A Partial Adjustment Model of U.S. Electricity Demand by Region, Season, and Sector

Identifying the factors that influence electricity demand in the continental United States and mathematically characterizing them are important for developing electricity consumption projections. The price elasticity of demand is especially important, since the electricity price effects of policy implementation can be substantial and the demand response to policy-induced changes in prices can significantly affect the cost of policy compliance. This paper estimates electricity demand functions with particular attention paid to the demand stickiness that is imposed by the capital-intensive nature of electricity consumption and to regional, seasonal, and sectoral variation. The analysis uses a partial adjustment model of electricity demand that is estimated in a fixed-effects OLS framework. This model formulation allows for the price elasticity to be expressed in both its short-run and long-run forms. Price elasticities are found to be broadly consistent with the existing literature, but with important regional, seasonal, and sectoral differences.electricity, demand elasticities, energy demand, partial adjustment

The Cucamonga Middle School web page: Using parent input to redesign an existing school web page

This project focused on the enhancement of an existing school web page. Schools have jumped on the bandwagon in record numbers in the past couple of years publishing web pages about their schools. Cucamonga Middle School is no exception, having first published a web site in 1995. Utilizing information gathered from a survey, the author/webmaster created a redesign of the existing school webpage. The wants and needs of parents, as noted in the survey were the driving force behind the redesign

Union Commitment and Participation

What are union commitment and participation? Union commitment refers to the extent to which employees are dedicated to their union (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson, & Spiller, 1980). Union participation is active involvement in the union such as attending meetings, serving on committees, holding office, campaigning, voting, assisting with contracts and negotiations, managing union funds, and filing grievances (Anderson, 1979). Many researchers consider union participation as part of union commitment (e.g., Gordon et al., 1980). Others have speculated that union participation is a consequence of union commitment (e.g., Parks, Gallagher, & Fullagar, 1995). Additional ways to conceptualize union participation include: Participation as a single, global concept (e.g., Anderson, 1979). Participation as areas of activities (e.g., administration participation, meeting attendance, and voting) that need to be considered separately (e.g., McShane, 1986; Parks et al., 1995). Participation as militant versus non-militant participation (Monnot, Wagner, & Beehr, 2001). Militant participation is “any action on the part of union members to withhold work activity, such as a strike or slowdown” (Monnot et al., 2011, p. 1127). This type of participation may be harmful to the organization and require people to prioritize the good of the union over the good of the organization. Non-militant participation, however, is “any form of prounion action that does not directly interfere with the operations of the business, such as voting in union elections, reading union literature, or even running for office as an official” (Monnot et al., 2011, p. 1128). These are not damaging actions and allow for employees to be equally committed to the organization and the union. Researchers have used many versions of union commitment and participation scales. For example, Union Loyalty (i.e., commitment) is measured with items such as “I feel a sense of pride being part of this union” and “The record of this union is a good example of what dedicated people can get done” (Gordon et al., 1980). Willingness to Work (i.e., participation) includes items such as “If asked, I would serve on a committee” and “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected of a member in order to make the union successful” (Gordon et al., 1980). January 27, 2021 Why are union commitment and participation important? Union commitment and participation are important because they are associated with job attitudes (Monnot et al., 2011). More specifically, union commitment is modestly associated with job satisfaction and moderately associated with organizational commitment; employees who express commitment to the union are more likely to also express job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Overall, union participation is not related to job satisfaction or organizational commitment. Militant union participation, however, is modestly related to organizational commitment; employees who engage in militant union participation are less likely to express commitment to their organization. What contributes to union commitment and participation? Meta-analytic research on union commitment and participation thus far has focused on assessing factors that are merely associated with it, not on what factors cause union commitment or participation. Nonetheless, two factors may contribute to union commitment and participation: pro-union attitudes and instrumentality perceptions. Pro-union attitudes refer to individuals’ perception that unions are good, and instrumentality perceptions refer to individuals’ beliefs that unions do good. That is, pro-union attitudes are general positive attitudes toward the union and unions in general; instrumentality perceptions are the belief in “the union helping to achieve something for the members” (Monnot et al., 2011, p. 1129). Both pro-union attitudes and instrumentality are strongly related to union commitment and moderately related to union participation (both militant and non-militant). Employees who feel generally positive about the union and believe the union is helpful are more likely to express commitment to the union and participate in union activities. QIC-WD Takeaways ► Union commitment is modestly associated with job satisfaction and moderately associated with organizational commitment. ► Overall union participation is not related to job satisfaction or organizational commitment. ► Militant union participation is modestly related to organizational commitment, such that employees who engage in militant union participation have lower organizational commitment. ► Union commitment and participation are higher among those who feel unions are good and useful. ► Research is needed to better understand what causes union commitment. ► Practitioners or researchers that would like to assess union commitment should consider the measure developed by Gordon et al. (1980)

Coaching

What is coaching? There is no single universally recognized definition of coaching. In the context of the workplace, common elements of coaching definitions include a one-on-one systematic relationship, learning, behavioral change, self-awareness, and improved performance (Grover & Furnham, 2016). Some notable differences in definitions include who receives the coaching, who conducts the coaching, the type of behavior change that is targeted, and the nature of the coaching behaviors. For example, several definitions focus more exclusively on top leaders receiving coaching from external, professional coaches (e.g., Kilburg, 1996); known more commonly as executive coaching, this was a common arrangement when workplace coaching first flourished. Despite the variability in definitions, there is general agreement that coaching is different from therapy, consulting, mentoring, training, and supervision, each of which involves different goals, roles, or processes than coaching (International Coaching Federation, n.d.). The following definition accounts for much of the evolution and expansion of coaching in the workplace over the last several decades: “the use of coaching methodologies in the workplace for the purpose of helping employees, managers, and leaders attain work-related goals in terms of skills, performance, or developmental outcomes” (Grant, 2017, p. 39). Coaches can be either external or internal to the organization, depending on resources and needs. External coaches may be experts in the coachee’s area of work or in coaching in general. There is disagreement about who can serve as an internal coach. Some argue that supervisors and peers do not qualify as coaches, because in true coaching relationships, there should be no formal organizational connections (as would be present in a supervisor-subordinate or peerpeer relationship; Jones et al., 2016). Others adopt a broader conceptualization and include managers, supervisors, or peers, with whom the coachee has existing working relationships or that work in another area of the organization (e.g., Grant, 2017). There are also internal coach practitioners, such as human resources or professional development personnel, whose official role is more focused on employee development. Coaching occurs in both private and public sectors. For example, there are training programs and consortia of coaches for private business, non-profit organizations, state and federal government agencies, and the child welfare field in particular (e.g., Center for Non-Profit Coaching, Office of Personnel Management, Capacity Building Center for States). Just as there are many definitions of coaching, there are many different models of coaching as well. One way to categorize them is based on the type of change that is targeted: specific skills, job performance, or overall development (Witherspoon & White, 1996). March 3, 2021 In skills coaching, the focus can be on introducing and building brand new skills or on increasing proficiency of a skill that was assumed at hire or was previously introduced (e.g., in a formal training or on the job) but not sufficiently mastered. Unless the skills are very generic and widely applicable (e.g., problem solving, public speaking), this type of coaching requires the coach to have expertise in the job at hand. Relative to other types of coaching, in skills coaching, the coach is often more engaged in demonstration and modeling of the desired behavior and in providing immediate feedback. The coachee observes the coach, practices the behaviors, responds to feedback, and participates in self-reflection (e.g., Hafer et al., 2013). In performance coaching, the focus is on improving certain areas of job performance that may be lacking. Relative to other types of coaching, in performance coaching, the coach needs to spend more time helping to diagnose the underlying issues (e.g., knowledge, skills, opportunity, motivation, confidence) first (Witherspoon & White, 1996). Then the process can shift to goal setting, action planning, and monitoring and evaluation of progress (Grant et al., 2010). In developmental coaching, the focus is on building a person’s capacity to meet future challenges, either in their current job or one they aspire to have (Witherspoon & White, 1996). Coaches help with identifying strengths and liabilities and how to achieve the changes needed to succeed in the future. Among the more common areas of focus are things like interpersonal skills, communication, delegation, time management, conflict management, motivation, and planning (Bono et al., 2009). This type of coaching is more common among top leaders and typically takes longer than other types of coaching (Grant et al., 2010). Though this framework helps with thinking about how coaching purposes and strategies can differ, it is important to emphasize that in practice, coaching is highly diverse and therefore difficult to describe in a uniform way. Though there are some standardized coaching models (e.g., see Capacity Building Center for States, n.d.) and some similarities in how professional coaches are trained, individual coaching arrangements are likely to be highly customized to a given situation. Additional aspects that vary include communication methods and duration. Coaching sessions can take place in person, virtually, or through blended methods (Bono et al., 2009). In terms of duration, some people use just a few sessions, whereas others work with their coach for 6 to 12 months on a series of topics. Regardless of all the variation, the goal is to help move the person to action—the way a stagecoach moves a person from one place to another—thereby increasing self-efficacy and performance. Why is coaching valuable? Because of the large variation in how coaching is defined and implemented, there are challenges with evaluating its effectiveness. Thus, research has lagged behind practice. At this time, the available meta-analytic research has a much more limited focus than all the approaches described in the previous section. Specifically, the most recent and comprehensive review is limited to one-on-one workplace coaching that is provided only by coach practitioners, not managers or peers, and that focuses on work outcomes. Though the availability of rigorous research is a general problem, it should be noted that the exclusion of manager and peer coaching here is not about research availability; rather, it is based on a more narrow definition of coaching. Coaching is valuable because it is associated with changes in attitudes, stress indicators, and behaviors (Jones et al., 2016). After coaching, there is a large improvement in self-efficacy and well-being. There is a small degree of skill development through coaching, and coaching has a large positive impact on job performance. The research is contradictory about whether the impact of coaching is affected by the type of coach (i.e., internal or external) or the length of coaching engagement (e.g., Jones et al., 2016; Sonesh et al., 2015). There is evidence, however, that the relationship between coaching and positive outcomes is stronger when multi-source feedback is excluded (Jones et al., 2016) and when the coach and client have a trusting relationship and shared understanding about the coaching process and goals (GraBmann et al., 2020). Given all the ways that coaching can vary, there is a lot that is still unknown about the impact of coaching. Relative to how frequently coaching is used, the overall number of studies is very low. Thus, more controlled studies are needed. To be most useful, those studies need to include details about the nature of the coaching relationship, such as who provided and who received coaching; the number and duration of coaching sessions; the intended purpose and goals; specific techniques, tools, or models used; and the measures used to assess outcomes (Jones et al., 2016) The increasing popularity of coaching in child welfare agencies presents valuable opportunities to contribute to the evidence base, especially on the use of supervisors as coaches, which is more common in child welfare. Researchers or practitioners who are interested in assessing the effectiveness, impact, and efficiency of coaching programs should refer to Peterson & Kraiger (2004), which provides five steps to planning and conducting a successful coaching program evaluation. QIC-WD Takeaways ► There is no single universally recognized definition of coaching, and there is large variability in practice. ► Coaching has a large impact on attitudes, with self-efficacy increasing after coaching. ► Coaching has a moderate impact on stress indicators, with better well-being and coping after coaching. ► Coaching has a large impact on behavior, with job performance and self-regulation improving after coaching. ► Coaching has a stronger impact when multi-source feedback is excluded and when the coach and client have a trusting relationship and shared understanding about the coaching process and goals. ► For advice on planning and conducting a successful coaching program evaluation, Peterson & Kraiger (2004) is a recommended resource

Commercial Aircraft Electronic Checklists: Benefits and Challenges (Literature Review)

Procedural omissions and errors have been an inherent problem in aviation since 1935 when a B-17 crashed shortly after takeoff to the era of today’s advanced aircraft. Paper, then electronic, checklists were developed to address those omissions and errors. Electronic checklists attempt to further reduce paper checklist errors and results indicate some improvements have occurred. However, new error modes and unique challenges surfaced with electronic checklists that must be recognized and addressed. Note: This is a non-peer refereed literature review paper

A Behavioral Research Model for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Data Gathering Operations

According to Hitlin (2017) of the Pew Research Center, only 8% of U.S. citizens own an unmanned aircraft. Additionally, regarding feelings if U.S. citizens saw an unmanned aircraft flying close to where they live, 26% say they would be nervous, 12% feel angry, and 11% are scared. As of March 9, 2018, there were 1,050,328 U.S. small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) registrations compared to 947,970 November 29, 2017. While sUAS use has increased in the U.S., it has lagged when compared to other items for personal use available to U.S. citizens as 92% own cell phones (Anderson, 2015). This slower acceptance rate identifies a potential need for more research as to why. No studies have specifically focused on individual factors for the behavioral intention of using sUAS for data gathering, encompassing the variables used in this study, nor a Structural Equation Model that shows relevant factors and associated relationships. Also, current ground theories fall short, lacking appropriate variables or modeling ability. Thus, this dissertation study developed a new behavioral research model termed VMUTES to determine the factors that influenced individuals’ intentions to operate small sUASs for data gathering and relationships between those factors. A sUAS system is comprised of integrated hardware, software, processes, or firmware. Data gathering is defined in this study as the transmission or recording of audio, pictures, videos, or collection of other data for modeler, civil, or public use. The new VMUTES model integrates portions of the technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) model integrated with new factors: perceived risk and knowledge of regulations. The study used random sampling of Amazon Mechanical Turk® (AMT) members using an AMT Human Intelligence Task (HIT) that included a link to an online cross-sectional large-scale survey to collect data. Data Analysis included descriptive statistics analysis and the SEM process. Besides developing and validating a model and determining influencing factors, attention was also on verifying the relationships between constructs. Study limitations and future research recommendations are also discussed. Results indicated the VMUTES model had a strong predictive power of sUAS use for data gathering with seven of the ten original hypotheses supported while having a good model fit. Four new hypotheses were also identified with three supported. Additionally, all VMUTES model factors except for facilitating conditions were determined to have either a direct or indirect effect on behavioral intention and/or actual behavior with the TAM and TPB related factors having the strongest effects. Practically, this study filled an aviation research knowledge gap for sUAS use for data gathering. It also provided a research model and identified influencing factors of individuals’ behavioral intentions related to sUAS for data gathering. Thus, the newly developed model incorporating new variables can be used for further sUAS research and can provide an adaptable model for aviation and other technology areas to predict and facilitate new technology implementation where current models fall short. Finally, this study explored new and verified previously existing demographic variables for individuals who use sUASs for data gathering

Organizational Justice

What is organizational justice? Organizational justice is the extent to which an organization treats people fairly. Organizational justice includes fairness related to outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal interactions. Fair workplace outcomes and decisions (e.g., equitable/favorable pay, raise, promotion) are called distributive justice (Adams, 1965). Procedural justice means that outcomes are determined through procedures that are based on accurate information and standard ethics, represent everyone affected by the procedure, include opportunity for input and appeal, are free from bias, and are used consistently (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Interactional justice refers to people feeling they were treated with dignity and respect and feeling they received sound information about the procedures and decisions (Bies & Moag, 1986; Lind & Tyler, 1988). There are many available measures of the different types of organizational justice. Some measures assess more than one type of justice, whereas others measure only one type. Some take a more comprehensive approach (e.g., by examining many different types of work outcomes), and some have a more narrow focus (e.g., on only one type of outcome, such as pay, or on only one event, such as a performance review). Some directly assess perceptions of fairness (i.e., extent to which something is perceived as fair), whereas others ask for perceptions of conditions that are deemed fair (e.g., extent to which a person is treated with respect; Colquitt, 2001). Finally, measures can assess justice in terms of the organization or in terms of individual decision makers (e.g., supervisors; Colquitt & Shaw, 2005). Unfortunately, more than a few measures claim to assess a certain type of justice, though some of the items address other types of justice (Colquitt, 2001). In short, there is no primary and most-preferred measure, and the existing measures vary in a number of important ways. Nonetheless, the scales developed by Colquitt (2001) provide a straightforward approach to measuring justice perceptions. Descriptions and examples of those items for each type of justice are provided below. ► Distributive justice: Items focus on perceptions of outcomes such as pay level, work schedule, job responsibilities, and the extent to which people felt fairly rewarded for their efforts. Example items include, “The following items refer to your (outcome). To what extent does your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work? To what extent is your (outcome) justified given your performance?” November 25, 2020 ► Procedural justice: Items focus on whether outcomes were based on bias-free, consistently applied, representative procedures that offer an opportunity for employees to voice their opinions and appeal the decisions. Example items include, “The following items refer to the procedures used to arrive at your (outcome). To what extent have you been able to express your views and feelings during those procedures? To what extent have those procedures been free of bias?” ► Interactional justice: Items focus on whether the decision maker/communicator was kind, considerate, respectful, and forthcoming. Example items include, “The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent has (he/she) treated you with respect? To what extent has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or comments? To what extent has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly? To what extent were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?” Why is organizational justice important? Organizational justice is important because it is associated with many job attitudes, stress indicators, and behaviors. Perceptions of organizational justice are moderately related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Rupp, Shao, Jones, & Liao, 2014). With respect to stress indicators, justice perceptions are moderately associated with burnout and stress (Robbins, Ford, & Tetrick, 2012). In terms of behaviors, justice perceptions have a moderate connection to task performance and helpful extra-role behaviors, such as volunteering (Rupp et al., 2014). In addition, justice perceptions are moderately connected to turnover intentions (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001) and modestly connected to actual turnover (Rubenstein, Eberly, Lee, & Michell, 2017). The extent to which justice perceptions are related to attitudes, stress indicators, and behaviors is quite similar across distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. This is especially helpful when an organization cannot change the outcomes (e.g., increase pay, provide bigger raises). Even if an organization cannot deliver favorable outcomes, using fair procedures and respectful, thorough communication related to those outcomes are associated with positive attitudes and behaviors. For example, procedural and interactional justice perceptions have a moderate connection to task performance, whereas distributive justice is modestly related to task performance (Rupp et al., 2014), and “employees are 43% less likely to retaliate after a decision if an adequate explanation is provided” (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003, p. 451). Thus, there are a number of promising opportunities to potentially improve workforce outcomes through employee perceptions of fairness. QIC-WD Takeaways ► Justice perceptions are moderately related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. ► Justice perceptions are moderately associated with burnout and stress; employees who feel treated fairly are less likely to experience burnout and stress. ► Justice perceptions are moderately connected to task performance and helpful extrarole behavior; employees who feel treated fairly are more likely to perform well and demonstrate helpful extra-role behavior. ► Justice perceptions are moderately connected to turnover intentions and modestly connected to turnover; employees who feel treated fairly are less likely to plan to and ultimately leave. ► Even if an organization cannot deliver favorable outcomes, using fair procedures and respectful, thorough communication related to those outcomes are associated with positive attitudes and behaviors. ► Practitioners or researchers that would like to assess organizational justice should consider the scales developed by Colquitt (2001)

UNLV Jazz Ensemble lll and UNLV Jazz Guitar Ensemble

List of performers and performances

Emotional Labor

What is emotional labor? Emotional labor is “the management of feelings to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display” as necessary at work (Hochschild, 2012, p. 50). Thus, people engage in emotional labor when they ensure their facial expressions and body language match what is expected for the job (Grandey, 2000). Clear display rules (e.g., always smile, show empathy, stay neutral, seem stern) are most typically seen within service industries (e.g., customer service, protective services, law enforcement). People accomplish this adherence to display rules through surface acting—managing the expression of emotions—or through deep acting—managing the experience of emotions (Hochschild, 2012). That is, people can either fake the emotion or try to feel what they are supposed to exhibit. Jobs may require people to show certain emotions (e.g., look like you are enjoying yourself) or suppress certain emotions (e.g., never let them see you sweat), but the goals are the same: create “the proper state of mind in others,” in order to improve workplace interactions and organizational outcomes (Hochschild, 2012, p. 30). Emotional labor is typically measured by assessing the (a) frequency with which individuals use emotional labor on the job, (b) whether surface or deep acting is used, and (c) whether individuals feel they are expected to express positive emotions or suppress negative emotions. There are several measures that are more commonly used to assess these various aspects of emotional labor. Example items from these measures include: Frequency: “On an average day at work, how frequently do you display specific emotions required by your job?” (Brotheridge & Lee, 1998) Surface Acting: “I put on an act in order to deal with customers in an appropriate way.” (Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand, 2005) Deep Acting: “I work at developing the feelings inside of me that I need to show to customers.” (Diefendorff et al., 2005) Display Rules: “This organization would say that part of the product to customers is friendly, cheerful service.” (Grandey, 2003) January 13, 2021 Why is emotional labor important? Emotional labor is important because it is moderately associated with job satisfaction and burnout and modestly related to job performance (Kammeyer-Mueller, Rubenstein, Long, Odio, Buckman, Zhang, & Halvorsen-Ganepola, 2013). In addition, emotional labor is moderately associated with turnover intentions (Mesmer-Magnus, Dechurch, Wax, & Anderson, 2012), though the connection to actual turnover is unknown. People who engage in emotional labor at work are more likely to have good job performance ratings but also to feel burned out and unhappy in the job. This is especially true when the emotional labor strategy is surface acting. For example, surface acting is associated with burnout, whereas deep acting is not (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Similarly, using surface acting is associated with lower job satisfaction but is not associated with job performance. Deep acting, on the other hand, is associated with higher job performance but not job satisfaction. Thus, the negative consequences of emotional labor are more likely with surface acting than with deep acting. This may be due to the incongruence between emotions and actions when one employs surface acting versus the congruence when someone employs deep acting (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). Why contributes to emotional labor? Meta-analytic research on emotional labor has thus far focused on assessing factors that are merely associated with emotional labor, not on causal relationships. However, there are many additional factors that are associated with emotional labor and seen as potential influencers (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012), which may help agencies with hiring and training that could mitigate the potential consequences of emotional labor. These factors fall into three categories: perceived expectations, personality, and supervisor behaviors. Perceived Expectations Employees’ perception that their organization expects them to use specific facial expressions and body language with customers is associated with surface and deep acting (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Specifically, perceived negative display rules (i.e., the perception that the organization expects employees to suppress negative emotions) are more strongly related to surface acting than deep acting. Perceived positive display rules (i.e., the perception that the organization expects employees to demonstrate positive emotions), on the other hand, are more strongly related to deep acting than surface acting. Personality As with organizational expectations, personality relates differently to surface and deep acting (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). Individuals who score high on neuroticism and negative affectivity (i.e., people who generally think negatively) are more likely to employ surface acting. Those who score high on conscientiousness, positive affectivity, openness to experience, extraversion, and emotional intelligence are more likely to engage in more deep acting and less likely to engage in surface acting. Supervisor Behaviors Perceived supervisor support is modestly related to emotional labor (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). Again, the relationship is different depending on the strategy employed. Those who perceive more supervisor support are more likely to use deep acting and less likely to use surface acting. QIC-WD Takeaways ► Emotional labor is moderately associated with lower job satisfaction, higher burnout, and higher turnover intentions. ► Emotional labor is modestly associated with higher job performance. ► The connection between emotional labor and potential outcomes depends on the type of emotional labor strategy used (i.e., surface vs. deep acting). ► Surface acting is associated with higher burnout, but deep acting is not. ► Surface acting is associated with lower job satisfaction, but deep acting is not. ► Deep acting is associated with better performance ratings, but surface acting is not. ► When people believe they are expected to express or suppress certain emotions, they are more likely to engage in surface and deep acting. ► Personality characteristics and supervisor support may influence the type of emotional labor that is used and, thus, the extent of potential negative consequences such as lower job satisfaction, burnout, and intent to turnover. ► Practitioners and researchers who would like to assess emotional labor should consider using measures from Brotheridge and Lee (1998), Grandey (2003), or Diefendorff, Croyle, and Gosserand (2005). In some cases, minor adaptations would be needed to make them suitable for child welfare employees

SMS Derived vs. Public Perceived Risk in Aviation Technology Acceptance (Literature Review)

Aviation technology progressed from the first airplane flight to landing on the moon in just 63 years with continued progress today. Thus, organizations like commercial airlines and the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) that use a Safety Management System (SMS) are periodically implementing technology changes. Typically, two different processes are used to derive SMS and public perceived risk. Disparity between the two processes coupled with dissimilar influencing factors has, at times, frequently slowed or halted technology implementation. Understanding both processes and influencing factors using a literature review allows for a more proactive approach in implementing technology, aids in gauging public support, and provides the knowledge to attempt to change the public’s already formed perceived risk