh period.
•p,_o.o_.
tion products most frequently used by these Dutch aerospace
engineers and scientists (Table VI_.
TABLE 1X
On the average, they used 25 abstracts, 16 journal INFORMATION SOURCE5 USED IN PROBLEM SOLVING BY AEROSPACE
articles, 9 conference/ meeting papers, 8 letters, and 7 F.a_O_,_HERSAND SCIENTISTS IN THE NE_L_r_S AND _ UNrrED STATES
drawings/specifications in a 6-month period. Technical
Notl_d_ds U.S.
proposals, technical talks/presentations, Advisory Group for
Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD) technical i (.) _ (.).
Pmomd Sto_ OfT_hai_d i_'m_ee (1o7) 99 037)
reports, trade/promotional literature, and audio/visual materials Spoke With A Qxvod_r Or PeOlMe
were the technical information products least frequently used Imlde My Oqlm_aflon (lO7) 99 0_)
_mke W_h A _I,_ag_ Ou_kM OfMy
oqpuamtoe
by these Dutch aerospace engineers and scientists during a
LlmdUtzrmmre _ Pound In
6-month period.
My Oqpmlzatloa's Libeuy (I04) 91 01o)
Memoranda, journal articles, letters, conference/meeting pa- Spo_ With ALlbrm'lu OrTe,:bMcal
Infonnm/ca SpectMis_ 74 (gl) gO (274)
pers, and abstracts were the technical information products
most frequently used by U.S. aerospace engineers and scien-
tists (Table VH). On the average, they used 14 memoranda, 12 Respondents were asked to indicate the number of times
journal articles, 11 letters, 16abstracts, 10conference/meeting they had visited their organization's library or technical infor-
papers, and 8abstracts during a6-month period. AGARD tech- mation center in the past 6 months (Table VIII).
nical reports, technical proposals, in-house technical reports, Overall, the Dutch respondents used their organization's
technical manuals, trade and promotional literature were the
library or technical information center more than their U.S.
technical information products least frequently used by U.$. counterparts did. The average use rate for Dutch respondents
aerospace engineers and scientists during a6-month period.
was 18.5 visits during the past 6 months, compared to 9.2
visits for the U.S. respondents.
A majority of both groupsindicated that their organization's
Libraries and Technical Information library or technical information center was important to per-
forming their present professional duties (Table VIII). About
Centers--Use and Importance
78% of the Dutch aerospace engineers and scientists indicated
Almost all of the respondents indicated that their organiza- that their organization's library or technical information center
tion has a library or technical information center. Unlike the
was important or very important to performing their present
U.S. respondents (9%), about 44% of the Dutch respondents professional duties. About 68% of the U.S. aerospace engi-
indicated that the library or technical information center was
neers and scientists indicated that their organization's library or
located in the building where they worked. About 56% of
technical information center was important or very important
the Dutch and 88% of the U.S. respondents indicated that the
to performing their present professional duties.
library ortechnical information center was outside the building
in which they worked and that it was located near where
they worked. For 56% of the Dutch, the library or technical
information center was located 1.0 kilometer or less from Problem Solving and Technical Information Use
where they worked. For about 81% of the U.S. respondents, From alist of information sources, survey participants were
the library ortechnical information center was located 1.0 mile asked to indicate which ones they routinely used in problem
or less from where they worked. solving (Table IX).
102 _ TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 37, NO. 2. JUNE 1994
TABLE XI
TABLE X
USE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE BY AEROSPACE ENG[]_S UsE, NO_edSE, AND P_ USE OF IN_ORMA'nON T_Ct_OLOOmS BY
AND SC_mSTS _ T_ NETH_RLA_S AND THE U_'_D AEROSPACE ENG_S AND So-'InfeSTS _ THE N_S AND T_
STATES TO PREP_,E WRn'r_ TEC_C_AL COMMUt,nC^_nONS UNtroD STATES TO PREPARE WRrrrEN TEOINW_AL COMMtr_CATIONS
Ne_herl_ U.S. Doa't Use It, Doa't Use It.
ButMay In Aad Doubt If
Soawm _ (n) '_ (o) AJ_gly Use It Fumt¢ Will
wo_ rrocemq S9 (9"0 _s 027) Dutch U.S. Dutch U.S.
O.ttiaen _ rrompm_ 2o (22) t4 (46) lu_naliou Techaologlu
Grammar andStyle Chec:k:em 24 (26) 30 (103)
S_mpestliasC3,mckem "3754 ((a'_t)) 83g'7 ((2i29"9_) _Mgoli_otoeTPqxkmmm_eFllCmasuea_ 64 1137 1261 3209 "75/9 5575
Vid,,o_x . 63 42 31 33 7
Sc_emi_ C_q_,ics 61 (66) 91 (3_) De_mp/_eceealc Publi_10ag 51 32 22 S
t)esk_p L_bil_doS t9 (2t) ,m (162) _ompmer _ T,tm 7,4 32 31 24
E_ec_nm,tcMail 37 51 15 13 2
FJecero_cBulled-, Bo_d_ !1 36 57 48 32 17
FAXOr TELEX 95 91 4 8 ! 1
S,k,c:m:_cDm B_m 42 $6 SO 4O 8 4
In addition to personal knowledge, upon which they relied VideoCouf_Axtn_ 0 37 46 54 54 10
greatly, the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in this r_eclreocgomn_pel_renclne8nd M_c_ofoem 133O 5233 51O6 44O2 3584 374
study displayed information-seeking behavior patterns similar W_rJVideo Dtsk/CD-P.OM I1 19 S9 68 30 14
EkctroaJc l,hm,,od_ 76 35 19 7 5
to those of U.S. engineers in general. The information-seeking
behavior of the Dutch respondents did not vary greatly from
that of their American counterparts. U.S. participants used The Dutch and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in
their personal stores of technical information, coworkers in this study use a variety of information technologies. The
the organization, colleagues outside the organization, literature percentages of "I already use it" responses ranged from ahigh
resources found in the organization's library, and a librarian of 95% (fax or telex) to a low of 0% (video conferencing) for
or technical information specialist. Their Dutch counterparts the Dutch respondents. Similarly, the U.S. responses ranged
used their personal stores of technical information, spoke from a high of 91% (fax or telex) to a low of 13% (audio
with coworkers in the organization, used literature resources tapes and cassettes). A list, in descending order, follows of
found in the organization's library, spoke with a colleague the information technologies most frequently used.
outside the organization, and spoke with alibrarian ortechnical
information specialist.
Netherlands United States
Fax or telex 95% Fax or telex 91%
Electronic Networks 58 Electronic Mail 83
Use of Computer and Information Technology
Computer Cassetter/ Electronic Networks 76
Survey participants were asked if they use computer tech- Cartridge Tapes 45 Videotape 63
nology to produce technical information. Approximately 91% Electronic Data Bases 42 Deslaop Publishing 60
Electronic Mail 37
of the Dutch respondents use computer technology to pro-
duce technical information. Almost all (98%) of the U.S.
A list, in descending order, follows of the information
respondents use computer technology to produce technical
information. About 56% of the Dutch respondents and about technologies "that are not currendy being used but may be
73% of the U.S. respondents "always" use computer tech- used in the future."
nology to produce technical information. A majority of both
groups (83% and 98%) noted computer technology had in-
Netherlands United States
creased their ability to communicate technical information.
Laser Disk/Video Disk/ Laser Disk/Video Disk/
About 66% of the Dutch and 80% of the U.S. respondents
CD-ROM 59% CD-ROM 68%
stated that computer technology had increased their ability to Electronic Bulletin Boards 57 Video Conferencing 54
communicate technical information "a lot." Desktop/Elec_onic Electronic Bulletin Boards 48
From a prepared list, survey respondents were asked to Publishing* 51 Micrographics and Microforms 42
indicate which computer software they used to produce written Electronic Mail* 51 Electronic Data Bases 40
Electronic Data Bases* 50
technical information (Table X),
Teleconferencing* 50
Word processing software was used most frequently by both
Video Conferencing 46
groups. With the exception of outliners and prompters and
* Denotes tie
business graphics, the U.S. respondents made slightly greater
use of computer software for producing written technical Electronic Networks--Use and Importance
communication than did their Dutch counterparts.
Sm-cey participants were asked if they use electronic net-
Survey respondents were also given a list of information
works at their workplace in performing their present duties.
technologies and asked, "How do you view your use of the fol-
lowing information technologies in c0_unicating technical Approximately 65% of the Dutch respondents use electronic
networks and about 35% either do not use or do not have
information?" Their choices included "already use it"; "don't
access to electronic networks. About 89% of the U.S. re-
use it, but may in the future"; and "don't use it and doubt if
I will." (See Table XI.) spondents use electronic networks in performing their present
TABLEXII TABLE XIII
USE AND IMPORTANCE OF ELECTRONIC NETWORKS TO AEROSPACE ACCESASm)USEOFELECTXOmNCE'rwom_sAm)THE
ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS IN THE NETrtmU,AUOS Am) UurrEa STATES EXCt-mNGOEFELEC'mOmCFu.EsBYAEROSPACE ENGINEERS
AND SCIENTISTS IN THE NETt-mm.._S AND UmTED STATES
Ne_edmdl U.S.
NetMdamk u_.
0 0.o (0) x.2 (4) Access
1-25 47.7 (52) S2.9 (lSO) * (n)
2561-J0- 75 1o0..o1 O(or)) 7.s (26) MainframeTerminal 12.s 04) 13.5 (46)
7I60-099 5L.s5 ((e23) s1..s5 (3(5o)) PWeomrkosutaatiCioonmputer 276..36 (2(89)) 4296..12 ((1S697)")
Do Not U*e or Have Acma to SomeCombinationoftheAbove t8.4 (2o) • |
Faearc_¢ Net,wot_ _.9 08) lt_ (38) Do Not"UseorHaveAccestso
22.1" _0.1 e ElectroNneitcworks _.9 Os) tt._ (58)
t0.0 2O.O
Medlla Netherlands u.5.
NethedJ US.
Im_ Pmpe_ _t (,) _t (.)
!iVNeerityhe_ImIpmompoarttm mr Uet,,,jx_ 21.1 (23) 61s1.2O @(3281)) CEloencntreocnttoicmgaeoilgraphicallydistantsites 3363..79 ((43o")/) 5sl3.5.2 f(zt8rT1))
Vet-/Uatmlxmam s.3 (9) tz6 (,13) Electronicbulletinboardsoroonferenees 8.3 (9) _.$ (12.,)
Do Not I1_ orHave Aocm to Electronicfiletransfer 58.7 (64) s3._ (2_)
F.Jeama_ Ne*wmtm tt2 (38) Logontoremoteoomputens 37.6 (41) 63.8 (2z7)
MG_uz 3.7" 4.1° Controlremoteequipment 9.2 (to) s.8 (3o)
Access/seathreclhibrary'scamdog 10.1 (11) 29.1 (99)
'Use isapercentage of •40-beer wock weeL Orderdocumentsfromthelibrary 3.7 (4) 9.4 (32)
"p£ 0.05. Searchelectronic('bibliographidc)atabases 11.9 (13) 33.5 (114)
Informationsearchanddataretrieval 24.$ (2"0 35.9 (122)
Preparescientificandpapemwith
duties and about 11% either do not use or do not have access
colleaguesatgeographic.alldyistantsites 19.3 (21) 32.9 (112)
to electronic networks (Table XII).
Netherlands U.q.
Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of elec-
tronic networks in performing their present duties (Table XII). ExchangeWith- (,) (n)
The U.S. respondents rated electronic networks almost twice IMemhemofOwnWorkGroup 37._ (41) 81.5 (277)
OthersInYourOrganlzatiouButNot
as important as their Dutch counterparts did. U.S. participants InYourWorkOttmp 27.5 (3O) 7"7.9 (265)
were less ambivalent about the importance (neither important OthemInYourOtganizatlonN,otInYour
nor unimportant) of electronic networks than were their Dutch WorkOmup,AtAOcographically
DistantSite 33.9 07) 56.$ (193)
counterparts (about 11% vs 21%). Respondents were also PeopleOutsideYourOrganization 33.0 (36) 58.$ (2oo)
asked how they accessed electronic networks (Table XIII): DoNotUseorHaveAm to
mainframe terminal, personal computers, and workstations. ElectroNnietcworlm 34.9 (38) 11_ (3s)
Access via personal computer was most frequendy reported. • NotrakedofUS. participtnt_
Respondents using electronic networks were asked to indi-
cate the purpose(s) for which they used them (Table XIII).
Both the Dutch and U.S. respondents indicated that dec- tically produced technical reports and the importance of these
tronic file transfer, electronic mail, remote log in for de- reports in performing their professional duties (Table XIV).
sign/computational tools, and connecting to geographically Both groups reported the greatest use of their own technical
distant sites represented their greatest use of electronic net- reports (96% of the Dutch use NLR reports and 97% of the
works. Also noticeable for both groups is the lack of electronic U.S. group use NASA technical reports). Other than their own
network use for accessing and searching library catalogs, reports, the Dutch use NASA (82%); NATO AGARD (71%);
acquiring (ordering) documents from the library, and searching German technical reports (69%); and British technical reports
(bibliographic) data bases. (50%).
Survey participants who used electronic networks were Other than their own reports, the U.S. group uses AGARD
asked to identify the groups with whom they exchanged mes- (82%) and British (54%) technical reports. Neither group
sages or files (Table XIII). The Dutch respondents displayed a makes particular use of Japanese, Indian, or Russian technical
consistent pattern of message and file exchange both within reports. Survey participants were also asked about technical
and outside of their organization. Overall, the U.S. group reports series access. Overall, the Dutch appear to have better
exhibited higher percentages of network use for exchanging access to foreign technical reports than do their U.S. counter-
messages or files than did their Dutch counterparts. The U.S. parts; the exception, of course, is access to NASA technical
respondents did not display as consistent a pattern of use as reports.
the Dutch respondents did.
Both groups were asked to rate the importance of selected
foreign and domestic technical reports in performing their
Foreign and Domestically Produced Technical
present professional duties. The average (mean) importance
Reports--Use and Importance
ratings are shown in Table XIV. The Dutch rated the impor-
Tobetter understand the transborder migration of scientific tance of U.S. NASA reports (X = 3.69) second only to their
andtechnical information (STI) via the technical report, survey own (_' = 4.32), followed by German technical reports (_' =
participants were asked about their use of foreign and domes- 3.22) and NATO AGARD reports (X = 3.18). The U.S. group
104 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 37,NO. 2,JUNE 1994
TABLE XIV in either Japanese or Russian. The mean (X) ability to read
USE AND IMPORTANCE OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTICALLY
and speak German and French was higher for the Dutch than
PRODUCED TECH_CAL REPORTS TO AEROSPACE ENGINEERS
S_s'rs INTHE N_m_LA_S AND UNn'ED STATES for the U.S. group. The mean (X) ability to read and speak
Japanese and Russian, although low for both groups, was
Netherlands U.S. higher for the U.S, group.
UM (n) (.)
Country/Organizatlon
NATO AGARD 7o.6 (77) S2.2 (2363 DISCUSSION
Bdtian 49.5 (54) 54.o (155)
ESA 44.0 (4s) 5.9 (17) The literature associated with the communication of tech-
India 7.3 (s) 6.3 (18) nical infoi'mation and technological innovation supports Fis-
France 43.1 (47) 4LI (11s)
6s.s (75) _2 (1o4) chef's [20] conclusion that "The communication of technical
Germany
Japan 11.0 (12) 11-_ (33) information is central to the success of U.S. technological
TRhuessiaNetherlands 906..93 (lO(i)5) 189.4.9 ((2s4T)) innovation, in general, and the management of R & D ac-
U.S.NASA 81.7 (sg) 96.5 (2",'7) tivities, in particular." However, as Solomon and Tornatzky
Netherlands U.S. [21] point out, "While technical information, its production,
transfer, and utilization, are crucial to technological innovation
Rating Rating
£ (n) x (e) and competitiveness, linkages between technical information
Imporlan_
and the various sectors of the technology infrastructure are
Country/Organization
NATO AGARD 3.xs (108) 3.42 (282) weak and/or poorly defined." The inability to define or explain
Bdtian 2.s7 (1o5) 2.89 (266) the linkages may be due, in part, to the fact that decisions
ESA 2.35" (108) 1.44" (242)
India .46 (lOl) 1.40 (241) regarding the use of technical information in the process of
France 2.36 0o7) 2.25 (25"0 technological innovation are driven by economic considera-
3.22" (108) 2.2o* (2,*7)
Germany tions which, in turn, are often shaped by labor, tax, and trade
Japan lm (104) 1.63 (239)
Russia 1.31" (97) 1.60" (231) policies, laws, and regulations.
The Netherlands 4.32" (109) 1.81" (246) In this era of international competitiveness and global
U.S.NASA 3.69 ° (108) 4.26. (2s5) economies, there is rising concern that engineers and scientists
in other countries might be better able than their counterparts
*p £ 0.05.
in the United States to utilize technical information for product
and process development. Two recent studies concerned with
TABLE XV global competitiveness in the large civil aircraft (air frame)
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FLUENCY AMONG AEROSPACE ENGINEERS
market state that U.S. competitors have decreased the time
AND SCIENTISTS IN THE NETHERLANDS AND UNWED STATES
it takes to apply technological advances in existing product
Nctherlandl U.S. lines [22, 23].
a-109 a=287
Multiple explanations exist; two are offered. Branscomb
I.ani_F Read% SpeakIt X Ability" Itad It Speak% _Ab/li_j'
[24, 25] states that certain countries, notably Germany and
Eagli_ 100 100 b I,
F'nmdm 92 92 2.5 2.1 32 22 1.7 1.6 Japan, have implemented what he refers to as "diffusion or
Get,man I00 99 4.0 3.4 22 15 1.7 1,6 enabling" technology policies directed at creating and utiliz-
Jnptmme 7 6 1.0 1.0 4 5 1.7 1.7
R_Jn 8 5 L0 1,0 7 5 1.6 1,6 ing technological capabilities. Diffusion-oriented technology
'A 1m 5pointrode wu reed tomctsure tb[ltWwith "1"bel_ pmably and"J"beiag fl_atly; policy invests heavily in the technology infrastructure; it
be_, @ehigher IIx a',_mp (mean) theip_tu theability ofsurvuy mspoodealltospukflead the emphasizes the professional competency of the engineering
lanlluap.
and scientific workforce and the integration of systems respon-
'Ea#bh i. theMdve ¼nl_p f_ th_* mpo_lemm.
sible for the production, transfer, and utilization of technical
information into the R & D process. Vernon [26] states that
the past 20 years have witnessed the tendency of technical
rated NASA reports most important (X = 4.26), followed by
information to cross national boundaries. This "boundary-
AGARD reports (X = 3.42).
spanning" tendency of technical information is due mainly
to improvements in communication and transportation and the
Foreign Language Skills--Reading and fact that other nations are spending more for R & D. These
Speaking Competencies nations are becoming greater consumers of technical informa-
Survey respondents were also asked to provide information tion, are developing the infrastructure needed to acquire and
about their foreign language skills, specifically their reading disseminate technical information, and are willing to allocate
and speaking competencies in the languages used by major the resources needed to acquire the technical information they
international aerospace producers. These findings appear in do not possess.
Table XV. If true, these two explanations should ultimately affect
All of the Dutch respondents (100%) read and speak English the communication of technical information by engineers
and German and read and speak French to a lesser extent and scientists. Our investigation of the technical communica-
(92%). The U.S. respondents reported little fluency in any tions practices of Russian aerospace engineers and scientists
foreign languages. Neither group reported particular fluency supports Branscomb's views regarding the importance of tech-