1959 – Packard Speeches

Box 2, Folder 34 – General Speeches

 

October 5, 1959, Education in Russia, Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto

 

10/5/59, Typewritten “summary” of Packard’s speech at the High School describing his    trip to Russia with a group of businessmen to talk about improving trade relations.         This summary was evidently prepared by the High School staff and copies            provided to Packard’s office.

 

Packard says it was somewhat difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of Russian education  during their two week visit. They saw the usual sights he explains, as well as four factories and seeing manufacturing techniques.

He describes a visit to a secondary school in Leningrad which was attended by children from about 7 to 17 years old. They saw nurseries for pre-school children in every factory and housing development. Graduates of secondary schools have these choices:

1. Go on to a university.

2. Go to a Teacher’s school which is general-none of the teachers came                   from a university.

3. Go to a Medical School.

4. Go to a vocational school

In the secondary school children wear uniforms and buy their own books.

Packard went on to describe the curriculum which contains much arithmetic, science and foreign languages. Science labs were adequate.

 

The main measure of grading is given at two points: A comprehensive examination at the end of the seventh year when compulsory education ends. At the end of the tenth year competitive examinations last for about a week and determine which students may go on to university, to professional training and to work.

 

Many teachers work at a regular job too since they are usually finished teaching by noon. Teachers teach 24 hours per six day week.

 

There are 39 universities in Russia – first class institutions. The university of Moscow has the most expensive buildings in the country. The dormitories have 15-20 rooms, a kitchen and a nice recreation room. There is no tuition and students receive an allowance of 300 to 450 rubles a month. University professors are among the highest paid people in the country.

 

Some impressions Packard gives:

1. A tremendous emphasis on education, best buildings, excellent pay for               professors.

2. Emphasis of science, engineering and foreign language.

3. Tremendous competition in their educational system.

Some additional personal observations from Packard:

1. A country of unbelievable contrasts, poor construction of buildings and              roads, contrasted with excellent educational facilities.

2. People work very hard, dedicated to their system.

 

Packard answered questions from his audience in Palo Alto. The last was “Because of the every strong competition between Russia and us, are there ideas or suggestions whereby we can improve our system to meet their challenge?

 

Packard’s answer: “continue to support the school district and help in every way you can. This applies to both public schools and universities. There is not anything in our schools that some time, effort and money will not correct.”

 

Undated, A note to Mrs. Saxon (Packard’s secretary) form Janet Mitchell to the High School sending two copies of their summary of Packard’s talk on Russia, with the promise of sending 50 more.

Undated and unsigned, a note to Mrs. Mitchell thanking her for the 50 copies.

 

 

Box 2, Folder 35 – General Speeches

 

October 8, 1959, Personnel, The Heart of Management, Public Personnel Association Conference. San Francisco.

 

10/8/59,  Copy typewritten speech by Packard: Personnel, The Heart of  Management, with a few handwritten notes by Packard.

Packard says he is going to discuss the broader aspects of management for “I believe it is of great importance for any manager to have and understand the broad underlying objectives of his job.” He goes on to say that he subscribes to the management approach “which I call “Management of Objective” as opposed to “Management by Control”.  He contrasts this freedom to work “without rigid and extensive direction and control from the  TOP” to the “system of management of the military type where each person is assigned – and expected to do – a specific job, precisely as he is told and without the need to know much or anything about the overall objective of the organization”

 

Packard says Management by Objective “is the very essence of free enterprise. It is what causes small business units to be inherently more efficient than large business units, when they are under managers of equal ability in each case.” He sees many large organizations moving in that direction  “in an attempt to recapture the efficiency of a small business.”

 

Packard says he is aware that there are many special problems in public administration not present in private business administration. The legislative system builds safeguards which provide controls which seem frustrating to a person in a private enterprise. “I am aware too that many people are working for more centralization, for more policies and more details as well, to be decided at the highest level – preferably by Washington.” …”Unfortunately, many yield to these pressures under the false impression that concentration of administrative power in higher authority will also make administration more efficient.”

 

“One cannot dispute the fact that the number of people under public administration is increasing and increasing rapidly in many areas. For those of us who believe that the government – at all levels – should do only those things which clearly cannot be done by private enterprise – this trend is disturbing.”

 

In spite of these trends, Packard sees the people in public administration doing a very important job. “Your job is increasing in importance and we should therefore place great emphasis on how public administration can best be accomplished.” He sees it as possible and desirable to apply the principles of management by objectives to public administration.

 

Packard says he recently returned from a trip to Russia and many in this country are thinking more about their system and trying to learn more about it. H takes a few minutes to draw some comparisons between their management techniques and ours.. “First. they have moved a long way from the basic philosophy of communism – if indeed they ever had it. there is no application of the principle expressed as “from each according to his ability – to each according to his need”. The people do not own anything – it is all owned by the State.”

 

“They have the most highly centralized system imaginable. the government bureaus control everything – they set wages, working hours, rent, prices, work quotas for factories.” However, Packard says they have adopted some techniques from the capitalist system in order to make their administration more efficient.”  – Pay ranges for some jobs to encourage and reward performance and their ranges are broader than is usual here.

 

“The administrator of a Russian factory has the responsibility of providing nurseries for the children of working mothers. Housing, mass apartment housing, for the workers is also his responsibility and he can use this authority to distribute apartments to individuals and this encourage and reward performance where it will improve the efficiency of his administrative unit”

 

Russia also has a system of group incentives. “If  the factory”, Packard observes, exceeds its quota – the employees receive a bonus which may be as much as 100% of base salary and seemed to average at least 30% in most of the cases I encountered.” Public recognition is another incentive they use.

 

“It is the observation  of almost everyone who visits Russia that the people there work hard and have a religious devotion to their cause. In other words, a brad well accepted common objective – which is to work for a better life for their government as well as for the people.”

 

In spite of that Packard sees much evidence of great inefficiency. “People waiting around for someone else to make a decision. Two people doing the job of one – outdated tools and methods on many jobs. ….Finally, you sense that although they have the most highly organized and most highly centralized and controlled system of management that can be conceived, although they have used nearly every technique in our book – they have failed completely to use the most important of all – that of recognizing the individual as a person important for his own sake.”

 

“This now”, Packard says, “brings us to the very heart of the problem. What is the real purpose of an organization of people. Is the purpose of the private enterprise factory simply to make a profit for its owners – is the only purpose of a highway department to build and maintain highways – the fire department to be the most efficient organization of highly disciplined and highly trained people ready to put out the fir at the sound of the gong? Certainly, one of the proper objectives of management is to develop an organization to do these specific tasks for which it is designated. It is the function of the personnel man to obtain the people – and to assist management in their development, growth and direction – to help in every way in the overall objectives of the organization.”

 

“In other words, – we can say that an important purpose of an organization is to serve society. But if we stop here – there is no way in the world to detect such an organization in America from an organization in communist Russia. The organizations are manned with highly trained people. their managers are capable. they use techniques which appear to be as good as our best. they are dedicated to serve society – which they call the people.”

 

“But there is a difference – a difference so important that it is unbelievable we overlook it so often. the difference is that in America – each individual is a person of infinite worth. He is no different during the eight hours a day he is working in your organization than he is in his home – or in his church…..So ladies and gentlemen — as you go home from this conference to put into effect the things you have learned here to make your organization more efficient – remember that we are engaged in a struggle to the death with this malignant social disease called communism. Remind yourself of the nature of the struggle. the struggle is not just capitalism vs. dictatorship as a political system – it is something far more important – as important as such considerations may be.

 

“The real question is the person vs. the people. Remind yourself that the leaders of Communism have never hesitated to strike down the individual ruthlessly – when he stood in the way of alleged progress of the people. When the Hungarians were so bold as to express themselves, they were ruthlessly shot down. Even the leader who shows sign of deviation – deviation from blind support of the Communist State is either shot or sent to Siberia. Every person knows he is under continual surveillance of the police watching him to make sure he shows no expression of individuality. As you travel in Russia – you can sense this very strongly. The people are friendly but they are afraid.

 

….So the real question involved is this – are we, in our management philosophy and in our personnel administration — going to work to preserve the concept that the individual in our organization is a person of infinite worth. That the organization exists to serve the individual as well as to serve society. To the extent you are able to keep this as one of your basic objectives – you will insure for your organization that efficiency which comes only from enthusiastic people using their energy and their imagination in an atmosphere of freedom – working for a common objective.

 

….This course provides greater incentives for people at all levels, it will attract more capable people to your ranks. Most important of all – you will do much to strengthen the cause of personal freedom throughout the world – if you make sure it is encouraged within your own organization.”

Box 1, Folder 4 – Stanford

 

March 7/8, 1959,  Stanford in the Space Age, Stanford Conferences, Seattle/Portland

3/8/59, Copy of typewritten speech.

 

Packard starts out saying he would like to “give his personal impressions of Stanford today and how it seems to compare with 25 years ago”. He adds that if his impressions differ from that of a previous speaker, he asks his audience to remember that his perceptions dim with age.

 

Packard says “My first impression…is that the students are very young.” However, he views them as a “very mature, serious, hard-working group of boys           and girls.” He says there are about 8400 of them and “they are more interested in politics — they are more interested in international affairs and they are more religious — evidenced by their attendance at chapel and community churches…”

 

“A much larger portion of the boys and girls are working for degrees in science and Engineering. Foreign languages have taken a great upsurge.  Packard sees            juniors and seniors taking courses that were available only to graduate students 20 years previous. He says romance is taken more seriously  “as evidenced by the fact that we(Stanford) is spending this year $3 million to build apartments to ones renovated on the inside. New dormitories, libraries and music rooms — all far better than 20-25 years ago.

 

Packard describes some of the “exciting” things going on inside the buildings such as in electronics, physics, geology.  In Germany, 60 Stanford students have been transplanted for two quarters to facilitate their learning the language. “Every where you turn you see a great sense of urgency and enthusiasm. Searching for new answers — seeking new knowledge and seeking to understand it.” Packard feels the quality of Stanford’s educational program and its reputation among scholars has grown tremendously.

 

Packard continues , saying” “In the field of electrical engineering, Stanford easily ranks as on of the top two or three universities in the country…in several special areas …clearly first”. Stanford is among the best 5 or 6 in the country in physics according to Packard, and medicine provides “one of the outstanding activities in the country”. “The great heart of Stanford is its program in humanities, … we are working hard to develop additional strength and eminence in this important program.”

 

Summing up, Packard says “If we look at the breadth of the program at Stanford and at the kind of job being done there, we can say without qualification that Stanford ranks far and away as the greatest privately supported university in the western two-thirds of the United States,…and would easily rank as one of the ten greatest universities in the United States”

 

Leaving his description of academic activities at Stanford Packard turns to fundraising and “where we get the money to do all of these things” He says that when he started at Stanford in 1930 “the tuition was reasonable and everyone knew that Stanford had such a large endowment that it would never have any financial worries.”  Stanford, indeed, “did have the largest endowment of any university in the country when it was founded.:, he states. But, “by 1930 it was no longer the first and the endowment was nowhere near adequate to operate the university even then.”

 

Packard says the endowment now provides only 15% of the money needed to meet the annual budget and “To stretch our resources to provide even 15% of our budget has required a very important program of self-help, that is our :and Land Development Program..”(See also folder April 24, 1956 Land Development Program ) “Land which, in the opinion of the Board, is not needed for academic use is being leased, generally for a 99-year term..” Packard explains that .some  of the land s leases to industrial concerns, …some for a shopping center,… and some for residential purposes. “The university has received $5,800,000 for the land leases, exclusive of the shopping center. these funds provided income at the current investment rate of about $227,000 per year.” He adds that “the shopping provides an annual income net of expenses of about $550,000 per year”  In total, ” the Land Development Program is providing the University with a total income of about $600,000 a year.”  He says “the can express the value of the shopping Center to the University as being equivalent to $14 million added to the University endowment.”  While “the Land Development Program has been tremendously important to Stanford….it provides less than $600,000 per year against a $19 million budget.” “In other words,….only about 3% of our annual requirement to operate Stanford”

 

Packard discusses tuition at some length. “This year we will receive a little over $8 million for more than 40% of our budget requirements, from tuition and fees.” He points out that “This year tuition has gone up to a little over $1000 per year…compared to $336 twenty years ago…or about 3:1.” Packard provides some figures on the growth of discretionary income  in the preceding twenty years,  also about 3:1, and concludes that, “We should be able to conclude, then, that it is just as easy for the average person to pay tuition today at the present level as it was for him to pay the lower tuition in 1939.”

 

Packard says he has discussed only part of Stanford’s annual income. “The most important change in the last 20 years is the money we receive to support research activities.. In this year’s budge there is about $61/2 million — mostly from the government.” Such support provides “over 30% of the annual budget so…between tuition, research money from the government, and endowment income — we can account for about 90% we can account for about 90% of our annual budget” Packard says the other 10% “comes from gifts — gifts from alumni, gifts from parents, and gifts from friends, which is available to spend during the year to help pay our operating costs.” He says the “total gift support has gone from $7 million in 1956 to $22 million in 1957 — when we had the big drive for the medical school — to $11 million in 1958.” Packard talks about the Medical School as an example of the importance of gift support, and stresses that, “Despite the terrific magnitude of the financial problem – we at Stanford are not willing to allow this nor any other responsibility which has been traditionally shared by the privately supported and independent universities be turned over completely to the government.”

 

…”both research and education will become more expensive,… especially if we accept the challenge that Stanford must maintain and strengthen its position of leadership. We don’t like to increase tuition. We don’t propose to become dependent on government support. ” “Increased gift support for current requirements seems to be the only available way to minimize further tuition increases. Corporation support for private education is increasing. Business is permitted by law to contribute 5% of profit before taxes to education. The average contribution is much less than 1%. “Packard says if “business and industry would contribute just 1%  of their profit before taxes…the financial problem of private and independent higher education in this country would largely be solved.”

 

Packard points to the tremendous scientific progress which as been made throughout the world, such as sputnik, and says ” “…these events have brought into closer focus the importance of higher education in our country.. Our system of freedom and democracy depends on an alert, intelligent group of individuals working in an atmosphere of freedom, with a common purpose as opposed to the communistic philosophy involving highly trained people, completely subservient to a central controlling authority.”    we have learned that the communistic Russian system is not to be under-rated either in purpose or in capability. For our democratic free enterprise to successfully compete — and successfully compete it must in order to survive — requires the greatest possible effort in the education of our people. Education not only so they will have the skills and ability necessary to perform their jobs well — but also the broadest kind of education in order to strengthen the common purpose freely and logically developed from our Western heritage. This, then, is the challenge and purpose of higher education in the Space Age.

 

“In the past 20 yeas Stanford has risen to a position of national leadership among the institutions of higher learning in this country.” “this achievement …has been great to a large degree because it has been supported by an enthusiastic and loyal group of alumni.”

 

Packard ends saying “I hope also that you will leave this conference today with increased pride in your university and with the resolution to continue to work with us to help Stanford fulfill its important and proper destiny in the SPACE  AGE.”

 

Several drafts evidently prepared in preparation for the above speech

 

1/28/59 Memo from Mary Beech, Activities Secretary of the Stanford alumni Association to all participants in the 1959 Stanford Conference Program. Location and speech titles are given. Packard is listed for

Sacramento, February 15, “Reflections on the Space Age”

Seattle, March 7, “Stanford in the Space Age”

Portland, March 8, “Stanford in the Space Age”

3/3/59 Letter from Peter C. Allen to Thomas P. Pike with a cc. to Packard. Letter refers to enclosed text of Packard’s forthcoming speech at Seattle and copies of Stanford Today which are not attached to this copy. An index of press releases is attached.

3/8/59 Program for the Stanford Conference at  Portland.

Undated summary of endowment Monies for years 1947, 1952, and 1956.

 

 

 

Undated note listing tuition for various schools at Stanford for year 1938-39:

Business School          $130.00/qtr.

Medical School           $115.00/qtr.

All other schools         $100.00/qtr.

            Plus approx. $35.00/year additional expenses

 

3 quarter = 1 year

Thus $335 to $390 approximately, compared to $1005 now.

 

Box 1, Folder 7 – Stanford

1/14/59 Speech by Packard, given in Los Angeles apparently to an audience of  local company executives. Packard says that the Stanford Board of Trustees held its first meeting in southern California that day saying that holding the meeting here “was           an expression that Stanford University shares with its great sister institutions the responsibility to provide the best that higher education has to offer for your children and your community.” Packard introduces honored guests which include several Presidents of  universities in southern California.

 

Packard goes on to talk about the symbiotic relationship between Stanford and southern California.  He says one third of Stanford’s alumni reside in the south, and that Stanford students who came from the south are 44 % of the students from the state. “Sending your finest boys and girls to the Stanford campus…is a challenging responsibility  for us to meet.” Packard goes on to describe the General Studies program at Stanford and he says that “At Stanford we have graduate schools to train men and women in the professions, in Law, in Medicine, in engineering, in Education, in Business and in other fields as well.” He points out that “Many of the leaders in these professions in your community received their training in the graduate schools at Stanford.”

 

Packard talks of research activities at Stanford and points out that these have “greatly contributed to the progress of California. Hundreds of millions of dollars come into Southern California every year through your great aircraft and electronic companies to manufacture devices totally dependent on the Klystron tube developed in the department of Physics laboratories at Stanford a few years ago.” He points out that the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line built across the Arctic frontier to warn us in the event of an air attack “is possible because of a by-product of the Linear Accelerator research at Stanford.” Packard goes on with other examples of how southern California has benefited from activities at Stanford.

 

Packard then introduces Stanford President Dr. Wallace Sterling, who gives a speech. (Not attached)  In conclusion, Packard points out that “Our country – and our way of life – are engaged in a deadly serious conflict with countries and people under Communist philosophy. Our universities have in the past, and will continue in the future, to be the main source of new scientific knowledge on which all of our technological progress depends, not only for the weapons for our protection but for all of the other material advances which do so much to demonstrate to the world the superiority of the American way of life.”

 

2/12/59 Typewritten speech by Dr. J. E. Wallace Sterling, President of Stanford University, on occasion of award to him of Distinguished Citizen Award of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce.

 

Dr. Sterling provides a “brief and uneven reminiscence of developments and forces that were being unleashed in the world three score and fourteen years ago, (Since 1885 when Stanford was founded), and turns to the local scene as it was then. There was “no town of Palo Alto, and there were no University buildings.” Sterling describes how Senator Stanford became concerned as to where students and faculty coming to the new school might find accommodations. He thought, “The little town of Mayfield might serve as a university town. But he imposed the condition that it should be dry.” This condition “would have involved the closing of a dozen or so Mayfield saloons. The residents of  Mayfield found this condition uncongenial, so refused it.”          Sterling goes on to describe how Senator Stanford managed to get alternate property in the area, which involved the communities of College Terrace, University Park, and  which all ultimately became Palo Alto.

 

Dr. Sterling follows the development of both the university and the town and        concludes with the thought he believes “…in these past three score and fourteen years, ways have been found to build on the foundations and hopes that were laid             when Palo alto was a tiny hamlet and the University was untried and untested.”

 

5/11/59 Typed letter to Dave Packard from Professor Wallace Stegner, Department of English. The letter is quoted in its entirety:

“Dear Mr. Packard:

“I listened to your talk before the local chapter of the AAUP last Thursday evening with great interest, and many things that you said I was very pleased to hear. I share your optimism about Stanford’s future and at least some of your satisfaction with Stanford’s present. I do believe that this university is just getting the vision of greatness, thanks in considerable part to the present board and the present administration, and that it faces an incomparable opportunity for service to the community, to the nation, and to human learning. In particular, I was pleased to hear you say that the plans for development of the Sand Hill road area of Stanford land have been suspended for further study: quite seriously, many of us would give up other benefits, if necessary, to see Stanford preserve that land open and unmutilated in the midst of the ringworm suburbs. It is perhaps un-American to think that a four-lane highway is not necessarily better than a two-lane one, or that a population of four thousand per square mile is not necessarily better than half that. So be it. If it can preserve some of the character of the local landscape and the openness and expansiveness of what has hitherto been the Stanford community, I should say Stanford has the opportunity to be un-American in the very best sense of the term. Beauty does not ordinarily win out in a competition with the chance for dollars; it takes an institution of both integrity and vision to resist the short-term good for the long-term, and I am sure you will have the enthusiastic support of a very large portion of the faculty in your effort to save that hill land from what they call Progress.

 

Some other aspects of your talk on Thursday left me somewhat uneasy. To bring them up then would have extended the discussion long past its proper time, and so I venture to write you of them now. In discussing the purposes and opportunities of the university you were emphatic on its obligation to turn out scientists and engineers who would be useful in the weapons race; and linguists and diplomats capable of holding their own in the cold war, and capable of taking a persuasive part in cultural exchanges aimed at solidifying international friendships and humanists who could, as you said, collaborate with psychologists and others as communications experts; and so on. Perhaps I misinterpreted you, and perhaps you were taking for granted much of what is now on my mind, but I did understand you to look upon the university’s purposes with a highly practical eye, and judge its performance by purely practical criteria. We seemed, from your words, to be an institution dedicated to the production of technicians, scientists, experts, leaders — a sort of “human accelerator” as Arthur Wright put it, shooting out its business end experts and specialists with half their electrons missing and with their nuclei knocked whobberjawed. We seemed, as you described us, to be something like the Stanford Research Institute, subsisting on government research contracts and bending all our efforts toward the production of limited experts and the application of science and other knowledge to practical ends. Perhaps you did not mean to give this impression, but I think you did, especially in your commentary on the debate between generalists and specialists, where you clearly chose the side of specialization. Now I don’t quarrel with specialists, but I do think the other side needs stating more than you stated it. I suspect that what we most need is neither generalists nor specialists, but specialists who can generalize and generalists with a specialty. And I further suspect that we do not attract, develop, or hold this kind of faculty and train this kind of student unless we concentrate on being something that you did not mention at all: a community of minds, a fellowship of people who know something, are willing to communicate it, and are always wanting to know more. What makes a university, for me, is the climate of absolutely free intellectual inquiry, the pursuit of knowledge wherever it leads us, the almost anarchic emancipation from all applied or practical ends, from government preoccupation, from cold war needs, even from such common pedagogical intentions as the training of “leaders” or “citizens”. Obviously, Stanford and all other universities must depend to some considerable extent on government research contracts and to some lesser expert on private or industrial research contracts. But these activities are not the university. If, as I think you did, you intimated that the professional and research facilities were the most important part of the university, I must disagree, for it seems to me that the core of this university and any other university is the college or school of humanities and sciences, in which knowledge is not applied but “pure”, to be studied for its own sake. Keep that part of the university in health, and the production of experts and leaders (and specialists who can generalize and generalists with specialties) will follow automatically. Try self-consciously to produce specialists and leaders in that pre-professional college, and you will, I am convinced, produce half-men, limited men, men with imperfect vision and low horizons. And I would call to your attention, in connection with your general satisfaction with the undergraduate program at Stanford, that the School of Humanities and Sciences which does two thirds of all the teaching done by the university gets a whole lot less than 66% of the budget. I would have been better assured that Stanford is going to realize its potential as a university if in your talk before the AAUP you had given more stress to that indispensable core of humanities and sciences: the best that has been thought and said in the world on the one hand, and the purest and most adventurous pursuit of new knowledge on the other.

 

“This letter has gone on so long that you can see why I did not raise these questions and this apparent difference of opinion the other evening. I do agree with you that Stanford, which has always been a good university, is trembling on the brink of becoming one of the small number of great ones. At such a time, especially, the question of direction and goals is vital. I respectfully submit that our goal ought to be the goal of becoming the finest center of learning, the finest community of scholars, scientists, teachers, and students, that we can become; and that the short-term goal of producing practical troubleshooters and specialists will, if it is pursued too far, and by forcing us to abdicate our strongest position as a university.”

 

“Sincerely yours,

Wallace Stegner ”

Undated. Packard’s typewritten draft, with notations, of a response to the above letter from Professor Stegner. It has a note at the top, in perhaps his secretary’s handwriting, saying the draft was never completed.

 

“Dear Professor Stegner:

“In answer to your letter of May 11th I am sorry you did not raise the question which concerned you and apparently others about my talk, in the discussion period which followed. I think I might have been able to arrest some of your uneasiness as well as to receive some useful guidance from you and your colleagues.

 

“What I attempted to say was that the pressures for the production of technicians, scientists, experts, leaders, all the other tremendous people have been tremendous in the past and have tended to lead the University in a direction which was not necessarily proper in relation to its larger responsibilities to our society. Also, I attempted to outline conditions which I thought would continue to generate these pressures in the future and that it would be very difficult for us to avoid continued progress or shall we say -motion – in that same direction. I apparently did not state it in specific terms the other evening. I think I agree with you and probably most of the rest of the faculty, in saying that I think the core of humanities and sciences is in truth the most important part of the University. We must find ways to develop monetary support for these and other scholarly areas which are independent of the pressures which come from government contract money, from gifts, business and alumni support. What I intended to say is that we should divert our efforts away from the concept of simply building to strength. I think we have done too much of that in the past few years.

 

“I am sure this will be difficult and cannot be done all at once but I am convinced we can make more progress in what I believe you would consider to be the right direction in the future than we have in the past.

 

“I agree with you completely in your statement that the question of direction and goals is vital, even more vital in a period of rapid growth than any other time. Questions relating to the direction and the goals must of course be established by the faculty and the president of the University. It is vital however, that the direction and goals which you people establish be understood and accepted by the trustees, for only in this way can we work together to achieve what I am sure is really our common objective.

 

“I hope you will convey to your colleagues that I always welcome their suggestions and criticism. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other important questions relating to the University in detail with you at any time. I have only one reason for spending my time in the service of the University and that is to work with all of you to help achieve even greater distinction in the future than it has enjoyed in the past ”

 

10/10/59 Typewritten address by Professor F. E. Terman on “Stanford’s Academic Goals and Academic Needs”

Professor Terman describes the growing prestige and visibility of Stanford, but says it “cannot stand still”. The goal is to be  “one of the small group of  leading universities in the country….and as the prestige institution in the west…..In order for Stanford to develop further its position as an institution of truly national stature it is necessary that we have:

1. A progressive strengthening of the salary structure

2. A healthy and steady growth of the faculty

3. Very substantial plant additions and rehabilitations

4. Improved housing for graduate students and junior staff, and completion of the undergraduate housing program.”

 

He addresses himself to the first two, salary structure and faculty.

 

As to salaries, Professor Terman says Stanford’s “scale has improved greatly in recent years…although still a little on the low side as compared with the best schools.” He goes on to describe troubles in attracting strong new faculty members. “It is clear,” he concludes,” that if Stanford is to achieve a top position in the nation, it must gradually but steadily strengthen the present salary structure…”

 

As to faculty,  Professor Terman says that “Selective growth in the size of the Stanford faculty is required if Stanford is to maintain its present momentum and to achieve the position of leadership in the nation which is within our grasp.” He gives several examples of areas where this is particularly important.

 

Box 1, Folder 15 – HP Management

 

January 16, 1959, Third Annual Management Conference, Sonoma

 

1/16/59 Bound conference package containing agenda supporting material and handouts. This was Packard’s copy and has some handwritten notes by him.

Summary of Sonoma Conference. Written by Tom Christiansen, this is a                summary of each managers talk.

9/25/58 Bound papers covering Engineering Management conference with agenda   organization charts, and review of technical projects.

 

 

Box 1, Folder 16 – HP Management

 

July 12, 1959, Sales Seminar, Sales Representatives

5/22/59 Letter from Cort Van Rensselaer to Bill Hewlett confirming schedule of forthcoming seminar on July 12-15.

1958, Booklet from RCA on “Transistor Fundamentals & Applications”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 17 – HP Management

 

July 18, 1959, Production Department Seminar, Felton Recreation Area

7/18/59 Bound booklet containing letter from Dave Packard to attendees, plus number of organization charts of the Production Department. The letter from Packard says he is sorry he cannot attend and wishes them well.

Packard points out that the “majority of employees in the organization are directed by your efforts and about 64 cents out of every sales dollar we receive is spent under your responsibility.” Thus, Packard says, “to a large measure the success of the company is dependent upon your performance.”

 

Packard goes on to say that “…our prime management objective is to make a profit of about 20% on the sales dollar before allowances for profit sharing and tax. This year we achieved only 16.27% for the year to date…”.

 

He describes ways in which profits can be improved:

“Make sure people get started in their work on time and utilize their time effectively. Your planning must be done in advance and moreover you have to provide the spirit of leadership that keeps things going in a high pitch. Little details like the use of telephones for personal business during working hours. The amount of coffee we use – incidentally – coffee adds up to nearly $50,000 per year and there is a great tendency to let this run too free.”

Changing the subject, Packard  talks about “spoilage.” He says “I am appalled to go around the plant and see barrels of parts, and even some completed sub-assemblies, thrown out after considerable time and money has been spent because of some stupid error. These are the things which you must work on to eliminate.”

 

Handling people, Packard says, is ” one of your most important jobs as managers.” Packard says that “your most important relationships with your people come about in your daily activities._ He urges the managers to “work closely with your subordinates in order to guide them and train them for more responsible positions…”

 

Packard thanks the managers for the fine progress they have seen in the past few years, “…but success like this, unfortunately, only serves to increase your responsibilities, for good work demands still more good work.”

1958 – Packard Speeches

Box 2, Folder 29 – General Speeches

5/1/58, Letter from James W. Shoemaker of Schwacher & Co. saying he had given a speech at UCLA and had quoted from Packard_s speech at the IRE conference. He enclosed his own speech to show Packard the context.

 

Box 2, Folder 30 – General Speeches

 

January 24, 1958, A Management Code of Ethics, AMA, San Francisco

 

1/24/58, Typewritten copy of speech by Packard titled  “A Management Code of Ethics”

Packard tells of attending a conference 10 years earlier where the majority of people  in attendance felt their only  responsibility was to produce profit for their stockholders; any responsibility to employees, customers or the public was present only insofar as it helped them make a better profit. He sees change since then, giving as an example the section on Company Creed in the AMA Management Course, plus statements from AMA president Larry Appley.

 

Packard feels “…we are well on our way toward the development of a code of ethics or management.” He says , “Today I want to explore with you a few ideas about ethics in a broader sense and attempt to demonstrate why we must move ahead on this job, if we expect to preserve our free enterprise system in this country.”

 

Packard talks of the Judaic-Christian Code and says “The great accomplishments of the free world come from its broad acceptance. And he compares this with Communistic ethic which , he says, “…contains the two essential elements, a high selfless goal and the common acceptance of this goal by great numbers of people.” Packard says we rely on the armed forces to deter them from starting a war, and defeat them if they do so, “Yet we fail to see that the final decision will be made in our favor only if the vast majority of their people come to accept our ethic as preferable to theirs.”

 

Packard points to smaller units in society – Rotarians, Kiwanians, Boy Scouts who have grown around their code of ethics, based on the Judiac – Christian Code. He says “It seems strange then, indeed, that the great fraternity of business management as a whole has not, up to this time, developed a code of ethics of more common acceptance. It is not only strange but it is unfortunate because no other group in the country with a common interest has so much influence over so many people.”

 

Acknowledging that most management people have a personal code of ethics adequate for the job he asks “…can we continue to depend on simply the translation of our own personal codes of ethics into our management jobs?” “Wouldn’t it be better if we could develop a clear-cut management code of ethics which could stand on its own, and which could be accepted on a broad basis by all business people.”

 

Managers have much power and freedom, limited largely by good business judgment. However, he says, “There have been serious limitations imposed on our freedom of management, by government and by unions, and this gets to the heart of the problem. Can these inroads on our liberty as managers, be brought to a halt?” And don’t forget for a moment that there are many thinking people standing on the sidelines who at this time think these inroads on our liberty as business managers should not be brought to a halt.”

 

“Let us then look at this matter of power and freedom in a broader sense. Let us see if a look at the historical relation between power and freedom gives us a clue as to the proper course. With the holding of power, comes the responsibility for its proper use, A study of the history of Western Civilization shows us there are three ways by which people are prevented from abusing power.”

 

First he lists higher authority and he recites some of the many ways the government restricts managerial authority: how employees are paid, how companies advertise, how to set prices, how to hire. “We take great pleasure in attributing these restrictions to the perversity of government, but if we are honest with ourselves, these restrictions all stem from the abuse of management power in the past.”

 

“The second way power, and with it freedom, becomes limited when it is abused, is by the growth of opposing power.  And he gives the example of the Church and the State in European history, each limiting the power and freedom of the other. Another example is the three branches of our federal government. And he points out that “We often fail to realize this is what happened to business management with the growth of the unions. The strong opposing power of unions has developed because management failed to use its power wisely, in relation to its employees, through the early decades of this century. This has brought about the strange phenomenon of labor taking the leadership in many areas which properly belong to management. I need spend little time reminding you how much freedom of action you have lost in the process.”

 

And moving to the third way power is kept from abuse, Packard says it “…is by the operation of a code of ethics – a code of self-discipline which assures that the power is being wisely used and in the best interests of all those who are affected. this is the only liberty can be preserved by those who hold power.” …..”We must continue to do everything possible to oppose further encroachment on our management freedom by Unions and by Government.” …”A strong code of ethics widely accepted by business management is the only sure course.”

 

Packard suggest a few tenets for such a code.: first, “…manage our business enterprises first and foremost so we make a contribution to society.”  He gives some quotes from managers:. “we are in business to provide the public with the best possible service” –  to “serve the public” – to “make better products at less cost to the customer. Packard says he thinks “most management people accept this tenet when they really think about it.

 

“Another tenet”, says Packard, “should be to recognize the dignity and personal worth of every person we employ – to include the opportunity for employees to share in the company’s success, which hey make possible. To provide for them job security based on their performance and to recognize their need for personal satisfaction that comes from a sense of accomplishment.” …”This ethic, however we choose to express it, must be based solidly on the proposition that labor is not a commodity to be bought and sold in the market place.”

 

Going on, Packard says “The third tenet has to do with our responsibility to society at large. Our freedom of action is possible because of our system of government. Many of the things we use in our day-to-day work have come about because the frontiers of knowledge have been pushed back by our great universities. Our churches and schools play a great part in the intellectual and moral training, on which we rely every day, and never give the matter a second thought We must support these great institutions in our free society with all the strength at our command, if we wish to preserve our free enterprise system for our business.”

 

“The fourth tenet in our code should be directed toward a better understanding of the nature of profit. Profit is the monetary measure of our contribution to society. It is the difference between the value of the goods and services e give to society, and the value we take from it. Profit is not the proper end and aim of management – it is what makes all of the proper ends and aims possible. Profit is the insurance we have that our business will continue to grow and flourish.”

 

And Packard ends with these thoughts: “As we work together in the American Management Association in the years ahead, I hope we can continue to put more effort on the WHY of business, work to develop a well defined code of ethics for management.”

 

And this: “Gentlemen, the Russians have demonstrated they can produce Sputniks without profits and without liberty – we are on trial before the world to prove we can produce Sputniks and all of the goods and services for a better life as well – with profits and with liberty”

 

1/28/58, Letter from Hugh C. Jackson to Packard complimenting him on the AMA speech on ethics.

1/29/58, copy of a letter from Packard to Hugh C. Jackson expressing appreciation for his             letter above. Packard also says, “It is encouraging to know there is a growing          sympathy for some of the broader aspects of our management problem.”

2/14/58, Letter to Packard from David J. Secunda of AMA expressing appreciation for      Packard’s words on the subject of ethics, and the time and effort Packard took to      make this contribution.

2/20/58, Letter from Elinor Twohy, Secretary to John Beckman, President of Beckman &             Hartley requesting a copy of the AMA speech on ethics.

10/15/58, Letter to Packard from Richard T. Gay expressing appreciation for the thoughts in Packard’s speech on ethics at AMA.

3/25/59, Letter to Packard from Richard L. Kaiser, consulting Psychologist, referred to the AMA speech on ethics and offers to meet and explore the subject further.

Box 2, Folder 31 – General Speeches

 

February 13, 1958, Electronics, Glamour or Substance, Purchasing Agents Association

 

2/13/58, Typewritten copy of speech by David Packard titled, “Electronics – Glamour or Substance

 

Packard starts out by telling of his recent trip to the Strategic Air Command Headquarters in Omaha. He describes the elaborate communications system they have, enabling them to maintain immediate contact with their people all over the world. He tells of the atomic bombs they carry and the communications and navigational systems they have to protect the fate of the US.

 

Flying home  in the Air Force General’s airplane, Packard visits the flight deck and chats with the engineer and the navigator each having an array of instruments to monitor the engines or the flight direction. He looks at the radar system and how it can show the land below so they could accurately tell where they were.

 

He says to his audience that “I tell you these things this evening, partly because I thought you might be interested in hearing my impressions after a visit to DAC. But more specifically, to give you some examples of what is the electronic industry, although military and commercial airlines have much the same gear.”

 

Packard says the electronics industry ranks with the major industries in the country. People understand that automobiles companies make automobiles,  for example. But electronics companies do not make electrons. Packard gives his audience a basic primer on electricity – electrons flowing in a conductor. Change the rate of flow rapidly and you create a field – a radio wave, which will go around the world.

 

Packard talks about the very slow development of the electronic industry. Before 1940 it consisted of radio. He names a few people in the Bay Area working on developments: the Varian brothers working over at Stanford, Eitel and McCullough making vacuum tubes. He estimates there were less than 2000 engineers in the industry in 1939. He says it was the World War II which started the electronics industry on its way to growth.

 

Packard says he wants to talk a bit about computers and how they can calculate rapidly – three million times faster than the human mind. “Whether we like it or not, this computer business is growing into a billion dollar segment of the electronics industry and may in a few years dominate it entirely.”

 

“Military spending will still continue to be the most important factor in the electronic industry Packard says, now about 60 % of the total outside of the entertainment business. Radio, TV and entertainment will still be important.

 

“The electronic industry is characterized by the fact that it requires a relatively small investment in capital per dollar of sales. The most important factor of success in electronics is people. One fellow with a bright idea and a lot of enthusiasm can be successful in electronics, even if he does not have very much money.”

 

“On the other hand, the electronic industry has not shown an especially high profit as a per cent of sales. this has averaged in the neighborhood of 6-7%.”  Packard says about 20% of the 500,000 engineers in the US are engaged in electronics.

 

 

Packard says the San Francisco area “…has been an important center of electronic activity from the very beginning. deForrest did his monumental work on the vacuum tube, the very heart of the electronic industry, while he was working at the Federal Telegraph Laboratory in Palo Alto.” He mentions the Varian Bros. developed  the klystron tube. Electronics made the addition of sound to movies possible. The oil industry in the Los Angeles used electronics in their geophysical work prospecting for oil.

 

Packard notes  that “…the West Coast attraction has been characterized by emphasis on the technical and scientific aspects of the business. When it came to the large volume production of radio receivers, television receivers, and other devices, this tended to be centered in the East.”

 

However, “In the early 1950s, a substantial change became evident. the aircraft industry which was centered on the West Coast from the beginning, began to need more and more electronic devices…..”So the aircraft industries built up large staffs of electronics engineers.”…”So at the present time something like 15% of the electronic engineers in the country are in California.”

 

“The Bay Area electronic industry has some very special characteristics. In the first place, it is even more engineering oriented that the industry average. Most of the firms in this area are here because they can do a special technical job better than anyone else. This, of course, gets back to the thing I have mentioned several times before — so much of the progress in electronics is dependent upon the special talent of the people — they are the ring masters in making these electrons perform. You can have all the facilities in the world, ass the money in the world, but without the right people — you just cannot have a good electronic business.”

 

As to the future, Packard sees the Bay Area will continue to be oriented toward the technical aspects of the business. He points to Stanford and EC Berkeley as strong in training young men for this industry. He sees a larger portion of military spending going into electronics, but he believes the West Coast electronics industry is a little more involved with military contracts than is desirable. He puts HP in the middle on this.

 

Packard feels “There will be plenty of glamour, but it will also grow more mature and contribute to the industrial and social growth of the Bay Area.”

Box 2, Folder 32 – General Speeches

 

May 19, 1958, Management of Research and Development Programs, National Federation of Financial Analysts, Los Angeles, CA

5/19/58, Typewritten draft of this speech with handwritten notes by Dave Packard.

Packard opens saying that the subject of Research and Development has received increasing attention from security analysts – and not without reason since experience shows a reasonable correlation between the amount of money spent on research and development and company growth particularly in certain industries.

He points to companies engaged in fields of chemicals, drugs, electrical machinery as having spent a relatively large proportion of their sales dollar on research and developments…”… “…we can point out  that R&D by the railroad companies has been rather small and whether or not this bears on their problem I will leave to your judgment.”

 

Packard says research is usually thought of as scientific research, but he views research in marketing as equally important. He says, “…research is done to assure continuing and growing profits. It is not done just for the sake of growth or diversification or some of the other reasons we commonly hear.” He sees R&D as having played a “tremendous” part in the expansion of the electronic industry during and since WW II.  He says “…most research done by industry is applied research, the application of already known principles to new products.” He says that ,with few exceptions, most of the things done today could have been done twenty years ago – and he gives radar as an example.

 

Packard says “…there is not much uniformity in accounting for research on the profit and loss statement. Most of the work is, and should be, new product development. Sometimes routine engineering is included. Often, however, market research and other research which the Co. may be doing outside the technical field is not included. ”

 

Packard gives some more considerations which he says may help the analysts evaluate R & D programs. “I think it is important for the R & D expenditures to be compared with the profits of a company because if the company has been unable to convert its R & D expenditures into profit in a reasonable short time, it indicates an important failure of management.”

 

Packard says “There two basically different approaches to R & D in the field of instruments and systems. Some people sell their R & D work either to the Government or to industry. Some people support their own R & D and sell the resulting products.”…”Those people who sell their R & D efforts are usually involved in Government work and are able to realize a profit seldom as much as 10% of the research dollar expended. In our case we are using our R & D effort to generate new proprietary products and historically we have been able to obtain about $5.00 in profit for each dollar expended in R & D.”

 

Packard says the R & D program cannot be allocated to a department and left alone; it must be a total company concept. He suggests a look at HP’s approach:

“First, we must search for ideas on which our new product efforts are to be expended and these ideas have two dimensions – a technical dimension and a marketing dimension. All good new product work must be closely controlled as to its technical feasibility and its market potential. And where do these ideas come from? One source is of course the company research effort itself, especially if, as is usually the case, some portion, whether large or small, is directed toward basic research. The research carried on by the great universities throughout the country is an unusually good source of ideas in the electronic field. ”

 

“…many ideas are available from foreign countries and most of us in this business try and keep close touch with what is going on in Europe and other industrial areas throughout the world.”

 

“Most of us have available through these various sources more ideas for new product development than we can use, and so it becomes necessary to carefully evaluate each idea and select only those with the greatest potential. We first like to be sure that the idea has a broad market potential. Second, that it fits in with our own marketing ability. Third, that it is technically feasible and finally, we like to be sure that the new idea has a large measure of novelty.”

 

Packard says, “If the collection of ideas and the evaluation of them has been well done, then the chances of a good new product are high and the activation of a specific development program can be done with considerable assurance of success.

The detail management of this phase is not important except for one thing, it is necessary to achieve and maintain a high level of enthusiasm among your technical people. After all, these people are undertaking to do things which have not been done before. They must have tremendous optimism and great enthusiasm or they will not accomplish their purpose.” …”This is, of course, a fundamental problem of management in all industry, how to give adequate recognition to the technical man without promoting him into administrative work where he may be both inefficient and unhappy.”

 

In closing, Packard says “Electronic instruments replace or expand the human senses. These instruments make it possible for us to know a great deal more about the physical environment. Systems in a very real sense expand the human intellect. They increase our ability to calculate, to remember, and in many areas they may provide, if not judgment itself, at least a better basis for judgment.”

 

5/19/58, Program for the Eleventh Annual Convention of the National Federation of Financial Analysts Societies.

Program indicates Packard’s participation in the Electronics Forum.

5/20/58, Handwritten note to Packard from Fred N Roberts a director of Atlas E-E. Note encloses a brief description of their products.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 33 – General Speeches

 

November 4, 1958, Financing Higher Education, Harvard Club, San Francisco,

11/4/58 Typewritten speech, “Financing Higher Education” given By David Packard.

Contains some handwritten notes by Packard.

Packard notes that the subject of education has received a great deal of attention in recent years.  Problems are being attacked at all levels from grade schools to universities. He summarizes by saying, “We all agree that we need more and better education — whatever that may be.”

 

Packard says that success of the Communist Ideology throughout the world has added significance to the problem of education in the US He says, “We turn then to our universities and colleges in the hope we can strengthen them to continue their role as one of the greatest bulwarks of freedom in this country — indeed throughout the world.”

Packard looks at the private universities and colleges, saying “We support them because they have a great tradition of academic freedom.  “…freedom in our institutions of higher education is a prerequisite to freedom in our society.”

 

“Not that academic freedom is limited in the publicly supported schools but they are certainly more subject to political influence and — rightly or wrongly — there is broad agreement that strong private schools must continue to set the standards.”

 

Packard describes the change in financial resources available to private universities and colleges. He gives the example of Stanford where, at the turn of the century, had an endowment which was adequate to cover all operating expenses — no tuition was required. ” Many other private colleges and universities had adequate means to be truly independent.” “But today”, endowment income at Stanford provides only about 15% of the annual operating budget.” Packard says he understands Harvard gets a higher percent of operating expenses from its endowment – “even though your endowment has grown to an impressive $400,000,000 or so.”

 

Tuition has, therefore, become  “the major source of income for the independent university and tuition in the range of $1000 per year is well accepted.” However, “In general, tuition covers only about half of the actual cost at most universities. The remainder of the cost of education is provided by endowment income, private gifts, grants from foundations and even government support.”

 

Packard says that faculty salaries have not risen as much as in other groups and, he points out, “…the university professor has lost ground in the last decade or two and in terms of relative purchasing power…” resulting in a lower standard of living. “It is s frightening situation that the university professor – on whom we place the responsibility to instill the virtues of freedom in our young men and young women — that these very professors have faired so poorly in our free enterprise society.”

 

Packard looks at a few proposals to remedy this situation. First, charge students the full cost of their education as tuition. Packard says “no businessman would hesitate for a moment raising prices as costs go up — this is the first requisite for survival. The financial problem of the private university has been generated partly because business has done precisely this – while universities and colleges have not.”

 

However, “The argument against raising the price to cover the cost is simply that it would reduce the educational opportunity for the young man with ability – but without means.” But, particularly in the East, “…the response to requests for support in the form of scholarships has been substantial…and it may be the most successful approach of all”

 

Packard does not feel this avenue (true tuition plus scholarships) would work well in the West because of the very low tuition in state supported schools such as Berkeley where the tuition is only $100 per year.

 

Considering other methods of support Packard says, “The most obvious method of support is the support of specific research at a university in a field of direct interest to the corporation. This kind of support is easily justified by management. This kind of support is useful to universities – particularly at the graduate level and to the professional schools.”

 

“Another kind of support from corporations is in the nature of scholarships and fellowships granted to students in a field of interest to the corporation.” He says both ways are well accepted and of value to the schools which receive them.

 

Another method of corporate support used recently has been “…aid in the form of matching grants, contributions from the corporation to match contributions from employees to their schools.”

 

“But these forms of air – valuable as they are fail in important respects. They tend to limit the freedom of the institution. They tend to limit the freedom of the institution. they tend to encourage growth in special areas at the expense of others. And – often they do not have continuity.”

 

Packard says, “More emphasis has been placed in recent years – on the unrestricted grant. This is the ideal kind of support that a corporation can give a university — especially when given on a continuing basis. The university then has complete freedom to develop its own programs. This is the kind of support which makes the university truly independent.”

 

Packard tells of the activities of a number of prominent alumni of independent universities who are concerned with the problems of higher education. Packard says these men “are convinced that a limited number of private universities deserve special consideration. These great private universities give much of the leadership to higher education…. Wouldn’t it be proper then – to ask the great corporations which are also national in their scope – to support a number of the great private universities…”

 

“The Committee recommended help only for the privately supported schools – twenty-three in number. They feel it is important not to rule out others which might properly be the special concern of a particular corporation – because of geographical or other considerations.”

 

“The Committee has prepared a statement stating the basis on which they are asking for support. Briefly — they are asking for support because the universities:

 

1. Provide National Leadership

2. Are pace setters for all higher education

3. Are centers for advancement of knowledge

4. Are chief suppliers of teachers

5. Offer advanced training for Public Affairs

6. They provide most advanced training in the professions.

7. They are outgrowing their sources of support.

8. They are national in their influence and therefore of special                                  concern to national corporations.

 

Packard concludes with “And so while the problem of financing the great private universities remains a formidable one — it is encouraging to know that it is being attacked with vigor by these men of leadership in business. Those of us who are giving our time in the support of a higher education – are encouraged by the strength in our ranks. I hope you who are graduates of one of the greatest of the great independent universities will continue to give your whole-hearted support — not only to your own Alma Mater — but also to the cause of independent higher education in all of its important aspects.”

 

9/13/58, Reprint of article in Business Week magazine describing the activities of 20 business leaders (including David Packard) who have formed a committee to consider ways to help support private universities and colleges.

Box 1, Folder 3 – Stanford

 

July 23, 1958, Top Management Talent, Stanford Business School, Palo Alto

Packard’s speech on this subject was given during a four day conference at Stanford the subject of which was “Growing Dimensions of Management.”  On the third day Packard served on a panel moderated by Ernest C. Arbuckle, Dean, Graduate School of Business. Other panel members were S. Clark Beise, President Bank of America; A. B. Layton, President Crown Zellerback Corp.; F. B. Whitman, President, Western Pacific Railroad Co.

7/23/58 – Typewritten speech, with notations, given at the above conference.

 

Saying it is difficult to describe top management talent, Packard suggests “The problem is greatly simplified if we accept Dr. Friedman’s position you heard Monday — Just look for the man who can make a profit.”  Packard goes on to say that while making a profit is a necessary requirement he would  “certainly consider it far from sufficient.”

“Before we consider where we find it and what we do with top management talent (in HP)”,  Packard says he would like to define some of the things we look for. He says “We want a man who has–

– The ability to decide what to do.

– The ability to get it done.”

“In a larger organization, top management might place much more emphases on the ability to decide what to do, but I want to say a word about the ability to get things done. “In its broadest definition”, he says, “management is the profession of getting things done through people. But the military approach – authority because you have rank has no place in modern business. If a man cannot command adequate authority by his own performance in lower level management assignments, either work with him until he develops this ability, or cross him off as a candidate for top management.”

 

Packard says that being able to decide what to do “increases in importance as (the manager) moves to higher levels. Policies and actions have more effect on the success of the company…affect the lives of many people, the community around your companies, and often the nation as well.”

 

Regarding  the power of top management Packard says “…with power goes responsibility for its proper use.”  Going on he emphasizes that “We need to find and develop top management talent with an understanding of the broad social implications of their actions. This is the most important requirement of top management, present and future, if we hope to preserve the opportunity for individual initiative in a free enterprise system.”

 

Packard continues saying managers must have:

– Imagination

– Judgment

– Drive

Packard says a previous speaker, “outlined one of the reasons top management talent must have imagination — to keep up with the fast pace of change set up by the vastly increased research and development activity. We need men who will be able to chart new and untried courses in management.”

 

Packard says that “The need for judgment is so obvious that no further comment is necessary.

 

As to drive says he would not look for “that kind of drive that strives to be one of the conformers – one of the organization men, but a kind of inner directed drive that Professor David Riesmann describes in his recent study called the “Lonely Crowd”.

 

Moving on to how one finds top management,  Packard says “you cannot afford to wait until you need a new top manager before you start to look for one. “On the other hand,” he continues, “its impossible to keep a supply of top level talent on hand, standing around for the day you may need it.” Packard says that at HP “we have made a great effort to hire the best possible people into the organization at the lower levels and depend on this to supply, on the average, material for replacement or expansion.”

 

Packard advises keeping an eye on “a few potential candidatures on the outside and keep these in mind. They can be evaluated, you can get to know them and you have a good chance of getting them to come with you when the opportunity shows.”

 

On developing management talent Packard says HP’s executive development program has had three main elements:

“1. A planned rotation of assignments moving from assistants to senior executive on toward operating assignments in various departments ”

“2. “Encouraged attendance at outside management conferences.”

“3. In company seminars we have addressed ourselves to the solution of our own management problems.”

On using top level talent Packard says “We have had no trouble finding important lower level jobs for the most capable people. The opportunity for the use of considerable talent has been enhanced by a program of decentralization.”

 

Packard says “We encourage our people to take part in outside activities. community government, local school activities, clubs, etc. This too, can be an important element of a management development program. These activities  provide opportunity for development of talents from public speaking to budgeting and help develop skills in working with people.”

 

In closing Packard offers a word about managing scientific people. “Our experience leads us to believe that research and development programs need to be carefully managed and closely controlled. This is contrary to the concept sometimes held that scientific work is most efficient when not closely controlled. In general, scientists are poor managers for one simple reason — they tend to become engrossed in an interesting problem and forget everything else for the next three days.” “The sooner we recognize the fact that an outstanding scientific person is not likely to make a good manager, and find other ways to give him recognition and stature, the better off we will be. He closes by asking that anyone who finds a good solution to this problem to let him know.

In a couple of handwritten notations Packard adds, “Community service gets some (people in top positions) out of the way so younger people can have a chance to learn;”; and another, “If your potential manager needs an incentive program to motivate him you have the wrong guy. Incentive plans have one objective – to keep the other fellow from stealing your good boys.”

7/21/24, 1958 Program for the conference titled “Growing Dimensions of Management”

Box 1, Folder 7Stanford

7/17/58 Statement made to the Board of Trustees by, University President J.E. Wallace    Sterling. Mr. Sterling describes the context, as he sees it, in which Stanford will     operate over the next five years. He covers such areas as, population projections, costs, competition for top faculty, the undergraduate and graduate programs, and     administrative activities.

Box 1, Folder 14 – HP Management

 

January 31, 1958, Second Annual Management Conference, Sonoma

Handwritten notes in Packard’s handwriting:

                        Meeting at Sonoma

Financial Reports

How we stand in market

Future growth

Clarify responsibilities

Special interest to employees

Importance of human factor

Think first of the other fellow

How to encourage creativeness – not from suggestion system

Development of people – training and educational opportunities

We all came back  – resolved to do better job – don’t expect miracles, but some                               improvement

Conference for 1958

Two page typewritten speech. Speaker not identified, but no doubt it was Packard. He says at last year’s conference we discussed HP objectives and responsibilities of various departments. We now have organization charts and job descriptions. This year “we want to spend a good deal of our time in more informal discussions as to how we can each do our job better.”

 

“I personally think it is preferable to continue to develop our managerial responsibility around the concept of management by objectives rather than management by control. By this I mean that we can do a better management job if we have a large measure of freedom in each assignment so that each person to a large degree develops his own area of responsibility and carries forward the details of his job on the basis of his own initiative guided by his own common sense rather than by a rigid set of job descriptions and control

from higher authority.

 

“In order to do this properly, it is necessary for everyone in the organization to have a pretty good idea of what we are trying to achieve and understanding of some of the overall company problems, so that he can see how his job fits into the total picture and so that each person can develop his job so it contributes to the total picture.”

 

Packard reviews some of the upcoming agenda topic and concludes with “The rest of the time, we are going to discuss how we can do our individual jobs better.”

 

The balance of the folder contains various handouts on developing people, sales, production and financial data creativity. Two handouts (author not indicated, but would appear to be Packard, particularly the first) are of particular interest:

 

“Eleven Simple Rules”

 

1. THINK FIRST OF THE OTHER FELLOW. This is THE foundation — the first requisite — for getting along with others. And it is the one truly difficult accomplishment you must make. Gaining this, the rest will be “a breeze.”

 

2. BUILD UP THE OTHER PERSON’S SENSE OF IMPORTANCE.  When we make the other person seem less important we frustrate one of his deepest urges. Allow him to feel equality or superiority, and we can easily get along with him.

 

3. RESPECT THE OTHER MAN’S PERSONALITY RIGHTS. Respect as something sacred the other fellow’s right to be different from you. No two personalities are ever molded by precisely the same forces.

 

4. GIVE SINCERE APPRECIATION. If we think someone has done a thing well, we should never hesitate to let him know it. WARNING: This does not mean promiscuous use of obvious flattery. Flattery with most intelligent people gets exactly the reaction it deserves — contempt for the egotistical “phony” who stoops to it.

 

5. ELIMINATE THE NEGATIVE. Criticism seldom does what its user intends, for it invariably causes resentment. the tiniest bit of disapproval can sometimes cause a resentment which will rankle — to your disadvantage — for years.

 

6. AVOID OPENLY TRYING TO REFORM PEOPLE. Every man knows he is imperfect, but he doesn’t want someone else trying to correct his faults.

 

If you want to improve a person, help him to embrace a higher working goal — a standard — an ideal — and he will do his own “making over” far more effectively than you can do it for him.

 

7. TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER PERSON. How would you react to similar circumstances? when you begin to see the “whys” of him you can’t help but get along better with him.

 

8. CHECK FIRST IMPRESSIONS. We are especially prone to dislike some people on first sight because of some vague resemblance (of which we are usually unaware) to someone else whom we have had reason to dislike. Follow Abraham Lincoln’s famous self-instruction: “I do not like that man; therefore I shall get to know him better.

 

9. TAKE CARE WITH THE LITTLE DETAILS. Watch your smile, your tone of voice, how you use your eyes, the way you greet people, the use of nicknames and remembering faces, names and dates. Little things add polish to your skill in dealing with people, constantly, deliberating think of them until they become a natural part of your personality.

 

10. DEVELOP GENUINE INTEREST IN PEOPLE. You cannot successfully apply the foregoing suggestions unless you have a sincere desire to like, respect, and be helpful to others. Conversely, you cannot build genuine interest in people until you have experienced the pleasure, of working with them in an atmosphere characterized by mutual liking and respect.

 

11. KEEP IT UP. That’s all — just keep it up!

 

And the second handout:

 

SELF-DEVELOPMENT

 

Top management has reached the conclusion that there is a shortage of capable executives and that the growth of our economy will cause this shortage to be more acute. Such a situation offers an unlimited future to those who open the door to opportunity’s knock.

 

This is the time for each of us to take the initiative and start our own Executive Development Program to supplement any formal training our companies offer.

 

If we are fortunate enough to be working where there is a formal employee appraisal plan in effect, our work will be analyzed objectively and we should be receiving guidance in our self-development efforts.

 

For those without the assistance of a formal appraisal program, the following questions may by of some assistance in highlighting possible areas of development.

 

I  In Becoming a “Top Notch” employee, to What Degree

 

Am I growing in emotional maturity and stability?

Am I sensitive to the feelings of others?

Do I show work interest? Drive? Staying power?

Does my work show initiative, resourcefulness, inventiveness,                    originality, innovation, imagination?

Do I seek to improve my technical competence?

Do I set high standards of work performance for myself?

Do I take active measures to profit by my mistakes?

 

II  In Striving to Become a good Leader, to What Degree do I

 

Set the example of an out standing job performance on my present              job?

Inspire confidence, loyalty, and acceptance in others?

Teach, coach, and guide the development of my people?

Organize, build, and maintain an effective group activity?

Become a “rallying point” in times of stress and crises?

Motivate and stimulate men to do their best?

 

III  In Learning to Become a Good Manager, to What Extent Can I be                      Counted on to

 

Set and reach objectives and goals through other people?

Plan and organize my work and that of my group?

Integrate the activities, personalities, and resources of my group                  into a dynamic, unified, productive team?

Measure and evaluate results?

IV  In Applying the Knowledge and skills of Management, to what Extent             do I

Have a growing understanding of the business of the Company in                            relation to the industry and the economy as a whole?

Have a broad working knowledge of the company’s objectives,                                policies, systems, management tools, and programs?

Have the habit of striving for continuing growth, reaching for and                            utilizing available Company resources for self development?

As each of us looks at himself in terms of these abilities, qualities and skills, it is a “sight setting” and stimulating experience which can be of great value in planning and working toward our continuing growth.

These questions cannot only be a guide to self appraisal and self development but they can also be used to find, select, and promote men who have earned the right for these considerations.

1957 – Packard Speeches

Box 2, Folder 29 – General Speeches

 

April 24, 1957, Growth from Performance, IRE, San Diego

4/24/57 Printed copy of  David Packard’s speech “Growth from Performance” .

Packard starts by reviewing the strong growth of the electronic industry since the Korean war. Firms “have found it necessary to run just as fast as possible simply to keep up with the industry.” And in the case of HP, he explains, “our company has grown twelve times in seven years.”

 

He says they have encountered many difficult problems handling this growth, but have been fairly successful in surmounting them because “we have guided our program with some rather specific objectives …”;  and he says he will share these with the audience.

 

“First”, Packard says, “we have directed all of our efforts toward the field of electronic instrumentation.” And he explains the benefit of being able to focus their R&D effort, their production capabilities and the efforts of the sales organization.

 

The second objective, Packard says, “has been to do only those things in which we could make some contribution to the progress of the electronic industry.” He gives some examples and points particularly to their effort to make contributions in the area of manufacturing techniques. He says, “I think the measure of this contribution is best indicated by the fact that very few of or prices have increased during this period even though there have been substantial increases in the cost of our labor and material.”

 

“As a third objective”, Packard continues, “we have attempted to meet our responsibility in providing security and opportunity for our employees.” And he points out they have avoided large contracts involving the employment of a large workforce, and the likelihood of having to let them go at the end of the contract.

 

“As a fourth objective”, he says, “we have kept in mind that we have a responsibility to the community in which our business exists. We have encouraged our people to participate in community activities. We have given substantial financial support to educational and other institutions in our community.” And he goes on the give specific examples of HP employees who are or have been members of civic, industrial or educational organizations.

 

Since they are talking about growth tonight Packard says “…I want to include our objective as to growth. It has been and is our basic policy to grow as rapidly as possible in fulfilling the other objectives which I mentioned, but to keep this growth at a rate which can be financed from our own profits on a pay-as-you-go basis.” And this brings up the final objective.

 

In presenting this objective to HP people Packard says he always puts it first. “It is to attempt to make a profit of at least 10% on every sales dollar every month and every year.” Packard says this objective is very important for two reasons: “First, it makes it possible for us to achieve all of the other objectives which we have set for ourselves, and second, especially because it is the final and absolute measure as to whether we do or do not make a contribution to the industry.” “When we can no longer make a contribution to you we cannot expect you to make one to us.”

 

Packard reviews HP’s growth since 1950 from 2.3 million of sales to 28 million in 1957, and he says, “and we have accomplished this growth without any outside capital.” “The formula for growth from earnings is very simple. It is as follows: The percentage increase in sales which you can finance each year is equal to your percentage of profit after taxes times your capital turnover. Capital turnover is defined as the number of dollars in sales you can produce per year for each dollar of capital you have invested in your business.”

 

Packard proceeds to look at this formula in more detail. “The percentage of profit which you produce on your sales dollar is a pretty obvious thing and needs little explanation except to emphasize that your rate of growth is directly proportional to your percentage of profit, other things being equal.” …”For our business we think a figure in the neighborhood of 10% is about right. ”

 

“The second factor, capital turnover, is not always as well understood. Your capital includes working capital (that is the money you use to buy inventory, to finance your accounts receivable, to provide some working cask, etc.) and fixed capital would be the amount of money you have spent to buy facilities, tools and equipment. If most of your money is in working capital you can increase your turnover by keeping your inventory low, by keeping your receivables low, and by always keeping exactly the right amount of cash on hand to just barely be able to pay your bills the day before they are due.” You can almost always make your turnover better by having all your money in working capital and none of it is fixed capital. But, by having the proper tools, facilities and equipment you can usually produce a better product, keep your costs down and, therefore, you profit up. So, here again there  is an inter-related balance involved in adding to your machinery and equipment at a rate which will not unduly reduce your capital turnover, yet which will give you the things necessary to do a good job.”

Packard points out that control of all these factors is not as easy as it may sound. ” “Your production people want lots of money tied up in inventory.” “Your sales people would like to extend unlimited credit to all your customers.” He proceeds to look at how these factors have applied to HP during the last seven years.

 

He says that during this time HP growth has averaged 42% per year, profit after taxes has averaged 10% per year, and capital turnover about 4 1/2 times per year. “Thus, using the formula, percentage of growth equals percentage of profit times capital turnover, we should have been able to finance a growth of 45% per year. . Since our growth was slightly less than this we have come through this period of growth with improved capital strength.”

 

Packard discusses stock issues and points out that …”you can sell electronic stocks often at 30 to 40 times earnings.”…. Often, however, people forget that this multiplying factor can properly be used only once and that sooner or later profits will have to be increased to the point where the stock is supported on the bases of 10 or 15 times earnings, and when that point is reached your growth will be determined fundamentally by how rapidly you can increase your profits year-by-year.” Packard says he may have spent a lot of time on the financial aspects of growth, “…but, I felt since the trend seems to be otherwise that many of you would be interested in knowing that relatively rapid growth is possible without public stock issues and without merger or acquisition techniques.”

 

Packard says that the conservative formula HP uses is  “most effective when you obtain a high level of performance from all of your people. He adds that although HP uses most of most of the scientific management procedures “I think we get the best performance by giving our people as much freedom and as much incentive as possible to work together as a team toward the achievements of our objectives. We try to give them this freedom by maintaining flexible organizational methods. We try to give them incentive by a very specific device which we call our Group incentive Plan.” And he goes on to discuss the profit sharing plan in effect at the time.

 

Packard closes saying, “And so in selecting the title “Growth From Performance” I really had in mind that we have been able to achieve a fairly substantial rate of growth first by setting and adhering to some rather specific objectives, second by demanding a high level of performance from our management group, from our engineers and in fact from all of our employees. I see great opportunity for us ahead to grow with you people in the electronic industry as long as we can continue the high standards of performance which our people have achieved in the past seven years.”

 

4/24/57, Printed program of the 7th Region IRE Conference.

4/24/57, Printed pamphlet containing a short biography of each of the speakers at the conference and a summary of their comments.

4/24/57, Printed pamphlet listing exhibitors and events at the conference.

4/24/57, Copy of a speech at the IRE conference titled “Motivating Engineers in a Balanced Military-Commercial Industry”, given by Dr. Robert S. Bell, President, Packard Bell electronics Corporation, Los Angeles.

4/24/57, Typewritten copy of a speech titled “The Balanced Management Concept”, given at the conference by Charles B. Thornton, President and Chairman of the Board, Litton Industries, Beverly Hills.

11/16/56, Letter to David Packard from Donald G. Burgere, Chairman, Professional Management Session, Seventh Region IRE Convention Soliciting Mr. Packard’s participation as a speaker at the Convention.

11/27/56, Letter from R. T. Silberman, of Kay Lab, urging Packard to participate in the convention.

2/6/57, Letter from Ronald K. Jurgen, Editor of  “Electronic Equipment” asking for an advance copy of  Packard’s speech for review.

2/13/57, Copy of a typewritten letter form Packard to Ronald K. Jurgen say he does not plan to release an advance copy of his speech.

3/19/57, Letter to Packard from D. G. Burger, Chairman, Professional Management Session of IRE giving details of the forthcoming conference.

4/57, Copy of publication, “San Diego Bulletin” and IRE publication, including biographies of the speakers at the forthcoming conference.

4/16/57,  Letter from B. F. Coggan, Vice President and Division Manager, Convair-A Division of General Dynamics Corporation, inviting Packard to attend a breakfast, sponsored by the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, on 4/25/57.

4/17/57, Copy of typewritten note to B, F. Coggan  from Packard accepting his invitation for the breakfast.

4/24/57, Letter to Packard from T. T. Patterson, Chairman, Publication Committee IRE-PGEM, requesting a copy of Packard’s speech at the IRE conference.

4/27/57, Letter from Samuel Freedman, General Manager, Chemalloy Electronics, requesting a copy of Packard’s speech at the IRE conference.

4/29/57, Clip of article from the Electronic News, about the speech at the IRE conference.

4/29/57, Typewritten note to Packard from Lee Hackler, Fairchild Publications, enclosing the article from Electronic News on the conference.

4/30/57, Handwritten note from Packard to (presumably) his secretary, asking that she send copies of his speech at the IRE conference to Charles Blyth, Frank Walker and Al Schwabacher.

4/30/57, Copies of letters to the above gentlemen sending copies of the speech.

5/3/58, Letter to HP Company from R. H. Rupkey, Foreman  Cycle, Test & Repair, requesting a copy of Packard_s speech at the IRE Conference.

5/7/57, Letter to Packard from Karl Freund, President, Photo Research Corp. requesting a copy of Packard’s speech at the IRE conference.

5/8/57, Copy of typewritten letter from Packard to R. H. Rupkey, sending a copy of Packard_s speech at the IRE conference.

5/8/57, Copy of typewritten letter to Samuel Freedman sending a copy of Packard_s speech at the IRE conference.

5/10/57, Form postcard to Packard from Stephen W, Miller of SRI, requesting a copy of Packard_s speech at the IRE conference.

5/14/57, Copy of letter from Packard to Stephen W. Miller of SRI sending a copy of Packard_s IRE speech.

5/14/57, Copy of typewritten letter from Packard to T. T. Patterson sending a copy of Packard_s speech at the IRE conference.

5/14/57, Copy of typewritten letter from Packard to Karl Freund sending a copy of Packard_s speech at the IRE conference.

5/27/57,  Letter from James W. Shoemaker of Schwabacher & Co. saying he and Al Schwabacher appreciate having received a copy of Packard_s IRE speech.

6/4/57, Letter from R. T, Silberman of Kintel, Cohu Electronics forwarding three pictures of Packard and others at the IRE conference.

6/4/57, Copy of typewritten letter from Packard to all employees of HP sending them a copy of Packard_s speech at the IRE conference. He compliments them on their past performance and adds that “We are sure, too, that we can count on your continued enthusiastic support in the future – as we have had it in the past.”

6/28/57, Letter to Packard from Stephen W. Miller, SRI, saying the first copy of Packard_s speech at the IRE conference which he received disappeared and he requests another.

7/5/57, Copy of letter from Packard to Stephen Miller sending another copy of Packard_s speech to the IRE conference.

10/9/57, Typewritten postcard to Packard from Prof. Donald S. Gates. Albright College, requesting two copies of Packard_s speech at the IRE conference.

10/14/57, Copy of a letter from Mickie Ayers (Packard_s secretary), to Prof. Donald S. Gates sending two copies of Packard’s speech at the IRE conference.

11/12/57, Letter to Packard from Harold W. Pope, Vice President for Operations, Sanders Associates, requesting a copy of Packard_s speech to the IRE conference, and saying he intended to send a copy to all of  their employees much as Packard had done.

11/27/57, Copy of a letter from Packard to Harold W. Pope sending a copy of the IRE speech and saying he had no objection to their reproducing it for distribution to others.

Box 1, Folder 9 – HP Management

 

January 11-13, 1957, Executive Conference, HP Managers, Sonoma Mission Inn

1/11/57 – Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks at the Friday night dinner starting the conference. He spoke of the Corporate Objectives. [See also speeches dated 1/31/58, 1/29/60, 1/12/68, and 3/17, 75]

 

Packard says that there are “…many reasons why a business is founded and why a business continues to exist….It is desirable to clarify the objectives of a business and to state them from time to time so that all of the people in the organization will have a better understanding of the business and direct their efforts toward the common goal.”

 

He says “some” objectives for the Hewlett-Packard Company have been stated “a number of times in the past….Others may not have been specifically stated, but become apparent from an examination of what the company has done and how it has gone about it. It seems to me that it is more important than ever to make an attempt at clarifying and restating the objectives of the company. I believe such a restatement will help you to have a better basis for making your decisions. I think a restatement of the objectives will help some of the younger people in the organization have a better understanding of what is going on. In attempting to restate the objectives of the Hewlett-Packard company I do so with the knowledge that I am interpreting them as they seem to me. My statement of our objectives may not be strictly accurate and furthermore there may be some reason why the objectives as they have existed in the past or as I am stating them now should be modified for the future benefit of the company. Furthermore, I want all of you to understand as nearly as you can the reasons why these are or should be our objectives so that you will be able to accept them as being the kind of objectives you would choose were the choice your own. For this reason I would like to have you study these carefully, think about them, and be in a position to discuss them critically both for evaluation and for better understanding.

 

“It is difficult to decide which is the most important objective of the company, and in placing the one I have chosen first I do so with the specific emphasis that I consider it to be the most important objective to guide your day-to-day thinking. It is the objective which makes all of the other objectives possible, but it alone is not a sufficient objective. It is as follows:

 

“I.   TO OPERATE OUR BUSINESS SO THAT YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT WE OBTIN A PROFIT OF ABOUT 20% OF SALES BEFORE TAXES.”

 

Packard stresses that this objectives is the “keystone on which all of the other achievements of the Hewlett-Packard Company are based.” And he mentions such achievements as the “ability to offer good employment opportunities to our people, our ability to spend money on forward looking developments without assurance of return, our ability to obtain outstanding tools and equipment and facilities….”

 

“The more I have considered the matter, the more important I feel this objective to be, and I would venture to put it so strongly as to say that anyone who cannot accept this objective as one of the most important of all has no place either now or in the future on the management team of this company.”

 

Making a contribution to the field has been stated as another objective Packard says. “…but, in considering the matter it seemed to me that it needed a more specific definition. We need to think about what kind of a contribution we mean and what field we mean….In an attempt to clarify this objective a little better, I choose to state it in this way:

 

“II.   TO DESIGN AND DEVELOP ELECTRONIC MEASURING INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.”

 

“This points up the fact that we have had our success in the field of instruments. It should be our objective to stay in that field almost to the exclusion of anything else. I say ‘almost to the exclusion’ because I think all of our objectives should be somewhat flexible and in case there came to our attention the opportunity to do something important outside the field of measuring instruments and techniques we should not automatically forego that opportunity, but rather we should concentrate our main efforts as we have in the past and consider outside activities only when and if they offer unusual potential.”

 

“One of the characteristics of HP instruments through the years has been their simplicity of design and relative low cost. We can certainly meet Objective II…in a number of ways. We can build instruments which are very expensive, very carefully done and yet meet the objectives of the above statement in every respect. Early in the business we felt it was possible to design and manufacture good instruments at a lower cost than those which were available. Historically we have done this. We have kept out the frills and held to the important aspects of the job. In the past I have described this as ‘inexpensive quality’ and for want of a better expression I will use this term in stating Objective III

 

 

“III   TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO INDUSTRY INSTRUMENTS WHICH HAVE INEXPENSIVE QUALITY.”

 

“The inexpensive quality can come from engineering design, from clever and advanced production techniques and methods, or from better methods of sales and distribution. Realistically we should attempt to provide the inexpensive quality for our customers by our work in all three of these major areas.”

 

“We have been generally proud of our employment policy, or rather the result of that policy, in terms of the kind of people we have in our organization and their attitude toward their job and toward the company. In the field of personnel it is my opinion that the general policies and the attitude of management people toward the employee are more important than specific details of the personnel program. Personnel relations will be good if the people have faith in the motives and integrity of the company. Personnel relations will be poor of they do not, regardless of all of the frills that we have. I think a statement of our personnel policy belongs in the list of the objectives of the business, and it is as follows:

 

“IV.   TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT OFFORTUNITIES FOR HP PEOPLE THAT INCLUDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE IN THE COMPANY’S SUCCESS WHICH THEY HELP MAKE POSSIBLE; TO PROVIDE FOR THEM JOB SECURITY BASED ON THEIR PERFORMANCE; AND TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONAL SATISFACTION THAT .COMES FROM A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THEIR WORK.”

 

Packard says “…we have not felt committed to accept anything like an absolute tenure status nor do we feel that this policy implies that we must recognize seniority except in cases where other factors are reasonably favorable.”

 

“Although I have stated the profit motive as our number one objective, it has been increasingly apparent in the past few years that business institutions have a responsibility to the society in which they exist to do something more than simply make a profit. We have freedom of action which is the direct result of the American type of government. Many of the things which we are now using in our day to day work have come about because the frontiers of knowledge have been pushed forward by our universities. A large part of the training which our people are using in their everyday work has come from universities. Our churches and schools play a large part in the intellectual and moral training which we rely on every day without giving the matter a second thought. This points up the fact that the Hewlett-Packard company as a business should be included as one of its objectives a recognition of these facts.

 

“V.   TO MEET THE OBLIGATIONS OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP BY MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE INSTITUTIONS IN OUR SOCIETY WHICH GENERATE THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE OPERATE.”

 

“This objective includes an obligation to make some contribution to the defense effort in times of peace as well as in times of war.”

 

Packard says they have speculated on what is the optimum size for a company…..There is a saying that ‘A business must grow or die,’ but I am inclined to think this is more of a cliché than a fact. However, over the period of years we have developed a fairly well defined objective as far as growth for the Hewlett-Packard company is concerned, and it is as follows:

 

“VI.   TO LET OUR COMPANY GROWTH BE DETERMINED PRIMARILY BY THE PERFFORMANCE, LIMITED ON THE ONE HAND BY THE RATE OF GROWTH WHICH WE CAN FINANCE FROM OUR CURRENT PROFITS AND ON THE OTHER HAND BY THE RATE AT WHICH WE CAN BUILD UP OUR PRODUCT LINE AND OUR MARKET THROUGH CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR OTHER OBJECTIVES.”

 

“Finally, I want to state an objective which I think is important to all of you, and although it may not appear to be so, it is also very important to Bill and me. That objective is to build sufficient strength into our organization so that the future of the Hewlett-Packard Company is not dependent upon any one or any two or three people, including Bill and myself. Many of you, in fact I hope all of you, have staked your future in Hewlett-Packard Company. Many of you will have in the future spent the greater portion of your productive lives with us. It should be of the utmost importance to you that the company be in a position to carry on regardless of what happens to any of us. This is also important to Bill and me.”

 

“I want to assure you all that I feel we have made some real progress toward this final objective and certainly at such time as we might look toward a diversification of stock holdings for whatever reason, we would hope to include HP people in the plan. Should that happen you would have even more reason to put emphasis on this last and final objective.

 

“In conclusion, I want to emphasize that we expect all of you to guide the execution of your individual assignments toward the common goal in accordance with these objectives. It serves no useful purpose to build strength in one area at the expense of another. Furthermore, we have no place in the company for half-hearted effort. I am sure the reports on our past progress which we will discuss during this meeting will emphasize the progress that comes from enthusiastic work toward a common goal. I hope every one of you will leave this meeting with added enthusiasm for and added understanding of the opportunity we have ahead.”

 

 

1/11/57,List of attendees, schedule of topics, charts of operating data

Conference agenda with attached charts and financial spreadsheets.

Photocopy of handwritten note by Packard listing points he wanted to make:

1. We want you to succeed, to help you do a good job and advance in                     your career. Success of Co. needs good men

2. Make good impression

3. Continue to study

4. No 8 hour job

5.  Take [illegible]

6. Keep on details

 

Conference agenda:

Statement of Corporate Objectives – Packard

Responsibility of Sales Department

Responsibilities of General Administrative Department

Responsibilities of Production Department

Responsibilities of Research and Development Department

 

 

 

Public Relations

The decision seems to be in favor of a conservatively controlled publicity   program to disseminate real news in a non-blatant manner as contrasted with ordinary business publicity”

Reasons for publicity program:

1. Employee satisfaction and pride of achievement

2. Get correct information to public before various news agencies                            disseminate a lot of misinformation

Dynac, Inc.

Dynac should start hiring their own engineers and production employees.

Dynac should become independent as soon as possible

Dynac should start acquiring their own machinery and equipment,                          engraving machine etc.

Clarification of Responsibilities of Cavier as CFO, mission,                                     purpose, charter

                        Hewlett-Packard Company Sales Department

Several page discussion with organization charts

 

 

Box 1, Folder 10 –HP Management

 

January 21-22, 1957, Management Conference, HP Managers and Sales Reps

 

1/21/57 Agenda for this two day conference on sales topics.

Subjects to be covered included: forecasting, Sales Department organization,           selling methods, hiring methods, doing business in foreign states, commissions

 

 

Box 1, Folder 11 – HP Management

 

June 14, 1957,  Management Conference, HP Managers, Palo Alto

1/14/57 Spiral bound notebook containing papers for this conference with Dave Packard’s            name on the front cover. Items on the agenda include:

Theme and Corporate Review – Packard

Financial Department Report – Frank Cavier

                        Sales Department Report – Noel Eldred

Current Development Projects – Barney Oliver

Production Organization – Ed Porter

Future Personnel Functions – Ray Wilbur

Discussion Period – Bill Hewlett

Corporate Importance of  New Product Development

Speaker – Dr. C.W. Randle, Director of Research, Booz, Allen & Hamilton

Application Seminar – Panel

Summary – Packard

The booklet also contains:

charts and graphs

Description of responsibilities of each department

Draft of Corporate Objectives

Common Responsibilities of Management Positions

1. Develop and Maintain a Sound Plan of Organization

2. Select and Train Subordinates for a Fully Qualified Staff

3. Help Develop fully-qualified Persons for Key Positions and Train a                               Suitable Successor for Yourself

4. Work Effectively Through Others

5. Be a Good Representative of the Company within it and to the                                       Community

Booklet titled Management of New Products from Booz, Allen & Hamilton

2/23/57 Spiral bound booklet from HP titled Production Management Seminar

 

 

Box 1, Folder 12 – HP Management

 

July 15, 1957, Summer Sales Seminar, HP Managers and Sales Reps, Palo Alto

7/15/57 Agenda and exercises to be accomplished

 

 

Box 1, Folder 13 – HP Management

 

November 16, 1957, New Product Conference, HP Managers

11/16/57 Typewritten pages of describing action to be taken on many instruments

1955 – Packard Speeches

Box 2, Folder 27 – General Speeches

.4/19/55,  Copy of typewritten letter from Mickie Ayres (Packard’s Secretary) to Captain E. S. Jernigan, Air Force, giving him the sources for some statistics Packard quoted in his speech to SRI.

5/3/55, Letter from Capt. Jernigan to Mickie Ayres thanking her for the information.

 

.

 

Box 2, Folder 28 – General Speeches

 

January 24, 1955, What Should the Chief Executive do Today to Assure the Company’s Tomorrow, AMA Conference, Los Angeles, CA

 

1/24/55, Typewritten speech by Packard.

Packard says he is going to discuss the subject in terms of what they are doing at HP to assure HP’s tomorrow. He starts by giving the audience a brief summary of  what is made at HP (Test and measuring instruments), and the manufacturing process that they have to make these units.

 

Looking at some of  the things that they do in an attempt to assure a tomorrow for HP, Packard says “I think perhaps the keystone in your entire program can be summarized in the statement that we believe tomorrow’s success is based on today’s performance.”  He admits that this may be an obvious statement,  “…but we often see many other firms who are so busy worrying about tomorrow that they never quite seem to have today’s program under control.” He says they try to do otherwise at HP, “and the first order of business is almost always to make sure the current operations are on a sound and profitable basis.” He admits that the desire to avoid over commitments may somewhat limit their rate of progress, “but on the other hand we find that when we have our current situation well in hand all of our key people seem to have a little more time to look constructively toward the future.”

 

Packard says he thinks the most important consideration for the chief executive “is to look carefully at the requirements his own business. In some cases sales is the most important field. In some cases it is production. But I believe we all have a real interest in research.” –applied research, not pure research, he explains, which few small companies can afford.

 

Packard says HP’s research program is directed at developing new products and to build inexpensive quality into instruments produced. He says “The demand for a continual stream of new products is not always present; the demand for inexpensive quality will always be with us whether we supply a product or a service.”

 

Talking about HP’s new product program Packard says that while it is usual to measure this in terms of the amount of dollars spent as a percentage of total sales. However, at HP they believe it is impossible to measure the efficiency of a research and development program in terms of the number of dollars being spent. As a result  “…we work hard toward the control of our new product work. And he explains that  “Perhaps the first and most important element of control is in the selection of men, because new products are developed not by dollars but by men, and it requires well trained engineers with vision and energy to do a good job in this field.”  Since good people are hard to find “…our expansion in the engineering department is determined not by the number of dollars we have to spend, but by the rate at which we are able to locate the kind of people we want.”

 

Moving from the selection of people Packard goes to the subject of selection of projects. He says they have a large number of suitable projects from which to select. “We coordinate this selection closely with the sales program; we do a certain amount of market research; and we are careful to select projects which fit into our present line and which are as general purpose as possible so they will meet the needs of many customers.”  He adds that “…we attempt never to undertake a new product unless we feel we can make some important contribution to the art.”

 

Packard refers to his previous statement that they always have more potential products on the list than they have been able to undertake at any given time. He anticipates the question, “Why don’t we simply expand the engineering program and undertake all of the projects which we have available?” One reason, he explains, is as he has already indicated, “We try and limit our engineering department expansion in terms of the rate at which we can get food men rather than the rate at which we can get average men. The second requirement we place on our development program is that it must be supported out of current income. This again places some limit on our rate of growth, but by careful advance filtering of the development projects and by careful selection of people we believe we have been able to maintain a development program which, although limited in magnitude is quite efficient in performance.”

 

Saying that it is almost obvious that if we have a development program which is continually generating new products, we must have a production and sales program which is geared to this continual stream of new developments. Looking first at production, Packard says they have a three-fold program.  “First, we are continually working on production methods which will achieve cost reduction and quality improvement, methods which will help maintain our goal of inexpensive quality. Second, we must have in our production organization an efficient and effective means for transferring the new product from the laboratory to the production bench.”  To this end, Packard explains, “…we bring the two groups together toward the end of a development program with the first objective to educate the production department in the idiosyncrasies of this new product, and second to acquaint the development engineer with the simple proposition that his new product must be producible if it is going to be worth anything.”

 

And thirdly, Packard says, “…as we add more and more products to our line our production program becomes more and more complicated. We therefore are continually asking our production people ….to do parts standardization, basketing of production quantities, etc.” As to the sales area, Packard says “Our sales people must be trained to know more and more about a larger number of instruments…”

 

“There are of course other problems about which the chief executive must always worry. Even for a young company such as ours, time does not wait, and so it is important to continually feed top caliber men in at the lower levels so that strength and depth is generated for all important executive functions.. Again, I find I am mentioning people as the key to the future, and this simply re-emphasizes that the future for all of us is determined more by what our people do than by how many dollars we spend. We try to carry that philosophy throughout our entire company because we feel that personnel problems are among the most important in building toward the future. We have a strong personnel program but no personnel department because we feel that personnel problems are the prime concern of all executive levels and we attempt to keep all of our people looking ahead in this area.”

 

Packard urges chief executives to look beyond their own companies saying, “I think, therefore, that we have a responsibility to the future to step outside of our office as frequently as we can to study and help guide some of those forces which are carrying us ahead at such a rapid rate.” And he cites a couple of areas: “Some recent surveys among high school youngsters indicated that in certain areas as many as 75% of the young students did not understand the principles of, or the value to be gained from, the free enterprise system and thought rather that it was something which should be corrected or even possibly done away with.”

 

Calling attention to the financial difficulties of  “…the great universities throughout the country which have generated and maintained the ideals on which our free enterprise system is founded are finding it increasingly hard to live on their endowments, to attract capable men to their teaching platforms, and this situation is becoming worse rather than better. And so to those of you who are here today, who think for the afternoon about the things you can do to insure a tomorrow for your company, I suggest that in addition to the things inside your organization you also look at ways in which you can bring the strength of your company to the assistance of your local community or the nation as a whole by a specific and direct contribution to one or more of these all-important problems, for unless the environment for hour company remains healthy all efforts to maintain a good internal program will alone not insure a tomorrow for your company.”

 

11/19/54, Letter to David Packard from Frederic E. Pamp Jr. of AMA, welcoming Packard as a participant on their Presidents_ panel at their General Management conference.

12/9/54, Copy of a memorandum from Frederic E. Pamp Jr. to panel members giving background on the upcoming conference.

12/14/54, Letter from Mr. Pamp to David Packard sending a copy of the final program for the conference.

1/24/55, AMA publication, “Assuring the Company’s Future Today”, containing text of talks given during the General Management Series, including David Packard’s.

1954 – Packard Speeches

Box 2, Folder 26 – General Speeches – includes correspondence related to speeches

 

April 6, 1954, Electrical Engineering as a Career, Remarks at “Career Day,” Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto, California

 

4/6/54, Typewritten notes titled , “Electrical Engineering as a Career”, with handwritten notations by Packard.

Covers branches of electrical engineering, growth of need for EEs, compensation, qualifications, requirements, how to start.

4/1/54, Letter from Thad Brinkley to Packard thanking him for accepting an assignment as a speaker during Career Day.

4/2/54, Letter to Packard from Barbara Kielsmeier, Student Chairman, giving details on Career Day.

4/6/54 Suggested Guide for Speakers

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 27 – General Speeches

 

November 23, 1954, Electronics and the West, SRI, San Francisco

11/23/54 Typewritten text of speech

Packard points out that it is appropriate to talk about electronics at SRI because the field is highly dependent on research.

 

Packard talks about recent publicity concerning the electronic industry: radar, proximity fuse, electricity from sunshine. “Even the politicians are using electronic computers to predict the outcome of the elections.. “; although he points out that in the last election votes had to be counted the old fashioned way.

 

Approaching what he says appears to be a rather complex industry, Packard divides it into four divisions: household market, government market, commercial and industrial, and the fourth as the component market. “Today”, he says, “the military market accounts for nearly 60% of the total output of the industry….30% of the product is still going to the household market and about 10% is going to all other markets.”  Growth is in the direction of  the commercial and industrial market., he says.

 

Saying that the Bay Area is the very birth place of the electronic industry in the U.S., Packard traces technological developments indicating that it is possible to transmit energy through space. Some of the names mentioned by Packard include Maxwell, Marconi, Elwell, Poulson, and then Lee DeForest who invented the vacuum tube in Palo alto in 1907. He says the vacuum tube determined the beginning of the industry. The first radio broadcast was at the Pan Pacific Exposition in 1915. Other influences which tended to stimulate western electronic activity included the talking motion pictures. ..”the Hollywood area developed a number of small electronic firms related directly to the requirements of the motion picture industry.”

“In 1940″, Packard says, ” the household market accounted for about half of the entire electronic industry market.” Packard raises the question of industry in California to serve this market. He says “there were a few firms established to produce radio receivers….who operated with moderate success before 1930….but generally they had difficulty in supplying the large eastern market and consequently, the big electronic industry became centered in the eastern part of the country.”

 

” And so it was the importance of the household market to the electronic industry which caused the great concentration of electronic manufacturers in the east. “…”WW II augmented this trend…” “Most of the important government laboratories were located on the East Coast. The great consumer goods industries in the electronic field were converted to military production and during WWII hardly 1% of the electronic industry in the country remained on the West Coast.”  Packard continues saying that “a few people (in the west) were still very optimistic”, and  toward the end of the war “they organized the West Coast Electronic Manufacturers Association and attempted to expound the virtues of the West Coast electronic industry to governmental buyers…”

 

“We were sure”, Packard says, “that this trend (to the east) would be reversed after the war and so we attempted to encourage this with an electronic trade show in Los Angeles in 1946. At that show there were  25 exhibitors, almost entirely West Coast firms, and a few hundred people attended. If ever the West Coast electronic industry was whistling in the dark that was the time.”

 

Then Packard asks those present to look at what has happened since., He starts by comparing the 1946 trade show to the corresponding show held in Los Angeles in 1954. “This year (1954) , the electronic show in Los Angeles attracted 440 exhibitors, including every important name in the business, and it was attended by over 23,000 people.”

 

“By 1953 the West Coast electronic industry had grown until it accounted for more than 10% of the national electronic production.”

 

Packard examines the factors that have brought the West Coast electronic industry into its own. “The aircraft industry has been long centered on the West Coast and it has grown tremendously, and aircraft today require more electronic devices.”

 

“We have guided missile research centered in the West because space is available. And the guided missile program is highly dependent on electronics.”

 

Packard cites the growth of the industry on the West Coast: Varian Associates, Sylvania Electric, GE for example, and says that “These people have come to Palo Alto for one reason and one reason only. They want to be close to Stanford University because Stanford University is a great source of ideas for the electronic industry and a source of well-trained engineers.” He sees both Stanford and the California Institute of Technology as having been a  “substantial factor in the new westward movement in electronics”  Packard says that now 75% of the industry is on the West Coast.

Packard tells of the Institute of Radio Engineers, an organization to which virtually all electronic engineers in the country belong. “Annually they select two or three of their members who have made outstanding contributions to the field of electronic engineering and they elect these people to the grade of Fellow.” “Only two states, New York and New Jersey,” Packard says, lead California in the number of fellows. Furthermore, only three states in the entire country have more Fellows than the San Francisco Bay Area.”

 

“Even the Government has recognized the leadership of the west in electronic research and engineering.” And he cites the Navy electronics lab moving to San Diego, the Navy Post Graduate School in engineering in Monterey, the radio division of the National Bureau of Standards moving to Boulder, and the Signal Corps establishing a new lab at Fort Huachuca.

 

Packard concludes, saying that it has been exciting to see the electronics industry come into its own here on the West Coast and to see the role Stanford has played in this development. He adds that “We are proud to see that the Stanford Research Institute is taking the lead in industrial research which will help make the accomplishments in electronics available to you people in other industries and businesses.”

No date, One page with notations, handwritten by Packard,  citing various statistics concerning the electronics industry.

No date, Two typewritten pages titled “Radio on the West Coast” giving dates of events marking development of electronics. It is transmitted with a note from “Cy” to Dave.

10/21/54 and various dates, an exchange of letters from SRI and Packard’s office concerning logistics for the above luncheon, program for the day, letters of congratulations.

8/24/54, Printed program of WESCON convention

11/5/54, Letter to Bill Hewlett from J. E. Hobson, Director of SRI, inviting him to the Associates day program and November 23.

11/15/54, Pages 85/86 from Steel publication containing an article on growth of  the electronics industry.

1995 – Hewlett Speeches

Box 3, Folder 60 – General Speeches

 

March 29, 1995 – Lemelson-MIT Award, Smithsonian, Washington D.C.

This award was presented to both Hewlett and Packard, and was accepted on their behalf by their old friend and former HP Lab Director, Barney Oliver.

 

3/29/95, Copy of a draft of Hewlett’s acceptance speech, which he did not present. [See above]

 

In this draft Hewlett says it is an “honor to have been selected for this first Lemelson-MIT  Award. He says the award recognizes invention, and encourages young inventors. In this connection, he mentions that he invented “our first product [at HP], an audio oscillator used by sound engineers, for my degree of Engineer.”

 

He says both he and Dave “recognized from the start that invention was the life blood of our company. We tried to develop an atmosphere that encourages creativity and innovation – a place where people are enthusiastic about their work, where they are unfettered by bureaucracy and where their contributions are recognized.”

 

Commenting on the world’s need for young inventors Hewlett says “ I applaud Mr. Lemelson for his recognition of this need and for his generosity in establishing this award. I am glad he chose MIT, where I received my masters degree in 1936, and a great university known for encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship.”

 

He closes by congratulating “the young inventor who will receive the $500,000 prize.”

 

3/29/95, Copy of typed remarks by Barney Oliver, on behalf of Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard

3/29/95, Copy of news release from MIT titled Lemelson Prize Chair Established at MIT

3/29/95, Copy of news release from MIT titled Innovation Prize Established

Undated, Invitation to “The Inaugural Award Ceremony and Reception for the Lemelson-MIT Prize Celebrating American Invention and Innovation

12/20/94, Letter to Hewlett from Lester C. Thurow, Chairman Lemelson-MIT Prize Committee, telling him that he and Packard have been selected as joint recipients of the first Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award, for your countless contributions to American invention and innovation

12/21/94, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Thurow, saying he is “highly honored and complimented by sharing with Dave Packard the first Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award. He says he knows of no conflict in dates and “if I am physically able I would certainly plan to be present on this occasion”

1/4/95, Copy of a news release discussing two impending court decisions bearing on patent law

1/18/95, Letter to Hewlett from Leslie Amparo, public relations organization representing the Lemelson-MIT Prize. Mr. Amparo says they would like to come to Palo Alto and make a short video tape of both Hewlett and Packard.

1/18/95,  One unsigned typewritten page with notes from meeting with Roy Verley, HP PR Director, about the video taping

1/20/95, Copy of a note from Judy Arluck, Hewlett secretary, to Roy Verley, attaching a letter, dated 1/20/95 from Leslie Millenson, discussing arrangements for the video taping

2/14/95, Copy of a letter from Leslie Millenson, video people, to Mary Ann Easley confirming arrangements for video taping and interviews February 16 and 17

2/20/95, Letter to Hewlett from Leslie Joan Millenson, PR Officer for the Lemelson-MIT Prize, thanking him for participating in the video taping

2/20/95, Letter from Leslie Joan Millenson, to Judy Arluck thanking her for her help in making the video

2/22/95, Note to file confirming a call from Marie Southwick of the Lemelson-MIT committee saying they would be happy to invite guests as the Hewletts may wish, and will also pay for travel and hotel accommodations

2/24/95, Note to Marie Southwick from Judy Arluck sending biographical material on Hewlett

3/10/95, Copy of a letter to Judy Arluck from Annemarie Amparo discussing travel and hotel arrangements should Hewlett attend the award ceremony

3/20/95, Copy of a note from Hewlett to Barney Oliver enclosing copies of relevant background information about the award ceremony

3/21/95, Copy of a letter from Lester Thurow to Barney Oliver saying he is “delighted” that he will represent both Hewlett and Packard at the award ceremony and other activities

3/30/95, Copy of a newsgram sent to Hewlett, along with others inside HP, from Betty Gerard of HP PR telling about the award

3/31/95, Draft of a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Lemelson over the names of both Hewlett and Packard, thanking them for including them in the award, as well as throwing a dart at Congress for “having jeopardized the future of our nation by lack of funding for the great universities of our country.” This draft is attached to a note from Packard to Hewlett asking if this is OK. A handwritten note on the draft says Hewlett okayed it. A copy of the final, signed letter is also in the folder.

4/5/95, Letter to Hewlett from Rep. Anna Eshoo, House of Representatives, to Hewlett congratulating him on the award

5/22/95, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Rep. Eshoo thanking her for her letter.

4/11/95, Letter to Hewlett from Annemarie Amparo, attaching a copy of a letter to the Lemelson-MIT Prize committee from Vice-President Gore congratulating them, the winners, and Hewlett and Packard.

4/13/95, Letter to Hewlett from John G. Linvill telling how much he “has always enjoyed and benefited from our interactions over the years I have been at Stanford.”

5/22/95, Copy of a letter to John Linvill from Hewlett thanking him for his letter

4/17/95, Letter to Hewlett from Jim Cunneen, California Assembly member congratulating him on the Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award

5/10/95, Copy of a letter to Cunneen from Hewlett thanking him for his letter

4/18/95, Letter to Hewlett from Charles M. Vest congratulating him on the award

4/26/95, Letter to Hewlett from Elliott Levinthal, Professor-Research Emeritus at Stanford to which he attaches copies of letters he has written to Jerome Lemelson without getting a response. He expresses the hope that Hewlett may take an opportunity to contact Lemelson on behalf of Stanford.

5/10/95, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Elliott Levinthal saying he doesn’t feel he has any “particular entrée” to Mr. Lemelson

5/1/95, Letter to Hewlett from Annemarie Amparo sending him The Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award noting that the lead crystal hologram is illuminated by Hewlett-Packard LEDs. She encloses a copy of the videotape prepared for the ceremony.

6/19/95, Copy of a letter to Annemarie Amparo from Hewlett thanking her for the videotape and the hologram

5/31/95, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Lester Thurow saying he was greatly honored to jointly receive the first Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award and was sorry he was unable to attend. He thanks Thurow for using Hewlett-Packard LEDs in the hologram on the award.

5/2/95, Copy of a letter to Hewlett from Paul E. Gray of MIT offering congratulations on the award and saying he will be in California and would like to visit with Hewlett and tell him about plans at MIT

4/2/98, Handwritten note to Hewlett from Lester Thurow wishing him a ”speedy recovery”

 

Clipping from San Jose Mercury News newspaper

 

Various dates, Series of news releases issued by The Lemelson-MIT Prize

 

 

Box 3, Folder 61 – General Speeches

 

December 1, 1995 –  Barney Oliver Memorial Service, Palo Alto. CA

 

12/1/95, Copy of typewritten text of Hewlett’s remarks

 

Hewlett says that he must have first met Barney Oliver in his early years at Stanford. “After he graduated from Cal Tech and Stanford, he went to work at Bell Labs. Whenever I went back east I always tried to visit him, as I was impressed with his abilities and felt he would be a major addition to the company.”

 

Hewlett tells a little story about Barney: “I know that when he was about a junior at Stanford, Professor Terman was going to teach a course in radio engineering (electronics now). Barney was interested in taking the course. Professor Terman was doubtful, because at that time Barney was only a junior. However, Barney insisted and Professor Terman told him, ‘Fine, We’ill see how you do in the mid-terms.’ The mid-terms came up and Barney got the highest grade in the class!”

 

When Hewlett and Packard started The Hewlett-Packard Company in the late 1930s they asked Barney if he would join them – but he said he was happy at Bell Labs. However, a few years later Barney decided to move west and he agreed to join HP, in 1952.

 

At HP Barney was appointed the Director of Research, elected a vice president, a member of the Board of Directors, and head of HP Labs. “At that time,” Hewlett says, “we allocated 10% of our net income to the manufacturing divisions to carry on their own development programs. This turned out to be too narrow a spectrum and we set up HP Labs. Its charter was very broad. The funds allocated to the Labs were approximately 1% of net income to freelance in whatever area they saw fit. Sometimes they chose to help a manufacturing division increase their research program.

 

“Sometimes the Lab started programs of their own in a promising field, which [if it] subsequently proved interesting, [might later be] transferred to one of the manufacturing divisions. Thus, between the Labs and manufacturing divisions we covered a fairly broad spectrum of activities.

 

Hewlett says he remembers Barney presenting an enthusiastic description of an outside inventor at one of their management meetings: “Tom Osborne’s invention was for a simplified computer structure. This subsequently turned into the 9100 project, one of the most successful ventures in the field of computers. This gave me an opportunity to observe Barney as a mathematician, a surveyor, an astronomer, a salesman and a valid repair technician!

 

“Barney was also a wonderful role model of how to apply logic to practical problems. An example: Barney’s help with the case of our first mini-computer. We had it all designed and the specifications set. Only we discovered there was no room for the power supply in the model. This was exactly the kind of problem Barney loved and right then and there, he invented a very different kind of power supply –much lighter and smaller that would fit into the space available.”

 

Hewlett says Barney “…not only taught the engineering staff technical matters, but he also taught them how to speak the King’s English. An example: ‘Data’ was a plural noun, not a singular noun. If used as singular noun, he would probably jump on you – I never forgot it!

 

“Barney’s interests were so catholic it was hard to constrain them to narrower fields. For instance, he became interested in other subjects. such as astronomy – which led to the SETI Program – Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. He also became interested in the use of an ordinary garden pest for controlling troublesome insects. This was by developing a strain of nematodes, who were insectivorous. With the help of HP, he set up a company to produce these nematodes. It turned out they had limited value, but had importance in some cases. Although we subsequently backed out of this, it was an example of his breadth of interests.

 

“Barney left an indelible mark on the company and will always be recognized as the great genius that he really was.”

 

12/1/95, Copy of the Memorial Service Program

1994 – Hewlett Speeches

Box 3, Folder 59 – General Speeches

1/14/94 [date received  by WRH], Note to Hewlett from Richard Goldman enclosing a photograph evidently taken at the conference

1/14/94, Copy of a letter to Goldman from Hewlett thanking him for the photo and saying “I shine in your reflected glory.”

1993 – Hewlett Speeches

Box 3, Folder 56 – General Speeches

 

June 15, 1993 – Farewell Message to Peter Voll, No location given, probably Stanford

 

6/15/93, Copy of typewritten speech by Hewlett

 

Hewlett says it is hard to believe that Peter Voll has been organizing trips for the Stanford Alumni for 18 years – 436 of them. He says he has been on seven of them, and he reminisces about some of these. He closes saying, “Peter, we really will miss you. You have been a major contributor to Stanford Alumni and served as an example to many universities to set up and operate similar programs. You have set a marvelous example and we are going to miss you.

 

“Good Luck Peter – Don’t forget all your friends at Stanford.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 57 – General Speeches

 

October 6, 1993 – “Alternatives to Inventions,” Founders Award, Washington D. C.

 

10/6/93, Copy of typewritten text of speech

 

Hewlett refers to the speech given by Dr. George Heilmeier who was the previous award recipient. He says Dr. Heilmeier “talks about the problem of research in product development and problems associated with launching a new product.

 

Taking a different approach to the problem of developing new products, Hewlett says, “When Hewlett-Packard Company was small, we could not afford the luxury of maintaining a laboratory to engage in research. Rather, we had to depend upon our ability to take a proven idea and reduce it to practice. We were in a business that depended upon having a large number of items in the catalogs, rather than a few major devices, and we had to depend on taking proven ideas and making instruments out of them.”

 

“One way to obtain such ideas, of course, is to read all the literature. In theory, this is possible, but it would take a remarkable mind to acquire and collate all such information. There are certain alternative approaches. I would like to mention a few.”

 

The first one Hewlett mentions is taking a suggestion from a third party: ‘Have you ever thought of this?,’ and he tells of an incident involving Barney Oliver, who later became HP’s Director of Research. Hewlett had known Barney when they were both at Stanford, and Hewlett would visit him at Bell Labs from time to time when he was in the East.

 

As Hewlett relates it, they had, for years, been trying to “push the frequency range of our RC oscillators to the highest possible level, but we never could achieve a real breakthrough. One day, assessing our product line, Barney asked, ‘‘Have you ever thought of using a ring structure for this purpose?’ After he mentioned it, it was obvious that this was the way to achieve the higher frequency levels that we were seeking.”

 

Hewlett goes on to say that following this suggestion from Barney Oliver, they were able to develop an oscillator “that went from 10 hertz to 10 megahertz in 6 decades. This was a maximum frequency about 30 times larger than we had ever been able to achieve by conventional methods.”

 

Hewlett says a second source for product ideas is “taking proven technology from one application and applying it to another.”

 

As an example, he tells of one of their distributors who one day asked, ‘Have you ever thought of using the principle of a flux gate compass to build an instrument that you could simply clip over a wire and measure direct current?’

 

“Using this principle,” Hewlett says, “we were able to design such a device that would measure a curve as small as 3 megahertz. The field so measured was about 1/300 of the earth’s magnetic field. Such an instrument being a clip-on had the obvious advantage that one did not have to break the circuit to make the current measurement.”

 

The third possible source for ideas Hewlett mentions is “combining two or three technologies to create a different class of product.

 

“A good example,” he says, “was our first desktop calculator. One of our engineers had been pushing us for some time to get into the computer business, but we were reluctant to do so. Not to be discouraged, he demonstrated a calculator of extremely simple characteristics and yet very powerful. Unfortunately, it was limited to add, subtract, multiply and divide, but its simplicity and the fact that it used reverse Polish notation made it very effective.

 

“At the same time, we found two engineers in southern California who had devised an algorithm which could handle trigonometric and logarithmic functions. Whether these two ideas were compatible and could be combined in a single instrument was the question.

 

”The short study project demonstrated that the two were compatible and we built a very sophisticated desktop computer. Incidentally, we didn’t call the product a computer. If we had called it a computer it would have been rejected by our customers’ computer gurus because it did not look like an IBM. We, therefore, decided to call it a ‘calculator,’ and all such nonsense disappeared.”

 

“A different type of example on a broader base is the case where a broad technology has been developed and is readily available, but industry has not been smart enough to pick it up. An example was the work done by W. Edwards Deming and Walter Shewhart in the field of statistical quality control (SQC).

 

Hewlett tells how the Japanese, after World War II, found their production in chaos. They had great difficulty competing with the West, particularly in the areas of quality and cost. Deming, an American, went to Japan and taught the principles of scientific quality control. The Japanese recognized the value of quality control and were able to reduce the cost and increase the quality of their products. American industry largely ignored the Deming methods, and Hewlett says “Hewlett-Packard was a very good example of such blindsidedness.”

 

Hewlett says, he is glad that American auto makers have now embraced the Deming method, with a corresponding sharp increase in quality and productivity.”

 

“I cite these examples,” Hewlett says, “to show there are many things around us that we can borrow from or use – many approaches to getting ideas and turning them into viable products.

 

“I am not trying to denigrate the importance of invention. One only has to look at the transistor industry to realize what a tremendous change it brought to the electronics industry.

 

“But I hope I’ve been able to show you, through my own experiences at HP, that research is expensive and it’s uncertain. For this reason, it behooves management to make sure that there are some alternative proven techniques that can help reduce the total cost of developing new products.

 

“I’d like to thank the Academy again for this award and for the chance to share my thoughts with you on some practical alternatives for product development.”

 

10/6/93, 3X5” cards upon which Hewlett has written notes for his speech. Appears to be an earlier draft

10/6/93, Copy of the printed award statement

10/6/93, Copy of the printed program for 10/6/93 NAE meeting, including the award presentation

10/6/93, Copy of list of registered attendees

8/27/93, Letter to Hewlett from Chuck Blue of NAE sending a copy of the complete meeting program

5/25/93, Copy of a letter to Hewlett from Robert M. White, President, National Academy of Engineering, (NAE), saying he has been selected as the recipient of the 1993 Founders Award of the National Academy of  Engineering, to be presented on October 6, 1993 in Washington D. C. A press release announcing the award is attached for his approval.

6/8/93, Copy of Hewlett travel itinerary

7/14/93, FAX  from Mollie Yoshizumi (Hewlett’s secretary), to Douglas Wolford, NAE returning a redrafted  award statement

6/21/93, Copy of NAE press release

6/29/93, Copy of internal HP newsgram covering the award

7/8/93, Note to Hewlett from Steve Bechtel congratulating him on the award

7/16/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Steve Bechtel thanking him for his note

6/22/93, Note to John S. Foster, Jr. from Hewlett congratulating him on receiving the Enrico Fermi Award.. A copy of the U.S. Department of Energy press release is attached

6/29/93, Letter to Hewlett from Chang-Lin Tien sending congratulations

7/7/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Chang-Lin Tien thanking him for his note

6/30/93, Letter to Hewlett from Kumar Gollabinnie, an HP employee, sending congratulations

7/7/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Mr. Gollabinnie thanking him for his note

7/7/93, Note to Hewlett from John Foster thanking him for his note and congratulating him on the NAE award

7/16/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Foster thanking him for his note

7/6/93, Letter to Hewlett from Thomas E. Everhart, California Institute of Technology, congratulating him on the award

7/16/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Dr. Everhart thanking him for his note

7/7/93, Note to Hewlett from J. S. Parker congratulating him on the award

7/16/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to J. S. Parker thanking him for his note

7/12/93, Letter to Hewlett from Shozo Yokogawa congratulating him on the award

7/19/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Shozo Yokogawa thanking him for his note

7/2/93, Note to Hewlett from Barbara Cummins, SF Customer Relations Education Center, an HP employee, offering congratulations

7/16/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Barbara Cummins thanking her for her note

6/29/93, Letter to Hewlett from George W. Heilmeier, the 1992  NAE Founders award recipient offering congratulations

7/16/93, Copy of a letter to George Heilmeier thanking him for his note

7/29/93, Letter to Hewlett from Charles E. Blue of NAE, sending a copy of the preliminary program for the NAE meeting

8/9/93, Letter to Hewlett from George H. Heilmeier, the 1992 Founders award recipient, sending a copy of his speech on that occasion

8/31/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to George Heilmeier thanking him for sending a copy of his speech

9/1/93, FAX transmittal letter from Ellen King of HP Labs to Mollie Yoshizumi sending copies of two articles about W. Edwards Deming’s work in Japan. No doubt research information for Hewlett

9/8/93, FAX transmittal letter from Hewlett to NAE sending his completed NAE Annual Meeting registration form

9/14/93, Transmittal sheet from NAE to Hewlett sending a ticket for the NAE luncheon

9/17/93, Copy of Hewlett’s travel itinerary showing trip from SF to Washing D.C. of Tuesday 10/5; Washington D. C. to Portland OR on Wednesday 10/6/93 for a visit to HP’s Vancouver WA plant. Also copies of travel tickets

9/21/93, Form letter from NAE to all meeting registrants sending confirmation of registration

10/5/93, Transmittal letter to George Heilmeier from Mollie Yoshizumi sending a copy of Hewlett’s speech for the NAE award ceremony

10/6/93, Letter to Hewlett from George Heilmeier saying he was glad to receive the copy of Hewlett’s speech and discussing his work on liquid crystal displays

Undated, Copies from a dictionary which shows definitions for such words as innovate and innovation. Again probably research for Hewlett

1/4/93 [should have been 1994], Letter to Hewlett from Robert M White of NAE giving him, for tax purposes, the appraisal value of the gold medal which was presented to him at the Founders Award ceremony – $4,410

 

NAE publications

10/6/93, New Members Yearbook

10/6/93, Annual Meeting Final Program

10/6/93, Section Meeting Booklet for the Electronics Engineering Section

Winter issue of “The Bridge” which contains a copy of Hewlett’s speech

 

 

Box 3, Folder 58 – General Speeches

 

October 7, 1993 – Howard Vollum Leadership Award, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology, Portland, OR

 

10/7/93, Page and a half handwritten by Hewlett with text of talk

 

Hewlett talks about Howard Vollum in the early days of his career. He says he was in Washington D.C. when Howard was in the Signal Corps, and he kept hearing about a ‘genius’ who was working on a radar to locate portable mortars. “These field pieces were giving our infantry a lot of trouble,” he says, “and by the time you could locate one of them using conventional means the mortar would be moved by the time you could do anything to counter it.” Without going into detail as to how Vollum’s device worked, Hewlett says it was very effective. “I was so impressed with Howard,” Hewlett says, “ that I wrote to Dave Packard and recommended he hire him.”

 

However, Howard came back to Portland and joined Tektronix a company that made oscilloscopes. Hewlett tells how HP and Tektronix each went their own ways for a while, but then HP decided to go into the oscilloscope business too – ignoring the adage, ‘Never attack a fortified position unless you have to.’

 

Hewlett says their first product was “a bunch of junk, adding that HP’s entry into the field served to “intensify Tek’s efforts. Despite all our best efforts we made little progress. We would make a technical breakthrough, and Tektronix would come up with something better. I think the best we ever did was to increase our penetration to about 15% [of the market.]”

 

Howard’s death,” Hewlett says, “was not just a loss to the company, but a loss to the community and the country as a whole. But we were left with an indelible impression, “Never attack a fortified position unless you absolutely have to.”

 

10/7/93, Earlier draft of talk handwritten by Hewlett

10/5-7/93, Copy of Hewlett’s schedule including visit to HP plant in Vancouver, Washington

10/7/93, Material from program folder containing schedule for October 7, as well as other papers relevant to the day

6/8/93, Note to Mollie Yoshizumi, Hewlett’s secretary, from the travel office with a suggested itinerary

3/30/93, Letter to Hewlett from Douglas C. Strain telling him of the forum on “The Technology of Business in the Pacific Century,” sponsored by the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology. He says that the Board of Trustees, Jean Vollum, and he,  would like to present Hewlett with the Howard Vollum Leadership Award as a part of the forum activities.

4/8/93, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Douglas Strain accepting the invitation, and adding that he held Howard Vollum in high regard, and had once suggested Dave Packard hire him.

4/30/93, Letter to Hewlett from Thomas Wilson, Vice President, Development, of the Graduate Institute saying he is pleased Hewlett will be attending their forum.

5/13/93, Copy of a letter to Wilson thanking him for his letter

8/27/93, Letter to Hewlett from Douglas Strain attaching an invitation to a private dinner the evening of October 7.

9//13/93, Note to Hewlett from Andrew Ould [HP PR?], saying a Stu Watson of the ‘Oregon Business Magazine’ would like to interview him during his visit, and asks if Hewlett wants to comply. Handwritten note on letter says Ould advises interview cancelled.

9/16/93, Copy of an HP newsgram telling of Hewlett’s award – sent to Hewlett by Betty Gerard

9/17/93, Copy of itinerary, sent to Hewlett by travel office

9/24/93, [date received by WRH], Note to Hewlett from Douglas Strain confirming dinner on October 7, and notifying him of change of location

9/30/93, Copy of a letter to Hewlett from Tom Wilson, of OGI, attaching the schedule for the day of the award, plus a list of speakers with a short biography on each

9/30/93, Copy of a letter to Hewlett from Robert Mims of the OGI, attaching an agenda for the award dinner

9/30/93, Note from Mollie Yoshizumi to Hewlett’s daughter, Mary Jaffe, in Portland, attaching a copy of Hewlett’s flight itinerary for the trip there, and a copy of a letter to Hewlett from Dick Snyder, GM of HP’s Vancouver plant, discussing plans for his visit there on October 8

10/4/93, FAX to Hewlett from Jerome J. Meyer, Chairman and CEO of Tektronix, sending a copy of  a printed message to Tektronix employees containing a statement of  their corporate objectives

10/28/93, Letter to Hewlett from Douglas Strain, Vice Chairman, Electro Scientific Industries, thanking him for coming to Portland, and reminiscing about all the help he got from both he and Dave Packard when they were starting ESI in 1950. He encloses a statement of ESI ‘Management Principles’ much of which he admits was borrowed from HP.

June, July, August issues of “Elements,” a newspaper published by the OGI

1/12/94, Note to Hewlett from Lyle M. Nelson of Stanford, enclosing a clipping from an OGI publication which contains a photograph of Hewlett at the podium during the Vollum award dinner. Hewlett, although smiling, has his eyes shut. Lyle comments he “looks better with his eyes shut than with them open.”

9/30/94, Letter to Hewlett from Ed Coolly, OGI Chairman, and Dwight Sangrey, President, telling him that Sangrey is leaving as OGI  President, to be replaced by Paul Bragdon

12/18/97, Letter to Hewlett from Paul Bragdon, OGI President, telling him of OGI’s favorable financial status, along with a listing of recent grants

 

 

Box 3, Folder 59 – General Speeches

 

November 1, 1993  – “Silicon Valley,” Jewish Community Federation, San Francisco, CA

Same as speech dated 4/20/88 above

 

11/1/93, Copy of the typewritten text of the speech

 

In this speech Hewlett describes the history of Silicon Valley, particularly during its formative years, and the important role played by Stanford University.

“Silicon Valley did not just spring out of nowhere,” he says. “There had been activity in electronics in the Bay Area for almost 50 years before the transistor was invented. In fact, it was just 90 years ago that Marconi established a branch of his company, Marconi Wireless, in the area. He had already established radio communication to England from Cape Cod in Massachusetts. He wanted to use the new facilities at Bolinas, California, to establish a trans-Pacific link.

 

“Interestingly enough, the first semiconductor work carried out in the Valley did not use silicon but another element called germanium.

 

Hewlett suggests starting at the beginning, and he says the beginning starts with Stanford. “The founding grant of the University laid great emphasis on the professional aspects of higher education. The first President, David Starr Jordan, who himself was an ichthyologist of some note, attracted an outstanding group of faculty members in various fields of science and engineering.

 

“An early graduate in engineering by the name of Cyril Elwell became the archetype of the technical innovators that were later associated with Silicon Valley. Prior to Elwell, there had been some experiments in radio transmissions, including the early work on ship-to-shore and point-to-point communication. At that time, high-powered radio signals were generated by means of an electric arc, that is, an electrical discharge across a gap. It was not suitable for voice transmissions but it could be used for Morse Code.

 

“Elwell heard about an invention in Denmark of an improved arc by a man by the name of Valdemar Poulsen. This arc was much more stable than previous arcs. It used a large magnetic field and a special atmosphere to achieve this performance. Furthermore, it could be used for high-power voice communication. Elwell went over to Denmark and essentially, without a nickel in his pocket, bought the invention for $250,000 and then came back to the San Francisco area to try and raise the money.

 

The Poulsen Wireless Telegraph & Telephone Company was formed to exploit this patent. This name was later changed to Federal Telegraph Company. It is interesting to note that the President of Stanford, Dr. Jordan, invested $500 in this venture and encouraged other members of the faculty to do the same. The Federal Telegraph soon attracted a bevy of smart and creative engineers. One such engineer was Lee De forest who in 1906 had invented the Audion, the first vacuum tube. While working on the Audion in Palo Alto in 1912, just a year before I was born. He perfected the device so that it would both amplify sound and, in addition, was capable of generating stable radio frequencies. As a matter of interest, the house where De Forest did his work was not more than three blocks from where Dave Packard and I started our venture.

 

“Two young engineers from Federal Telegraph left the company in 1917 to found a new company north of San Francisco to exploit a new principle for a loudspeaker. The company so formed was the Magnavox Company which subsequently moved east and still is an active, well-established company. One of these two engineers, Peter Jensen, later formed his own company which became known as the Jensen Speaker Company. It is interesting that these loudspeakers made modern public address systems practical. In 1919, President Wilson addressed an audience of about 50,000 people in San Diego using these loudspeakers.

 

“In 1921, two young engineers by the names of Ralph Heintz and Jack Kaufman combined to form a company of that name that specialized in commercial radio equipment and made some of the first air-to-ground radio systems.

 

“The capabilities of this new air-to-ground system were dramatically demonstrated during one of the Dole Airplane races from San Francisco to Hawaii. One of the planes was equipped with one such radio, the power for which was derived by a small wind-driven generator. The faster the plane went, the faster the wind generator rotated, and the whine of the wind generator could be heard in its radio transmissions. At the time of the race, amateur radio was just coming into vogue and the communications from the plane were monitored by amateur operators all over the world.

 

“This was an era in which navigational instrumentation for airplanes was very primitive. The plane with the radio transmitter became lost in a cloud and could not tell up from down. Although he did not know it, the pilot started in a power dive, and all over the world, the increased itch of the radio signal indicated that the plane had picked up speed and was probably in a dive. Suddenly, all transmission stopped – no trace of it was ever found.

 

“Meanwhile, Federal Telegraph had been merged with MacKay Radio & Telegraph Company and eventually was acquired by International Telephone & Telegraph Company and moved East. Many of the engineers, being good Californians, did not like being transplanted and soon returned to the Bay Area. One such person was Charles Litton. Charlie planned to make the very large vacuum tubes required for high-powered radio broadcasting. Charlie was a superb mechanic and he decided that if he were to build good vacuum tubes, he needed a special lathe to assemble them. He designed and built such a lathe. Before he was able to use it, however, somebody from one of the larger radio manufacturing companies saw it and wanted to buy it. Charlie sold it to them and the same thing happened several times over, so that Charlie wound up in the manufacturing of glassblowing lathes and never really got around to building the vacuum tubes he originally intended to.

 

“This ability to make vacuum tubes was very important to this country during world War II. Charlie turned his plant over to his foreman with the understanding that these lathes were to be sold at cost on the theory that it was not proper to profit from the defense effort. Charlie did consulting to support himself. At the end of the war, he became frustrated with manufacturing and sold his company to some young venture capitalists who formed the Litton engineering that we now know. Interestingly enough, Charlie was offered $1 million in cash, or an equivalent amount of shares of Litton at the price of $1.00 a share. Eventually, that stock was selling for well over $100.00 a share – he had chosen the cash.

 

“Another company that had started before the War was Eitel-McCullough. They specialized in transmitting tubes for the burgeoning amateur radio industry. They were master craftsmen in this art and contributed greatly to the need for high-powered vacuum tubes during the war.

 

“Another legacy from the Federal Telegraph company were two very large magnets that had been built for the Poulsen arc but had never been used. In the early 1930’s, Ernest O. Lawrence was doing his first experiments with the cyclotron at U.C. Berkeley. Interestingly enough, my wife was taking freshman physics from Dr. Lawrence. She remembered how exciting it was when he would come into the classroom and announce that they had just discovered a new element, such and such, and discovered its characteristics.

 

“Like most college professors, Dr. Lawrence had very little money to spend. To have designed and built the magnets that weighed about 85 tons each would have been impossible, but he found these two discarded magnets and was thus able to build the first atom smasher. Another spinoff of Federal Telegraph was the work of Fred Kolster who perfected the radio direction finder. Many of the old-timers here will remember the name Kolster Radio.’

 

“You might liken the Federal Telegraph Company to a supernova, such as appeared a few years ago. A giant star explodes and out of its residue, many new stars are formed. It was from the residue of Federal Telegraph that much of the subsequent developments in silicon Valley depended – the ingredients were trained people, small companies, and above all else, the tradition of engineering at Stanford.

 

“Another example of pioneer work in the Bay Area was that of Philo T. Farnsworth who came to San Francisco in 1927 to perfect the first all-electronic television system.

 

“How did Silicon Valley get its name? Long before people ever heard of the transistor, there was considerable activity in electronics in and around Stanford. As an example, the Varian Brothers, while working in the physics laboratory at Stanford, had invented a device called the Klystron, a device that could amplify very high frequency signals, as well as acting as a source of such signals. In the early days of the War before the United States was involved, the Varian Brothers were very much concerned about the threat of bombing and sought a way to detect and locate enemy aircraft. They reasoned that if they could get a very narrow, high-powered radio beam, they would be able to bounce it off an airplane and detect some of the reflecting signals. To do this, they needed a radio signal that had a very short wave length so that a practical sized antenna could be used. This was the driving factor that led to their invention of the Klystron.

 

“To eventually exploit this invention, Varian Associates was formed shortly after the War. Another use for Klystrons appeared in a different form; atom smashing. Instead of having a curved circular path, such as the cyclotron, a linear accelerator was built, powered by very large cyclotrons. The practicality of this was demonstrated with a 200-foot accelerator and subsequently, with major government support, into the Stanford Linear Accelerator program (SLAC). A two-mile long device located in the hills behind Stanford.

 

“Shortly after the War, a young American engineer brought from Germany a magnetic tape recorder. The potentiality of this technique was quickly recognized by an old friend of Charlie Littons’s, Alexander M. Poniatoff, who founded the company, Ampex, which name was derived from is initials and ‘ex’ for excellence. This company led the field in audio and eventually video recording for many years.

 

“In 1947 Bell Telephone Laboratories invented the transistor that was to revolutionize the field of electronics. Arnold Beckman, a professor at Cal Tech who founded Beckman Instruments, soon recognized the importance of the transistor. He asked one of the co-inventors, William Shockley, to set up a company to work on semiconductors. Bill’s father had taught at Stanford and Bill himself had spent his early days in Palo Alto. It was for this reason and with a little coaching from Professor Terman that he selected Palo Alto as the site for the new company.

 

Fred Terman, who had been Dean of Engineering and subsequently became Provost, recognized the importance of an industrial park on University lands. He felt that there could be a two-way benefit from such a development. Industry could benefit by its proximity to the University and the University could benefit from its high-tech neighbors. This certainly proved to be the case. The Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory was established in 1955 and was one of the first tenants of the newly developed Industrial Park.

 

“Shockley was a brilliant engineer, but management was not his forte. He had accumulated a constellation of brilliant scientists and engineers, but they soon became disenchanted and sought financial support elsewhere for their ideas, Venture capitalists were not yet readily available and they turned to Fairchild Camera & Instrument for financial assistance. In 1957, Fairchild agreed to support the project and the company called ‘Fairchild Semiconductor’ was founded, with Robert Noyce as its President. Once the success of this new company was demonstrated, it did not take long before there were other defectors, and more companies were formed with financing now readily available. By this time, ‘Silicon’ was the preferred material and gave its name to the valley.

 

“But prior to any ‘Silicon,’ the Bay Area had seen the development of the Poulsen arc, the invention of the true vacuum tube, the perfection of the dynamic loudspeaker, some of the first air-to-ground communications systems, first radio direction finding devices, the perfection of the all-eletronic television, key work in the manufacturing of large vacuum tubes, the invention of the Klystron, the perfection of the magnetic tape for recording both voice and sound, and many others. Silicon came to a very fertile valley.

 

“I think in closing, that particular comments should be made about the role of Stanford University. As mentioned, it was indirectly responsible for the first electronics in the valley, based on the work of Elwell. You might even say that it pioneered some aspects of venture capitalism when President Jordan and his faculty helped finance the Federal Telegraph Company.

 

“Lewis M Terman, a Professor at Stanford in the psychology Department, is best known for the Terman-Binet intelligence test. However, he had a far more famous son, Frederick Terman, who was a great innovator at Stanford University. Fred was educated as a chemical engineer, but while taking graduate work at MIT, became greatly interested in the field of ‘radio.’ But he did a lot more than that. For one, he talked to two young engineering students, William Hewlett and David Packard, to try their wings in the field of ‘radio.’ It was Terman who had the idea of taking some of the unused land of Stanford University and converting it into an industrial park. It was Terman who conceived the idea of close collaboration between the University and the burgeoning industry in the area. He set up an honors cooperative program in the engineering school that made possible the opportunity for participating firms to be sure that some of their promising new employees might take graduate work at Stanford on a part-time basis with additional funds being paid to the University.

 

“Expanded enrollment in this program led to the use of television for providing teaching in remote locations. This was viewed with skepticism by many educators, but this criticism was soon quieted by the fact that many of the students participating in these remote sites had better test scores than the students in the classrooms. Terman went on to become the Provost of the University.

 

“More recently, in an effort to carry on very expensive and broad-based research in semiconductors, a cooperative venture was set up between the university and about twenty firms wherein these firms contributed towards the construction of a new $15 million laboratory for semiconductor research.

 

“I think it is safe to say that without Stanford, there would not have been a Silicon Valley.”

 

6/18/92, Typewritten research notes on Silicon Valley history listing several companies with a paragraph or so about each of them.

Undated, typewritten sheet giving a chronological listing of significant events in the Valley

6/24/93, Letter to Hewlett from Richard Goldman, of the International Leadership Reunion thanking him for agreeing to participate in their conference.

9/23/93, Copy of a note from Hewlett’s secretary, Mollie Yoshizumi, to Penny Brown of the ILR sending a biographical sketch, copy attached.

9/24/93, Copy of a note to file saying that Hewlett has invited a man named Harry Saal of Smart Valley Inc., to participate with him at the ILR conference. It adds that Hewlett has informed Goldman of this. A sheet with Saal’s address is attached

9/28/93, Copy of a note from Mollie Yoshizumi to Penny Brown of ILR enclosing a photo of Hewlett

10/22/93, Letter to Hewlett from Susan Mall of ILR giving logistical information on the conference day and enclosing a copy of the conference program

11/1/93, Typewritten note stating dinner with at Mr. And Mrs. Goldman at 7:00 PM

11/9/93, Letter to Hewlett from Richard and Rhoda Goldman Co-Chairs of the conference thanking him for his “very interesting” talk about Silicon Valley and attaching a copy of ILR program book

Undated, Photocopies of the covers and some pages from two books: The Big Score – The Billion-dollar Story of Silicon Valley, by Michael S. Malone; and Charged Bodies – People, Power and Paradox in Silicon Valley, by Thomas Mahon. An unsigned, handwritten “post-it” is pasted on one of them explaining that the pages mention Cy Elwell.

 

 

1992 – Hewlett Speeches

 

Box 3, Folder 54 – General Speeches

 

May, 1992 – Random thoughts on “The HP Way”, Santa Clara, CA

(See also speech March 25, 1982 – “The Human Side of Management”)

 

5/92, Copy of typewritten text of remarks

 

Hewlett says every company has its traditions, and at Hewlett-Packard these became known as “The HP Way.” In describing some of these “traditions” he starts with a brief review of the background of the company from which the traditions of the HP Way were founded.

 

“It’s important to realize,” he says, “that both Dave Packard and I were products of the Depression. When he graduated in 1934 Dave was one of the few people in our class to get a job offer. I took two graduate years and then came back to build medical equipment for a doctor. Terman realized that Dave and I would each go our independent ways unless he took some steps which he encouraged us to do. He arranged for Packard to come out to Stanford on a fellowship program that did not jeopardize his position at GE. This was in the fall of 1938.”

 

By January, 1939, Packard and Hewlett had decided to try to make a go of it and start a partnership, but they had no idea what they were going to do. Hewlett says they “started with about $500 worth of capital and set up shop in a one-car garage where Dave and his wife, Lucile, were living. Shortly thereafter, I was married and as both our wives had jobs at Stanford, they supported us until, by a sneaky move, they arranged to have children.”

 

“In the early days,” Hewlett says, “Dave and I did everything – kept the books, swept the floors, designed and manufactured various specialty products – anything that would bring in money. We built a clock drive for a telescope at Mount Hamilton. We made a shocking machine for a promoter that was thought to make people lose weight, and almost accidentally, took an idea that came from my thesis at Stanford on a piece of electronic measurement equipment called an audio oscillator.”

 

They sent out flyers to various university engineering departments and, much to their surprise, kept getting back orders. “One day,” Hewlett says, “we had a request from Walt Disney Studios. The engineer there wanted us to build eight of these products with a different set of electrical specifications….This was our largest order to date.”

 

Hewlett had a reserve commission in the Army and was called to active duty in the fall of 1941. By that time they had 17 employees and had set up shop in two small buildings near the corner of El Camino and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. During the war the company built test and measurement equipment for the electronic industry, and grew to 250 employees.

 

After the war, Hewlett returned, but business had fallen greatly, and employment was down to about 80 people. “It was a critical time,” he says, “and we had to decide whether we were going to cut back and be a small company or whether the prospect was bright, keep the same corporate structure, and hope to move on. Fortunately, we chose the latter course.”

 

Talking again about the development of The HP Way, Hewlett says, “When we started the company we wanted to observe two principles. One, we did not want to borrow our capital, and two, we did not want to run a ‘hire and fire’ operation….We didn’t want that kind of a company. We wanted a company that was built around people.”

 

“In the early days there was very little to separate the owners from the workers. We were a single team and as we worked with our employees, we had an opportunity to observe what their lives were like and what the company meant to them.”

 

During this time they also decided to establish a form of a production bonus. “We chose a very simple formula that about 30% of gross income would be paid to our employees. This was pro-rated as a percentage of their base salary so that everyone from the top to the bottom (ourselves excluded) received the same percentage bonus….As the company grew in size…the earlier, primitive bonus plan was not effective and we agreed to save 12 % of our pre-tax earnings under a current cash bonus, paid on a percentage of base salary and a 10% contribution to the employee on a preferred [deferred?] basis.”

 

Hewlett tells of an employee who contracted tuberculosis and had to leave work for some two years. He says “Rather that let the full impact of this fall on his family, we decided that we would share an amount equivalent to what he would have earned, plus something to carry the medical expenses. After this experience, we decided we needed to formalize the process and so we were one of the first people to take out catastrophic medical insurance.”

 

“One of the first things we did was to say there will be no time clocks to punch. That was a statement that ‘we trust you.’ Later on, borrowed from experience in our German plant, we set up a program for flexible time of arrival. That means an employee can arrive anywhere from 6:00AM to 9:00AM, provided he works the full 8 hours. [It became a two hour window, 6:30AM to 8:30AM in most plants.]

 

“Another hangover from the early days was the open door policy. That said that anyone who had a grievance had a right to come in and see Dave or me. Admittedly, there was a certain screening involved in this, but if the individual had a good cause, Dave and I certainly saw them. This is a tricky road to follow because you have to be careful not to undercut management’s decisions.”

 

“Another technique that we used to democratize the company was the program of ‘communication lunches.’ Dave and  I would visit a plant and say that we would like to have lunch with 15 or 20 of the employees from below the supervisorial level. The purpose of this was two-fold – one, to find out what your employees really thought, and two, [to see if] your ideas were really getting down to them.”

 

Hewlett says his definition of the HP Way would be “that it was to recognize the status of the average person. Dave shows it a little differently but says the same thing – to observe the golden rule – to do unto others as you would have them do unto us.”

 

“Over the years, these traditions have become the very part and fabric of the company. At awards luncheons, I would very often say that the continuance of the HP Way is dependent upon the old-time employee. He says how it works and explains to new employees what it’s all about. These are programs that are very hard to legislate from the top. They must be endemic in an organization.”

 

“We had one interesting, although unfortunate, example of this earlier in the month. One of our sales employees was murdered in Baltimore and when the news of this spread, there was an outswelling of support and comfort to the widow and four children. A program was set up to provide a fund for the education of these children,  and in the first week, roughly $75,000 had been collected, to say nothing of notes of sympathy and understanding to the widow and her family. This is a program that was not sponsored by top management but from the ranks of the company, which is a true indication of the HP Way at work.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 55 – General Speeches

 

October 19, 1992 – Meeting of American Institute of Physics, Palo Alto, CA

 

10/19/92, Page of notes handwritten by Hewlett

 

In his notes Hewlett states that it is not a coincidence that two papers are being presented by HP people.

 

He says the American Institute is an important organization with over 100,000 members, that can help solve some of the world’s problems “such as global warming, the ozone hole, as well as many aspects of pollution control.” He stressed the importance of science education.

 

10/19/92, Copy of typed list of attendees at meeting

7/15/92, Note from Barry Bronson to Bill Hewlett saying HP will be hosting the annual meeting of the AIP, 150-200 attending from around the US. Asks Hewlett if he would open the meeting with a 5 minute welcome.

Several AIP publications/pamphlets

10/28/92, Letter to Hewlett from Kenneth Ford, AIP, saying the meeting at HP was “one of the finest such meetings” they have had. They particularly appreciated the outstanding arrangements.

11/3/92, Copy of a letter to Kenneth Ford from Hewlett thanking him for his “gracious” letter.

10/16/92, Copy of a letter to Hewlett from Bill Shreve giving some background on the AIP along with some suggestions on topics he might mention

10/30/92, Copy of a letter to Hewlett from William R. Shreve, HP Labs, thanking him for his opening remarks

1991 – Hewlett Speeches

Box 3, Folder 53 – General Speeches

 

December 17, 1991 – Egon Loebner Book Reception, Palo Alto, CA

 

12/17/91, Copy of Hewlett’s comments on the occasion of the “Book Reception” for Egon Loebner who died December 30, 1989.

 

Hewlett says “It is hard to give a tribute to Egon Loebner that has not already been given.  He was of such a magnificent mind that he stimulated all round him. He was one of the most prolific men that I have had the pleasure to know.”

 

Hewlett calls Loebner the “father” of HP’s optoelectronics program,

 

On leave to the U.S. Government, Hewlett tells how Loebner was appointed to the USSR as Attache for Science and Technology, overseeing some 1300 joint research projects between the USSR and the U.S. To keep track of all these projects he turned to computer data base management. And when he returned to HP he changed to the field of computers and information management.

 

“While working half-time at HP,” Hewlett says Loebner “took eight computer courses at Stanford. He became interested in neutral networks and did a scholarly paper on the subject for the IEEE.”

 

Hewlett tells how, in 1985 Loebner was diagnosed as having a rare form of Epithelial cancer. He says “Not much was known about the disease and I remember Egon coming into my office saying that he was dissatisfied with the lack of knowledge and intended to study what was known about the disease and ultimately he devised his down regimen of treatment. I think he was the only patient ever to get invited to lecture on his illness to doctors at the Stanford Medical Hospital.

 

“In his lifetime, he published 50 papers in bionics, biophysics, chemistry, cognitive science, computational linguistics, electronics, human factors, information displays, materials science, optics, physics and telecommunications.”

 

Hewlett quotes from a recent letter Egon wrote to ‘My friends at HP,’ wherin he commented ‘I have not always seen eye to eye…with those management policies that in my view departed significantly from the spirit of what I understood to be the HP Way….’ And finishes with ‘It has been a privilege being part of our HP family. I am sure that many of you will try to ensure it remains as long as possible the special place it has been for 50 years.’’

 

10/25/91, Copy of a letter from Eugenie Prime to Joel Birnbaum, HP Lab Director. The letter initiates plans for a tribute to Egon Loebner.

12/12/91, Letter from Lorine Hall to Mollie Yoshshizumi, summarizing plans for the “book reception.” Copies of biographical articles about Egon are enclosed.

12/17/91, Copy of the invitation to join “HP Labs in celebrating the publication of The Selected Papers of Egon Loebner.”

12/20/91, Copy of a letter from Cheryl Ritchie to Frank Carrubba saying they are planning to publicize the letter Loebner wrote “to his friends” at HP. A copy of the full text of Egon’s letter is enclosed, along with a note from Dave Packard saying it should be printed in Measure.

Undated, Copy of a story of his release from Auschwitz, written by Egon Loebner.

12/17/91, Copy of a tribute given by HP Lab Director Frank Carrubba.

Undated, copy of an unsigned tribute

2/26/90, Copy of a tribute from “EGLY”

2/16/90, Copy of tribute from Paul Greene

8/15/48, Copy of a letter to Loebner from Albert Einstein apparently in response to a letter from Loebner discussing career alternatives