Scientific and Technical Communication: Theory, Practice and Policy

Introduction

Technical reports are written and issued during a project or at a project's completion. Although they vary greatly in subject and length, all technical reports share three qualities.

First, technical reports are associated with a project, and a specific type of report is associated with a particular stage in the project. For every stage — project conception to project conclusion — there exists a type of report. As with proposals, the project is one of three types: research, sales or service.

Second, technical reports for a given project are like Russian matiushka dolls -- each fits inside another, and the largest takes its general shape from the smallest. A series of laboratory reports, each of two or three pages, may form the core of a progress report of twenty pages. And several progress reports might in turn form the core of a final report of a few hundred pages. Further, sections of earlier shorter reports are incorporated into corresponding sections of subsequent, larger reports. The results section of a laboratory report is written into the results section of a progress report, and the results section of that progress report is written into the results section of a final report.

Third, report layouts are standardized so that a reader may easily find information anywhere in the report, and the reader may know where within the report to look for certain information. In fact, sections of a single report are written to different audiences. Overview and recommendation sections are directed to managers (a vice president, for instance), and methods and results sections are directed to those involved with details (like technicians). Although none of a report's readers may need to read a report in its entirety, all its readers need to read certain parts, and need to find those parts easily.

This chapter will discuss standard formats for various reports, and show you how to direct a single report to various readers. It will also show you how to adapt parts of one report into another, and ensure that the overall design is clear and predictable.

Internal Reports

An internal report is written to an audience you know and work with. It may, for instance, be your regular supervisor or an ad hoc committee of co-workers. Because the audience and you are on familiar terms, the internal report may dispense with formalities of front matter and end matter. As memos are informal versions of letters, so internal reports are informal versions of external reports. In fact, internal reports may be have all the parts of a memo — abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusions and recommendation, although they may appear under different headings.

Feasibility Studies

A feasibility study attempts to determine the practicality of a project. The simplest type of feasibility study answers a yes-or-no question: Should we undertake the project? More complex studies must answer a more difficult question: Which of several projects should we undertake? 1

Most feasibility studies are internal. A plant pathology laboratory considering a new soil mixture might commission a feasibility study from one or two of its technicians; a manufacturer of aircraft engines might ask its research and development division to consider a change to ceramic parts. Some feasibility studies are external. Here, an independent firm (PRC Energy Analysis Company) is commissioned by a government agency (the U.S. Department of Energy) to assess possible social impacts of a means to generate electrical power. The proposed idea is that earth-orbiting satellites would collect solar energy and transmit it to ground-based receiving stations, where it could be converted into usable electricity.

The 60-page report resulting from the study is titled Satellite Power System (SPS) Preliminary Societal Assessment.

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Satellite Power System (SPS)Preliminary Societal Assessment

May 1979
Prepared by

Charles Bloomquist
Alan Daurio
Stephen Shotland

for the PRC Energy Analysis Company Los Angeles, California 90024

OPEN-FILE REPORT 85-343

Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Research
Satellite Power System Project Office
Washington, D.C. 20585
Under Contract No. EG-77-C-01-4024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD	i
ABSTRACT	iii
1. Introduction	1
A. Background	1
B. Structure of the SPS Program Plan	2
C. Objectives of the Societal Assessment	4
II. FINDINGS OF THE TOPICAL REPORTS	12
A. Resources	12
B. Institutional Issues	18
C. International Issues	21
D. Social Impacts	27
E. Conclusions	31
Recommended scope of additional studies	36
III. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE SPS SOCIETAL RESEARCH	37
A. Interface Between Societal Issues	38
B. Interface Between SPS Assessment Tasks	44
C. Developing Comparative Societal Indices	48
IV. CLOSING REMARKS Appendix	58
REFERENCES	59
TOPICAL REPORTS	60

The function of the abstract here is the same as that in a memo — it offers an overview of the report to those who do not need to understand the details. The abstract of the SPS Prelimary Societal assessment reads, in part:

The findings of fourteen papers dealing with SPS societal issues have been digested and are presented in this document. While numereous societal problems and potential concerns are delineated, no "program stoppers" have been identified. Thus, in so far as the societal ramifications of an SPS are concerned, additional study of the concept is warranted.

The introduction may have three subsections.

1) Background or history of the problem. This report discusses "[A] continually increasing rate of national energy consumption far greater than the rate of population increase, and [a] growing reliance on dwindling stocks of fossil fuels. . ." Some reports describe previous attempts to correct the problem. Others, written to internal audiences already familiar with the project's background, omit this subsection entirely.

2) Definition or explanation of project under assessment. This report terms the subsection "Structure of the SPS Program Plan," and identifies and describes four parts of the project: "(1) systems definition, (2) assessment of environmental and health and safety factors, (3) assessment of societal issues, and (4) comparative assessment of SPS with alternative energy systems."

3) Purpose of the project under assessment. This report terms the subsection "Objectives of the Societal Assessment," and defines two primary goals:

(1)to determine if any of the social ramifications of an SPS might significantly impede its development, and

(2)to establish an information base regarding these issues to be used in the comparative assessment.

The discussion section describes criteria by which the feasibility of the project is assessed, and makes an assessment accordingly. Criteria for the SPS plan are resources, institutional issues, international issues and social impacts.

Resources include material ("At least half of the elements or compounds requires by either design option present no problem. Problems arise in the demand for mercury and tungsten in both options.") and real estate ("The land area required for each [receiving antenna] site is about 50,000 acres, roughly 200 km2").

Institutional issues include decisions regarding the project's administrative structure ("The studies found four prospective international organizational structure models for the SPS."), and public/private, and state and local regulations which might affect the project ("States want and are asserting increasing control over power plant planning").

International Issues include existing international treaties governing space operations ("the 1967 United Nations Treaty on Principles governing the activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space"), and legal precedents concerning other aspects of the project ("While international law has not established microwave exposure standards, the 1972 Liability Convention covers the subject of harm caused by orbiting space objects").

Social Impacts are here defined as social concerns not included in the previous categories. They include effects of microwaves on living systems, location of receiving antenna sites, and probable cost of the program to taxpayers.

Many discussion sections consider other factors as well: compatibility with present procedures or hardware, and long-term benefits like flexibility and knowledge gained for future projects. In a feasibility study which considers more than one alternative, this section outlines each. Most feasibility studies devote an entire subsection to each alternative, in all its detail. Some projects are made more clear by the presentation of aspects of each choice alternately — a paragraph to an aspect of the first choice, a paragraph to the corresponding aspect of the second choice, etc.

All other aspects being equal, the best study is likely to be the best because its discussion section is detailed. A full twenty-four pages of this study is devoted to discussion — and even this represents only summaries of even longer reports.

The conclusion summarizes the discussion and describes possible side-effects. The latter activity requires both knowledge of the details of the project and the imagination to appreciate the consequences of those details. If you need more information before you can make a recommendation, say as much. The authors of SPS Preliminary Societal Assessment admit that their understanding is limited, their conclusions tentative and preliminary — so preliminary, in fact, that they modestly title the section "Closing Remarks." But they ask specific questions, thus providing a clear direction for further work.

IV. CLOSING REMARKS

The preliminary phase of the Societal Assessment was conducted over a period of about three months. Given the state of knowledge of all aspects of the SPS concept, it is not surprising that further research is required to identify and evaluate the societal issues associated with this proposed energy system. No prohibitive or insurmountable societal barriers have been identified which constitute "program stoppers." However, there are some key questions which remain to be answered. These include the following:

Do suitable areas exist for [receiving antenna] sites which are well-placed with respect to energy demand centers?

Can the U.S. utility system projected to exist in the "normal" course of events be expected to accommodate the SPS?

Is there a suitable organizational structure which will be suitable most of the time, to various levels of government, the general public, and the international community?

Can the SPS capital requirements be met without seriously inhibiting other necessary investment?

Can international agreements be forged that will permit SPS operation?

Other questions, such as those dealing with resource availability (e.g., materials and energy) await further refinement of the reference system concept. Public concerns can be eliminated only through further environmental studies (of microwave bio-effects, for example) and by placing the SPS within a broader energy perspective.

Preliminary Reports

In general, the parts of preliminary reports correspond to those of progress and periodic reports outlined below. Like progress and periodic reports, preliminary reports vary greatly in length — from one or two pages to several volumes. Most include a summary, a statement of purpose (or introduction), a discussion, and conclusions and recommendations. For these reasons many firms term the report which is written as the project is begun or before it is begun the first progress report. But "preliminary" may be a better designation because this report does work particular to the beginning of a project: it must outline schedules, delegate responsibilities, and in general recommend specific courses of action.

The discussion section of a preliminary report recounts appointments of specific workers or teams of workers to specific areas, and explains or justifies those appointments. It estimates labor and expenses and predicts the duration of the entire project. And if possible, it divides the project into stages and identify expectations for each stage. The preliminary report which followed the SPS Preliminary Societal Assessment is titled Satellite Power Systems (SPS) Concept Development and Evaluation Program; Preliminary Assessment. Like many preliminary reports, it places project stages on a timeline:

Conclusions and recommendation sections of preliminary reports will be especially concerned with identifying unknowns. Accordingly, authors should consult with supervisors before and throughout the writing. Authors should consider circumstances and/or developments which

1) suggest that costs will be greater than the current estimate, and

2) would force extreme changes in the schedule,

3) might threaten the project itself.

The conclusion of SPS Preliminary Societal Assessment, like that of most preliminary reports, is cautious:

The costs of the SPS and the alternative technologies estimated for the years 2000-2030 are subject to serious uncertainties. Within these uncertainties, the lowest cost alternatives and the SPS costs overlap slightly. In the light of previous experience with cost estimates of new technologies, the costs should be regarded as goals rather than forecasts.

Each energy alternative has distinct health and safety impacts. The probability of serious impacts from each is low. Each alternative has a high probability of causing small impacts which may be difficult to quantify, and therefore it is difficult to compare effects between alternatives.

Internal Progress and Periodic Reports

A progress report describes the status of an ongoing project. Some progress reports are written when an unexpected breakthrough occurs or a project falls under new administration. Most, however, are written upon completion of a certain stage in a project. Usually, a schedule outlining stages (and, therefore, deadlines for progress reports) is established when a project is begun.

A periodic report also describes the status of an ongoing project. (In fact, many firms refer to it as a status report.) It is issued at intervals described by the contract or by established standards: intervals may be weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually. In general, the longer the interval, the more formal the report's tone.

Proposals and feasibility studies are difficult to write simply because you must confront so many unknowns; by contrast, progress and periodic reports are relatively easy to write because you may use those earlier reports as guides. When you write a progress or periodic report, you measure progress according to criteria set forth in the project's proposal; you also base the report's design on the proposal, giving most sections of the proposal a corresponding section in this report. Further, you may boilerplate — that is, re-use appropriate text unchanged. But be careful. It is almost too easy to cut sections from the proposal and paste them into subsequent reports without re-reading them, too easy to allow in subsequent reports details that are no longer relevant or accurate, and too easy also to fail to revise simple but potentially embarrassing stylistic matters like verb tense. ("The project will involve three separate divisions" in a proposal must become "The project involves three separate divisions.") If you take any text or any visual aid taken from the proposal, re-evaluate it for relevance in present, perhaps changed, circumstances.

Both periodic and progress reports range in size from single-page blank forms to documents running to sixty or seventy pages. The excerpt below is from an internal progress report titled "Average Near-Bottom Currents in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay Measured with Woodhead Drifters: Progress Report for Drifters Released Sept. 1990 through May 1991"). The report is brief, with four pages of text, five of illustrations.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Average Near-Bottom Currents in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay Measured with Woodhead Drifters: Progress Report for Drifters Released Sept. 1990 through May 1991

Frances S. Hotchkiss

Richard P. Signell

Branch of Atlantic Marine Geology
Woods Hole, MA 02543

Open-File Report 91-361

Any use of trade names in this report is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the Geological Survey.

The introduction locates the report within the series and cites the amount of time the report covers. The Woodhead Drifter report identifies itself by the time a set of drifters was released. This section may also re-familiarize the reader with the project, describing its purpose and outlining its stages.

I. Introduction

The U.S. Geological Survey is presently conducting a program of studies in Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays designed to understand water circulation and the transport and fate of contaminated sediments. These studies are closely coordinated with the Massachusetts Bays Program of the Environmental Protection Agency. One component of the U.S.G.S. program is the use of Woodhead bottom drifters to measure the average speed and direction of the water flowing over the sea bed. This progress report presents deployment and recovery statistics for drifters released between September 1990 and May 1991, and recovered by June 7, 1991.

The methods section describes how the work was performed. Here the section is called "The Woodhead Drifter Project." It offers a physical and functional description of the central instrument (the "Woodhead Drifter"), and describes its implementation.

II. The Woodhead Drifter Project

A Woodhead bottom drifter is shaped like an open umbrella with a long handle and is made of brightly colored plastic (Figure 1). The bottom of the stem is weighted so that the drifter is slightly heavier than seawater, and it is stable with its tip on the sea floor and the cap end up. A water-proof, postage-paid postcard is threaded onto the stem; it bears an identifying number and the request that the finder fill in the time and location at which the drifter was found and then mail the card. Before release, drifters are bundled in groups of ten or twenty and attached to salt blocks (rabbit salt licks) large enough to pull the bundle to the sea floor before dissolving so that the drifters can move individually.

Bottom drifters are released in groups of 40 or 50 during hydrographic surveys and mooring setting operations at stations in Western Massachusetts Bay, Stellwagen Basin, Cape Cod Bay and offshore of Manomet Point (see Table I and Figure 2). The Massachusetts Bay release point is near the site of the new Boston wastewater outfall. Drifter releases through May 1991 are listed in Table II. Drifters will continue to be released monthly through 1992.

The results section offers an overview of progress since the last report, taking pains to make clear exactly what was accomplished. Here the authors list locations at which drifters were found, estimate time of travel, and note a surprising finding.

III. Results

Data from cards returned by June 7, 1991 are summarized in Table III and Figure 3. Bottom drifters were found on beaches and in the nets of fishermen. Drift paths are drawn as straight lines to emphasize the fact that we only know where the drifters were released and where they were found, and not the actual path taken. Exceptions are drift paths for which a straight line would cut across land; we assume that the drifters traveled by water. For the drifters found on beaches, we do not know the time lag between the drifter's arrival on the beach and its discovery. Thus the calculated drift times for these drifters are upper limits.

No cards have been returned from the drifters released on April 30 and May 2 (groups 9 - 11). This represents a drift time of at least 36 or 38 days, not inconsistent with average drift times of 29 to 98 days for other releases.

In general, drifters released together were found in the same region, but drifters released at different times at the same location were often found in completely different regions. For example, drifters released in Cape Cod Bay in September (Figure 3a, D) were mostly found in Plymouth and Sandwich on the western shore of the bay, while those released at the same location in March (Figure 3c, D) were found to the east, mostly along the Atlantic beaches of the Cape Cod National Seashore.

The drifters released in Stellwagen basin in September (Figure 3a, A) were found in an exceptionally large region extending from Gloucester to Sandwich, as well as on the Atlantic shore of Cape Cod. The actual spread of drifters from Stellwagen Basin is probably even greater, as drifters moving into deeper, offshore waters are less likely to be found if they arrive on coasts or in heavily fished coastal areas.

Results sections are likely to include charts and tables — many of the Woodhead Drifter results appear in a single table. More complex projects may enjoy progress in several areas. A report may distinguish areas of progress by the order in which they were achieved, or by worker or division performing them. If a certain aspect of the project is of particular interest or importance (unexpected developments and discoveries, for instance), this section refers the reader to the discussion section.

The discussion section expands and explains the results, retaining their order of presentation. It also includes conclusions and recommendations. Especially in this section you may have difficulty deciding how much information to include, how much to omit. Authors of periodic reports know that information which falls outside the reporting period cannot be relevant. Authors of progress reports know that information which precedes the corresponding project stage cannot be relevant. As regards information within the reporting period or project stage, consider the needs of your audience. Sometimes common sense will be enough; other times you may want to question a co-worker or supervisor, or glance through past reports.

IV. Discussion

The near-bottom water flow measured by a drifter is averaged over time following the unknown path of the drifter. After drifting for many days, the drifter's forward motion is the accumulated difference between flood and ebb tidal currents. The Woodhead drifters released in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay have measured different near-bottom drifts originating at the same locations, suggesting weekly or monthly currents caused by storm winds and seasonal changes in river discharge. More data will be necessary to determine the effects of the different processes, so that we can frame general conclusions and predictions about the movement of bottom water and suspended sediments. Correlation's between drifter paths, weather, and the velocities measured by moored current meters, and between finding locations and fishing - and beach-use patterns, will be important aspects of data analysis.

The authors of the Woodhead Drifter report mention future work ("More data will be necessary . . . so that we can frame general conclusions and predictions about the movement of bottom water and suspended sediments."), but offer no time frame for that work. Either one is already established and so needs no mention, or the project is dependent on factors beyond the control of the participants — weather, funding, etc.

The discussion section of many reports evaluates the project's progress. It is directed to managers, who may need to coordinate your work with other projects, or may need to redirect funds and/or personnel toward or away from the project. Accordingly, you should compare the project's progress with that predicted in the original schedule, and the project's costs with those predicted by the original budget. If you find substantial differences, say so openly, and offer an explanation. Most people have a natural tendency to overestimate the speed at which they can work, and experienced managers and report writers take this aspect of human nature into account. But they also know that projects move at varying speeds; if you can, you might reassure your reader that because work is delayed at present does not necessarily mean that the project will not be completed on schedule. At any rate, be as realistic as you can. You may include a timetable (or revised timetable) here, or in an appendix.

The following is part of the discussion section of an 15-page internal report from a corporate laboratory — "High Temperature Superconductors Developmental Overview." The report examines and re-evaluates a long-term project to develop superconductors which could perform at high temperatures. It makes a clear division between past and present concerns.

Minor Issues

Several issues that were earlier thought to be urgent now appear to be of less importance:

1) Adequate supplies of raw materials, chemical precursors, and powders for high temperature superconductors are not a problem now, nor are they likely to be in the foreseeable future.

2) High temperature superconductors do not appear to raise unmanageable health or safety problems.

3) Fears that the prolific high temperature superconductor patenting by Japanese companies could block U.S. companies from participating in major superconductivity markets appear to be exaggerated.

Issues That May Warrant Concern

There are reasons for concern about several aspects of our high temperature superconductor research and development effort, and these could become serious in the future.

1) Progress in high temperature superconductor technology has been incremental. If this trend continues, return on our investment may not appear for several years. Several of our competitors may be experiencing similar problems; two have reported having received buyout offers from large foreign companies.

2) Federal funding to support high temperature superconductor research is dwindling.

This section may also make recommendations for additional research and patent claims. If research begins to suggest the project is ill-conceived, this section may recommend its termination; if research leads in new directions, this section may recommend a new proposal. Recommendations should not appear "out of thin air"; they should be based clearly on information presented in earlier sections of the report.

Production Reports, Field Reports, Conference Reports and Laboratory Reports

A production report is written by a supervisor of a product or manufacturing division to a manager. They may be one or two pages of simple blank forms, requiring you only to fill in the blanks with production figures. Blank forms are an efficient means to record repetitive work and organize predictable results. Their disadvantage is that they cannot easily accommodate unforeseen findings or events. But they do not prohibit them. Most include a "comments" section which allows and encourages interpretation and criticism.

A field report (often termed an "on-site" report") is written by a representative of the contracting agent after she has inspected work in progress. A building contractor, for instance, may have sub-contracted the plumbing, and will want a report of the progress of its installation. Many field reports are blank forms. But a specially solicited field report probably means the manager needs information — and opinion — best made evident by the format of a progress report.

A conference report may be thought of as a field report whose subject is not work in progress but a professional conference, workshop or symposium. An organization might send a representative to a conference and expect a report. A conference report differs from a field report in that its discussion section is a summary of conference presentations, and its conclusion and recommendations concern aspects of the conference to relevant the organization requesting the report.

A laboratory report may be brief and formulaic — a one page blank form. Often a series of blank-form laboratory reports will form the core of a longer report. The postcards used in the "Woodhead Drifter" project were a simple blank form laboratory report later incorporated into the progress report excerpted above. More lengthy laboratory reports may be very like final reports, containing all the subdivisions of the final report, usually in the same order: purpose, method, scope, results, conclusions and recommendations. Long laboratory reports are not long on text, but on charts and tables. The (outdoor) laboratory report "ECC Ozonesonde Observations at South Pole, Antarctica, During 1989," for instance, includes only eight pages of text (introduction, flight procedures, and ozone measurement uncertainties), but 248 pages of data.

External Reports

Reports to external audiences present their author and her organization as professional. They include front matter like title page and cover letter and end matter like appendixes, and their prose follows stylistic conventions more closely. Most are covered and bound.

A format for an external report is likely to include the following sections, in this order: title page, cover letter, table of contents, report summary, main body (including purpose, method, scope and results), conclusions, recommendations and appendixes. Each section begins a page, thus allowing the reader to differentiate the sections easily and so evaluate them individually. Each section may be further divided into sub-sections determined by the report's content. The method section of "Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance" (the example which appears below) devotes sub-sections to "participation in industry forums," "site visits" and a "formal survey."

External Progress and Periodic Reports

The title page includes the report title, period covered, contracting agent and/or representatives, author or authors, division or subcontractor the author(s) represent and the date of submission.

DOT/FAA/AM-91/16Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance
Office of Aviation MedicinePhase 1: Progress Report
Washington, DC 20591

William T. Shepherd
Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Branch
FAA Office of Aviation Medicine
Washington, DC

William B. Johnson
Colin G. Druray
James C. Taylor
Daniel Berninger

in association with:

Galaxy Scientific Corporation
Atlanta, GA
November 1991

Interim Report
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service.
Springfield, VA 22161.

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration

The cover letter is a standard letter of transmittal, the subject of which is the report itself. The letter orients the reader ("The enclosed report — 'Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance — represents the first report in a series"), summarizes the report's conclusions and recommendations, and summarizes costs. The cover letter, in other words, is a highly abbreviated report. A reader who needs only a general view of the project or the project's status may find all the information she needs here, and read no further.

The table of contents lists and numbers each of the report's major sections. Formats for headings and subheadings in the table of contents should match those in the text. As with any long report, Dewey Decimal notation is especially useful because it allows sections to be divided and subdivided ad infinitum.

SECTION	PAGE
DOCUMENTATION PAGE	ii
LIST OF FIGURES	iii
LIST OF TABLES	iv
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1
2 INTRODUCTION	2
2.1 History of Problem	2
2.2 Previous studies	3
2.3 Project Overview	5

Front matter of this report includes title page, documentation page, list of figures and list of tables. Some reports include acknowledgments and a list of acronyms. Each page preceding the executive summary is numbered with lower case Roman numerals. Although the title page may be listed in certain tables of contents and assigned a page number, no number appears on the title page itself. This example is typical, but there are common variations; in certain reports, for instance, the table of contents lists itself.

Because this report is long, each of its five chapters is treated as though it were a complete report. For instance, Chapter Five — Job Performance Aids" is subdivided into seven sections: 5.1 INTRODUCTION, 5.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION, 5.3 METHODOLOGY, 5.4 FINDINGS, 5.6 CONCLUSION, 5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS and 5.7 REFERENCES.

The introduction describes the project's background, rationale and goals. "This research will ... provide information to enable informed decisions on the integration of humans and technology."

The problem definition is an extension of the introduction, describing the reason the project was undertaken. "Avenues for achieving peak human performance are under utilized."

The methodology describes the means by which the purpose is being achieved. Attention to detail is essential here; some of the report's readers will be reading for only for detail: they are likely to be interested in this section more than any because they cannot easily predict its content.

The research sought a first hand understanding of the challenges facing the aviation maintenance community and the current approaches for utilizing technology to meet those challenges. Basically, this knowledge is obtained from several sources.

Aviation maintenance managers

Aviation maintenance technicians

Maintenance computerization specialists

Aviation maintenance industry representatives

FAA managers responsible for aviation maintenance

Aircraft manufacturer representatives

. . . .

Site visits lasting from several hours to one week were utilized to collect information on facilities, develop an understanding of the overall maintenance process, and to further talk with the individuals listed above. Information was collected through informal interviews and onbservation. When possible, the researchers participated in a non-interference basis in the normal conduct of aircraft maintenance.

The findings summarize information derived from the project with as little bias as possible.

The amount of information maintained on each aircraft has grown exponentially, but the basic structure of the paper methods are intact in today's information systems. This was necessary to ease the transition from manual methods and avoid extensive retraining. Most airlines developed maintenance information systems internally because each had unique maintenance programs. Even so, problems surfaced because computer applications were rarely able to do everything the same as manual methods and lacked flexibility. Further, it proved difficult to predict the magnitude of effort needed to develop systems or insure user acceptance.

The conclusion summarizes the findings and discusses their significance.

The conclusion of the research is that Job Performance Aid Technology is less mature and more expensive than generally accepted. Developing applications for new technology is important in the long term, but in the short term it should be secondary to increasing the effectiveness of existing resources, particularly human resources.

. . . .

This is not the conclusion anticipated when research was initiated. It was expected that a survey of technologies and Job Performance Aids would identify numerous systems that could make important contributions to aviation maintenance. The research rapidly demonstrated that while projects were initiated with great expectations, few sponsors claimed the final product would have a major impact . . .

The recommendation suggests specific application for the conclusions. It is the only section of the report in which the author(s) may openly express an opinion — even here, though, that opinion must be supported by preceding sections of the report.

Additional consideration should be given to approaches that use human resources more effectively before new technologies are implemented. The process of fielding technology is largely experimental, and although initially appealing, it often requires more resources and produces less satisfactory results than anticipated.

The authors of this study discovered a situation they did not foresee; to their credit, they acknowledged the situation and recommended adjustments. Sometimes honest recommendations are difficult. Many projects accrue considerable costs even in early stages; if you discover reasons that the project cannot or should not progress further, you may not want to be the messenger of bad news. Still, there are obvious reasons to do so; many projects proved embarrassing and still more costly because they were not stopped at the right moment. Others proved dangerous.

The tone of a critical recommendation presents difficulties. If your tone is condescending, the reader may resist your points, no matter how valid. But you may be right to use language that is strong and even severe, especially where inattention to the problem presents a danger to life and limb. Whatever the case, make your criticism constructive: suggest the cause of the problem, and — if you have the necessary background — a means to correct it. A criticism within Final Report of the NASA Study Group on Machine Intelligence and Robotics is plainly harsh: "Much of what NASA does with computers is years out-of-date. Worse, with only a few exceptions, influential people in NASA do not realize how out-of-date most of their thinking has become. In such areas as computer languages, the situation is nearly scandalous." But it supports its assertions, and recommends solutions (some of which appear below). Similarly, the Department of Energy's 1992 Environment, Safety and Health Progress Assessment of the Hanford Site is highly critical of a field office: "The Department of Energy Richland Field Office has not properly balanced the importance of effective Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) programs against mission priorities." And like the NASA Study Group, it not only identifies problems; it attempts to locate their cause: "Near-term mission driven milestones have dominated priority setting and resources at the Hanford Site at the expense of establishing a sustainable ES&H program."

The references are a bibliography of works used in the report and related works.

Final Reports

A final report is written upon a project's completion; accordingly, it is sometimes called a completion report. It has three audiences:

1) the contracting agent. She will read it to make certain all conditions of the contract have been met.

2) the author's own organization at an unspecified future date. Final reports preserve knowledge which would otherwise be lost. The NASA Study Group on Machine Intelligence and Robotics completed its work in 1980. Its final report, discussed in this section, later became the springboard for a series of 1992 reports entitled Advancing Automation and Robotics Technology for the Space Station Freedom and for the U.S. Economy.

3) other professionals interested in doing business with the report's authors. The last audience will judge the authors' professionalism on the quality of this report: thoroughness, organization, clarity and (not to be overlooked) aesthetics — cover design, graphics and overall layout.

A final report contains all or nearly all the information uncovered during the project whose conclusion it announces. In composing earlier reports in the series you often needed to ask what should be omitted; but in composing the final report, you omit almost nothing: virtually all the data gained during the project should find a place somewhere within its covers. As you might expect, most final reports are long. The Final Report of the NASA Study Group, for example, is 241 pages.

Despite its length, in many ways a final report is the easiest report to write. Because it is the last in a series, all or nearly all the information included in the final report will have appeared in previous reports, or will have been gathered at some point in the course of the project. Consequently, a writer may include in the final report text, tables and charts which first appeared in previous reports.

The title page includes the report title, names of the author or authors, the name division or subcontractor the author(s) represent and the date of submission. If there are more than five authors, their names may appear on the page following.

The cover letter is like that of the external periodic or progress report. It begins directly: "This publication, complete with appendant documentation, is the Final Report of the NASA Study Group on Machine Intelligence and Robotics." Because the cover letter is the only part of the report all readers are likely to read, authors may use it to give general instructions for reading. The letter of the NASA Study Group cautions: "Don't skip any of these subsections, especially the third, because if you look there, you will find detailed discussions of the conclusions and recommendations which the Group made on each specific machine intelligence and robotics subject or topic."

The table of contents is like that of the external periodic or progress report.

The introduction offers an overview of the entire report. It devotes a paragraph to each of the report's sections. The introduction of the NASA Study Group is typical; it gives one paragraph to a description of the project's purpose and history, one paragraph to the project's method, and two paragraphs to a summary of conclusions and recommendations.

Section I

Introduction

The NASA Study Group on Machine Intelligence and Robotics, composed of many of the leading research groups in the fields of artificial intelligence, computer science, and autonomous systems in the United States, met to study the influence of these subjects on the full range of NASA activities and to make recommendations on how these subjects might in the future assist NASA in its mission. The Study Group, chaired by Carl Sagan, was organized by Ewald Heer, JPL, at the request of Stanley Sadin of NASA Headquarters. It included NASA personnel, scientists who have worked on previous NASA missions, and experts on computer science who had little or no prior contact with NASA. The Group devoted about 2500 man-hours to this study, meeting as a full working group or as subcommittees between June 1977 and December 1978.

A number of NASA Centers and facilities were visited during the study. In all cases, vigorous support was offered for accelerated development and use of machine intelligence in NASA systems, with particularly firm backing offered by the Director of the Johnson Space Center, which the Group considered especially significant because of JSC's central role in the development of manned spaceflight.

This report is the complete report of the Study Group. It includes the conclusions and recommendations with supporting documentation. The conclusions represent a group consensus, although occasionally there were dissenting opinions on individual conclusions or recommendations. While the report is critical of past NASA efforts in this field — and most often the lack of such efforts — the criticisms are intended only as constructive. The problem is government-wide, as the Federal Data Processing Reorganization Project has stressed, and NASA has probably been one of the least recalcitrant agencies in accommodating to this new technology.

The Study Group believes that the effective utilization of existing opportunities in computer science, machine intelligence, and robotics, and their applications to NASA-specific problems will enhance significantly the cost-effectiveness and total information return from future NASA activities.

The report body includes sections on purpose, method, scope and results.

Each section is like corresponding sections of external periodic and progress reports, with two differences. First, most activity is described in past tense, and second, authors may introduce perspective gained over the duration of the project.

The contracting agent will expect much from the recommendation section, and will read it carefully. The NASA Study Group had recommendations for nine separate areas of activity. The following excerpt applies to the first of those areas.

1. Robotics Technology

Robotics and machine intelligence have in the past played surprisingly small roles in NASA space programs and research and development. Yet these areas will become increasingly more important as the emphasis shifts from exploration missions to missions involving space utilization and industrialization and the fabrication and assembly of space structures. The high cost of placing people in space suggests that the use of robots might be the method of choice long before robotics become practical on Earth.

The uses of robots can be broadly grouped into manipulators and intelligent planetary explorers. There already exist automatic vision and manipulation techniques that could be developed into practical systems for automatic inspection and assembly of components. Parts could be marked to allow simple visual tracking programs to roughly position them, while force-sensing manipulators could mate the components. Where large structures, designed from standard sets of components and assembled in regular patterns are concerned, manipulators could perform reliable, accurate, repetitive operations which would be difficult for a human, in space, to do. Intelligent robot explorers will become imperative, if sophisticated large-scale planetary exploration is to become a reality. The round-trip communication delay time which ranges from a minimum of nine minutes to a maximum of forty minutes for Mars, and for limited "windows" during which information can be transmitted, precludes direct control from Earth. Thus the human role must be that of a supervisor and periodic programmer-updater of the computer. A robot Mars explorer must be equipped with sensors and appropriate computing capability which maximizes both efficient mobility and intelligent data gathering.

The Study Group recommends that NASA take an active role in developing the necessary robotics technology, including rovers and manipulators, rather than expecting this technology to be transferred from other sources.

Some situations will require you to write recommendations outside the purview of the report — to enter areas your readers (and you yourself) did not expect to enter. The NASA Study Group includes as part of its recommendations a totally new idea — and presents it as such.

The Virtual Mission Concept — A Special Recommendation. The establishment of research efforts, well endowed with human and financial resources, should be accompanied by a new kind of attitude about mission planning and development, particularly with regard to space qualification and hardware. As it stands today, work seems to be done in two primary contexts, that of the paper study and that of the approved-assumed-to-fly mission. This automatically ensures two crippling results.

First, since the execution of a mission is very expensive, only a small number of the promising ideas will go forward to the point of a full evaluation and to the point of generating spin-off technology. Second, since space qualification is an assumed starting point for all thinking, the technology employed in mission development is guaranteed to be years behind state of the art. The chance for pushing the state of the art via spin-offs is smaller than it should be. Paper studies, on the other hand, tend to produce only paper.

Consequently we see the need for a new kind of research context, that of the virtual mission. Such missions would have the same sort of shape as real missions, with two key exceptions: first, space hardened and qualified hardware would not be used; second, the objective would not be to fly, but rather to win an eligibility contest. As we see it, there would be many virtual missions competing for to-be-flown status. Taken together, they would produce a pool of alternatives, any of which could be selected and flown, with space qualification taking place after, rather than before selection. Since none would be fettered by the limits of space qualification for their entire life, all would be more imaginative, technically exciting, and technically productive by way of spin-off technology. We believe that the costs involved in doing things this way are likely to be reduced. Conceivably, several virtual missions could be done, using commercial equipment where possible, for the price of one, whereas real missions are restricted as now to old fashioned, one-of-an-obsolescent-kind antiques.

There could be, for example, several groups competing by applying different locomotion schemes to the same exploration job. Similarly, several groups could explore a variety of shuttle-based, large-structure assembly ideas.

The appendixes contain information too lengthy to be included in the body of the report, and information not immediately necessary to a reader's understanding of the report. Most appendixes include graphic representations of data. Some include entire documents. Appendixes to many corporate final reports, for instance, include earlier reports in the series. The appendixes to the Report of the NASA Study Group contain five "background papers" on artificial intelligence.

The bibliography (or "works cited" section) of a final report, like the final report itself, is comprehensive. Most final report bibliographies list all previous reports in the series. Some are divided into primary and secondary sources; some are annotated.

The index appears in three types. Proper name indexes cite only proper names, subject indexes cite only subjects, and general indexes cite both. Many short reports have only proper name indexes; especially long reports include separate name indexes and subject indexes.

Structured Document Processors

In recent years report writing has become more difficult. Many periodic and progress reports are required to cite when and how their subject project is meeting health, safety and environmental regulations. These regulations may be difficult to find and identify; many may be located only in very large databases, and some may not be immediately recognizable to a person unfamiliar with the subject. There is a second problem. Especially for large projects, reports have become multi-volume affairs — too large to be managed effectively by a single author, and yet requiring a consistency in formatting and usage which is difficult to achieve among several authors. The answer to both problems is the Structured Document Processor (or SDP). SDPs are expert systems coupled with editing and formatting software. They may search large databases for specific information, and format documents according to pre-established specifications. One type can interact with one or more databases and actually generate a document automatically. Another requires that a user respond to prompts, "filling in blanks," as it were. Both are useful for composing extremely standardized documents like catalogues and parts lists.

A third type of SDP is useful for writing technical reports. It performs the functions mentioned above, and also acts as an aid to the writer. It prompts the writer for particular information, she keys in that information, and the SDP enters it into the document in a predetermined format. Especially sophisticated SDPs alert the writer to points in the document which require boilerplate, which she may insert and adapt as she sees fit. SDPs are new to the workplace, so new that people who use them may know them only by product names like PRONET, DocuStructure, Smartleaf Expert Publisher and ArchiText. The CD-ROM Computer Select is a catalogue which includes descriptions, costs and manufacturing information of SDPs. It is available in many libraries.

Discussion

1. Examine the "special recommendation" of the NASA Study Group on Machine Intelligence and Robotics, and discuss its persuasive strategies. Indicate sentences, phrases or words that are particularly forceful.

Exercises

1. Most libraries have files of corporate annual reports required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. They make intriguing reading for several reasons. For one, it is interesting to see how a corporation whose revenues declined relays such information to its shareholders. In some cases figures are presented in such a way which camouflages their harshness; on others, the "Letter to Shareholders" which begins the report openly admits that expectations exceeded actual achievement, that the company is experiencing difficult times. Gather four or five corporate annual reports — if you can, find those of companies whose stock rating declined or who were forced to ask for employees' resignations. Compose a brief essay noting and discussing strategies for presenting unpleasant information.

2. Groups describe advances of their work in an internal progress report. Some variations are possible here. A sufficiently large group which has divided its resources may compose several reports identifying separate areas of progress. A smaller group may compose a single report whose subsections reflect members' areas of interest or expertise.

3. Groups describe completion of their projects in final reports. Because final reports may include documents composed over the course of the project, groups may include in them parts of previous phased exercises — cover letters, descriptions, proposals, and progress reports.

Further Reading

Bloomquist, Charles, Daurio, Alan and Shotland, Stephen. Satellite Power System (SPS) Preliminary Societal Assessment. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1979.

Hotchkiss, Frances S. and Signell, Richard P. "Average Near-Bottom Currents in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay Measured with Woodhead Drifters: Progress Report for Drifters Released Sept. 1990 through May 1991." Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, 19

Komhyr, W.D., Crozer, E.A., Lathrop, J.A. and Winey, M.A. ECC Ozonesonde Observations at South Pole, Antarctica, During 1989. Washington: United States Department of Commerce, 1990.

Norman, Rose and Grider, Daryl. "Structured Document Processors: Implications for Technical Writing." Technical Communication Quarterly, Summer 1992, Vol. 1, No. 3 (5-21).

Johnson, William B., et. al. Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance; Phase 1: Progress Report. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1992.

Sagan, Carl, et. al. Machine Intelligence and Robotics: Report of the NASA Study Group: Final Report. 1980.

U.S. Department of Energy. Satellite Power Systems (SPS) Concept Development and Evaluation Program: Preliminary Assessment. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1979.

Technical Reports
Chapter 12

David M. Toomey and James H. Collier

Book Contents

Chapter 12

Technical Reports Chapter 12

David M. Toomey and James H. Collier

Book Contents

Chapter 12

Technical Reports
Chapter 12