FINAL
POTENTIAL/DESIRABILITY
SURVEY REPORT
for the
DOD CALS IDE PROJECT
An MVP Joint Venture
January 29, 1996
CDRL Sequence Number A024
|
______________________ |
______________________ |
|
Robert S. Kidwell |
Jack G. Richman |
|
Technical Director |
Project Manager |
|
DoD CALS IDE Project |
DoD CALS IDE Project |
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 POTENTIAL/DESIRABILITY SURVEY OVERVIEW
2.0 POTENTIAL/DESIRABILITY SURVEY FINDINGS
2.2 Common Areas and Differences
3.0 POTENTIAL/DESIRABILITY SURVEY CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX B: POTENTIAL AND DESIRABILITY FOR CONVERSION OF LEGACY DOCUMENTATION TO ETMS/IETMS
Table 1.0-1 Type MB+ TM Capabilities
Table 1.0-2 Type MC Electronic TM Requirements
Table 2.2.1-1 CACI Digital Distribution Comparison Cost Estimates
Figure 2.2.1-1 Technical Manual Media Used in Repair Shops
Figure 2.2.1-2 Projected Page Count
Figure 2.2.1-3 Comparison of Performance of Using IETMs with that of Paper
Figure 2.2.2-1 Time Expended for Technical Manual Changes
The Resource critical information area of the Continuous Acquisition and Life-cycle Support (CALS) initiative provides technical information to weapons system operations and maintenance personnel. The relevant technologies deal with the authoring, migration, delivery, and maintenance of technical information for both new weapon systems and legacy weapon systems. A critical issue is how best to migrate the voluminous paper-form technical manuals on current weapon systems to interactive, electronic technical manuals that reduce the labor-intensity for the authoring, maintenance, and delivery of technical information.
It is well known that the volume of paper-based technical manuals, engineering drawings, and documentation associated with any complex amalgamation of weapon systems (i.e., a ship) can be measured by the tonnage. Converting these documents from paper to an electronic form has been shown to reduce (a) cost in producing the documents, (b) storage requirements, and (c) cost of maintaining and updating the electronic form once it has been converted.
ManTech was contracted through the Integrated Data Environment (IDE) contract to perform a survey and to document the potential and desirability of the military services and defense agencies to convert legacy technical manuals to electronic form.
This task began with the development of a survey matrix/questionnaire that will request pertinent information on such areas as work environment, type of manuals and documentation used, the need for electronic conversion, access to an infrastructure (hardware/software) to support the converted material, the willingness of that agency or facility to convert, and the level of Electronic Technical Manual (ETM)/Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) they felt would best serve their organizational needs.
Once this survey was completed, it was sent to Lockheed-Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, and Boeing Aircraft Corporation in Seattle, Washington, for review and comments before sending it out to potential agencies. After comments were received, changes were made to the questioner and the surveying commenced. Appendix B contains the final survey used.
The next step was to identify military and defense agencies, military and commercial manufacturer, and other Government facilities that are heavily dependent on the use of paper-based documentation in their day-to-day environment. Areas of concentration were repair facilities (air, sea, land) and manufacturing facilities. Preliminary information on the different classifications as described below and the benefits of conversion were provided with each survey. Appendix A contains a list of all organizations contacted and the status of each survey.
In 1994, the Tri-Service Working Group (TSWG) agreed on 5 classifications for ETM data types. During our research on ETM/IETM conversion through the OSD CALS Integrated Weapon System Database (IWSDB) IETM tasking, ManTech further defined these classes. This task used the ManTech definitions and has concentrated its conversion efforts on Class 2/MB+ (Electronic Hypermedia Technical Manuals) and Class 3/MC (Frame Based Electronic Hypermedia Work Packages). ManTech's definitions for these two classifications are below.
Type MB+ data is a hypermedia document that may be scroll-oriented, page-oriented, or frame-oriented. From a conversion standpoint, Type MB+ can be created by simply taking a tagged Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) file and augmenting it with hyperlinks/hotspots. The hyperlinks may be implemented through the use of SGML's IDREF/CONREF to ID pointing facility, or through Hypermedia/Time-based Structuring Language (HyTime) hypermedia links. The display of Type MB+ data does not have to remain page-based. Implementing the hyperlinks would require some comprehension of the Technical Manual (TM) content, but domain specific experts would not be required. Note that HyTime coordinate and quantum based addressing is not recommended for hyperlinking of text here, because of the possibility of updates and changes to the original SGML file. Table 1.0-1 lists Type MB+ capabilities.
Table 1.0-1 Type MB+ TM Capabilities
|
Type MB+ Data |
Electronic Hypermedia Technical Manual Possibly fixed-length pages Possibly frame-based Possibly an electronic scrolling document |
|
Display Media |
Electronic. |
|
Data Primitives |
Text. Tables. Graphics (IGES, CCITT 4, CGM). Audio. Video. Processing. |
|
Data Elements |
SGML tagged ASCII text. Limited format tagging. Structure tagging allowed. No content tagging required. HyTime compliant hypermedia links preferred but not required. |
|
Data Organization |
Redundant elements. Integrated and/or non-integrated files. Format information may be specified with a Formatting Output Specification Instance (FOSI). Traversement through troubleshooting trees and diagnostic data with hyperlinks. |
|
Dynamics |
Extensive use of hotspots and hyperlinks that are authored in. Displayed windows can be printed. Non-interactively authored with an interactive hypermedia presentation system. Text, Tables, and Graphics may appear in the same or in separate windows. Static graphics with or without hotspots. |
|
Data Format |
SGML files. |
Type MC data are very advanced and significantly different from MB+. This data type is strictly system- and task-oriented. It requires organization of the technical manual data into a system, sub-system, and sub-assembly hierarchy with the appropriate tasks and all associated information for each. This data type can resemble an SGML instantiation of Data Base, Revisable: Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals, For The Support Of, (MIL-D-87269) that is valid for all maintenance levels and also allows for less content-intensive tagging. One of the key features that separates this type from the previous one is the logical NEXT function. Logical NEXT allows for efficient authoring of alternative information (i.e., unit level tasks versus intermediate level tasks) and rule-based diagnostics. Depending on the format of the original, correct placement of Type MC tags may require full comprehension of the TM content as well as domain-specific experts. Table 1.0-2 lists Type MC requirements.
Table 1.0-2 Type MC Electronic TM Requirements
|
Type MC Data |
Frame Based Electronic Hypermedia Work Package |
|
Display Media |
Electronic. |
|
Data Primitives |
Text. Tables. Graphics (IGES, CCITT 4, CGM). Audio. Video. Processing. |
|
Data Elements |
SGML-tagged ASCII text. Frame tags and embedded scripting tags (i.e., IF-THEN) used for presentation. Minimum requirements are: basic set of system- and task-oriented content tags as in MIL-D-87269. Tagging of descriptive, procedural, part, and troubleshooting information as in MIL-D-87269. Limited format tagging. Content tagging as in MIL-D-87269 to the extent desired. HyTime compliant hypermedia links. |
|
Data Organization |
Redundancy reduced to the extent possible. Traversement through troubleshooting trees and diagnostic data with context dependent filtering capabilities rather than hyperlinks. Alternative information authored in using context dependent filtering capabilities. |
|
Dynamics |
Context dependent filtering. Dialog driven interaction and branching. Interaction functions per MIL-M-87268 to the extent possible. Extensive use of hotspots and hyperlinks that are authored in. Displayed windows can be printed. Interactively authored and displayed with an interactive hypermedia presentation system. Text, Tables, and Graphics may appear in the same or in separate windows. Logical NEXT and BACK function. Runtime variables maintained in a state table at presentation time. Dynamic and/or static graphics with or without overlays and hotspots. |
|
Data Format |
SGML files. |
This report will document the results of the surveys returned. It will provide statistics on the eagerness to convert, types and volume of data for conversion, and the actual surveys themselves. This report will also provide other statistics gathered from previous research on the benefits of ETM/ITEMS usage and conversion.
This section contains the findings of our Potential/Desirability Survey. Within this section, an in-depth look at our findings will be presented along with some statistical information on past and current conversion projects.
Although eighteen surveys were sent out to respective repair and manufacturing facilities, only five were returned. Countless phone calls were made to retrieve the uncompleted surveys, but we were unable to stress the importance of the information requested. This report will summarize the data received and include other information obtained during our phone conversations. Appendix C contains the completed surveys received.
The following are the results for each question from the surveys received. The results given by the civilian manufacturing firm are provided separately to stress important differences between government and commercial organizations. These differences will be discussed further in paragraph 2.2, Common Areas and Differences.
Part I: Potential Facility Questionnaire
1. What category do you feel this facility falls into? Choose one from both Category 1 and 2.
Category 1
a. Repair (Air) b. Repair (Ship) c. Repair (Other) Specify: ___________________
d. Manufacturer e. Documentation f. Other Specify: __________________________
Category 2
a. Military b. DOT c. Government Specify: _____________________
d. Airline e. Automobile f. NASA g. Other Specify: _________
Results: Out of the five returned, three were Military Repair (Air), one was a Military Calibration and Repair, and one was a Civilian Manufacturer with Government Contracts.
2. How many employees are housed at this facility?
a. 1-20 b. 21-50 c. 51-100 d. 101-200
e. 201-500 f. More Specify: ___________
Results: Out of the four military returns, two employed 51-100, one employed 201-500, and one employed 600 workers. The Civilian Manufacturer employs 201-500.
3. How many manuals and other documents are kept in house at this facility?
a. 1-100 b. 101-500 c. 501-1000 d. 1001-2000
e. 2001-5000 f. More Specify: ____________
Results: Out of the four military returns, one facility keeps 501-1000, one keeps 1001-2000, one keeps 2001-5000, and one keeps 8000 documents on-hand at their respective facilities. The Civilian Manufacturer keeps 1001-2000 manuals and documents on-hand.
4. How often are they used?
a. Daily b. Weekly c. Monthly
Results: Out of the five returned including the Civilian Manufacturer, all five use their manuals and other documents on a daily basis.
5. Estimate how many are used during the above time frame.
a. 1-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-20 d. More Specify: _________
Results: Out of the four military returns, one uses 11-20, and the other three uses between 50-100 on a daily basis. The Civilian Manufacturer uses 11-20 documents on a daily basis.
6. Estimate how often modifications are made to these documents?
a. Yearly b. Bi-Yearly c. Quarterly d. Monthly
e. Other: ____________
Results: Out of the four military returns, one facility requests modifications weekly, two requests modifications Bi-Yearly, and one on a yearly basis. The Civilian Manufacturer makes or requests some type of modification to its documents on a monthly basis.
7. Who approves the changes to your documents?
a. Manufacturer b. Facility Manager Specify: _________________________________
c. Other Specify: ____________________________________________________________
Results: Out of the four military returns, one facility receives change approval by the Engineering Officer, two by the In-Service Engineering Activity (ISEA), NAVAIR, and Manufacturer, and one by the Cognizant Field Authority and NAVAIR. The Civilian Manufacturer receives change approval by the Maintenance and Operational Superintendent.
8. Do you contract someone to provide the changes to these documents?
a. Yes b. No (Done in house) c. Other Specify: _________
Results: Out of the four militaries returned, one facility contracts with some of the requested changes and performs the rest in-house, and three contract all changes out. The Civilian Manufacturer performs all changes in-house
9. If changes are provided by other then the facility, who makes them?
a. Specify: _________________________________________________________________
Results: Out of the four military returns who contract changes out, two receive their changes from ISEA, one from NAVAIR, and one from manufacturer.
10. On an average, estimate how long a requested modification to a document takes from request to receipt of change pages.
a. 1-2 weeks b. 1 month c. 2-3 months d. Other Specify: _________
Results: Out of the four military returns, three take up to 1 year to receive changes, one will receive their changes in 2-3 months. The Civilian Manufacturer will have an approved change completed within 1-2 weeks.
11. How much, on an average, would you say you budget per year for modifications to your documentation?
a. $1,000-50,000 b. $50,001-100,000 c. $100,001-500,000 d. Other Specify: ________
Results: Out of the five returned, only two returned budgetary data. The Coast Guard spends on an average 2 million dollars annually to maintain their paper documentation. The Civilian Manufacturer spends approximately 500-2,000 dollars annually.
12. What are the types and relative percentages of data formats do you currently employ?
Text
a. Paper: _____ b. SGML: _____ c. Non-SGML: _____ d. Other Specify: _____
Graphics
a. Paper: _____ b. IGES: _____ c. CCITT: _____ d. CGM: _____
e. Other Specify: _____
Results: Out of the four military returns, three employ 100% paper for both text and graphics, and one employs 90% paper for both text and graphics. The Civilian Manufacturer employs 50% text and 50% graphics.
13. If you use software tools in your document development and maintenance, what do you use primarily?
a. DOS b. Windows c. UNIX d. Other Specify: _________
Results: Out of the four military returns, one uses UNIX, and the other three do not use any software tools for document development or maintenance. The Civilian Manufacturer uses Microsoft Windows.
14. If you use software tools, what software tools do you primarily use?
Specify: ____________________________________________________________________
Results: Out of the five returned, only one specified use of a specific set of software tools; they were Interleaf and ArborText.
15. What form of media do you use to transfer completed documentation to its end user?
a. Paper b. Disk c. On-line Transfer d. On-line Sharing
e. Tape f. Other Specify: __________________
Results: Out of the four military returns, one uses on-line Transfer, and the other three use papers. The Civilian Manufacturer uses all available media to transfer data.
Part II: Potential Conversion to ETM/IETM Questionnaire
1. Before this survey, how would your rate your knowledge with the terms Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM) and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM)?
a. Extreme b. Above Average c. Average d. Below Average
e. None
Results: Out of the four military returns, one facility claims Above Average knowledge about ETM/IETMs, one claims Average knowledge, one has Below Average knowledge, and the fourth admits to having no knowledge. The Civilian Manufacturer claims Above Average knowledge about ETM/IETMs.
2. Before this survey, how familiar were you with classifications on ETM/IETMs?
a. Very b. Somewhat c. Only heard of d. Never heard of
Results: Out of the four military returns, two are Somewhat familiar, and two claim they have never heard of the ETM/IETM classifications. The Civilian Manufacturer claims it is Very familiar with the classifications.
3. If you were familiar with the classifications, where did you obtain your knowledge?
Specify: ______________________________
Results: Out of the two military returns that claim knowledge, one received knowledge from the Naval Repair Facilities that currently employ ETMs/IETMs, and one from the COMNAVAIRLANT Technical Publication Specialist. The Civilian Manufacturer received its knowledge from the Air Force National Guard.
4. How receptive would your facility be to use this new technology if available?
a. Very b. Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
Results: Out of the four military returns, one is Very receptive to ETM/IETM technology, one was Somewhat receptive, and two require More information before making any decisions. The Civilian Manufacturer would be Somewhat receptive to this new technology.
5. How interested are you in pursuing this new technology for your facility?
a. Very Interested b. Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
Results: Out of the four military returns, two are Somewhat interested in pursuing the new technology, one is not interested at all, and one requires More information before making any decisions. The Civilian Manufacturer is currently installing some form of ETM.
6. If conversion of your legacy paper documentation was possible, at what level of ETM/IETM would you like to obtain?
a. Paper (Class MA)
b. Electronic Page, Raster Scan Image (Class MA+)
c. Electronic Page w/SGML (Class MB)
d. Electronic Hypermedia (Class MB+)
e. Frame-Based Electronic Hypermedia (Class MC)
f. Need more information
Results: Out of the four military returns, one would be interested in a Class MB+, and the other three require More information before making any decision. The Civilian Manufacturer would be interested in a Class MB.
7. If conversion was performed, how many documents/manuals would you be interested in converting?
a. 5-10% b. 11-25% c. 26-50% d. 51-75% e. 76-100% f. None
Results: Out of the five returned, all replied that they would be interested in 76-100% conversion.
8. What percentage would you say can be given for the amount of duplicate data within the documents/manuals that would be considered for conversion?
a. 5-10% b. 11-20% c. 21-30% d. Over 30% e. Unsure
Results: Out of the four military returns, one replied that it has only 5-10% data duplication, one replied over 30%, and two were unsure of the data duplication within the documents/manuals. The Civilian Manufacturer replied over 30% data duplication within its documents/manuals.
9. If migration to an ETM/IETM system was performed, is there a platform requirement?
a. DOS b. UNIX (SUN) c. AIX (IBM) d. Other Specify: _______________
e. No Preference
Results: Out of the four military returns, two would require DOS compatible systems, one required UNIX, and one had no preference at this time. The Civilian Manufacturer requires DOS compatible systems.
10. General Comments:__________________________________________________________
Results: Out of the five returned, no general comments were received.
Even though only five surveys were returned, of the eighteen sent out, we can still see some commonalties and differences between those surveyed. The following paragraphs will discuss some of the common areas and differences that we feel should be addressed and some important studies that pertain to this subject matter.
One very important commonality between these facilities whether it is commercial, Department of Defense (DoD), or Department of Transportation (DoT), is the fact that an extremely high percentage of technical manuals used are in paper form. Figure 2.2.1-1 demonstrates the percentage difference between paper and some type of electronic media used. This figure is a combination of text and graphics. See question 12 of Part II above for the cumulative answers and Appendix C for the individual completed survey results.
Figure 2.2.1-1 Technical Manual Media Used in Repair Shops
This paper percentage is a staggering figure and is a good representation of what is currently housed at repair facilities. Statistics gathered during our research show in the mid 1980s, the Air Force technical manual inventory exceeded 130,000 unique titles and contained 15 million pages of technical information. In July of 1987, they showed an increase in page count to 20 million. Change pages went from 2.3 million pages annually to 2.5 million change pages annually. These figures are slightly out dated, but if this increase were projected through 1995, with the same annual increase through those years, the paper count in 1995 could be stated to be at least 40 million pages of technical data. Figure 2.2.1-2 depicts this projected increase.
Figure 2.2.1-2 Projected Page Count
The question is then asked, "Where to put all this paper?" Evidence shows us that on the average, 37 tons of paper requires at least 1850 cubic feet of storage. For ships, this is valuable space used in the storage of data that is, in some cases, never used. If this data were converted to electronic storage such as CD-ROM, the 1850 cubic feet would be reduced to only 35 cubic feet of storage. This equates to a reduction in weight of 148-1 and a reduction in volume of 53-1. This also equates to a 30 percent reduction in print costs.
Another benefit of conversion would be in cost savings. With continuous government cut backs in the purchase of new technology to defend our nation, cost savings become an important issue. A study was performed by CACI on the cost savings for the distribution of CD-ROM versus paper. They concluded that in 1987, a single optical disk cost on the average 25,000 dollars. In 1994, when this study was performed, optical disk cost per unit was on the average 30 dollars. CACI used 22,000 pages of PDF files for its study. This study’s conclusion is summarized in Table 2.2.1-1.
Table 2.2.1-1 CACI Digital Distribution Comparison Cost Estimates
|
CD-ROM |
Paper |
|
|
Weight |
0.2 lb. |
283.5 lb. |
|
Cube |
0.002 cu. ft. |
7.600 cu. ft |
|
Labor @ $45/hr |
$7.50 |
$135.00 |
|
Materials Cost |
$30.00 |
$440.00 |
|
Mailing Cost |
$0.73 |
$413.60 |
|
Total Costs |
$38.23 |
$988.60 |
Another cost savings area that should be considered in the conversion and use of ETM/IETMs is time. The staff hours required in the diagnostics, removal, repair, parts ordering, and paper work can be from a few minutes up to days and even weeks. Several studies have shown by using ETM/IETMs in the repair facilities, time is reduced for experienced and inexperienced repair personnel in all aspects of a repair job.
In June of 1993, a report was released by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division in Bethesda, Maryland, that documented the results of comparing IETM usage with that of paper-based technical manual usage. The test compared performances of technicians working with the IETM/PMA combination to performances of technicians working with the existing F/A-18 paper-based Work Package Technical Manuals. Sixteen Marine Corps Technicians (half were experienced and half inexperienced) participated in the test.
The results of the tests demonstrated that Technicians were able to perform the troubleshooting tasks assigned in a shorter period of time with the IETM than with the existing paper-based Technical Manuals. Performance benefits were particularly noticeable with regard to inexperienced technicians, whose performance was brought to a level approximating that of the experienced technicians. A summary of the average times' comparison using IETMs with that of paper are given in Figure 2.2.1-3.
Figure 2.2.1-3 Comparison of Performance of Using IETMs with that of Paper TMs
Previous field tests performed by the Navy and Air Force, with a variety of hardware systems, have consistently shown significant improvement in technician performance with Technical Information (TI) displayed in an electronic form. The following principles were demonstrated by these tests:
One important difference that should be brought to light is the time expended for technical manual changes. In the five surveys received, we noticed the difference in the time it takes to receive a request change to a technical manual for the Civilian Manufacturer in comparison to the DoD and DoT facilities surveyed. The civilian manufacturer acknowledged the fact that it takes only between 1-2 weeks to receive requested changes to the manuals. The changes are made in-house. The DoD and DoT facilities surveyed stated a minimum of 3 months to 1+ years. Their changes are made primarily apart from the facility. Figure 2.2.2-1 illustrates the time expended in requesting and receiving technical manual changes at the facility. See questions 6 and 10 of Part I above for the cumulative answers and Appendix C for the individual completed survey results.
Figure 2.2.2-1 Time Expended for Technical Manual Changes
After several discussions with current IETM projects on TM change requests, even with today’s technology in electronic presentation and delivery, the time factor in making the TM changes and delivering them to the repair facilities will not be significantly impacted. In this area, the problem is not technology, but the process. Whether it is in paper form or electronic media, the data must pass through the same channels of request approval, change, change approval, and delivery. These channels each have several processes within them and are mostly if not all performed manually. The following is a brief list of channels that a change request must pass through in order to receive a technical manual update:
One can conclude that even though the technology is now available to increase efficiency at the repair facility, the process to change data used must be reviewed and a new more efficient way to approve and implement changes must be designed if time and money are to be further impacted.
Many surveys were sent, yet few were returned. Of the surveys that were received, and coupled with phone conversations from other facilities and ETM/IETM projects, several conclusions can be made.
The use of Commercial Conversion Services such as Docucon or Data Conversion Laboratory may be an additional option to the current in-house services available. Commercial conversion services are already equipped with hardware and most COTS products currently in use and maintain the expertise needed for the development of the higher level ETMs/IETMs. Some possible cost savings options that should be researched during this type of decision are the use of both NSDSA and/or NATSF, and an external conversion service. These two activities may already maintain a digital form of the manuals or would be willing to perform the primary scanning and data formatting at a lower price than that of an external service. The data then could be sent to the external service for further development to the desired ETM/IETM level.
Further studies on cost savings with existing projects should continue. New conversion projects should maintain cost data on the conversion effort itself. These data would provide valuable information when deciding such things as ETM/IETM levels, and efficient and effective software and hardware usage. The above information would aid in stream lining the decision making process and conversion process thus eventually lower cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Rec. |
Comments |
|
HARRIS Corporation RF Communications Division 1680 University Ave Rochester, NY 14610 |
716-242-3332 fax 461-4099 |
Paul Simpson |
5/12/95 |
N/R |
5/22 - they received survey. Currently converting repair manuals. Unable to fill out survey. no return |
|
Boeing Aircraft Corp. P.O. Box 3707 MS 2J03 Seattle, WA 98124 |
206-544-8604 fax 554-8502/ 8498 |
John Anderson |
5/15/95 |
6/2/95 |
5/30 - he received survey, will send comments back by 6/2. |
|
American Fiber Resources LT P. O. Box 687 Fairmont, WV 26555 |
304-366-8431 |
Brian Tristani Mike Lemons* |
5/31/95 |
6/5/95 |
|
|
General Dynamics Lands Systems 6700 East 14 Mile Rd Warren, Michigan 48092 |
810-978-5343
810-978-5645 |
Clair Mcclary mail zone: 496-20-36 Joe Dietz |
6/6/95 |
N/R |
Clair has given survey to Joe Dietz - manager. Left last msg 10/4. No return of call or survey. no return |
|
Command Marine Corp. Logistics Bases Code 850 814 Radford Blvd. Albany, GA 31704-1128 ---------- Commander (853) Marine Corp. Logistics Bases 814 Radford Blvd. Albany, GA 31704-1128 |
912-439-6401
912-439-6438 |
Fred Howard
Sterling Thompson |
6/6/95 |
N/R |
7/12 - Tompson phoned and has decided not to fill out the survey due to Marine Corp. IETM directive scheduled for publication end of Nov. no return |
|
Commander Marine Corp. System Command ATTN: PSD 2033 Barnett Ave. Suite 315 Quantico, VA 22134-5010 |
703-640-4206 |
Randy Shockey |
6/15/95 9/6/95 |
N/R |
Survey lost, resent 9/6. Marine Corp. IETM directive and policy will be out end of Nov. time frame. Unable to fill out survey. no return |
|
Commanding Officer Attn: DSSD Jascheck Code DS31 MCTSSA Box 555171 Camp Pendleton, CA 92056-5171 |
619-725-2371 |
Chonie Jaschek |
6/27/95 |
N/R |
Last msg. left 10/26. No return of call or survey. no return |
|
U. S. Army Corp of Engineers 502 Eight Street Huntington, WV 25701 |
304-529-5620 |
Lee Sutphin |
6/27/95 |
N/R |
9/6 - Contacted Lee; she has sent survey awhile back. Lost in mail and is unwilling to refill out survey. no return |
|
Commanding Officer U.S. Coast Guard ARSC Engineering Division Technical Publication Section Elizabeth City, NC 27909-5001 |
919-335-6829 fax 335-6463 |
Jim Bronson |
6/29/95 |
8/8/95 |
|
|
Naval Weapons Systems Yorktown PO Drawer 160 Yorktown, VA 23691-0169 Code 305 |
804-887-4341 |
Mike Crawford |
7/12/95 |
7/28/95 |
Received two: Air Weapons All-up-round Depot and Meas. Sciences & Eng. Div. |
|
SIMA Portsmouth St. Juliens Creek Anix Portsmouth, VA 23702 TAC 5001 |
804-396-0204 |
John Thomson
|
8/14/95 |
N/R |
Last contact 9/20. Too busy to fill out survey. no return |
|
SIMA Norfolk 9170 Second Street Suite 100 Norfolk, VA 23511-2392 |
804-444-5315 |
LT. Thomas (Repair Officer) |
8/14/95 |
N/R |
Last msg. left 10/25. No return of call or survey. no return |
|
AIMD Norfolk 581 A Street Norfolk, VA 23511-4099 |
804-444-1367 804-444-1368
|
CDR Simmons-Trefethen (El Maint. Ofr) |
8/14/95 |
9/1/95 |
Lt. Phil Moran - Tech Library. |
|
USS Mitscher DDG-57 FPO AE 09578-1275 |
804-444-4205 |
ENS Paetz (El Maint. Ofr) |
8/16/95 |
N/R |
No phone contact-mailed survey direct. Last msg. left 10/25. no return |
|
USS Anzio CG-68 FPO AE 09564-1188 |
804-444-4392 |
CWO Norris (El Maint. Ofr) LCDR Autrey (Engr.) |
8/16/95 |
N/R |
No phone contact-mailed survey direct. Sent one to each. Last msg. left 10/25. No return of call or survey. no return |
|
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 FPO AE 09532-2830 |
804-380-2691 |
CDR Malush (Engr.) |
8/16/95 |
N/R |
No phone contact-mailed survey direct. Last msg. left 10/25. No return of call or survey. no return |
|
USS Austin LPD-4 FPO AE 09564-1707 |
804-444-2201 |
ENS Horack (El. Maint. Ofr.) LT Vasquez (Engr.) |
8/16/95 |
N/R |
No phone contact-mailed survey direct.. Sent one to each. Last msg. left 10/25. No return of call or survey. no return |
|
USS Merrimack AO-179 FPO AE 09578-3020 |
804-444-4585 |
LT Bennet (Ops. Ofr) LT Miller (Engr.) |
8/16/95 |
N/R |
No phone contact-mailed survey direct.. Sent one to each. Last msg. left 10/25. No return of call or survey. no return |
OSD CALS SURVEY
Potential and Desirability for Conversion
of Legacy Documentation
to
Electronic Technical Manuals/Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals
(ETMs/IETMs)
Project Name: |
|
Facility Name: |
|
Facility Address: |
|
|
|
Phone: |
|
POC: |
|
Part I: Potential Facility Questionnaire
1. What category do you feel this facility falls into? Choose one from both Category 1 and 2.
Category 1
a. Repair (Air) b. Repair (Ship) c. Repair (Other) Specify: ___________________
d. Manufacturer e. Documentation f. Other Specify: __________________________
Category 2
a. Military b. DOT c. Government Specify: _____________________
d. Airline e. Automobile f. NASA g. Other Specify: _________
2. How many employees are housed at this facility?
a. 1-20 b. 21-50 c. 51-100 d. 101-200
e. 201-500 f. More Specify: ___________
3. How many manuals and other documents are kept in house at this facility?
a. 1-100 b. 101-500 c. 501-1000 d. 1001-2000
e. 2001-5000 f. More Specify: ____________
4. How often are they used?
a. Daily b. Weekly c. Monthly
5. Estimate how many are used during the above time frame.
a. 1-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-20 d. More Specify: _________
6. Estimate how often modifications are made to these documents?
a. Yearly b. Bi-Yearly c. Quarterly d. Monthly
e. Other: ____________
7. Who approves the changes to your documents?
a. Manufacturer b. Facility Manager Specify: _________________________________
c. Other Specify: ____________________________________________________________
8. Do you contract someone to provide the changes to these documents?
a. Yes b. No (Done in house) c. Other Specify: _________
9. If changes are provided by other then the facility, who makes them?
a. Specify: _________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
10. On an average, estimate how long a requested modification to a document takes from request to receipt of change pages.
a. 1-2 weeks b. 1 month c. 2-3 months d. Other Specify: _________
11. How much on an average would you say you budget per year for modifications to your documentation?
a. $1,000-50,000 b. $50,001-100,000 c. $100,001-500,000 d. Other Specify: ________
12. What are the types and relative percentages of data formats do you currently employ?
Text
a. Paper: _____ b. SGML: _____ c. Non-SGML: _____ d. Other Specify: _____
Graphics
a. Paper: _____ b. IGES: _____ c. CCITT: _____ d. CGM: _____
e. Other Specify: _____
13. If you use software tools in your document development and maintenance, what do you use primarily?
a. DOS b. Windows c. UNIX d. Other Specify: _________
14. If you use software tools, what software tools do you primarily use?
Specify: ____________________________________________________________________
15. What form of media do you use to transfer completed documentation to its end user?
a. Paper b. Disk c. On-line Transfer d. On-line Sharing
e. Tape f. Other Specify: __________________
Part II: Potential Conversion to ETM/IETM Questionnaire
1. Before this survey, how would your rate your knowledge with the terms Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM) and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM)?
a. Extreme b. Above Average c. Average d. Below Average
e. None
2. Before this survey, how familiar were you with classifications on ETM/IETMs?
a. Very b. Somewhat c. Only heard of d. Never heard of
3. If you were familiar with the classifications, where did you obtain your knowledge?
Specify: ______________________________
4. How receptive would your facility be to use this new technology if available?
a. Very b. Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
5. How interested are you in pursuing this new technology for your facility?
a. Very Interested b. Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
6. If conversion of your legacy paper documentation was possible, at what level of ETM/IETM would you like to obtain?
a. Paper (Class MA)
b. Electronic Page, Raster Scan Image (Class MA+)
c. Electronic Page w/SGML (Class MB)
d. Electronic Hypermedia (Class MB+)
e. Frame-Based Electronic Hypermedia (Class MC)
f. Need more information
7. If conversion was performed, how many documents/manuals would you be interested in converting?
a. 5-10% b. 11-25% c. 26-50% d. 51-75% e. 76-100% f. None
8. What percentage would you say can be given for the amount of duplicate data within the documents/manuals that would be considered for conversion?
a. 5-10% b. 11-20% c. 21-30% d. Over 30% e. Unsure
9. If migration to an ETM/IETM system was performed, is there a platform requirement?
a. DOS b. UNIX (SUN) c. AIX (IBM) d. Other Specify: _______________
e. No Preference
10. General Comments:__________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
OSD CALS SURVEY
Potential and Desirability for Conversion
of Legacy Documentation
to
Electronic Technical Manuals/Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals
(ETMs/IETMs)
Project Name: |
Maintenance & Operational Systems |
Facility Name: |
American Fiber Resources, L.P. |
Facility Address: |
P.O. Box 687 |
|
Fairmont, WV 26555 |
Phone: |
(304) 366-8491 |
POC: |
Mike A. Lemons |
Part I: Potential Facility Questionnaire
1. What category do you feel this facility falls into? Choose one from both Category 1 and 2.
Category 1
a. Repair (Air) b. Repair (Ship) c. Repair (Other) Specify: ___________________
d. Manufacturer e. Documentation 
Other Specify: Pulp Manufacture/Processing
Category 2
a. Military b. DOT c. Government Specify: _____________________
d. Airline e. Automobile f. NASA 
Other Specify: Civilian
2. How many employees are housed at this facility?
a. 1-20 b. 21-50 c. 51-100 d. 101-200
201-500 f. More Specify: ___________
3. How many manuals and other documents are kept in house at this facility?
a. 1-100 b. 101-500 c. 501-1000 
1001-2000
e. 2001-5000 f. More Specify: ____________
4. How often are they used?
Daily b. Weekly c. Monthly
5. Estimate how many are used during the above time frame.
a. 1-5 b. 6-10 
11-20 d. More Specify: _________
6. Estimate how often modifications are made to these documents?
a. Yearly b. Bi-Yearly c. Quarterly Monthly
e. Other: ____________
7. Who approves the changes to your documents?
a. Manufacturer b. Facility Manager Specify: _________________________________
Other Specify: Maintenance & Operational Superintendents
8. Do you contract someone to provide the changes to these documents?
a. Yes 
No (Done in house) c. Other Specify: _________
9. If changes are provided by other then the facility, who makes them?
a. Specify: _________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
10. On an average, estimate how long a requested modification to a document takes from request to receipt of change pages.
1-2 weeks b. 1 month c. 2-3 months d. Other Specify: _________
11. How much on an average would you say you budget per year for modifications to your documentation?
a. $1,000-50,000 b. $50,001-100,000 c. $100,001-500,000 Other Specify: 500-2000
12. What are the types and relative percentages of data formats do you currently employ?
Text
Paper: 50 SGML: 50 c. Non-SGML: _____ d. Other Specify: _____
Graphics
Paper: 50 IGES: 10 CCITT: 15 CGM: 25
e. Other Specify: _____
13. If you use software tools in your document development and maintenance, what do you use primarily?
a. DOS Windows c. UNIX d. Other Specify: _________
14. If you use software tools, what software tools do you primarily use?
Specify: ____________________________________________________________________
15. What form of media do you use to transfer completed documentation to its end user?
Paper Disk On-line Transfer On-line Sharing
Tape f. Other Specify: __________________
Part II: Potential Conversion to ETM/IETM Questionnaire
1. Before this survey, how would your rate your knowledge with the terms Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM) and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM)?
a. Extreme Above Average c. Average d. Below Average
e. None
2. Before this survey, how familiar were you with classifications on ETM/IETMs?
Very b. Somewhat c. Only heard of d. Never heard of
3. If you were familiar with the classifications, where did you obtain your knowledge?
Specify: Air Force - Air National Guard
4. How receptive would your facility be to use this new technology if available?
a. Very Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
5. How interested are you in pursuing this new technology for your facility?
a. Very Interested b. Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
Other Specify: We are installing systems
6. If conversion of your legacy paper documentation was possible, at what level of ETM/IETM would you like to obtain?
a. Paper (Class MA)
b. Electronic Page, Raster Scan Image (Class MA+)
Electronic Page w/SGML (Class MB)
d. Electronic Hypermedia (Class MB+)
e. Frame-Based Electronic Hypermedia (Class MC)
f. Need more information
7. If conversion was performed, how many documents/manuals would you be interested in converting?
a. 5-10% b. 11-25% c. 26-50% d. 51-75% 76-100% f. None
8. What percentage would you say can be given for the amount of duplicate data within the documents/manuals that would be considered for conversion?
a. 5-10% b. 11-20% c. 21-30% Over 30% e. Unsure
9. If migration to an ETM/IETM system was performed, is there a platform requirement?
a. DOS b. UNIX (SUN) c. AIX (IBM) Other Specify: MAXINO, MSDOS, MICROSOFT e. No Preference
10. General Comments:__________________________________________________________
OSD CALS SURVEY
Potential and Desirability for Conversion
of Legacy Documentation
to
Electronic Technical Manuals/Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals
(ETMs/IETMs)
Project Name: |
Air Weapons All-Up-Round Depot |
Facility Name: |
U.S. Naval WPNS Station |
Facility Address: |
P.O. Drawer 160 |
|
Yorktown, VA 23691-0160 |
Phone: |
(804)887-4341 |
POC: |
Mike Crawford, Code 305 |
Part I: Potential Facility Questionnaire
1. What category do you feel this facility falls into? Choose one from both Category 1 and 2.
Category 1
a. Repair (Air) b. Repair (Ship) Repair (Other) Specify: Air Weapons
d. Manufacturer e. Documentation f. Other Specify: __________________________
Category 2
a. Military b. DOT Government Specify: U.S. Navy
d. Airline e. Automobile f. NASA g. Other Specify: _________
2. How many employees are housed at this facility?
a. 1-20 b. 21-50 51-100 d. 101-200
e. 201-500 f. More Specify: ___________
3. How many manuals and other documents are kept in house at this facility?
a. 1-100 b. 101-500 c. 501-1000 1001-2000
e. 2001-5000 f. More Specify: ____________
4. How often are they used?
Daily b. Weekly c. Monthly
5. Estimate how many are used during the above time frame.
a. 1-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-20 More Specify: >100
6. Estimate how often modifications are made to these documents?
a. Yearly Bi-Yearly c. Quarterly d. Monthly
e. Other: ____________
7. Who approves the changes to your documents?
a. Manufacturer b. Facility Manager Specify: _________________________________
Other Specify: In-Service Engineering Activity (ISEA)
8. Do you contract someone to provide the changes to these documents?
a. Yes b. No (Done in house) Other Specify: ISEA
9. If changes are provided by other then the facility, who makes them?
a. Specify: ISEA @ Naval Air Warfare Center, CA
10. On an average, estimate how long a requested modification to a document takes from request to receipt of change pages.
a. 1-2 weeks b. 1 month c. 2-3 months Other Specify:6-12 mths
11. How much on an average would you say you budget per year for modifications to your documentation?
a. $1,000-50,000 b. $50,001-100,000 c. $100,001-500,000 Other Specify: N/A
12. What are the types and relative percentages of data formats do you currently employ?
Text
Paper: 100 b. SGML: _____ c. Non-SGML: _____ d. Other Specify: _____
Graphics
Paper: 100 b. IGES: _____ c. CCITT: _____ d. CGM: _____
e. Other Specify: _____
13. If you use software tools in your document development and maintenance, what do you use primarily?
a. DOS b. Windows c. UNIX Other Specify: N/A
14. If you use software tools, what software tools do you primarily use?
Specify: ____________________________________________________________________
15. What form of media do you use to transfer completed documentation to its end user?
a. Paper b. Disk On-line Transfer d. On-line Sharing
e. Tape f. Other Specify: __________________
Part II: Potential Conversion to ETM/IETM Questionnaire
1. Before this survey, how would your rate your knowledge with the terms Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM) and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM)?
a. Extreme b. Above Average c. Average d. Below Average
None
2. Before this survey, how familiar were you with classifications on ETM/IETMs?
a. Very b. Somewhat c. Only heard of Never heard of
3. If you were familiar with the classifications, where did you obtain your knowledge?
Specify: ______________________________
4. How receptive would your facility be to use this new technology if available?
a. Very Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
5. How interested are you in pursuing this new technology for your facility?
a. Very Interested Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
6. If conversion of your legacy paper documentation was possible, at what level of ETM/IETM would you like to obtain?
a. Paper (Class MA)
b. Electronic Page, Raster Scan Image (Class MA+)
c. Electronic Page w/SGML (Class MB)
d. Electronic Hypermedia (Class MB+)
e. Frame-Based Electronic Hypermedia (Class MC)
Need more information
7. If conversion was performed, how many documents/manuals would you be interested in converting?
a. 5-10% b. 11-25% c. 26-50% d. 51-75% 76-100% f. None
8. What percentage would you say can be given for the amount of duplicate data within the documents/manuals that would be considered for conversion?
5-10% b. 11-20% c. 21-30% d. Over 30% e. Unsure
9. If migration to an ETM/IETM system was performed, is there a platform requirement?
DOS b. UNIX (SUN) c. AIX (IBM) d. Other Specify: _______________
e. No Preference
10. General Comments: Whole working manuals are all hard-copy, data collection (compleded doc’s) is performed through bar coded data and transferred on-line.
OSD CALS SURVEY
Potential and Desirability for Conversion
of Legacy Documentation
to
Electronic Technical Manuals/Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals
(ETMs/IETMs)
Project Name: |
Measure Sciences & Engineering Division |
Facility Name: |
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown |
Facility Address: |
P.O. Box Drawer 160 |
Yorktown, VA 23691-0160 |
|
Phone: |
(804)887-4962 |
POC: |
Chuck Robinson, Code 302 |
Part I: Potential Facility Questionnaire
1. What category do you feel this facility falls into? Choose one from both Category 1 and 2.
Category 1
a. Repair (Air) b. Repair (Ship) c. Repair (Other) Specify: ___________________
d. Manufacturer e. Documentation Other Specify: Test Equip Cal & Repair
Category 2
Military b. DOT c. Government Specify: _____________________
d. Airline e. Automobile f. NASA g. Other Specify: _________
2. How many employees are housed at this facility?
a. 1-20 b. 21-50 51-100 d. 101-200
e. 201-500 f. More Specify: ___________
3. How many manuals and other documents are kept in house at this facility?
a. 1-100 b. 101-500 501-1000 d. 1001-2000
e. 2001-5000 f. More Specify: ____________
4. How often are they used?
Daily b. Weekly c. Monthly
5. Estimate how many are used during the above time frame.
a. 1-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-20 More Specify: 50-100
6. Estimate how often modifications are made to these documents?
Yearly b. Bi-Yearly c. Quarterly d. Monthly
e. Other: ____________
7. Who approves the changes to your documents?
Manufacturer b. Facility Manager Specify: _________________________________
Other Specify: ISEA, NWAD, Manufacturer
8. Do you contract someone to provide the changes to these documents?
a. Yes b. No (Done in house) Other Specify: N/A
9. If changes are provided by other then the facility, who makes them?
a. Specify: ISEA, NWAD, Manufacturer
10. On an average, estimate how long a requested modification to a document takes from request to receipt of change pages.
a. 1-2 weeks b. 1 month 2-3 months d. Other Specify: _________
11. How much on an average would you say you budget per year for modifications to your documentation?
a. $1,000-50,000 b. $50,001-100,000 c. $100,001-500,000 Other Specify: N/A
12. What are the types and relative percentages of data formats do you currently employ?
Text
Paper: 100 b. SGML: _____ c. Non-SGML: _____ d. Other Specify: _____
Graphics
Paper: 100 b. IGES: _____ c. CCITT: _____ d. CGM: _____
e. Other Specify: _____
13. If you use software tools in your document development and maintenance, what do you use primarily?
a. DOS b. Windows c. UNIX Other Specify: N/A
14. If you use software tools, what software tools do you primarily use?
Specify: N/A
15. What form of media do you use to transfer completed documentation to its end user?
Paper Disk c. On-line Transfer d. On-line Sharing
e. Tape f. Other Specify: __________________
Part II: Potential Conversion to ETM/IETM Questionnaire
1. Before this survey, how would your rate your knowledge with the terms Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM) and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM)?
a. Extreme b. Above Average c. Average Below Average
e. None
2. Before this survey, how familiar were you with classifications on ETM/IETMs?
a. Very b. Somewhat c. Only heard of Never heard of
3. If you were familiar with the classifications, where did you obtain your knowledge?
Specify: ______________________________
4. How receptive would your facility be to use this new technology if available?
a. Very b. Somewhat c. Not at all Need more information
5. How interested are you in pursuing this new technology for your facility?
a. Very Interested b. Somewhat Not at all d. Need more information
6. If conversion of your legacy paper documentation was possible, at what level of ETM/IETM would you like to obtain?
a. Paper (Class MA)
b. Electronic Page, Raster Scan Image (Class MA+)
c. Electronic Page w/SGML (Class MB)
d. Electronic Hypermedia (Class MB+)
e. Frame-Based Electronic Hypermedia (Class MC)
Need more information
7. If conversion was performed, how many documents/manuals would you be interested in converting?
a. 5-10% b. 11-25% c. 26-50% d. 51-75% e. 76-100% f. None
8. What percentage would you say can be given for the amount of duplicate data within the documents/manuals that would be considered for conversion?
a. 5-10% b. 11-20% c. 21-30% d. Over 30% Unsure
9. If migration to an ETM/IETM system was performed, is there a platform requirement?
a. DOS b. UNIX (SUN) c. AIX (IBM) d. Other Specify: _______________
e. No Preference
10. General Comments:__________________________________________________________
OSD CALS SURVEY
Potential and Desirability for Conversion
of Legacy Documentation
to
Electronic Technical Manuals/Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals
(ETMs/IETMs)
Project Name: |
|
Facility Name: |
USCG Aircraft Repair Supply Center |
Facility Address: |
Engineering Division, Technical Publication Section |
Elizabeth City, NC 27909-5001 |
|
Phone: |
(919)335-6190 |
POC: |
Jim Bronson |
Part I: Potential Facility Questionnaire
1. What category do you feel this facility falls into? Choose one from both Category 1 and 2.
Category 1
Repair (Air) b. Repair (Ship) c. Repair (Other) Specify: ___________________
d. Manufacturer e. Documentation f. Other Specify: __________________________
Category 2
Military DOT Government Specify: USCG
d. Airline e. Automobile f. NASA g. Other Specify: _________
2. How many employees are housed at this facility?
a. 1-20 b. 21-50 c. 51-100 d. 101-200
201-500 f. More Specify: ___________
3. How many manuals and other documents are kept in house at this facility?
a. 1-100 b. 101-500 c. 501-1000 d. 1001-2000
e. 2001-5000 More Specify: 8000
4. How often are they used?
Daily b. Weekly c. Monthly
5. Estimate how many are used during the above time frame.
a. 1-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-20 More Specify: 100
6. Estimate how often modifications are made to these documents?
a. Yearly Bi-Yearly c. Quarterly d. Monthly
e. Other: ____________
7. Who approves the changes to your documents?
a. Manufacturer Facility Manager Specify: Engineering Officer
c. Other Specify: ____________________________________________________________
8. Do you contract someone to provide the changes to these documents?
Yes No (Done in house) Other Specify: Both
9. If changes are provided by other then the facility, who makes them?
a. Specify: Contractors
10. On an average, estimate how long a requested modification to a document takes from request to receipt of change pages.
a. 1-2 weeks b. 1 month c. 2-3 months Other Specify: 1yr
11. How much on an average would you say you budget per year for modifications to your documentation?
a. $1,000-50,000 b. $50,001-100,000 c. $100,001-500,000 Other Specify: 2 Mil
12. What are the types and relative percentages of data formats do you currently employ?
Text
Paper: 90 SGML: 1 Non-SGML: 9 d. Other Specify: _____
Graphics
Paper: 90 IGES: 1 CCITT: 8 CGM: 1
e. Other Specify: _____
13. If you use software tools in your document development and maintenance, what do you use primarily?
a. DOS b. Windows UNIX d. Other Specify: _________
14. If you use software tools, what software tools do you primarily use?
Specify: InterLeaf, ArborText
15. What form of media do you use to transfer completed documentation to its end user?
Paper b. Disk c. On-line Transfer d. On-line Sharing
e. Tape f. Other Specify: __________________
Part II: Potential Conversion to ETM/IETM Questionnaire
1. Before this survey, how would your rate your knowledge with the terms Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM) and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM)?
a. Extreme b. Above Average Average d. Below Average
e. None
2. Before this survey, how familiar were you with classifications on ETM/IETMs?
a. Very Somewhat c. Only heard of d. Never heard of
3. If you were familiar with the classifications, where did you obtain your knowledge?
Specify: Past Experience with Navy
4. How receptive would your facility be to use this new technology if available?
Very b. Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
5. How interested are you in pursuing this new technology for your facility?
Very Interested b. Somewhat c. Not at all d. Need more information
6. If conversion of your legacy paper documentation was possible, at what level of ETM/IETM would you like to obtain?
a. Paper (Class MA)
b. Electronic Page, Raster Scan Image (Class MA+)
c. Electronic Page w/SGML (Class MB)
Electronic Hypermedia (Class MB+)
e. Frame-Based Electronic Hypermedia (Class MC)
f. Need more information
7. If conversion was performed, how many documents/manuals would you be interested in converting?
a. 5-10% b. 11-25% c. 26-50% d. 51-75% 76-100% f. None
8. What percentage would you say can be given for the amount of duplicate data within the documents/manuals that would be considered for conversion?
a. 5-10% b. 11-20% c. 21-30% d. Over 30% Unsure
9. If migration to an ETM/IETM system was performed, is there a platform requirement?
DOS UNIX (SUN) c. AIX (IBM) d. Other Specify: _______________
e. No Preference
10. General Comments:__________________________________________________________
OSD CALS SURVEY
Potential and Desirability for Conversion
of Legacy Documentation
to
Electronic Technical Manuals/Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals
(ETMs/IETMs)
Project Name: |
|
Facility Name: |
NAS Norfolk AIMD |
Facility Address: |
581 A Street |
Norfolk, VA 23511-4099 |
|
Phone: |
(804)444-1367 |
POC: |
CDR Simmons-Trefethen |
Part I: Potential Facility Questionnaire
1. What category do you feel this facility falls into? Choose one from both Category 1 and 2.
Category 1
Repair (Air) b. Repair (Ship) c. Repair (Other) Specify: ___________________
d. Manufacturer e. Documentation f. Other Specify: __________________________
Category 2
Military b. DOT c. Government Specify: _____________________
d. Airline e. Automobile f. NASA g. Other Specify: _________
2. How many employees are housed at this facility?
a. 1-20 b. 21-50 c. 51-100 d. 101-200
e. 201-500 More Specify: 600
3. How many manuals and other documents are kept in house at this facility?
a. 1-100 b. 101-500 c. 501-1000 d. 1001-2000
2001-5000 f. More Specify: ____________
4. How often are they used?
Daily b. Weekly c. Monthly
5. Estimate how many are used during the above time frame.
a. 1-5 b. 6-10 11-20 d. More Specify: _________
6. Estimate how often modifications are made to these documents?
a. Yearly b. Bi-Yearly c. Quarterly d. Monthly
Other: weekly
7. Who approves the changes to your documents?
a. Manufacturer b. Facility Manager Specify: _________________________________
Other Specify: Cognizant Field Authority, NAVAIR
8. Do you contract someone to provide the changes to these documents?
Yes b. No (Done in house) c. Other Specify: _________
9. If changes are provided by other then the facility, who makes them?
a. Specify: Cognizant Field Authority/NAVAIR
10. On an average, estimate how long a requested modification to a document takes from request to receipt of change pages.
a. 1-2 weeks b. 1 month c. 2-3 months Other Specify: 6mth-1yr
11. How much on an average would you say you budget per year for modifications to your documentation?
a. $1,000-50,000 b. $50,001-100,000 c. $100,001-500,000 Other Specify: N/A
12. What are the types and relative percentages of data formats do you currently employ?
Text
Paper: 100 b. SGML: _____ c. Non-SGML: _____ d. Other Specify: _____
Graphics
Paper: 100 b. IGES: _____ c. CCITT: _____ d. CGM: _____
e. Other Specify: _____
13. If you use software tools in your document development and maintenance, what do you use primarily?
a. DOS b. Windows c. UNIX Other Specify: N/A
14. If you use software tools, what software tools do you primarily use?
Specify: ____________________________________________________________________
15. What form of media do you use to transfer completed documentation to its end user?
Paper b. Disk c. On-line Transfer d. On-line Sharing
e. Tape f. Other Specify: __________________
Part II: Potential Conversion to ETM/IETM Questionnaire
1. Before this survey, how would your rate your knowledge with the terms Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM) and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM)?
a. Extreme b. Above Average Average d. Below Average
e. None
2. Before this survey, how familiar were you with classifications on ETM/IETMs?
a. Very Somewhat c. Only heard of d. Never heard of
3. If you were familiar with the classifications, where did you obtain your knowledge?
Specify: COMNAVAIRLANT Technical Publication Specialist
4. How receptive would your facility be to use this new technology if available?
a. Very b. Somewhat c. Not at all Need more information
5. How interested are you in pursuing this new technology for your facility?
a. Very Interested b. Somewhat c. Not at all Need more information
6. If conversion of your legacy paper documentation was possible, at what level of ETM/IETM would you like to obtain?
a. Paper (Class MA)
b. Electronic Page, Raster Scan Image (Class MA+)
c. Electronic Page w/SGML (Class MB)
d. Electronic Hypermedia (Class MB+)
e. Frame-Based Electronic Hypermedia (Class MC)
Need more information
7. If conversion was performed, how many documents/manuals would you be interested in converting?
a. 5-10% b. 11-25% c. 26-50% d. 51-75% 76-100% f. None
8. What percentage would you say can be given for the amount of duplicate data within the documents/manuals that would be considered for conversion?
a. 5-10% b. 11-20% c. 21-30% d. Over 30% Unsure
9. If migration to an ETM/IETM system was performed, is there a platform requirement?
DOS b. UNIX (SUN) c. AIX (IBM) d. Other Specify: _______________
e. No Preference
10. General Comments: Item 9 would require an IBM compatible system