facilities engineering command 1989

7/27/2019 Facilities Engineering Command 1989

1/129

This document was downloaded on September 24, 2013 at 03:05:07

Author(s) Myers, Zane Alan.; McCaffery, Jerry.

TitleAn assessment of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command's investments in researchand development.

Publisher Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School

Issue Date 1989

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10945/25705


2/129


3/129

C.


4/129


5/129


6/129

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOLMonterey, California

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NAVAL FACILITIESENGINEERING COMMAND'S INVESTMENTSIN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

byZane Alan Myers

June 1989Thesis Advisor: Jerry L. McCaffery

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited,


7/129


8/129

CLASSIFICATION O^ THIS PAGEREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE form ApprovedOMONo 0704 0188

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb RFSfPlC TIVF MARKINGSCLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY

/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE3 DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF REPORTApproved for public release; distributionis unlimited.

ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT rjUMBR(S)

OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONPostgraduate School

6b OFFICE SYMBOL(If applicable)

5A7d NAME OF MIJNITOHING ORGANi/A I iCjNNaval Postgraduate School

{City. State, and ZIP Code)

California 93943-50007b ADDRESS (C/(y, Sfdte, and ZIP Code)

Monterey, California 939A3-5000OF FUNDING /SPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYMBOL

(H applicable)9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDE NTlFlCATlOrj NUMBER

(City. State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERSPROGRAMELEMENT NO PROJECTNO TASKNO WORK UNITACCESSION NO

(Include Security Classification)OF THE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND'S INVESTMENTS IN RESEARCH ANDAUTHOR(S}

Zane AlanOF REPORT

Thesis I3bTIME COVERED

FROM TO14 DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month Day)

89 JuneIS PAGE COUNT

MENTARY NOTATION The vicws expressed in this thesis are those of the author and dothe official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S.COSATI CODES

GROUP SUB-GROUP18 Subject terms (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory^ Research andDevelopment, Technology Transfer

{Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)Naval Facilities Engineering Ccaranand, liXe all other rnajor commands withinDepartment of Defense, is interested in the cost effective utilization of theirresearch and develcpfnent investments. Assessments of NAVFAC's RDT&Econducted in 1968 and 1980 established baselines for determining whereare needed. This study uses the results of a mail questionnaire, sentand civilian personnel at "NAVFAC family" activities worlcJwide, toa basis for a current assessment of how effectively NAVFAC's ROT&Eare being utilized. This cxirrent cissessment is used to make

isons with the previously established taselines, in order to provide a basismeasuring the degree of inprcjvement and to prcjvide information for theof an RDT&E investment strategy for the 1990 's. The results indicatenumerous trends have been continued, progress has been made, and that theresome areas of concern.

OF ABSTRACTD SAME AS RPT n DTIC USERSOF RESPONS.BLE INDIVIDUAIMcCaffery

21 ABSTRACT SECURITY Cl ASSK ICA T IONUNCLASSIFIED

>?U IflfPllOrjl (IncluiJi- Aie.i CoiJr-)(^08) 6A6-2554 54Mm

1473, JUN 86 I'lvvnius I'dilKins .III' iihioli'lcS/N ()l()2-LI"-()lA-()6() 5

M ( llHl I > C I A .Sll K Al ( )N I >! TliA I Ai ,fUNCLASSIFIED


9/129

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited,

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERINGCOMMAND'S INVESTMENTS IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

byZane Alan ,MyersLieutenant, Civil Engineer Corps, United States NavyB.S., California Polytechnic State University, 1980

Submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENTfrom the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOLJune 1989


10/129

ABSTRACT

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, like all othermajor commands within the Department of Defense, isinterested in the cost effective utilization of theirlimited research and development investments. Assessmentsof NAVFAC's RDT&E results conducted in 1968 and 1980established baselines for determining where improvements areneeded. This study uses the results of a mailquestionnaire, sent to military and civilian personnel at"NAVFAC family" activities worldwide, to provide a basis fora current assessment of how effectively NAVFAC's RDT&Einvestments are being utilized. This current assessment isused to make comparisons with the previously establishedbaselines, in order to provide a basis for measuring thedegree of improvement and to provide information for thedevelopment of an RDT&E investment strategy for the 1990 's.The results indicate that numerous trends have beencontinued, progress has been made, and that there are someareas of concern.

Ill


11/129

Mqq73C.l

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) andits Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) have beenaware of their responsibility for the effective utilizationof Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds,since they first initiated an investment enhancement programin 1962. Assessments of NAVFAC's RDT&E investmentsconducted by the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in 1968 and1980, assisted NAVFAC and NCEL in determining whereimprovements were needed and confirmed that progress wasbeing made. In an era of considerable fiscal constraints,it has become increasingly apparent that a currentassessment of NAVFAC RDT&E investment utilization is neededto develop an effective investment strategy.

Over 750 questionnaires were mailed to military andcivilian members of "NAVFAC family" activities worldwide.Thirty-seven questions were used to collect their views,judgments and appraisals of the utilization of NAVFAC andNCEL's RDT&E program. The 275 responses returned wereanalyzed and the results compared to the results from thetwo previous studies.

The results of the 1968 study indicated that numerousdeficiencies existed. The 1980 study showed that dramaticimprovements had been made in nearly every area during the

iv


12/129

1970 's. The dramatic improvements of the 1970 's helpedestablish higher standards for NAVFAC and NCEL's RDT&Eprogram. These higher standards in turn, produced higherexpectations on the part of the customers who utilize theRDT&E products and services. The results of this studyindicate that the progress made during the 1980 's has, inmost cases, not been as dramatic. Trends have beencontinued in numerous areas and measurable progress isindicated in numerous other areas. The results alsoindicate that there are several areas of concern.

The results of this study have identified areas to belooked at for improvement and hopefully, will serve NAVFACand NCEL in their development of an RDT&E investmentstrategy for the 1990 's.


13/129

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I . INTRODUCTION 1A. BACKGROUND 1

1

.

NAVFAC and RDT&E 12

.

NCEL and RDT&E 13. Prior Efforts to EnhanceInvestment Utilization 2

B

.

OBJECTIVES 3C

.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 31

.

Primary 42

.

Subsidiary 4D. SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 4

II . APPROACH METHODOLOGY 5A. MEASUREMENT OF RDT&E INVESTMENT UTILIZATION . . 5B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE 6

1. 1968 and 1980 Questionnaires 62

.

Questionnaire for This Study 7a. Ease of Use 7b. Format 8c

.

Content 9d. Distribution 11

III. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE AND ANALYSIS 13A. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATE 13B. RESPONDENT ATTRIBUTES 14

vi


14/129

1. Organization Type 152 Rank/Grade 163 Experience Level 274. General Geographic Location 27

C. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 27D. RESPONDENT COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS 3

IV. SUMMARY 68A. CONTINUING TRENDS 68B IMPROVEMENTS 69C. AREAS OF CONCERN 7

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 72APPENDIX B NCEL DISTRIBUTION LIST #596 74APPENDIX C RESPONDENT COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS 92BIBLIOGRAPHY 102INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 103

Vll


15/129

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGEI ORIGIN OF QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION LIST 12

II QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATE 14III RESPONDENT'S ORGANIZATION TYPE 16IV RANK/GRADE OF ALL RESPONDENTS 18V RANK/GRADE OF PWD RESPONDENTS 18

VI RANK/GRADE OF ROICC RESPONDENTS 19VII RANK/GRADE OF PWC RESPONDENTS 2

VIII RANK/GRADE OF OICC RESPONDENTS 21IX RANK/GRADE OF CB RESPONDENTS 2 2X RANK/GRADE OF EFD RESPONDENTS 2 3

XI RANK/GRADE OF NAVFAC RESPONDENTS 24XII RANK/GRADE OF RESERVE RESPONDENTS 2 5

XIII RANK/GRADE OF OTHER RESPONDENTS 2 6XIV RESPONDENTS EXPERIENCE LEVELS IN YEARS 2 8XV GENERAL GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS 29

XVI QUESTION 1 31XVII QUESTION 2 32

XVIII QUESTION 3 33XIX QUESTION 4 34XX QUESTION 5 35

XXI QUESTION 6 36XXII QUESTION 7 37

viii


16/129

XXIII QUESTION 8 38XXIV QUESTION 9 39XXV QUESTION 10 40

XXVI QUESTION 11 41XXVII QUESTION 12 42

XXVIII QUESTION 13 43XXIX QUESTION 14 44XXX QUESTION 15 45

XXXI QUESTION 16 46XXXII QUESTION 17 47

XXXIII QUESTION 18 48XXXIV QUESTION 19 49XXXV QUESTION 20 50

XXXVI QUESTION 21 51XXXVII QUESTION 22 52

XXXVIII QUESTION 2 3 5 3XXXIX QUESTION 24 54

XL QUESTION 25 55XLI QUESTION 26 56

XLII QUESTION 27 57XLIII QUESTION 28 58XLIV QUESTION 29 59XLV QUESTION 30 60

XLVI QUESTION 31 61XLVII QUESTION 3 2 62

XLVIII QUESTION 33 63

ix


17/129

XLIX QUESTION 34 64L QUESTION 35 65

LI QUESTION 36 66LII QUESTION 37 67


18/129

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge Dr. John W. Creighton, ofthe Naval Postgraduate School, for the advise, theinvaluable insights and counsel that he provided. I amdeeply indebted to Mr. Peter Treim, Larri Johnson and JoyceSkoien of the Publications and Graphics Division at theNaval Engineering Laboratory, for their invaluableassistance in the selection of a distribution list and theformatting, printing and mailing of the questionnaire. Iwould like to thank William Powers, Cynthia Williams, MajorWilliam Doe, Stephen Ehret and Dr. John Brahtz of NCEL forthe fine assistance that they provided. A special thank youto my family for their strong support.


19/129


20/129

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND1. NAVFAC and RDT&E

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)executes a program of research, development, test andevaluation (RDT&E) for shore facilities, advance base andamphibious operations, sea floor structures, environmentalcontrol and those aspects of weapons systems related to itsmission. A significant portion of the emphasis of NAVFAC 'program is to provide RDT&E which will benefit the Navy'sshore facilities in efficiently and effectively meetingtheir independent missions. NAVFAC ' s link to the shorefacilities is primarily through the Engineering FieldDivisions (EFD's), Public Works Centers (PWC's), PublicWorks Departments (PWD's), and Of f icer-in-Charge ofConstruction (OICC's) Resident-Off icer-in-Charge ofConstruction (ROICC's) contracting activities.

2. NCEL and RDT&EA major portion of NAVFAC s RDT&E effort is assigned

to the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) , PortHueneme, California, in the form of specific researchprojects. The mission of NCEL is:


21/129

To be the principal Navy Research, Development, Test andEvaluation (RDT&E) center for shore facilities,including fixed surface and subsurface ocean facilities,and for the Navy and Marine construction forces...

As such, NCEL provides RDT&E in support of planning,design, construction, maintenance, and operation of NavalShore Facilities, the Naval Construction Forces, and theMarine Corps.

Both NAVFAC and NCEL share a vested interest in theefficient and effective use of limited RDT&E resources,especially in the current era of considerable fiscalconstraints.

3 . Prior Efforts to Enhance Investment UtilizationIn 19 67 NAVFAC Headquarters directed NCEL to

determine the extent to which the technology produced itsRDT&E investments was being used by field activities. NCELturned to the Naval Postgraduate School (NFS) to assist inthis effort in order to instill a behavioral science pointof view and to ensure objectivity. The initial NPS studybegan in 1968 with the assumptions that part of theresponsibility for use of NCEL's RDT&E products rested withNCEL and that all field activities were aware of NCEL'sresearch efforts. The study, using a mail questionnaire offield activities, exposed deficiencies in NCEL's RDT&Edocumentation and distribution systems.

Several more studies of NAVFAC 's RDT&E efforts wereconducted during the 1970 's by NPS ' s J. A. Jolly and J.W.


22/129

Creighton in order to better understand the processesinvolved in the transfer of RDT&E technology. Since thennumerous changes have been implemented by NAVFAC and NCEL inan effort to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of theutilization of RDT&E results. A significant change wasNCEL's establishment in 1971 of the Field EngineeringSupport Office (PESO) . The prime purpose of PESO was to seethat field activity customers were satisfied and that timelyresponses to their requests for technical information wereprovided by NCEL. An additional study was conducted by NFSin 1980 to determine the results of efforts made during the1970 's to improve the utilization of technology produced byNAVFAC 's and NCEL's RDT&E investments. The 198 study,using over 2000 mail questionnaires determined that NCEL hadsteadily improved in numerous areas and that users of theirRDT&E results had a positive opinion of NCEL and its work.B. OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to provide a currentassessment of the utilization of NAVFAC ' s RDT&E investmentsand provide a measure of improvement in the utilization ofRDT&E results over the baselines established by the 1968 and1980 studies.

C. RESEARCH QUESTIONSIn pursuing the objectives of this study the following

research questions can be asked:


23/129

1. PrimaryIs NAVFAC utilizing its research, development, testingand evaluation (RDT&E) funds effectively?2. SubsidiaryWhat level of satisfaction exists with the fieldactivities who are the end users of NAVFAC and NCEL'sRDT&E investment efforts?Has NAVFAC progressed in attaining better transfer ofRDT&E results to field activities since the lastassessment was performed in 1980?What suggestions do personnel at field activities havefor improving the effectiveness of NAVFAC RDT&Eutilization?

D. SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONSThe scope of this study is limited to the assessment of

the utilization of NAVFAC ' s RDT&E investment which isprovided to NCEL and does not address the relatively smallRDT&E investments that NAVFAC provides elsewhere nor therelatively small RDT&E investments which NCEL receives fromsponsors other than NAVFAC. The purpose of this limitationin scope to the "NAVFAC Family", is to provide informationthat NAVFAC and NCEL will find useful in making managementdecisions over which they can exercise full control.Distribution of the mail questionnaire used in this studywas limited to the NAVFAC family activities, organizationsand positions within, that were currently on an NCELdistribution list to receive NCEL reports or otherdocuments. It was reasoned that this distribution wouldreach those who would be most familiar with NAVFAC andNCEL's RDT&E efforts.


24/129

II. APPROACH METHODOLOGY

A. MEASUREMENT OF RDT&E INVESTMENT UTILIZATIONThe Opinion Research Method was deemed to be most

appropriate for the collection of data to provide a measureof NAVFAC's RDT&E investment utilization for this study.Empirical, archival, and other analytic research methodswere ruled out because they either could not be applied atall, were far too costly, or were simply too impractical.

The Opinion Research Method lends itself to severaldifferent approaches for the collection of data. The use ofa mail questionnaire was determined to be best suited tothis study. Travel to all "NAVFAC family" activities oreven a representative random sample of activities tointerview personnel, was deemed to be impractical due totime, travel and resource constraints. The use of telephoneinterviews was also deemed impractical due to timeconstraints, logistics and poor cost effectiveness. The useof a mail questionnaire was considered to be the mostpractical and most cost effective approach to collect theviews, judgments and appraisals held by a wide variety offield activity personnel.


25/129

B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE1. 1968 and 1980 Questionnaires

The NPS study conducted in 1980, was initiallyintended to replicate the 1968 study in its entirety.However, after discussions with numerous individuals atfield activities and at NCEL, the study team determined thattimes had changed and not all the questions used in 1968were still appropriate for a replicative study twelve yearslater. The 1968 questionnaire contained 58 questions ofwhich 20 were carried over into the 1980 questionnaire. Itshould be noted that the wording of these questions was insome instances modified, however the basic intent of thequestion remained unchanged. These 20 questions helped toestablish continuity with the 1968 study so that trendanalysis could be effected. The 1980 study team developed38 new questions for a total of 58 questions, thus matchingthe total in the 1968 study. The 1968 study questionnaireformat is not readily available, however the 20 repeatedquestions presented in the 1980 study appeared to ask therespondent to agree or disagree with the question. The 1980questionnaire utilized the Likert scale for most questions,whereby the respondent is asked to express his beliefs,attitudes and opinions by responding within a given range.The range included Strongly Agree (SA) , Agree (A) , Disagree(D) , Strongly Disagree (SD) . If the respondent feltunqualified to answer or had no opinion he was asked to skip


26/129

the question, leaving it blank. It was also realized thatsome of the questions would not be applicable to allrecipients of the questionnaire, thus resulting in noresponse. Five of the 58 questions were in a multiple-choice or true-false format. Additionally, severalquestions at the end of the questionnaire requestedattribute information including rank/grade, type oforganization and number of years of experience in NAVFACorganizations. There is no known documentation as to thedistribution of the 1968 questionnaire. The 1980 studyutilized an NCEL general distribution list and targeted allNavy users of NCEL reports and documents. A total of 2062questionnaires were distributed in 1980.

2. Questionnaire For This StudyNine years have elapsed since the last study was

conducted in 1980 and just as the 1980 study team had found,the dynamics of the environment make a totally replicativestudy inappropriate for 1989. The prime objectives in thedevelopment of this questionnaire were to gather meaningfuldata that would best answer the research questions posed,from the widest dissemination possible. Balancing andblending of the following considerations was required.

a. Ease of UseIn order to help make the questionnaire "user

friendly", considerable effort was directed toward trying tomake the questionnaire as easy as possible for the


27/129

respondent to execute. Using the latest in desktop-publishing-type computer software, a "single-sheet package"was developed which contained the respondent's mailingaddress; a letter from NPS explaining the purpose of thestudy; instructions for completing the questionnaire; thequestion section; and a pre-addressed return mailer. Thissingle-sheet was printed on gold colored 60 lb. paper forhigh visibility and durability. It only required that therespondent unstaple it, read the brief letter andinstructions, complete the questionnaire, fold, staple anddrop in the mail. In consideration of the respondent'slimited availability of time, fifteen minutes was solicitedin the letter of explanation for the completion of thequestionnaire. In further consideration of the value oftime to the respondent, he was requested to answer thequestions only upon his behalf rather than hisorganization's. The intent was to allow an immediatecompletion of the questionnaire upon opening, rather thanthe respondent possibly setting it aside to gather theorganization's perspective and respond at a later time. Itwas felt that this effort would improve the questionnairecompletion/response rate and further minimize the timerequested of the respondent.

b. FormatThe Likert scale provided the basic format in

the 1980 questionnaire. It was felt that an added benefit


28/129

of selecting the Likert scale format was to establish apoint of continuity to the 1980 study. The questions werenot categorized in this study as they were in the 1980questionnaire, primarily because it was felt that in therespondent's interest to minimize the time he devotes toresponding, he would not bother to distinguish betweencategories, but would simply hurry through the questions.It was realized in all the studies that because of differingperspectives, some of the questions would not be applicableto all recipients, and would result in no response. As inthe 1980 study, it was still desirable to requestinformation on respondent attributes in order to betterunderstand responses. It was also desirable to encouragethe respondent to provide comments in a space provided. Itwas considered important to maintain an assurance ofanonymity to the respondent in order to ensure free and openresponses.

c . ContentDetermining the content of the questionnaire

required a proper balance of questions which would remainsensitive to the respondent's limited availability of time,provide continuity with the previous studies and addresscurrent issues. In considering the demand for therespondent's time, it was desirable to keep the number ofquestions to a minimum, while still collecting the data

which would help answer the research questions posed. With


29/129

a target of 15 minutes as reasonable for the completion ofthe questionnaire, it was necessary to reduce the number ofquestions considerably from the 58 used in the two previousstudies. It was evident in the 1980 questionnaire that manyquestions, while not worded exactly the same, did requestsimilar information.

Considerable emphasis was placed on trying tobuild upon the baselines established in the two previousstudies to facilitate trend analysis. An attempt was madeto meet these objectives by including nine questions fromthe 1968 study which still address current concerns. Thesenine questions had also been included in the 1980 study andthus provide continuity across all three studies. Twenty-one questions new to the 1980 study, which still addresscurrent concerns, were included in this study. They provideadditional continuity. The wording of these 30 questionswas in some cases modified for clarification, to minimizebias, and provide overall balance. Seven new questions wereadded to explore additional current issues posed bypersonnel at NAVFAC headquarters, NCEL and from the BlueRibbon Panel's Report on NCEL. The resulting questionnairefor this study is comprised of 37 questions. See AppendixA.

In addition to questions concerning currentRDT&E issues, it is desirable to attain certain attributesof the respondent in order to better understand the

10


30/129

perspective and opinions expressed in his answers. Therespondent's organization type, his rank or grade, and hisexperience level were helpful for understanding responses inthe 1980 study. These same attributes are used in thisstudy because they are still considered to be helpful, andtheir use provides continuity with the 1980 study. A fourthattribute not in the 1980 study, general geographiclocation, is also used in this study to see if it affectsthe respondent's attitudes, beliefs and opinions.

d. DistributionThe 1980 study distributed 2175 questionnaires

using NCEL's general distribution list and selecting onlyNavy organizations from that list. Distribution for thisstudy was determined by using several NCEL distributionlists resulting in a total of 759 recipients. In order toavoid duplication of distribution and stay within the scopeof the study (organizations inside of the "NAVFAC family" ofactivities who are familiar with NCEL) , a new distributionlist was made specially for this study. The following tabledisplays how the distribution list for this study (NCEL#596) was determined. A copy of NCEL List #596 is providedin Appendix B.


31/129

TABLE IORIGIN OF QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION LIST

NCEL LIST LIST CONTENT t ON LIST I SELECTED DELETIONS

368 85,86 690 241 82 ( OUT OF SCOPE589 82 700 393 OUT OF SCOPE585 PW'i 199 48 82,85,86592 ROICC'I 69 33 82,85,86592 SCE-f 99 44 82,85,86

BBasaszBBazasBaaBsazBaaBBBBBaBaasaaaBacBassaaaaBaaBaaBaaBaaaBBBBBBaaaaaa596 ALL OF ABOVE 799

82> 6uidii/Abitracti Riciplinti85" Ttchditi Shut Ricipiintt86 Tich Riporti/ Notii Ricipiinti

12


32/129

III. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE AND ANALYSIS

A. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATEA total of 759 questionnaires were distributed by mail.

No questionnaires were returned to the sender by the postalservice as non-deliverable. There were none returned inwhich the respondent indicated that receipt of thequestionnaire was due to an error in distribution. A totalof 275 questionnaires were returned completed, an overallresponse rate of 36.2%. Twenty of the 275 responsesreturned were photocopies that recipients of originalquestionnaires had made for their colleagues to complete andreturn. This was encouraged in both the introductory letteras well as the instructions for the questionnaire (seeAppendix A) , in order to obtain responses from additionalpersonnel familiar with NCEL. Taking this intoconsideration, the response rate for the 255 originalquestionnaires returned is 33.6%. Respondents who returnedoriginal questionnaires indicated that they made a total of71 photocopies for their colleagues. The response rate forthe 20 copies returned from the 71 made, is 28.2%.Increasing the total distribution by the 71 copies made,from 759 to 838, revises the overall response rate to 32.8%.These figures are presented in the following table forfurther clarification:


33/129

TABLE IIQUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATE

ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTIONNUMBER OF COPIES REPORTED MADENUMBER OF COPIES RETURNEDNUMBER OF ORIGINALS RETURNED

7597120

255TOTAL RESPONSE/ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION = ( 255+2 0) /759= 36.2%ORIGINALS RETURNED/ORIGINALS DISTRIBUTED = 255/759= 33.6%COPIES RETURNED/COPIES DISTRIBUTED = 20/71 = 28.2%TOTAL RESPONSE/TOTAL DISTRIBUTION = 275/(759+71) = 32.8%

In comparison, the study performed in 1980 obtained anoverall questionnaire response rate of 36.3%.

B. RESPONDENT ATTRIBUTESIn order to more fully appreciate the respondent's

attitudes, beliefs and opinions, four attributes wererequested, namely: his organization type, his rank or grade,his experience level with NAVFAC activities, and his generalgeographic location. These four attributes, which produced1100 data points for the 275 responses received, arepresented in the following sections. Where percentages areprovided, they have been rounded to the nearest 1%.

14


34/129


35/129

organizational type is distinguished throughout most of thetables presented in this study. The distribution ofrespondents by organization type is summarized in Table 3with comparisons to the 1980 study.

TABLE IIIRESPONDENT'S ORGANIZATION TYPE

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (PERCENT)1989 STUDY 1980 STUDY

SROUP FREQUENCY PERCENT OF TOTALs3ssxsss3sssss:ssrs:rssxsBsssBsss3s:

BROUP FREQUENCY PERCENT OF TOTALCSSSSSSS3SSS3SXSSSSeS3SSSS33S3ZS3SS

PHD 102 371 PND 260 35ZROICC 23 8Z ROICC 53 7XPHC 18 71 PNC 42 6ZOICC 8 3Z OICC 13 2ZCB 16 6Z CB 22 3ZEFD 36 13X EFD 136 18ZNAVFAC 22 8Z NAVFAC 60 8ZRESERVE 5 2X NCEL 1 ozOTHER 45 16Z OTHER 163 22ZCaSSS3B3BSS333S3SSSS33CSEZB=SSasaSB333 8B3SS3 3SBS3=SBS3aBS333EBBBBS=SBBBBBBTOTAL 275 lOOZ TOTAL 750 lOOZ

zaaaazaBBBsaaaaBSBasBBBBsaasaaasssaBBszasaazaaxassBaaBazaEZsaaasBasaaBBaBasBBBSss

2. Rank/GradeThe rank of military personnel and the grade of

civilian personnel are summarized for all respondents inTable 4 and by organization type in Tables 5 through 13.Results from the 1980 study are provided in the right-mostcolumn for comparison purposes.

16


36/129

TABLE IVRANK/GRADE OF ALL RESPONDENTS

PERCENT It 1980 PERCENTRANK/BRADE RESPONSE OF TOTAL II OF TOTALIf 1 BBBBBBSBBSBSSS

CAPT 14 II IZCDR 26 101 11 7XLCDR 50 lez n mLT 61 221 M 13ZLTJ6 8 11 9XENS 4 II 2Z6M/6S-15 6 II 3Z6S/8H-14 19 II aBS/BH-13 25 It 14Z6S-12 36 14Z 11 29Z65-11 7 II lOZOTHER IS II 3Z

TOTALEBSS8XSBS8BB

275 lOOZBl I BBBSBBBBBBBBBSit lOOZ

MILITARY 165 59X it 40ZCIVILIAN 95 35); 11 58Z82BBSSSaS333S: :ESSsaaBS33sez3zsBa33is3s*33s:x3s:s33aaBasCONHENTSi flllitiry noM coapriie 59Z oi thi responiti

s coipartd to only 40Z in thi 1980 itudy. Thilix of riipondinti (ilitary vi dviliin) hiirtviriid, Hhich could bt i lignlflcint factorin liking coipiriioni bitmin thi tNO itudiis.


37/129

TABLE VRANK/GRADE OF PWD RESPONDENTS

PERCENTRANK/6RADE RESPONSE OF TOTALSBSSSSSSSSSSSSZaSSSSISSSZBaSlSSSSCAP!CDRLCDR 1& 16LT 31 30LTJBENS6n/es-i56S/6H-146S/6-i368-12 21 2168-11OTHERasssasamBsasBissasBBsasiaxsasBaaBBSBasTOTAL 102 lOOX

1980 PERCENTOF TOTAL

asaaaaasssaas

7121473!

21624?4

lOOZaaBBBB8aa8aBaaaaBaBaB8888B8Beas8aB3Ba8aas3BaaaaaaaB8B

18


38/129

TABLE VIRANK/GRADE OF ROICC RESPONDENTS

PERCENT : : 1980 PERCENTRANK/6RADE RESPONSE OF TOTAL 1 OF TOTAL:s=r3sszs:::::=:===3:s=s :sss==:s=srssss; sssssssssszssCAPT OZ : : OZCDR 5 22Z : : 9ZLCDR 7 30Z 1 i 281LT 8 3SZ 1 : 36ZLTJ6 1 4Z 1 92ENS 2 9Z J : OZ6H/6S-15 OZ 1 1 OZ6S/6H-14 OZ : : OZ6S/6H-13 OZ : 4Z6S-12 OZ : i 13Z6S-11 OZ i 1 OZOTHER OZ t

* w ^ ** ^^a^^ I1 OZ

TOTAL 23 lOOZ J : lOOZascsosssssasssssssssseazaassssszsBasasiBasassaasasms


39/129

TABLE VIIRANK/GRADE OF PWC RESPONDENTS

PERCENT 1 1980 PERCENTRANK/6RADE RESPONSE OF TOTAL : OF TOTALBasiassaBBSiBiaiiiaiaBasBSBasBBisssi IsxsaaBBaaaaaaCAPT OX 1 2XCDR 17X : 5XLCDR 62 > lOXLT 17Z J 14XLTJ8 OX 12XENS 6X ! OX6H/68-15 OX > OX6S/BH-14 17X I 2X6S/6n-13 IIX J 31X88-12 17X ! 21X68-11 6X i 2XOTHER 6X : IX

laasaaBaaaaaBaTOTAL 18 lOOX 1 lOOXBaBsaaaaaBBaassaaasasassssasazsszBBSSBaBBBSBBXBaBSBBB

20


40/129

TABLE VIIIRANK/GRADE OF OICC RESPONDENTS

RANK/6RADE RESPONSEPERCENTOF TOTAL

:sz3sz::szsassaBsssB8sssssss3ss3

t 19B0 PERCENT: OF TOTAL]333rSCIS33Z33

CAPT 1 13X ii OZCDR 1 13X ii 23ZLCDR 2 2SZ ii 15ZLT 2 29X Ii 23ZLTJ6 1 131 ii OZENS OZ ii OZen/Bs-is OZ ii bzeS/8H-14 OZ ii 13Z6S/6H-13 OZ ii OZ6S-12 1 13Z Ii 8Z6S-U OZ it 8ZOTHER OZ ii OZ

TOTAL 8 lOOZ i! lOOZ3 3 333 3 383SS 333333333333333333333BSSBS33SSSSSSSSSS8SaB


41/129

TABLE IXRANK/GRADE OF CB RESPONDENTS

PERCENT : 1980 PERCENTRANK/GRADE RESPONSE OF TOTAL

SS33SS3S3S33S::: OF TOTALssssassazssas

CAPT ox : OZCDR 5 315; ! 3ZLCDR 3 m 41ZLT 4 25Z 18ZLTJ6 2 13X > 181ENS oz 5Z6H/6S-13 oz 1 OX6S/en-14 oz : OZ6S/Bn-13 oz 1 4Z8S-12 oz : n6S-n oz i OZOTHER 2 13Z i OZaS=ZS:S33SB3:bsssss:s33SZ3SSB3EE:S=SSS )SZESS3B8sacaaTOTAL 16 lOOZ 1 lOOZ

a>ssa3S3itzBSsaBsta8sssssisaaaaasaaaaaas

22


42/129

TABLE XRANK/GRADE OF EFD RESPONDENTS

PERCENT J I 1980 PERCENTRANK/6RADE RESPONSE OF TOTAL J : OF TOTALssxssssBaasa ssBsaaaaaaaaaaaaBsasaassasiCAPT 5 14X i 2ZCDR 2 6X 1 IXLCDR 2 61 i 2ZLT OZ 1 OZLTJ6 02 i OZENS OZ 1 OZ6n/6S-15 3 8Z i 3Z8S/6H-14 B 22Z 1 9Z8S/6H-13 7 19Z 1 18Z8S-12 e 22Z 1 44Z8S-11 1 3Z 1 18ZOTHER OZ 1 3ZaBBSis8SBacsaaas3sasBsiBasmBaai{TOTAL 36 lOOZ lOOZBsasBaBBassaaaaaaaaaaasBSBBaaaaBaBBBBBBBBBBaaBaaaaaaa


43/129

TABLE XIRANK/GRADE OF NAVFAC RESPONDENTS

PERCENT 1 1 1980 PERCENTRANK/GRADE RESPONSE OF TOTAL 1 I OF TOTALsssazssBsaaBSBBBSBasasaasisaassBSBsi|CAPT 14Z 1 : OZCDR 5Z 1 1 SZLCOR 52 > : 2ZLT OZ J : 2ZLTJG OZ > i 2ZENS OZ i 1 OZ6H/6S-15 14Z 1 i lOZGS/en-H 18Z i i 13Z6S/6H-13 27Z I 1 BZ6S-12 14Z 1 : 33Zes-ii OZ 1 1 17ZOTHER 9Z 1 1 6Z

TOTAL 22 lOOZ 1 J lOOZaaaaaBSBBBBaaaasaasaaaaasaszasaBsssBaaasaBaBBBSBBaaaB

24


44/129

TABLE XIIRANK/GRADE OF RESERVE RESPONDENTS

PERCENT I 1980 PERCENTRANK/GRADE RESPONSE OF TOTAL J 1 OF TOTALssssEsssa SSSSSSaSSBBBBBSBBBBSBSBBeaCAPT 1 201 s NOT USEDCDR 2 40Z JLCDR 01 JLT 1 20Z 1LTJ6 02 IENS 01 :6H/6S-i5 OZ i6S/6N-14 OZ i68/eH-13 OZ 16S'12 1 20Z 16S-li OZ :OTHER OZ i>B>asasB*SBBBcsssBSaBSBaBaaB>BS|TOTAL 5 lOOZ 1 OZ


45/129

TABLE XIIIRANK/GRADE OF OTHER RESPONDENTS

PERCENT I : 1980 PERCENTRANK/BRAOE RESPONSE OF TOTAL t 1 OF TOTALSBSCBBSBSSSICAPT

ISS8SBBBBB811 4X

CDR : nLCDR 18 m i > 1LT 12 27X : < 17ZLTJ6 i 9XENS 1 2Z611/68-13 1 7X6S/6n-14 8X6S/6H-13 : lOZ6S-12 1 14X65-11 1 nOTHER : 2ZSBSSSBSSCS:TOTAL 49 lOOZ 1 i lOOZ

26


46/129

3

.

Experience LevelRespondents were requested to provide the years of

experience they have with NAVFAC-related activities such asdesign, construction, maintenance, planning, CB operations,etc. The purpose is to provide the reader v/ith anunderstanding of the experience levels of the respondentswithin different organization types and ascertaindifferences with the 1980 study results. Table 14 providesthe mean experience level and standard deviation byorganization type for this study, and provides results fromthe 1980 study for comparison.

4. General Geographic LocationRespondents were asked to indicate their general

geographic location as either Overseas, East Coast, WestCoast, or Central CONUS . This information was compiled togive the reader an understanding of the general geographicdispersion of the respondents, their organizations and theirproximity to NCEL. Table 15 provides the responsedistributions by organization type.

C. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONSThe questionnaire for this study was comprised of 37

questions (see Appendix A) and generated over 10,000 datapoints for the 275 responses. This section presents a tablefor each of the 37 questions with a response analysis whichincludes:


47/129

TABLE XIVRESPONDENTS EXPERIENCE LEVELS IN YEARS

1999 STUDY NEAN STANDARD 1980 STUDY HEAN ST^INDARD0R6ANIZATI0N FREQUENCY YEARS DEVIATION ORGANIZATION FREQUENCY YEARS DEVIATIONssrssesBsaBsssaaaaassEsssassssaaaaaaaaa BaaaacssaaaaaaBaascaaaaaasaaaaaaaasBasaaaPHD 102 10.89 6.60 PHD 260 13.02ROICC 23 10.00 5.99 RGICC 53 10.11PHC 18 15.22 10.10 PHC 42 12.48OICC 8 12.25 6.63 OICC 13 15.31CB 16 12.28 5.82 CB 22 9.96EPD 36 17.83 6.65 EFD 136 11.52NAVFAC 22 16.00 7.55 NAVFAC 60 12.42RESERVE 5 13.00 7.80 NCEL 1OTHER 49 11.76 6.25 OTHER 163 10.07

TOTALSBHS8BBBBS1

275 TOTAL 750IBBBBBB

HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE) 12.72 yiari NEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE) not avallabli

NOTEi Approxiiatcly 68! of rtipondints Mill havi an experienci livilNithin 4/- one standard deviation of the lean value.

28


48/129

TABLE XVGENERAL GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION6R0UP FREQUENCY OVERSEAS EASTCOAST HESTCOAST CENTRALssssssszsaxcasrcsssassBSsssBsassscssssrsszsazasssassszaszPUD 102ROICC 23PUC 18OICC 8CB 16EFD 36NAVPAC 22RESERVE 5OTHER 45

3354436

113

347426

22191

14

2211724832

13

13

3

3

15

aaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaBssaBaaaaaaasaaBaaaaaaaaaasaaaszaaaaaaaaTOTAL 275 69HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE-

10? 72 25

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)OVERSEAS EASTCOAST MESTCOAST CENTRAL

32Z22Z22290X19Z17ZOZ

20Z29Z

saasBBBBasaBBaaaaaBBaBBBaaBBBBBaaaaBSBa

331 22Z 13Z30Z 48Z OZ22Z 17Z251 OZ3BZ 19Z61Z OZ86Z OZ20Z 20Z311 HZ

29Z 40Z 26Z 9Z

KSBssssaaBaBaBaaaasassaasaESsaasaasaasBsasaB


49/129

- The organization type- Frequency of response- Response distribution- Response distribution as a percent of frequency- The mean of the total responses as a percent- If there was a question with similar meaning used on the1980 or 1968 study questionnaires, the question numberand the means of the total responses as a percent, areprovided for comparison purposes and trend analysis.Comments providing some interpretation of the data,

including trend analysis, are provided at the bottom of eachtable. Where percentages are provided they have beenrounded to the nearest one percent. Where the wording ofthe question has been reversed from the previous study, theresponse results for the previous study have also beenreversed for ease of comparison.

D. RESPONDENT COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONSThe questionnaire encouraged the respondents to provide

comments or suggestions that they may have concerning NAVFACand NCEL's RDT&E program. To ensure the anonymity ofreponses, the comments and suggestions provided in AppendixC, indicate only a respondent's rank or grade, organizationtype and level of experience with NAVFAC related activities.The comments and suggestions in Appendix C have beenorganized first by organization type, then by rank or gradelevel and finally by years of experience.

30


50/129

TABLE XVIQUESTION 1

QUESTION li I undtritand thf purpoit and liiiion of NCEL.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrcint)GROUP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A D SD NA

PHD 102 31 58 7 3 3 30X 57Z 7Z 3Z 3ZROICC 23 13 3 301 57Z 13Z OZ OZPHC 18 16 IIZ 89Z OZ OZ OZOICC 8 7 13X 88Z OZ OZ OZCB 16 8 2 38Z 30Z 13Z OZ OZEFO 36 26 3 19Z 72Z ez OZ OZNAVFAC 22 12 8 2 551 36Z 9Z OZ OZRESERVE 5 4 20Z 80Z OZ OZ OZOTHER 43 10 33 2 221 73Z 4Z OZ OZBBSSBBSBSSSsBasBsaaasaaaB>Bxcaaaaa3SSzsi>a3aaae8S3 BBaasBaa iBBsaaaaaaaa aaaa aaaaTOTALmcAu nr Tni

275'AL RESPON!

77 173 19 3 3\\ 28Z 63Z 7Z IZ IZtnn ur lU )t""" //

BaaaaaaiISBBBBBBAGREE 91Z DISAGREE 8Z NA IZ

1990 STUDY (queition 1)-- .--\s 25Z 63Z BZ IZ IZ""//

AGREE 90Z DISAGREE 9Z NA IZ

1966 STUDY (quiftioniBBaBaaaaai

1)--Baaa

...ss AGREE 33ZlaaasBBBBi

DISAGREEaaBBaaaaaaai

67Zaaaaa1a""*// aaaCONHENTBi Ovtrill rtiulti obtalnid an conilitint Kith tht 1980 study, ovir 90Z of rtipondinticontlnut to fill that thiy undiritand NCEL'i purpoii and liiiion. NAVFAC Hdqtri

riipondinti ftlt tht trongiit agritiint (S3Z) and ROICC'i and CB'i had thi loitdliagriiiint (13Z].


51/129

TABLE XVIIQUESTION 2

QUESTION 2: Hhich of the foIlOHing do you feel best describes the type of NorkptrforMd by NCEL? (check one)

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrctnt)GROUP FREQUENCY APPLIED THEORY CONSULT HIUURE NA APPLIED THEORY CONSULT HUTURE NAaiSZSSSBS8IBISS3SaB3BSSS3BSSBBSCS3:CSrBBsssss;:::zs38Bsscz 3Z3SZZS SBSBBSZ:ZZBZSZZSsaaaaaBsaaasaPHD 102 17 12 5 66 2 17Z 12Z 5Z 63ZROICC 23 1 12 1 39X 4Z OZ 52ZPMC 18 1 9 2 33X oz 6Z 90Z mOICC B 1 6 13Z oz 13Z 75ZCB 16 13 19Z oz OZ BIZEFD 36 2 26 1 19X OZ 6Z 72ZNAVFAC 22 3 15 1 14Z 14Z OZ 68ZRESERVE 5 2 602 OZ OZ 40ZOTHER 43 14 2 1 28 311 4Z 2Z 62ZBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB8BB8BZBBBSSSSsssszsBs: ECSCISBCBBCIBCBCSS BZaZSZBZSBSSBZBBBBBBBBaaiBBBSBBBBBaBaTOTAL 275 63 18 10 177 7HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE ... 231 7Z 4Z 64Z 3

az3:s:::s:::sssz:3s::s3::s::sssss:s3:ss3:ss:sssss==sz33S3z:8S33ss3Z33S8Baaaa8azza8ss3BBaaa8aaaaaa1980 STUDY (question 6, siiiliar) 26Z 5Z - 61Z 9XasBaBaBBBBaaaBaaBaaaszssaaBaazBBaaaaasssBasaaBzzsassaaaaaasaaaaaaBaaBaaasaBBBBBaassBBaaaaaaaaaaaaa

CONNENTSi The question differs froi the 1980 study, in that consultation has been included inthe field of possible responses. Sixty-one percent of respondents in 1980 felt thatNCEL performed a lixture of applied and theoretical research. The results of thisstudy indicate that 64Z of respondents noN feel that NCEL is a full spectrue lab.

32


52/129

TABLE XVIIQUESTION 3

QUESTION 3i NCEL pirionntl knoN nothing about field ictivity probliii.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)6R0UP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A D SD NAPND

caaBssssssssa102 3

laaaaaaaa9 59 29 2

asaaxBssai3Z 9Z

sasaaaaaa58Z 2Z

ROICC 23 1 16 6 4Z OZ OZPNC 18 1 13 4 OZ 6Z OZOICC 8 4 4 OZ OZ OZC6 16 9 7 OZ OZ OZEFD 36 2 2 24 8 6Z 6Z OZNAVFAC 22 3 4 10 5 14Z 18Z OZRESERVE 5 3 2 OZ OZ OZOTHER 45 1 30 13 2Z OZ 2Z

TOTAL 275 10 16 168 78Hctu nr rnifAL RESPONSE- . 4Z 6Z 61Z 28Z IZcnn ur lu ' B !

AGREE iOZ DISAGREE B9Z NA IZBaaaaaaraaasaaxssaasasassasaassaasxzszszaaaaasBzcsasaaaaaszsssaaazaaaaaaasBaBaascaisassBaaBisBaBBaBBBaBBaBaa1980 STUDY (question 2) 2Z 9Z 65Z 21Z 3Z

AGREE IIZ DISAGREE 86Z NA 3ZSBBSSsaBSZSzaszaBaaaasaaaaBBzaBBeassssaaaaaasBaBBBBaBaBBaBBaBasBaaasBBBaBazaaBaBaaBBaaBBaaaBaaaaaBBBBBasaBa1968 STUDY (quiition 2) AGREE - DISAGREE Mjority

COHHENTSt Overall reiulti are coniistent with the 1980 study. Respondents stronglyfeel that NCEL personnel are knoNledgable about field activity probleisApproxiiately one-third of NAVFAC Hdqtrs respondents (32Z), feel NCELpersonnel know nothing about field activity probleis. OICC's (lOOZ) feelthat NCEL personnel are knoNledgeable about field probleis and 30Z feelstrongly that NCEL personnel are knoMledgeable of field probleis.


53/129

TABLE XIX

QUESTION 4

0UE8TI0N 4i I find it proftsiionally inforiativi to read NCEL litvraturi.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrcMt)GROUP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A D SD NassassiPMD

lasaaaaaaaaaai102

laaaaai16 72

laaaaaaaaa9 2

laaszas3 16Z

aaaaaaaai71Z 9Z

laaaaaaaaa2Z

aa

ROICC 23 16 1 2 I 13Z 70Z 4Z 9ZPMC 18 12 1 1 22Z 67Z 6Z OZOICC 8 5 1 25Z 63Z 13Z OZC6 16 10 1 1 2SZ 63Z 6Z 6ZEFD 36 29 3 1 8Z BIZ 8Z 3ZNAVFAC 22 13 5 1 14Z 59Z 23Z 5ZRESERVE 5 3 1 20Z 60Z OZ OZ 2OTHER 45 32 3 2 2 13Z 71Z 7Z 4Z

TOTALMCAM nr rni

275rAi DccDnucc.

42 192 24 9 8\\ 15Z 70Z 9Z 3Ztnn Ur fU iflL KtoruUbt"' """//

A6REE 8SZ DISABREE 12Z NA(OQA cTiinv (quMtion 32!k ___. _-_\\ 13Z 72Z 7Z

aaaaaaaaaiIZ

laaaa aaaTOv OlUUl 1 ...... """""//

AGREE 8SZ DISAGREE 8Z NAaaaaaaaEasasasassassssssscascscsaaaaaacasasaaszsaaBaaaasssassassszssaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazaaaaaaaaaaaa

COHNENTSi Reipondents at all activitiei itrongly agree that NCEL literatureis inforaative. These results trt consistent Nith the 1980 study.NAVFAC Hdqtrs respondents (73Z) agreed least.

34


54/129

TABLE XXQUESTION 5

QUESTION 3i NCEL it rttponiive to ly loit coMon technical needi.

6R0UP FREQUENCYRESPONSE DISTRIBUTION

SA A D SD NARESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrctnt)

SA A D BD NA

PND 102 \} 96 ai27 sssaassass 91 99Z 26Z 7ZROICC 23 :\ 11 91 48Z 4Z 30ZPNC IB :I 11 IIZ 61Z 22Z 6ZOICC 8 1I 6 131 75Z 13Z OZCB 16 :I 7 131 44Z 29Z 13Z 6ZEFD Zh i1 19 12 HZ 42Z 33Z IIZNAVFAC 22 J1 12 9Z 99Z 27Z 14Z OZRESERVE 9 (1 3 oz 60Z 20Z 20ZOTHER 49 1[ 28 2Z 62Z 16Z 16Z

TOTAL 273 2:NEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE-

I 149 63 13 28- 8Z 34Z 23Z 3Z lOZA6REE 62Z 0ISA6REE 28Z NA lOZ

BfiA CTIinV / 7 i>AMalta ^irAiwnt\- . -_-__-.._____. \\ 13Z 61Z 16Z 21tHv biUuT tquiition if oppotiti NoroinQj- -aaaaaaaaaaaaaiisscBsrssissBSBBaEsszssBBassBaaBaaBscsassaBsasssa


55/129

TABLE XXIQUESTION 6

QUESTION 6i Colltaguii ind tupiriors cncourigi to iipliaint NCEL ricoMtndtd itthodi and productitRESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pirctnt)

6R0UP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A D SD>BBS8S3ss>sixss:ascsz>BBBassssesc:xss:8as33zrs::::Es:ssss3scs: sassaBBBzaBBSSSSssBsssBsaBBBBBaBSBSSSBSPHD 102 2 35 46 11 8 2Z 34Z 49Z HIROICC 23 1 7 10 3 2 4Z 30Z 431 13ZPNC 18 10 6 1 1 OZ 56Z 331 61OICC 8 2 5 1 OZ 2SZ 63Z 13ZCB 16 1 4 5 9 1 6Z 29Z 31Z 31ZEFO 36 2 13 IS 2 4 6Z 36Z 42Z 6ZNAVFAC 22 1 9 12 2 2 9Z 23Z 99Z 9ZRESERVE 9 2 2 1 OZ 40Z 40Z 20ZOTHER 49 11 24 4 6 OZ 24Z 93Z 9ZaaaaasaBaaB8B3BSBS333BB8aaBBaaassBaaasBaaBBBS3B3BBaBBBeE3aaaaaB aBBaaaaaaBBBSBBBBBBBaaaaaaaaBaaaaaaaaaaTOTAL 279 7 89 129 30 24HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE 3Z 32Z 49Z IIZ

aaaaaaaBsaaaaaa aaaBaaaaaaaaaa aaaaA6REE 39Z DISAGREE 96Z NAaBBaBBBBaaaaaassaaaBaBaBaaaaasssasasasaBsaaaBBaBaBassasasBssaaBsaaBsaaaaaBBBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

1980 STUDY (quiition 19, oppoiiti wording) 21Z 69Z 7Z 21AGREE 861 DISA6REE 9Z NA

BBaBBaaaBBBBBZBBsaaazssasBaaaaaaasasaaasaaaaaaaaaBaaaaaaBaaaaBasaazaaaaaBasBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBaaaaaaaaaBaaa

CONNENTSi Only 39Z of rtipondinti noH ftfl incouragid to iapliiint NCEL rtcoMindatloni atcoaparid to 86Z in 1980. PNC's (96Z) fttl loit tncouragid, itill ligniflcantlybeloN th 1980 levfl. CB's (311) ffel itrongly that they are not encouragid and76Z of OICC reipondinti fill that thiy an not encouragid to iipliiint NCELrecoiiindationi.

36


56/129

TABLE XXIIQUESTION 7

7i NCEL li txptnding RDTIE fundi in iriii thit irt applicablf to rial probliii thatflild activitiii an ixpiriincing.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)UP FREQUENCY SA A SO NA SA A D 80 NA

102 7 59 26 2 8 7Z 58Z 25Z 2Z 8Z23 1 10 8 4 4Z 43Z 39Z OZ 17Z18 1 10 5 2 6Z 56Z 28Z OZ HZB I 7 13Z 88Z OZ OZ OZ

16 4 9 2 1 29Z 6I 13Z OZ 6Z36 3 20 6 1 6 8Z 56Z 17Z 3Z 17Z22 10 8 3 1 OZ 45Z 36Z 14Z 5Z5 4 1 OZ BOZ OZ OZ 20Z

4SSSBS8ISSSSSSI

3

>:28 4

tBSSBBBBSSBI2

tBBBBBBI8

IBSBBBB7Z 62Z

EBBBBBBBSI9Z

IBBBBBBBBBBBl4Z

BBSBBI BBB18Z

IBBBB

nr275

TOTAL RESPONSE-20 157 59 8 31

7Z 57Z 21Z 3Z HZUP //AGREE 64Z DISAGREE 24Z NA IIZ

GTIIDY (quiition 4)'mi .-. \\ 7Z 64Z 19Z 2Z 8Z&IU 1 !!tBBBBBBIiâaasaai A8REE 71Z DISAGREEaaaaaâ^^î 21ZIBBBBBI NAlaaa 8ZaRiiulti an lOMNhat loMir than thiy mn in 1980. OICC'i (lOOZ) fill thatfundi an biing ipint on nal fiild activity probliii, Nhili only 47Z ofROICC'f and 45Z of NAVFAC Hdqtn agni. CB't (2SZ) and OICC'i (13Z) indicatistrong agniiint that fundi an biing tpint on nal fiild activity probliiiand NAVFAC Hdqtn (14Z) indicati strong diiagrmint.


57/129

TABLE XXIIIQUESTION 8

0UE8TI0N Bi 1 fttl that NCEL riporti contain uiiful data.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DI STRIBUTION (pfrcint)6R0UP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A D 80

PMD 102 18 66 11 3 18Z 63Z IIZ 3ZROICC 23 I 13 2 4Z 57Z 22Z 9ZPW 18 2 11 HZ 61Z 17Z OZOICC 8 2 6 25Z 73Z OZ OZCB 16 6 7 38Z 44Z 19: OZEFD 36 3 27 8Z 73Z HZ OZNAVFAC 22 3 13 1 14Z 66Z 9Z 3ZRESERVE 5 4 OZ BOZ OZ OZOTHER 4S 4 33 9Z 73Z 16Z OZ

TOTAL 275 Z1 182 33 6 13NPAin nr TOTAL RESP0N8E- ,-_-_\\ 14Z 66Z 13Z 2ZcnR Ur

SI iBsas^^^aaailaaaaaaaaaa^^B^i ABREE BOZ1 DISA6REE 19Z NA 19B0 STUDY (qutition 25)- BZ IZssas8sx8S3S3aass3Ss=ss33sasassa33saaasas3aasssasi1968 STUDY (quiition 23) - A6REE 6BZ DISAGREE 32Z

7Z 77Zaaaaasaaaaa A6REE B4Z DISAGREE 9Z NA

COWtENTSi Only a alight dfcriaii froi tht riiulti obtainid in 1980. OICC'i (lOOZ)agrta that riporti contain uitful data, Nhili only 61Z of ROICC'i agrit.Fourttin ptrctnt noN strongly agrtt that NCEL rtporti contain uttful dataai coiparfd to 7Z in 1980.

38


58/129

TABLE XXIVQUESTION 9

QUESTION 9i Mhin I niid an inforiil riipontt to i tichnical qutition, I prtfir to contacta contractor rathtr than NCEL.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrcint)R0UP FREQUENCY SA A D SO NA 8A A D SD NA

MD 102 7 29 49 8 71 28Z 4ez 9X 8ZOICC 23 3 9 10 1 13X 39X 43Z OZ 4ZMC 18 5 10 1 OZ 28Z 56Z IIZ 6ZICC 6 2 4 OZ 25Z 50Z 25Z OZB 16 2 2 5 2 13Z 13Z 31Z 31Z 13ZFD 36 1 10 23 3Z 2BZ 64Z 6Z OZAVFAC 22 2 5 11 2 9Z 23Z 50Z 9Z 9ZESERVE 5 1 1 20Z OZ 20Z 60Z OZTHER 43 2 10 19 8 6

132 33 20

4Z 22Z 42Z 18Z 13Z

OTAL 275 18 72tAy nc TOTAL RESPONSE- S\ 7X 26Z 46Z 12Z 7Xtnn Ur ?)

A6REE 33Z DISAGREE 60Z NA 7ZssBsictsaxszsssasaisxsszss ssaaazsaaca:taazaaaaassiisaasaaalaaaaaaai laaaaaaaailaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai aaaa980 8TUDY (quMtion 8)'

at._...\\ 5Z 35Z 43Z IIZ 4Z

a aaaaaaaaaaBi laaaaaai'""}}

laaaaaaaiAGREE

laaaaaBBai40Z

raaaaaaaaiDISAGREE S6Z1 NAaaai 4Zaaaa

OHNENTSi Sixty pircint of riipondinti prifir contacting NCEL for a riiponii to a ttchnicalquiition initiad of contactinq a contractor, an incrtaii froi 36Z in 1960. Oviron-half of tht ROICC'i (52Z) prefer to contact a contractor.


59/129

TABLE XXVQUESTION 10

QUESTION 10: NCEL, at a strvice organization, realizes the iiportance of beingreiponsive to its custoeer's needs.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (percent)GROUP FREQUENCY SA A SD NA SA A D SDssssasss::3ssasss3ssxszass3zs3zS3333BZZZZZaBBZZZBZZZS3E3Z33ZZZ szazszsssBBzazBSB:EaaaaaasaaaasaaaaaaaPHD 102 10 6S 15 10 lOZ 64Z ISZ 2ZROICC 23 13 4 13Z 57Z 13Z OZPNC 18 13 72Z 22Z OZOICC 8 6 13Z 75Z 131 OZC6 16 9 3 13Z S6Z 6Z 6ZEFD 36 23 3 14Z 64Z 61 8ZNAVFAC 22 9 41Z 32Z 23ZRESERVE 3 2 40Z 40Z OZ 20ZOTHER 45 27 7 13Z 60Z 9X 2ZsaBSBaasaaasssassssBBsaazx 3SS39SZZSSsasaaesB :ssssssBsazzzz aBBaazzasz ssaaass::SB6SZBS asTOTAL 275 31 167 37 13 27HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE- ... IIZ 61Z i3Z SZ

s:3:33S3z:33ssB aBzaasBszBBaaa aaA6REE 721 DISAGREE 18Z NA

BBSZ3B3=ZCZ8aZSSZ3SEaZBBZZZ3ZSZ33BZZBS3BSSSZ8a3aBSCZa3S38SBX3ZS3SaSXZ33B3SBSS388ZBSBBSaaBa8aBaaBSa8aaaa1980 STUDY (question 7, opposite wording) 121 60Z 18Z 31

888888888888888 aaaBBaaaaaaaaaB aaA6REE 72Z DISAGREE 21Z NA

SZSaZZZ3SS3S:SS::sa=ZSS33=3ZSZS333SS33338SZSZ3Z3ZS333Z33a33SZ:3S8S8S8Z8333BB8B3BaBS3Ba8aSaaB8BaBS8B888a

COHHENTSi Overall results are consistent Nith the 1980 study. OICC's (8BZ) strongly feel thatNCEL realizes the iiportance of being responsive to its custoior's needs, Nhereasonly 461 of NAVFAC Hdqtrs agree. NAVFAC Hdqtrs (231) and RESERVES (201) stronglydisagree that NCEL realizes the iiportance of being responsive to its custoicr'sneeds.

40


60/129

TABLE XXVIQUESTION 11

OUESTIOM 111 Nork ptrfortid by NCEL ii coiplttid in a ion tiiely and fficiint lanntr than aorkcontracttd to non-Navy labi.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)6R0UP FREQUENCY SA

BSSSA D 8D NA SA A 80 NA

PMO 102 28 28ISSBBBI

21 B88BBB

43 n IBBBBB8I27Z laBaaaaaaaaiISBBB8B2Z aaaiIB8BB42ZROICC 23 13 9X 9Z OZ 57ZPWC 18 6 6Z 17Z OZ 33ZOICC 8 4 131 13Z OZ 50ZCB 16 7 6Z 31Z OZ 44ZEFD 36 6 15 OX 22Z 17Z 42ZNAVFAC 22 12 6 2 OZ 9Z 27Z 9ZRESERVE 3 I 20Z 40Z OZ 20ZOTHER 45SSSSSBBIBsas > 14 3EBSBBBI 18EBBBBBBB HZ 31ZizaasaailaaaBaaaaaai 7ZE3SB8BBaai 40ZISBSSTOTAL 275 12 65 72 17 109uetu nc TOTAL RESPONSE- _\ V 4Z 24Z

DISAGREE

6Zlaaaaa

32Z NA

40Z'tnn \ir //AGREE 28Z

!40Z

asssszaxzss33SE=:sss:rr;EsaszsszssazEssaszsassssss:Esssxa::ss:as3ss:issazaaaaaaitssaaaas laaaaaaiaazizaaa1980 STUDY (quiitlon 31 , opposit 9 Mordi__ I \\ 6Z 45Z 2Z 31Zgl //

laaaaa aaaaaaaAGREE 51Z DISAGREE 18Z NA 31Z

SSSaSBBSSBSBSSBSSaBSSSSZSazSSCSrSZSSSSX ssaaaaBaaaiIBBBBBElaaaaasBBilaaaaaaaasailaaaaaaiizaaaaaaaaailaaaaaailaaaaaaa

COHHENTGi The aajority of rfipondenti (40Z) did not aniwer, an incrfaii froa 31Z in 1980.Significantly ftHtr agrii (28Z) ai coapartd to 51Z in thi 1980 study. Eighty-tito pircint of NAVFAC rtipondinti fail Mork pirforaid by NCEL ii not ai tiaalyor ai ifficiint at non-Navy labi.


61/129

TABLE XXVIIQUESTION 12

OUESTION 12i NCEL rtCMttndationi art uiually coipatibli Nith txiiting guidt iptcificationi,diiign lanuali and codti.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrctnt)GROUP FREQUENCY SA A D 8D NA 8A A D 80

PHD 102 9 68 4 21 67Z 4Z OZROICC 23 i 12 2 52Z 9Z OZPHC 18 1 12 67Z OZ OZOICC 8 1 3 1 13Z 3BZ 13Z OZCB 16 3 8 1 191 30Z 6Z OZEFD 36 2 24 I 67Z 3Z OZNAVFAC 22 13 4 3 59Z 18Z 14ZRESERVE 5 3 1 60Z 20Z OZ OZOTHER 43 1 30 2 12 67Z OZ 4Z

TOTAL 275TOTAL RESPONSE-

21 171 13 5 6562Z 9Z 2ZcHn ur - --//

A6REE 70Z 0I8A6REE 7Z NA

1980 STUDY (quiition 56a , oppoiltt Nording! .__-.\\ 46Z 23Z 4ZSBSSSBIlaaaaBsi A6REElaaaaaaaaa 49Zaaaaaaaaa DISA6REE 29Zaaaaaai NAlaaCONHENTSi Riiulti indlcati that NCEL ricoiMndatloni an noM lignlficantly ion coipatibli

(70Z VI 49Z in 1980). Riiirvii (80Z) and PND'i (76Z) agni thi loit NhiliROICC'i (36Z) and OICC'i (31Z) agni thi liait.

42


62/129

TABLE XXVIIIQUESTION 13

QUESTION 13i I hivi rtady acciii to a Norkablt riftrtnct lyitM of NCEL Uttraturipubliihid ovtr thi lait 3 yiari.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrctnt)GROUP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA

102 6 38 36 16 6

SA 80 NA

PND 35Z 16Z 6ZROICC 23 5 12 1 521 22Z 4ZPKC 18 9 6 2 33Z 6Z HZOICC 8 1 2 4 13Z 50Z 13Z ozCB 16 7 7 1 44Z 6Z 6ZEFD 36 17 11 2 31Z 17Z 4ZNAVFAC 22 1 10 4 IBZ 32Z OZRESERVE 3 1 2 40Z 40Z ozOTHER 45 14 17 10 4 38Z 22Z 9Z

TOTAL 275 8 103 99 49 16HCAu np TOTAL RESPONSE-- .__ \\ 36Z 18Z 6ZtnH Ur ))

A6REE DI8A6REE 34Z NA 6Z

1980 STUDY (quMtlon 44) ...._..\\ 42Z1 15Z 6Z""//A6REE 37Z DISAGREE 57Z NA 6Z

saiiBSBHBistassSBcaxsssscxrazsaxexSXZKZS3SSI SB csaasKBaBzsB>aasasaaaaBaaBSBs>aB> a a>>>>COHKENTSi Riiulti an coniiitint Nlth 1980, a lajority still fetl that thflr

rtftrtnca lyitta niidi laproviatnt. ROICC'i (22Z) and Rtitrvii(20Zj fMl thiy nted tht aoit iiprovtitnt.


63/129

TABLE XXIXQUESTION 14

QUESTION 14i I rifcr tfchnical problfii that art biyond ly capability to the EFD and lit thtidicidi Nhithir to rifir thii to NCEL.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)SA A D 8D

RESPONSE: DISTRIBUTION6R0UP FREQUENCY SA \ SD NA

PMD 102 12 4!1 30 7ROICC 23PW IB ' 10OICC 8CB 16EFD 36 17NAVFAC 22RESERVE 5OTHER 43 i;' 14 2

TOTAL 275 30HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE

107 75 18 45--

12Z13JOZ13ZOZIIZ14Z20Zi3Z

44Z39Z39Z63Z31Z25Z41Z20Z38X

2?X17Z36Z25Z44Z14Z14ZOZ

31Z

7ZOZOZOZi3Z3X

18Z40Z4Z

ilZ 39Z 27Z 7Z

A8REE 50Z DISA6REE 34Z NA

COHHENTSi Oni-half of thf rfspondinti prifir to refer problcei to their EFD.CB'i (37Z) and PHC'i (56Z) prefer to refer their probleii to NCEL.Overall reiulti are coniiitent with question 31.

44


64/129

TABLE XXXQUESTION 15

QUESTION 19i For tht tiaii you havi utilizid NCEL ricoNinditionsdid you loit oftini (chick oni)

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTIONuied uitd callid dirict

6R0UP FREQUENCY INDEI FILES NCEL OTHERS NA

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrcfnt)uifd uiid cAlltd dirtctINDEX FILES NCEL OTHERS NA

PND 102 12 12 39 17 22 12Z 12Z 38Z 17Z 221ROICC 23 8 8 7 OZ OZ 39Z 3SZ 30ZPNC 18 2 3 6 7 IIZ 17Z 33Z 39Z OZOICC 8 1 1 3 1 2 13Z 13Z 3BZ 13Z 29ZCB 16 4 1 4 2 3 25Z 6Z 25Z i3Z 31ZEFD 36 7 3 10 10 6 19Z 8Z 28Z 28Z 17ZNAVFAC 22 3 2 7 6 4 14Z 9Z 32Z 27Z 18ZRESERVE 3 1 3 1 20Z OZ 60Z 20Z OZOTHER 45 6 6 19 8 6 13Z 13Z 42Z IBZ 13Z

TOTAL 275 36 28 99 60 52HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE 13Z lOZ 36Z 22Z 19Z

1980 STUDY (queition 43) 30Z 14Z 20Z 12Z 24Z

CONAENTSi A lignificint incriatt froi 20Z to 36Z in tht ptrcontagt of riipondinti Mho call orNriti NCEL hat occurrid linci thi 1980 itudy. Alio a dtcriait in thi nuibir ofrttpondinti Mho uii an NCEL publiihid indii, froi 30Z in 1980 to 13Z no.


65/129

TABLE XXXIQUESTION 16

QUESTION 16i I knoM viry littlt about NCEL and thi RIO proem.

RESPONS6R0UP FREQUENCY SAsssssrs:S3BSSSS3SS:SZssszsPHD 102ROICC 23PHC 18OICC 8CB 16EFD 36NAVFAC 22RESERVE 5OTHER 45

DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)D SD NA SA A D SD

SSrsSSSSESSaSSCaSaxSBSBBSSS :===SSSSSX3BSSBS332SS>SCSa33SSBSSSaSBSSS93 1101266

264 12

14 1

282 52Z ill2 13Z 30Z 43Z 4Z

221 67: 6Z13Z 751 13Z31X 382 25Z19X 72X 3Zn 18Z 64Z

20Z 20Z 40Z 20Z2as

3B)( 31Z 22Z(sa

TOTAL 275 21 73 133MEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE

44 4 8Z 27Z 4BZ 16ZsaaaaaaasssBBBa aaBaaasaaaaaaa aaaaaAGREE 35Z DISABREE 64Z NA

aa:asaz3aa3sssxs33BBs:s:sssB:s=33s:ss3S3asBsass8a3s=ss3ss338aaa3S3aaaaaa3S3BssBBB3aaaaaaBBasaaaaBaaaBaaa8

CONNENTSi Sixty-four percent of respondents feel that they are knowledgable about NCEL andthe RID process. OICC's (88Z) feel that they are eost knoNledgable and ROICC's(47Z) feel that they are least knoMledgcable. Thirty-five percent agree thatthey knoM little about NCEL and the RiD process, Nhile over 90Z of responses toquestion 1 feel that they do understand NCEL's purpose and lission.

46


66/129

'TABLE XXXIIQUESTION 17

QUESTION 17i I rifer technical probleii directly to NCEL, becauic the EFD oftenlacki fpecialized expertise.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (percent)SROUP FREQUENCY SA A SD NA 8A A SD NA

tBBBPMD 102

tBSIB20

IBBSBSBBBSD13

IBBB8BB10

BB88B88I22 20Z 56Z

IBBBB88113X

BBBIlO

ROICC 23 3 4 o: 13Z 48Z 22Z 17PKC 16 5 1 in 28Z 96Z OZ 6Dice 8 131 OZ 63Z 23Z OC6 16 2 2 oz 13Z 63Z 13Z 13EFD 36 4 8 n IIZ 36Z 111 22NAVFAC 22 4 2 9Z 18Z 49Z 23Z 9RESERVE 5 40Z OZ 20Z 40Z OOTHER


67/129

TABLE XXXIIIQUESTION 18

QUESTION 18i NCEL rtcoMendations tend to be good business decisions.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (percent)6R0UP FREQUENCY

102

6ASBSS

ABaSSSBBZSI

66

DlaBSBsmsssBi

10

SD

2

NAtaSBBB

23

SA A 8DBBBBBBBSS8 NPHD SSBBB8SBSI69Z 2Z 2ROICC 23 13 6 571 OZ 2PKC 18 12 2 67Z OZ IDice 8 5 2 13Z 63Z OZ 2CB 16 B 5 50Z OZ 3EFD 36 20 8 56Z OZ 2NAVFAC 22 ? 3 1 41Z 14ZRESERVE 5 5 lOOZ OZOTHER 45 26

M^ikMNt^^^^^a1 11 sez 2Z

BS888888B82

TOTAL 27588B7 164

140 6

BBBBBB98

BBBBBSB88B B88BBB8S8 I8B

MPAM np TOTAL RE8P0NSE- -m^mW 3Z 60ZBBBBBBB BSBBBBBB

2ZBBB8BB BBI

20BBncHn ur""""//

A6REE 63Z DISA6REE 17Z NA 2SBSZSESBZSBBaaSBCSBBSSSSZSSSSESSBSSSSSZSaSSSSSZSSCZSSSSSBSaSBBSBKBBBSBZBSBSBBaBBBBBBBBBBBBaBBaBBBBBSBBBBBBS

CORHENTSi Sixty-three percent of respondents agree that NCEL recoiiendations are good business decisions.RESERVE'S (iOOZ), OICC's (76Z), and PHC's (73Z| agree that NCEL recowcndations tend to begood business decisions. NAVFAC Hdqtrs (50Z) agrees least, Hith 14Z strongly disagreeing.A higher percentage didn't ansiier (20Z) than disagree (17Z).

48


68/129

TABLE XXXIVQUESTION 19

QUESTION 19i I coniidir NCEL litiraturi iiportant inough to dtvot* lufflciint tin it Mork to rtvliN.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)6R0UP FREQUENCY SA A D 8D NA BA A D BD NA

PMD 102 6 63 20 62Z 20Z 9ZROICC 23 e 10 33Z 43Z 13Z 9ZPKC le 1 10 36Z 33Z 6ZOICC e 1 2 13Z 29Z ill OZCB 16 4 6 29Z 38Z 29Z 13Z OZEFD 36 2 22 61Z 29Z 3ZNAVFAC 22 2 12 99Z 23Z SZRESERVE 5 4 80Z OZ 20Z OZOTHER 45 2 26 11 98Z 24Z IIZ

TOTAL 275 18 153 70 15 19HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE- 56Z 25Z 7Z""//

AGREE 63Z DISAGREE 301 NA 7Z

19B0 STUDYI hivtrtvliH

(qucition 10uffidtntNCEL litrri

, liilU mp t._ 34Z 47Z 14Z IZr)"to idequitilyilt

ture> I> MOrt>> rBSBBBaai A6REE 3BZ DISAGREEI 61Z NA IZCOnHENTS: A tignificant incrtitv in agrtMcnt, 63Z vi 36Z in 1980. Rtitrvtt (BOZl

ind PHD'i (6BZ) igrii thi 1011 Mhili ROICC'i (3SZ) igrtt thi Itiit.


69/129

TABLE XXXVQUESTION 20

QUESTION 20i NCEL is htlpful in providing Inforiition and/or tiiistance on request.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DI81FRIBUTIO i (percent)BROUP FREQUENCY

102

SA

14

A

62

D

e

SD NAxssc

16

8A A D 6D

PHD 14Z 61Z BZ 2ZROICC 23 16 1 17Z 70Z 4Z OZPKC IB 14 1 IIZ 7BZ 6Z OZOICC 4 38Z 30Z OZ OZC6 16 e 25Z 50Z OZ 6ZEFD 36 24 3 171 67Z 8Z OZNAVFAC 22 le 1 OZ 82Z 5Z 14ZRESERVE 1 60Z 20Z OZ 20ZOTHER 45 27 2 8sat 16Z 60ZmaaBasBBai 4Z 2Z aaTOTAL 275 43HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE

174 16 34- 16Z 63Z 6Z 3ZaaaasaaaasaaacE aaaaaBBaaaaaaB bbbbbA6REE 79Z DISAGREE 9Z NABBaaaBSBSSBECaBKICBBXSBBCaaBaBBBSBBCBaBBBBI

1 QRfl CTIinV fniiacfjnn t 7 ^-.-.._.-..--.-.-...._______-___-_ \ \IBBBBBBBaB

HZBBBBBBBBI

67ZBBBaBBBBBBI

8ZIBBBBBBBBBBBB

IZTDy DIUuT ((jUflllOn ^ / )----------------""""""""""""""""""//

A6REE 78Z DISAGREE 9Z NA

IQAfl RTIinV fniiBcfinn 171----.---.------..-_----\\ A6REE < 78Z DISAGREEIBBBBBBBBaal

> 22ZTOO OIUUi lljUlBllOn i / J -------------------BBaaBBBBBBBaBaaBaasssBaaBaBaaaasasBSBBSBaailaaBSBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBI

COnriENTSt Reiponte ii conilttent Nith the 1960 reiulti, NCEL reiaini highly helpful.PHC'i (691), OlCC'i (6BZ) and ROICC i (e7Z) loit agree that NCEL is helpful.RESERVE'S (60Z) and OICC's (36Z) strongly agree that NCEL is helpful, Nhile20Z of RESERVES and 141 of NAVFAC Hdqtrs respondents strongly disagree.The results are sieilar to question 10.

50


70/129

TABLE XXXVIQUESTION 21

QUESTION 21 i Construction Mteriali to iipleaent NCEL recoiiendations art iildoi available.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (perctnt)GROUP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A SD NA

PMD 102 4 7 62 4 23 7XKSBBBl

4ZBBSIBBBB

23ZROICC 23 3 13 1 6 13Z 4Z 26ZPNC 18 4 11 3 22Z OZ 17ZOICC 5 1 2 01 13Z 25ZC6 16 1 2 9 4 13X OZ 23ZEFD 36 1 1 13 3 18 3X BZ 50ZNAVFAC 22 1 6 10 1 4 27X 5Z 18ZRESERVE 4 1 OZ OZ 20ZOTHER 43

275

1

8

6

31

21BSBSSSBSBSI

146

1BBBBBBI11

14EBBBSSa

77

lez 2Z 31Z

TOTALMPAM nc TOTAL RESPONSE-- .___.\\ HZ 4Z 28ZtHN Ur //

AGREE 14Z DISAGREE 58Z NA 28Z

1960 STUDY (quistion 46) .-_-\s 27ZaSBBBBBBBB)

2ZIBBBB

20Z" " //

AGREE 31Z DISAGREE 49Z NA 20ZBBSSBBBBBBSBSBSBBBC3S33BSSSSBBB3SSaSSBCSCSSS8SBBSBSSBBeBSSSS8BBS8SBBaBBBBBBBBBSSSaBBBBBBSBBBBBaBBBBaa>aBBBa

COnnENTSi Hore reipondents fel that construction laterials to iipleaent NCEL recoiiindationsan iori riadily availabli than thiy mri in 1980, 3BZ vs 49Z. Fourtiin ptrctntfill aatirial availability is a probln Nhili 28Z arin't luri. RESERVES(80Z) and OICCs (76Z) fill availability of latiriali is not a problii, Mhlli49Z of OTHERS and 44Z of EFD's fill thi sail.


71/129

TABLE XXXVIIQUESTION 22

QUESTION 22i I have had personal contact Nith NCEL Mithin the last 3 years.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTIONGROUP FREQUENCY SA A SD NA

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pirctnt)8A A D 8D N

BssssrsBSBBKaBSBsssaaxsssaasssrPHD 102 21

laaaaaaa43

tSSBBBSBBaaaSBBBSazBBaBZ21 13 4 42X

sasB13Z

BB

ROICC 23 6 26Z 17ZPNC 18 10 96Z 6ZOICC 8 3 38Z 13Z 1C6 16 ? S62 19ZEFD 36 12 18 90Z 3ZNAVFAC 22 11 7 32Z 9ZRESERVE 5 1 1 20Z 20ZOTHER 45 16 13 11 2 3 in 4ZBBBBCBSIBB8BaBBBBSaBBaSBaaBaBSBB:BBBB8aBSBXSBeZSeBZasaBCaB88BC Kxttxat*sacBaBasB aaTOTAL 275 76 no 50 27 12Mc&u np TOTAL RESPONSE-

aaaaaaBBBBBaaaB

w m 40Z 18Z lOZcHn UrBBBaaaaai

))

aaBBBaaaaBaaaaaaaBBBaaaaBiAGREE 68Z

BaBBaaaaaDI8A6REE

BBaaaaaaaBB

IBBBB BBI28Z NA

aa

aCOHHENTSt Sixty-light percent of repondents have had personal contact nith NCEL Nithin the

last 3 years. EFD's (88Z) have had the lost contact Nhile ROICC's (92Z) have hadthe least contact.

52


72/129

TABLE XXXVIIIQUESTION 23

BUESTION 23: NCEL reports ire Nritten in a ttyle that laintaini ay interiit.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (percent)BROUP Fl^EOUENCY SA A D SD

tasazaasaaBEaaaBzcazsasszxazsassBSBBaaaaaBBza102 2 71 IB 2

NA

9

SA A D SD NASSSSZSS8SS'PND

VSSSSSSSSBSSBSI21 7o;I IBZ

B BSVSB

ROICC 23 12 6 3 2 OZ 52); 26Z 13ZPHC 18 1 13 2 1 1 6Z 721[ HZOICC 8 2 3 10 2 25Z 381; 13Z 2SCB 16 10 4 1 1 OZ 63'( 25ZEFC 36 3 20 9 2 2 8Z 56)[ 25ZNAVFAC 22 4 9 7 2 18Z 41'I 32ZRESERVE 5 4 1 OZ 80)[ OZ 20OTHER 45 1 31 6 2 5 2Z 69'I 13Z IIs:s:sss=ss::z:z3c:BszaEza3zzEcsz=zzEza:zzzz3BSSs:r:zBsza :3Z38ESS BZZZZZaSsaSBBBIBaaSBBBBBBBBBBBaBBaBKSSBBBTOTAL 275 13 173 53 13 23MF&M nc TflTAi Dcconuec ......\\

5Z 63): 19Z 5ZAntRn Ur lUi nL ntiirwnst "// D

BBBBBaBBBBBBBBI BBBBBB

SBStsissaaiBBBBBaEaBBBBBZBaBBzzaa:zEazzaaaBBEBBB8BaaBaB...... ^^

A6REE 68)

7Z 60)

: DISA6REE

; 22Z

24Z NA 8

1980 STUDY 3Z Riqueiiion /7|Oppoiiie uoroinj )""""""""""""" " // 0

A6REE 67)SBSBSBSSSSI

[ DISAGREEBBSB25Z NA B

r=r==3:s=s:::szz33:z:=3===s====r====s:ss3:sa=:Eszsz3Eze3 3333=333 E==33ZSBa333BZaa]lazaazzzEBazBaaaaaazazsasaza1968 STUDY /tiiMVvinn 00 MMM#^r**M kjfr4nMl^^^^^a>^^^^^^.B .._.-.\\ AGREE 40); DISAGREE 60Zquesiion zVj opposHe noroingj ~ //SBZC:saSSStSSSBBSSSS33BZBSBBSSS=SSSZBSBS:iSSSSSaSSSSaCBBCSSSaaSSZZ3SSB>KaSSBBBI

COmENTSi Overall reiulti are coniiitent Nlth 1980. Reiervei (BOX) and PMC'i (71iZ) agree aostthat reports eaintain their interests, Nhilc ROICC's (52Z) agree least. and NAVFACHdqtrs respondents (41Z) disagree the tost.

53


73/129

TABLE XXXIXQUESTION 24

QUESTION 24i I hivi ion influtnct ovtr Mork contracttd to NCEL than I do to othtr libi.

GROUP FREQUENCYRESPONSE DISTRIBUTION

SA A D 8D NARESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)

SA A D SDaBaasBBB)PND 102 32 26

BaaaaaaBiIBBBIB36 2X 31Z

BBasaaaaaa29Z

Baaaaa6Z

aaai

ROICC 23 4 12 91 17Z 17Z 4ZPUC IB 10 IIZ IIZ 96Z OZOICC 8 1 13Z 25Z 13Z OZCB 16 6 OZ 25Z 38Z 6ZEFD 36 9 11 HZ 22Z 25Z IIZNAVFAC 22 3 23Z 27Z 14Z 18ZRESERVE 5 20Z 20Z OZ 40ZOTHER 45 8 12 10 1 14BBaBBBSSSSSBSSaBBSSBaBSSBESBSBBSBBBSBSSBBSBBBBBBBSBCBBBBSBBSSBB

lez 27Z 22Zlaaasaaaaaaa

2ZBBBI

TOTAL 275 25 71 69 19 919Z 26Z 25Z 7ZtnN Ur lUlnL KtsrUnBt " "//

AGREE 35Z DISAGREE 32Z NA

1980 STUDY (qutition 39 oppoiit

iBaaaaaBB

1 Hordi

IBBBBBB

no l.-_-_. ._-_.\\ 9Z 33Z 26Z 3Zg)aaaaaaai

A6REE 38Z DISAGREEaaaaaaaaaaai

29Zlaaaaai

NAaaa

COHNENTSi The ovfrill reiulti in alaoit fvinly divided in thirds. NAVFAC Hdqtri (90Z) igretdthe that they have eore influence over Nork pcrforied by NCEL Nith 23Z of theiitrongly agreeing. PHC's (56Z) disagreed and 40Z of RESERVES itrongly disagreed.

54


74/129

TABLE XLQUESTION 25

BUEBTION 2Si NCEL ii helpful in idintlfylng pointi-of-contact that can provldi additional attistanct.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pirctnt)GROUP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A D SD NA

PHD 102 11 M 12 2 26 IIZ 501 12Z 2Z 25ZROICC 23 IS I 7 02 6SZ 4Z OZ 30ZPNC 18 2 11 2 3 IIZ 61Z IIZ OZ 17ZOICC 8 1 4 1 2 13Z 90Z 13Z OZ 2SZC6 U 3 7 2 4 19Z 44Z 13Z OZ 25ZEFD 36 1 21 8 6 3Z SBZ 22Z OZ i7ZNAVFAC 22 2 10 6 2 2 9Z 49Z 27Z 9Z 9ZRESERVE i 1 3 1 20Z 60Z OZ 20Z OZOTHER 45 8 23 3 1 10 18Z 51Z 7Z 2Z 22ZBSSSSIXSZSSSIBSSZSIISSSSC:z:s:BS:SSSS=SSSSSS3SSSSSZI>Sia>Z3BSSE SSZBZZazZBBBBaBBBBSBBBZBBaBBazaBBBZZBaBBaiTOTAL 275 29 145 35 6 60MEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE >> IIZ 53Z 13Z 2Z 21Z

aBSBBBBBBBBBBaa BaBBBBaBB88aBa BBBBBBBA6REE 64Z DISAGREE ISZ NA 21Z

BBzazBZBZzzzzezszzzzBEzzzsszszEEZzzzzzczzzzzzzEzzaaaBBaBBazzzzzzBBBzzaazasBBBaBBBBaBaaBazBBaaaaBaaaBBBaaaaaa1980 STUDY (question 37, oppoiite wording) IZ 5Z 66Z 21Z 7Z

aBBsaaaBBBBBBsa BBaaaaaBBaBaaBa BBBBaaaAGREE 6Z DISAGREE 89Z NA 7Z

BBaaEzzseaBszaaaazzzzzzzzaazBzzszBszzssBESssBBZBBZBBBBBBBBBBBBBBZBBaaaBBBBasasaaaaaaaaaBaBaBaBaaasBBBBaBBBaB

COnHENTSi Eighty-liven percent of reipondenti in 1980 felt that NCEL did not provide pointi-of-contact. This is a significant turn-around, as 64Z noM agree that NCEL isproviding points-of-contact for additional assistance. RESERVES (80Z) and PMC's(72Z) agree aost that NCEL is helpful in providing points-of-contact. NAVFACHdqtrs (36Z) and EFD's (22Z) disagree lost.


75/129

TABLE XLIQUESTION 26

QUESTION 26i I cm uiually find a May to apply NCEL ricoMendationi.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION6R0UP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NAacBaBsnzBasssBaBKCissBasasiasaassrcBasssssaasasBrsBBSBBBasBSBBPUD 102 1 47 30 4 20RGICC 23 1 7 8 2 5

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrcint)SA A D SD

n 462 29Z 414Z 302 3SZ 9Z6Z 56Z 17Z OZ

13Z 38Z 13Z OZOZ &3Z 25Z OZ3Z 47Z 2SZ OZ5Z 41Z 32Z 5ZOZ 40Z 40Z OZ

13 4Z 47Z 20Z OZBaacaaaBaaaaaEaaasaBaBssEcsaasaazsasssssssBsscsaBasBaasaaxss: asaaBBaBaBssBBBBBEsaBsaaaaBaaaBaaBsaBBaTOTAL 275 B 126 73 7 61HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE 3Z 46Z 27Z 3Z

PNCOICCC6EFONAVFACRESERVEOTHER

IB8

1636225

45

103

101792

2 21

A6REE 49Z DISAGREE 29Z NABaBBaBBaaBBBaaaaasBSBBaBaaacBaacBasaaBaassaaaaBBaaBaaaBasBaBaaBSBaBBBaBaaBBaBaBBaBaBBBBaaaaBaaBaBaaaBaaaBS1980 STUDY (quistion 49, opposite wording) >> 7Z 57Z 22Z 3Z

AGREE 64Z DISAGREE 25Z NAsEs=:aasBs::ss:Bssa3s=::::s8zssxs=szs:zssBBSBB:zBS3s:ss=XBSEsss:s:sz3s:BBs:3SBS8a38aBBBBZ=Ez:BBx:aBaBBaBBB

COHHENTSi Sixty-four pircint of rtipondtnti in 1960 filt that thty could apply an NCEL ricoa-endation Mhile 49Z noM feel the laae. CB't (631) and PMC'i (62Z) fitl that NCELrecoiaenditiont are aoit applicable Mhile ROICC't (34Z) fiel that they trt Icaitapplicable.

56


76/129

TABLE XLIIQUESTION 27

QUESTION 27i NCEL reports tend to be Inconduiive ind provide no reconended actioni.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (percint)8R0UP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A D SD NAsssBBssazassssscsiiBrssssBxatcsamsBBBassBEBBSBasBBBBaBasacnis BBBaBBaBCBBaBaBBaBBBaaBSBBBBaBsaBaBaBBaBaaPUD 102 2 11 60 10 19 2X UX 59X lOX 19XROICC 23 4 6 2 11 OX 17X 26X 9X 48XPNC 18 12 2 4 OX OX 67X IIX 22XOICC 6 6 1 1 OX OX 79X 13X 13XCB 16 9 2 5 OX OX S6X 13X 31XEFD 36 1 3 24 3 5 3X 8X 67X 8X 14XNAVPAC 22 2 6 11 3 9X 27X SOX 14X OZRESERVE S 1 2 1 1 OX 20X 40X 20X 20XOTHER 45 6 26 4 9 OX 13X 9BX 9X 20XB88aBZEar:3aaBsssBXBs=za8sasszsssEsssr::::s3s:Erssss=ssEssscB:3 zssBzssBssaBBBBaaEaxssaBasEszaaaasnaaBBBSTOTAL 275 5 31 156 28 55HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE 2X 111 57X lOX 20X

ZBBBBZBBSBBBBaa BsaasBzzzaaBzz aasBBBzAGREE 13X DISAGREE 67X NA 20X

aaBesaBEaaaasBBSszsaaaBBcaaasaazEBzcBczsBSZBBZBBZBZzzzazesBazBzaBSssBaasaBZSZBBBSBBaBBaaaBaaaaaBacaBBBBaaaBa19B0 STUDY (question 28) IX 12X 69X 8X lOX

AGREE 13X DISAGREE 77X NA lOXasEzsEss:s::ss:3::EBs:sssz::3s::zzBSB3S3sszs3zs:=z:ssEzsBzs3Sss:zss=E:3EEBaBaasEaBzsBBBaBSSs:BS888BaasaaBBBB1968 STUDY (question 28) AGREE 38X DISA8REE 62X8BBaaBBE83:s:3ESZBZSBSSSEBZZEZ3SSSXSZZS:EaBESBSS8EBaBZ88ZSZSZSZ3Za8SZBB8BZ83BSS8B8BBaza8SZSZS8EazaaBBaBZa88B

COnHENTSi Sixty-seven percent of respondents feel thit reports are conclusive as coipired to77X in 1980. While the saae percentage (13X) feel that reports are inconclusive,an additional lOX did not ansMer (noN 20X vs lOX in 1980). OICC's (88X) and PHC's(78!) feel that reports are conclusive, nhile 36X of NAVFAC Hdqtrs respondentsfeel that the reports are inconclusive.

57


77/129

TABLE XLIIIQUESTION 28

QUESTION 28i Hon iiny tiiei in thf past 3 yiart havf you personally betn riiponfible foractually iapliainting NCEL ricoiiindatloni? (chtck oni)

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrctnt)6R0UP FREQUENCY NEVER 1-3 4-6 7-10 >10 NA NEVER 1-3 4-6 7-10 >10 NAas3B>aBcsiBsm>smKSXsstBBsrcrssss:B=rxiBBSBas3sazs3ssaBazBSBS> BaBBBaBBSBBBBBBBBaaaBasaBaBaaBBaaaaBaaaPMD 102 32 62 3 3 3iZ 612 5Z OZ 3Z OZROICC 23 12 10 1 S2Z 43Z 4Z OZ OZ OZPHC 18 5 11 1 1 28Z 61Z 6Z 6Z OZ OZOICC 8 4 4 50Z 50Z OZ OZ OZ OZC6 16 8 8 JOZ 30Z OZ OZ OZ OZEFD 36 12 19 2 111 33Z 53Z 6Z 3Z 3Z 3ZNAVFAC 22 3 10 4 3 2 14Z 45Z 18Z 14Z OZ 9ZRESERVE 5 1 4 20Z SOZ OZ OZ OZ OZOTHER 43 16 20 7 2 36Z 44Z 16Z OZ 4Z OZ

TOTAL 275 93 148 20 3 6 3HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE 34Z 34Z 7Z 2Z 2Z IZ

1980 STUDY (qutition 57) 35Z 45Z 15Z 4Z 2Z OZ196B STUDY (qufstion 57) iniufficient data

CONnENTS: Riiulti are consistent Kith the 1980 study, 66Z of respondents haveiipleiented NCEL recoaaendations, Nhile 34Z have not. NAVFAC Hdqtrs (86Z)have iapleaented NCEL recoaaendations the lost and ROICC's (47Z) the least.

58


78/129

TABLE XLIVQUESTION 2 9

QUESTION 29i In conjunction Nith qutition 28, Mhat lost often liad youto uie NCEL ricoaainditioni? (chick oni)

GROUP

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pirctnt)RECOn- LAST ASKED RECOH- LAST ASKED

FREQUENCY HEHORY READ HENDED PLACE FOR NA NEHORY READ NENDED PLACE FOR NA

PHD 102 28 20 6 3 18 25 27Z 20Z 6Z 3Z 18Z 25ZROICC 23 4 2 2 4 11 17Z OZ 9Z ?Z 17Z 4BZPNC 18 5 2 1 6 4 28Z HZ 6Z OZ 33Z 22ZOICC 8 3 2 1 1 1 3BZ 2SZ 13Z OZ 13Z 13ZCB 16 5 2 1 3 S 31Z 13Z OZ 6Z 19Z 31ZEFD 36 11 2 2 4 7 10 31Z 6Z 6Z IIZ 1?Z 28ZNAVFAC 22 8 2 1 3 6 2 36Z 9Z 5Z 14Z 27Z 9ZRESERVE 3 2 3 OZ 40Z OZ OZ 60Z OZOTHER 45 15 7 1 2 9 11 33Z 16Z 2Z 4Z 20Z 24Z

TOTAL 275 79 39 14 17 57 69HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE 29Z 14Z 3Z 6Z 21Z 23Z

1980 STUDY (qutition 58) 39Z 18Z 4Z 2Z 12Z 25Z

CONHENTSi In 1980, 2Z of riipondints Hirt not AMari of thi inforiition iviilible froa NCEL.Thli figuri hii incriaitd slightly to 6Z. Conviritly, 69Z of riipondtntitri noH iHirf of the inforiition that NCEL can providi at coiparid to74Z in 1980. Significantly ion (21Z) aikid for Inforiation froi NCELthan in 1980 (12Z), coniiittnt with thi riiulti for quiition 13.


79/129

TABLE XLVQUESTION 3

OUESTION 30i I find it aort econoiicil to contract Nork Hith private Ubi rather than NCEL.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pirctnt)6R0UP FREOUENCV SA A D 8D NA SA D 8D

PHD 102 2 e 52 8 32 51Z 8ZROICC 23 1 10 1 11 43Z 4ZPHC 18 1 13 2 2 72Z HZOICC 8 1 3 4 13Z 38Z OZCB 16 1 8 1 6 50Z 6ZEFD 36 1 7 14 2 12 19X 39Z 6ZNAVFAC 22 1 3 7 3 8 14Z 32Z 14ZRESERVE 5 2 2 1 40Z 40ZOTHER 45 1 5 17 3 19 IIZ 38Z 7Z

TOTAL 275MPAU nr TnTAi Dccenucr

& 26 126 22 9546Z

DISA6REE

8Zaaaa

94Z

tHN Ur luiHL ntgrungc " //Bl

NA6REE IIZ

1980 8TUDY (question 36) -NS lOZ 48Z 7Z

B8sBXBiEsaas stassaaaassilaaaaaailaaaaaaaiA6REE

laaaaaaaaaIIZ DISA6REE 39Z

aaaaaaNAlaaaa

COnnENTSi Overall reiulti arc coniiitent Nith 1980. Over one-half of reipondenti (54Z) feel thatNCEL if tore econoiical than a private lab. PMC'i (83Z) fial the itrongeit that it'ilore econoaical to contract nith NCEL, Mhile EFD'i (22Z) and NAVFAC Hdqtri (19Z) feelthat it's aorc econoiical to contract nork nith private labi.

60


80/129

TABLE XLVIQUESTION 31

BUESTION 31 1 It'i liiiir to rtftr tichnical probliii to ly EFD than to NCEL.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrctnt)6R0UP FREQUENCY SA A D SD NA SA A BD NA

PND 102 7 47 30 13 ; 46Z 13ZROICC 23 4 9 4 6 171I 3?Z 26ZPNC 18 8 5 1 [ 44Z 22Z 6XOICC 8 2 4 2 29]; 901 OZCB 16 1 3 8 3 : 19X 19ZEFD 36 2 13 6 14 [ 36Z 39ZNAVFAC 22 1 10 6 3 [ 45X 14ZRESERVE 5 3 1 ; 60Z 20Z OZOTHER 45 1 IB 12 12 : 40Z 27Z

TOTAL 275 18 115 74 U 52NEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE-a \\ 42Z 19ZBBBII 1 AGREE 481(a DISAGREE 33Z NA 19ZCOnNENTSi Slightly liti than one-half of thr rttpondtnti (48Z) fttl It'i tailtr to rtftrtheir technical probleai to their EFD. OICC'i (75Z) found it taiieit to

refer to their EFD, while a aajority of CB'i (56Z) and PMC'f (481) foundit eatier to refer their probleit to NCEL. OlCC't (25Zj and ROICC't (17Z) feelthat it'i easier to refer to an EFD, while PNC't (221) and RESERVES (20Z) stronglyfeel that it's eaiicr to refer to NCEL. The overall riiulti are coniiittnt Mithqueition 14.


81/129

TABLE XLVIIQUESTION 32

QUESTION 32) Hy organization laintaint an adequati tichnical library.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION REStPONSE DI 8TRIBUTI0N Iptrctnt)GROUP FREQUENCY

SBBSaSSSESBSSaSI102

SA A D SD NA

I 47 37 12 5

SA A D 6D

PHD 461 36Z 12ZROICC 23 2 7 4 1 301 39Z 17ZPNC 18 7 2 1 39X 44Z IIZDice 8 4 2 902 29Z 29ZCB 16 2 9 2 13Z 56Z 19Z 13ZEFD 36 2 20 11 2 1 96Z 31Z 6ZNAVPAC 22 I 10 1 1 49Z 41Z 9ZRESERVE 5 3 60Z 40Z ozOTHER 45 2 7 26 6 4 16Z 58Z 13Z

TOTAL 275TOTAL RESPONSE-

10 114 107 31 13\\ 4U 39Z HZtHn Ur """"//

A6REE 45Z DISAGREE 90Z NA

1960 STUDY (qutition 42 ....N\ AGREE 67Z DISAGREE 27Z NA""//SSSSSISSBB3EBZCXSa>BasSIrsss asBBaaai ZBISVSBES8SZSIISBBSSai aaaBBBBiIBSBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIIBBBSB BBSBCONHENTSi Liti than one-half (45Z) agree that their organization laintaini an adequate

technical library, a decrease froi 67Z in 1980. OICC'i (251) itrongly feel thattheir organization doci not eaintain an adequate technical library, Nhile 13Zof 06' t strongly feel that they do laintain an adequate technical library.These results irt consistent Mith the results in question 13.

62


82/129

TABLE XLVIIIQUESTION 33

QUESTION 33i NCEL rccoiMndationi can uiuiUy bi iipltitntffd Nithout requiring xtvnilvi tqulpaint changii.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrcint)6R0UP FREQUENCY SA

tSBSA

BBBBBSBBSBD

EBBBBBBBBBB)SD

IBBBBBBNA

IBSSBBSA

BBSBBBB]A

IBSBSSSSBB8D

IBBINA

BBBBPND 102 38 24 36 OZ 37Z 4Z 35ROICC 23 1 6 12 42 26Z OZ S2Zm IB 6 7 OZ 33Z OZ 39OICC 8 1 1 4 i3Z 13Z OZ SOC6 1& 1 8 6 6Z 50Z 6Z 38EFD 36 12 17 OZ 33Z 3Z 47ZNAVFftC 22 6 8 OZ 27Z 14Z 36RESERVE 5 3 1 OZ 60Z OZ 20OTHER 45 20 10 15 OZ 44Z OZ 33

TOTAL 275 3 100 57 9 106SBSBBBBBBBBBSBBBaSSS TBBSBB BBI BBB

MCAw nr TOTAL RESPONSE-- ..___\\ IZBBBBBBBI

36ZBBBSBBBBB

3ZSBI

3WtBBB

ntnH ur "'"/)A6REE 37Z DISAGREE

IBBBBSBSBBB24Z NA 39

1980 STUDY Iquistion 50 oppotlti Mord inn )__-..._.IBSSSBS

2Z 43ZBiszasBsasiBBaB BBBBBBBSBB

2ZIBBBS BBI

29BBBB

ingi -//ssxsssssss :3SSSS:SCSS::ZSS:rZSX:BSSSSZ:srsSS8BBSSBSS:SSSSSS3SS3SBBBBBBeBBBBS:saBXBBBB3BBBSBBBBSBBBBBBBB

C0NHENT5; Titenty-four percent of respondents feel that NCEL recoiiendations do require extcniiveequipient changii at coapared to 30Z in 1960. OlCC'a (13Z) strongly agree thatrecoMcndationt can be iipleiented nithout extensive equipient changes, Nhile141 of NAVFAC Hdqtrs disagreed. Of significance in this question, is the largelarge increase in the nuiber of respondents Mho did not ansiier (39Z noH, vs 25Z in 1960)This 14Z increase coincides Mith an 8Z decrease in those Mho agree and a 6Z decreasein those Mho disagree.

63


83/129

TABLE XLIXQUESTION 34

QUESTION 34i I priftr riciiving quartirly ibttracti of NCEL report! to rtctiving thi coiplftt rtport.

GROUP FREQUENCYRESPONSE DISTRIBUTION

SA A D SD NARESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (pircint)

SA A D 8DsssrxacsBssBaaazsxaBaBBsassses:PHD 102 12

:zassB8sa8i51

SBBBSBBS27 4

iBasaa8

asBBasB12); 50Z

aaaaaaaaaaa26Z

aSBBB4Z

aaa

ROICC 23 9 5 17Z 39Z 22Z OZPNC 18 11 2 01 61Z 28Z OZDice 4 1 13Z 90Z 25Z OZCB 16 10 38Z 63Z OZ OZEFD 36 18 1 4 19Z 30Z 17Z 3ZNAVFAC 22 9 2 2 14X 41Z 27Z 9ZRESERVE 3 1 OZ 60Z 20Z OZOTHER 45 26 3 16Z 5BZ 20Z OZ

TOTALHCAw ne rni

275AL RESPON :c..

40 141 61 7 26ISZ 3U 22Z 3Zcnn Ur lUI Jt"" """//

A6REE 66Z DISAGREE 25Z NASBSSSsaBaaacaszazsaaBaassasBaBBBBBSsaazszaaasccBa saaaaazsssasssaasacaaasa BaaaaaaBaa laaaaa BBB1980 STUDY (quiition 45) ....S\ 12X 54Z

XBSsBaaaaaaaaaa25Z

aaaaaasaaai31

aa""-"//

AGREE 66Z DISAGREE 281 NA

1968 STUDYBsasBassai

(questionBBcaasaaa

45)Biia

.__.\\ intufficBsaaaaaaa

lnt datitasBaajlaaBBaaai aSBBSBBBSaBBBBBBBBIIBBBBBBI

-//BSSBBBB

CONHENTSt Th ovirall rtiulti an coniiitint Nith 1980 study. TNO-thirdi of rtipondentiitill prifsr riciiving abstracts rathtr than coipliti rtports. CD's (lOOZ)fiel that thiy prifer abstracts and 38Z strongly fitl that thty prtfir abstracts.NAVFAC Hdqtrs (36Z) prifsr riciiving coiplett reports rather than abstracts.

64


84/129

TABLE LQUESTION 35

QUESTION 33> NCEL provide! progriii riporti on Nork thty do for ui.

6RDUP FREQUENCYRESPONSE DISTRIBUTION

SA A D SD NAS3BrxissB3sssszBBaBBamssa>cB>axBBSBaBSSBBSsaaa>csasssEaaBBBsPNDROICCPNCOICCC6EFDNAVFACRESERVEOTHER

10223IB816Zh225

45

1 44 137

1 846

i 111 12

31 14 8

4212646

171

120

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (ptrcent)SA A D 8D NA

IZOZ6ZOZOZ3Z5ZOZ2Z

43Z30Z44Z50Z3ez31Z93Z60Z31Z

13Z17ZinOZ13Z14Z27Z20Z18Z

2ZOZ6ZOZOZ6Z9ZOZ4Z

41Z92Z33Z30Z50Z47Z9Z

20Z44Z

SBaBBSxszizz=c3rr3==Er33r=z::s=XB===z=ztzBzz=azsx8zzzBz:=zs=3z= ZBzaxzBBZBBBZBBBiaBBaaBaaaaaaaaBBaBBaaBBasTOTAL 275HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE-

109 41 111 >> 2Z 40Z 15Z 3Z 40ZAGREE 42Z DISAGREE IBZ NA 40Z

19B0 STUDY (quHtion 19) >> 2Z 43Z 19Z 2Z 34ZAGREE 45Z DISAGREE 21Z NA 34Z

CZrxSSBEBSaBSSaSSBZSXBXXZSXBaBBBaaaaBBZBBXBZ

CONHENTSi Ovtrall results viry only slightly froe the 1980 study. Slightly ftMer agreethat NCEL provides progress reports (42Z vs 4SZ in 1980), but slightly fineralso disagree that NCEL provides progress reports (16Z vs 21Z in 1980). Sixtypercent of NAVFAC Hdqtrs feel that NCEL does provide progress reports, while36Z feel that they do not| both of ohich trt above the respective leans.Then is an increase in the nuiber of respondents Mho did not anmer, froi 34Zin the 19B0 study to 40Z nott.


85/129

TABLE LIQUESTION 3 6

fiUESTION 36: lly organization routei NCEL litiraturi to its ptople.

RESPONSE Dl STRI6UTI0I< RESI>ONSE DI STRIBUTION (perctnt)6R0UP FREQUENCY 6A A 8D NA SA A D SDscsseBs:::C3SBSSSSC8SBSBaSBIZBSX3BSBSa: BSZSBSBBSSSBSBSSSSS::ssz: BSZSaSBBS.SBBBBSSS saBBBSBaaBsaaBassBBBassPHD i02 15 56 11 5 15 15Z 55Z IIZROICC 23 13 1 oz 571 26ZPNC IB 1 14 62 7BZ 61OICC 8 5 1 01 631 25Z 131C6 16 3 ? 1 m MX 61EFD 36 5 23 1 14Z 64Z 111NAVFAC 22 3 15 14} 6BZ 91RESERVE 5 1 2 I 20Z 401 201 201OTHER 45 5 20 11>! 3 HZBBMSM 44Z 241BSBBBBBBBBI SKI>TOTAL 275 33 157

I38 13 34

a aMEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE- ..__\\ 12Z 57Z 141

^^^^^^^Ma

'""//8BBBSB88BA6REE 6?Z

BBB8BBBBIDISAGREE 191

[B8888B

881NA

8

1?80 STUDY (question 41BSS8 SBBSSBSSBlI S8BBBB tBBBBBSBBBBn 57Z 161 8 //

BaZBEBBSBSBBSBB EBBB BSaSBBSBI IBBaBBBI

BBaSBBBSSBBBBB*A6REE 66Z DISAGREE

ISBSBS191

IBBBBBa

BSBSNAa

COflHENTSi A flight incrtaii froi thi 1980 itudy rnulti. Sixtynini ptrctnt of the reipondtntinoH feel that NCEL literature ii routed to the people in the organization.OTHERS (551) and ROICC'i (571) agree leait that NCEL literature ii routed, ohilePHC't (841) and NAVFAC Hdqtrs (821) agree ioit that NCEL literature it routed.

66


86/129

TABLE LIQUESTION 37

QUESTION 37j I ai aitart that I can custoaizi the diitribution of NCEL raporti,ttchnical notii, abstracts and tichdata ihtitt I riciivi.

RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION (percent)GROUP FREQUENCY YES NO NA YES NO NAsr:=::==:=:=s===::s:sss3ssss3sssxssssz>ssssscs3: zasBssssszKssssBBsssBSBscaissxa:PHD 102 38 58 6 37Z 57Z hiROICC 23 3 18 2 13Z 7BZ 9ZPMC 18 8 10 44Z 56Z OZDice 8 3 5 38Z 63Z OZCB 16 9 i 1 56Z 38Z 6ZEFD 36 12 18 6 33Z m 17ZNAVFAC 22 14 7 1 64Z 32Z 9ZRESERVE 5 14 20Z 80Z OZOTHER 45 23 20 2 51Z 44Z 4ZBssxss:s:ssBBsrs:B38ss:sssBSBZS3zzss=:=sss3BBSs: KmmasasBSBSBsaBBBSzsBasssBSBBzazTOTAL 275 111 146 18HEAN OF TOTAL RESPONSE 40Z 53Z 7Zss3ZBZzsszssssss:ssszs:rs:z:asaa:8ss8sassBssazaaaasaaas3B3Z3Bass8asxszaaazsaaaaa3S333:1980 STUDY (question 33, different but sate topic)

Receiving reports on Arctic equipaent Mhile 45Z felt distribiitionstationed in the tropics is a typical NCEL snafus Mere typical,distribution snafu.

3533333333=: 3=3=33:3333=333 ==e=:3SSS:a3S:s:S3SZ3CXSS:aszasaBSZ3SE=aSSBBZSSZSSZ:ZBBB8ZX

CONNENTS: The question for this study is different than question 33 in the 1980 study.The secondary purpose of this question is to let the user knot) that he cancustoiize the distribution of reports that he receives. More than 50Z ofthe respondents are not aitare that they can custoiize the distributionof NCEL literature that they receive. NAVFAC Hdqtrs (64Z) and CB's (56Z)rt lost axare that they can customize the distribution,

facilities engineering command 1989

Documents