Box 1, Folder 1 – General Speeches

March 23, 1953 – “An Evaluation of the I.R.E. Professional Group Plan,” 4^th Annual I.R.E. meeting, New York, New York

3/23/53, Printed copy of Hewlett’s remarks

Hewlett says he would like to take a “critical look at what is happening to our own Institute of Radio Engineers through the formation and expanding program of our Professional Group system.”

He explains that these Professional Groups were started about five years prior by individual members of I.R.E. interested in seeing that “their field or branch of scientific or technical endeavor is adequately covered by Institute activities….There are now no less than 19 Professional Groups with a paid up membership of approximately 12,500,” Hewlett says.

Going back in history, Hewlett explains that the I.R.E was formed in 1913 concerned with the science of radio engineering. He contrasts some of the early papers published by the Institute which were of interest to all “Radio Engineers,” with recent articles representing “the high degree of sophistication the art has assumed.”

Hewlett says that World War II “had a tremendous impact on the entire field and electronics immerged from the war as a basic tool of industry as a whole and not just the bread and butter item of a small group of engineers in the field of radio communications.”

Hewlett refers to an article by Dr. William Everitt, titled “Let Us Re-Define Electronics.” And quotes a definition for electronics which Dr. Everitt proposed:

‘Electronics is the science and technology which deals primarily with the supplementing of man’s senses and his brain power by devices which collect and process information, transmit it to the point needed, and there either control machines or present the processed information to human beings for their direct use.’

“An acceptance of this definition and a tacit assumption that the I.R.E. is the professional society primarily responsible for the field of electronics immediately indicates,” Hewlett says, “the enormous scope of the I.R.E.’s responsibility.”

“The diversity of interest  represented by this definition,” He says, “offers a …challenge to the Institute, a challenge which must be accepted if the Institute is to live up to its basic objectives as set forth …in its constitution, here quoted in part:

‘Its objectives shall be scientific, literary, and educational. Its aims shall include advancement of the theory and practice of radio and allied branches of engineering and of the related arts and sciences, their application to human needs, and the maintenance of a high professional standing among its members.’

“The Institute’s answer to this challenge,” he says, “ has been the Professional Group system.”

Pointing to the increasing role played by the Professional Groups in conferences and symposia, Hewlett likens the Institute to a parent with 19 vigorous children  who are rapidly approaching maturity.

“We are probably entering one of the most critical phases in the development of our Group System,” Hewlett says. “We have gone too far to turn back, and must make the system work or see the Institute shatter into small pieces, the total of which would never be as strong as the whole, nor as capable of serving the interests of the profession.”

“The Groups have become large enough and sufficiently well defined that basic questions are arising with respect to the relation of Groups to each other and of Groups to the Institute itself. It is imperative that these and similar problems as they arise be faced squarely and considered honestly by the Professional Groups and the Institute alike….The basic yardstick must be ‘What is best for the Institute and the profession as a whole?’ I for one am convinced that …the service performed to our members and profession will be even better, and that the Institute of Radio Engineers and its Professional Group system will be a model of how a professional society can meet the demanding requirements of an ever increasing technical field.”

3/23/53, Copy of typewritten draft of speech

3/23/53, Another copy of a typewritten draft

Undated, Copy of printed article  titled ‘The IRE Professional Group System –A Status Report,’ from an Institute publication

12/31/52, Copy of typewritten pages listing IRE members by product areas

9/26/52, Letter to Hewlett from George W. Bailey, Chairman, 1953 IRE National Convention Committee, inviting him to be the principal speaker at the IRE annual meeting

2/13/53, Letter to Hewlett from George W. Bailey, enclosing a memorandum from Mrs. Evelyn Davis giving dates pertaining to the development of the Professional Group system

2/16/53, Letter to Hewlett from George Bailey giving details on the meeting arrangements

2/19/53, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to George Bailey saying he will be at the speaker’s platform at the prescribed time

2/16/53, Letter to Hewlett from E. E. Gannett, IRE Administrative Editor, Asking for the title of his talk

4/10/53, Letter to Hewlett from E. E. Gannett, saying he got a copy of his speech and would like his permission to publish it

4/22/53, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to E. E. Gannett giving permission to publish his speech

Box 1, Folder 2 – General Speeches

November 3 & 4, 1953 – “Impedance Measurements in the Microwave Frequency Range,” IRE Sections in Los Angeles and San Diego

11/3/53, Typewritten text of Hewlett’s speech. The same speech was given in Los Angeles and San Diego. His speech was a technical discussion which is not included here, but the following is an abstract of  his speech which he sent to the organizers of the meetings in advance:

“The paper is basically a correlation and review of basic techniques for impedence [sic] measurements at microwave frequencies. The discussion will cover both coaxial and waveguide sources. The principle sources of error and their relative importance will be outlined and methods of minimizing these errors suggested. The discussion is confined primarily to techniques based on existing commercial equipment now in common use in the field.”

11/3/53, Copy of the cover of the Los Angeles IRE publication, “The Bulletin,” announcing Hewlett’s talk, a biographical sketch is attached

11/4/53, Copy of San Diego IRE Section publication with an article announcing Hewlett’s talk

9/10/53, Letter to Hewlett from B. S. Angwin of Los Angeles Section IRE inviting him to speak at their monthly meeting in November.

9/25/53, Typewritten note, possibly by Hewlett’s secretary, Mickie Ayres, saying that, in answer to the above letter, he had telephoned Mr. Angwin  agreeing to speak

10/1/53, Copy of a letter to B. S. Angwin from Mickie Ayres, sending an abstract of Hewlett’s talk and a biographical sketch

10/7/53, Letter to Hewlett from B. S, Angwin discussing arrangements for the meeting

9/23/53, Letter to Cort Van Rensselaer at HP, from Edward J. Moore of Neely San Diego, asking his help in arranging to have someone speak to a meeting of the San Diego Section of the IRE on Nov. 3, 1953

9/28/53, Copy of a telegram from Ed Moore to Cort Van Rensselaer, saying the date of Nov. 4 for San Diego would be OK

10/1/53, Copy of a letter to Edward Moore from Mickie Ayres sending an abstract of Hewlett’s speech which he will give to the IRE meeting in San Diego on Nov. 4^th

10/16/53, Memo to Cort Van Rensselaer from Edward Moore offering to arrange a hotel reservation for Hewlett

10/19/53, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Edward Moore saying he will need a slide projector for his talk

11/4/53, Letter to Hewlett from Ellis F. King, IRE Chairman, thanking him for his “very interesting” talk

11/6/53, Letter to Hewlett from B. S. Angwin of Los Angeles IRE Section, thanking him for presenting his paper to them at their meeting

11/9/53, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Professor Ellis F. King, University of California, saying he enjoyed visiting the meeting in Los Angeles

Undated, Handwritten page by Hewlett addressed to “Ellis” discussing what he intends to speak about at the meeting – appears it might have been a draft for his secretary to type

Box 1, Folder 3 – General Speeches

December 4, 1953 – “Engineering as a Career;” to engineering students at San Jose State, San Jose, CA

12/4/54, Copy of typewritten speech, including outline

Hewlett was asked to speak on development engineering as a career, and electronic engineering in particular. He begins by examining what electronics is. “In simplest terms,” he says, “it is the field that deals with vacuum tubes and their use.” He broadens this to include transistors, and gives a few examples of practical electronics:

He describes telephone circuits that span the United States, with repeater stations along the line to strengthen the signal. “These repeater stations are completely dependent upon electronics for their operation,” he says  Without electronics he says you could “put all of the energy from the universe …into a line in New York and only six electrons would roll out in San Francisco each year.”

He gives examples of using computers for stock control, keeping track of 13,000 types of items.  He says the designation of this computer is the 140 GP – because it replaced 140 girls – i.e.140 Girl Power.

Hewlett talks about engineering in general. “There are simply not enough engineers,” adding that the greatest demand will be for aeronautical and electrical engineers.

“Who is using these engineers?” he asks. The U.S. Government for one he says, giving the example of the B-36 airplane which uses 2100 vacuum tubes , and a battleship using 9000 tubes. Television is a growing field, but he admits he does not have one in his house, and makes it sound like he is waiting for color to appear. He says his field is instrumentation and he gives an example of instruments used to test cement being manufactured. By measuring the vibration of a bar of concrete poured from the cement they could determine its strength. Previously the bars had to be crushed with heavy equipment to determine the strength. He gives other examples such as monitoring remote and hazardous industrial processes via closed loop TV circuits.

Hewlett talks about the types of electronic engineering work – development, production, sales – describing how these each work together to build and sell a final product, giving the percentage of engineers engaged in each function. Next he provides some figures on salaries people in this line of work can expect to receive. He describes the beginning assignments a hypothetical new development engineer might do upon joining the Hewlett-Packard Company.

In his closing remarks Hewlett says that he has tried to stress the following points: “That there is and will continue to be for some time a serious shortage of trained engineers; that engineers trained in the field of electronics are at present and will probably continue to be some of the most critical and difficult to obtain; and that by and large the compensation for those engineers that remain in their technical field has been good. As far as education is concerned, I personally lay a great stress upon the student gaining all the technical information he can in the few short years of his college education. In general he will not expand on the technical tools given him by his college education. And finally, that the decision whether a student should plan for a career in development, in contrast to sales and production, should in part be determined by his temperament and his personal interest as well as his technical capabilities.”

12/4/53,  Outline of speech typewritten on 3×5” cards

10/26/53, Letter to Hewlett from Ralph J. Smith, Head, Engineering Department, San Jose State College, inviting him to speak to their freshmen engineering students on career opportunities in this field

10/28/53, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Professor Smith accepting his invitation

11/9/53, Letter to Hewlett from Ralph Smith enclosing descriptions of the various engineering specialties as used in their classes

11/12/53, Copy of a letter from Hewlett’s Secretary, Mickie Ayres, to Professor Smith saying the enclosure mentioned in his letter of Nov. 9 didn’t arrive, and asking for another copy

12/1/53, Letter to Hewlett from Prof. Smith giving instructions for parking

Undated, Copy of a pamphlet from the College describing their Aeronautical Engineering curriculum

Box 1, Folder 5 – General Speeches

 

April 28, 1954 – “The Importance of Mechanical Design in Electronic Equipment,” Iowa State College, Ames [A1] Iowa,

 

Hewlett was invited to address EE students at Iowa State in the hope of acquainting them with the importance of mechanical design in electrical engineering projects, and to give them some knowledge of the IRE.

 

4/28/54, Two pages of handwritten notes by Hewlett, outlining what he intends to cover in his remarks. Hewlett says to the students that “I can’t hope to tell you all about mechanical engineering as applied to electronics. I can only give you a broad summary and cite a few examples of changes that have come up in our own work. I do this with the hope that it may encourage you to take a greater interest in ME  in college and to prevent you from becoming a ‘let Charlie do it’ with respect to ME, once you become a practicing engineer.”

 

He provides some specific examples of the importance of electro-mechanical design, knowledge of materials, and awareness of the production process, and concludes with these remarks:

 

1. “Recognize the importance of ME in electronic design.
2. Avail yourself of  courses in characteristics of materials and light fabrication methods while in college
3. In your practice of engineering remember that no matter how good the electronic design may be, if it can’t be produced and maintained in the field the design is not acceptable. I would say that this is one of the most important reasons for failure of modern equipment.
4. That good mechanical design must be built in from the beginning and not after the electrical design is completed – this is too late.”

 

Undated, Typewritten outline of what could be a speech on the selection of materials, and layout of electronic equipment,  Not clear where or how Hewlett might have used this. No heading is provided to identify the paper.

2/25/54, Letter to Hewlett from Ted Hunter inviting him to come to Iowa State College to talk about the importance of mechanical design – and to better acquaint them with someone from the IRE

3/10/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Ted Hunter accepting his invitation

4/6/54, Copy of a telegram to Hewlett from Hunter asking date he can meet students

4/13/54, Copy of a telegram from Hewlett to Hunter saying he could meet on April 28^th

4/22/54, Handwritten letter to Hewlett from Ted Hunter, advising him of changes in flight schedules.

4/23/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett’s secretary, Mickie Ayres, to Ted Hunter advising of Hewlett’s arrival time

4/23/54, Letter to Hewlett from George R. Town, Associate Director, Iowa State College, giving some history about the head of the Mormon Church

4/26/54, Letter to Hewlett from Alvin A. Read of IRE, Iowa Section, thanking him for visiting

8/29/56, Letter to Hewlett from Alfred R. Gray, Editor, POPT Transactions asking for a copy of the speech he gave at Iowa State College in 1954 on the importance of learning Mechanical engineering.

9/12/56, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Gray saying this speech was never prepared for publication

8/13/59, Letter to Hewlett from E. K. Gannett asking what progress is being made on the “mechanical design of electronic gears project”

Undated, internal HP memo with addressee unnamed, from “Lorna” saying she had talked to “Gail” about Hewlett’s speech on mechanical design

Undated, Typewritten note from “Gail” to “Lee” attaching a copy of Hewlett’s speech titled “The Importance of Mechanical Design in Electronic Equipment.” She says this is the only copy and asks for its return.

3/13/54, Copy of article from Business Week about Arthur A. Collins

 

 

Box 1, Folder 6 – General Speeches

 

May 6, 1954 – “A Look at Our Electronic Industry,” IRE Section Seven Technical Conference, Portland, OR

 

5/6/54, Outline of speech, handwritten by Hewlett on notebook paper

 

Hewlett talks about the changes in the industry since he was last in Portland in 1938, IRE membership going from over 5000 to 38000. He says electronics is now about a 8 billion dollar industry: 1/3 military, 1/3 radio, and 1/3 rest. “It emerged from the war as the general tool of science and industry.”

 

Hewlett looks at the activities of various areas, radio and TV, non-TV fields, business and industrial applications.

 

Among his conclusions are:

“In the long run and as military spending slacks off electronics will not just be relegated to the field of mass entertainment, important as it may be, but will render service to business, science and industry in an ever increasing and indispensable fashion.

 

“It is worthy of note that in this rapidly expanding industry called Electronics, the West is taking a leading role. If  one can judge by IRE membership, it is now the most rapidly developing area in the country.

 

“I feel my election to the Presidency of IRE was a direct tribute to Western electronics.

 

“I am proud to represent you at the national level and hope that my visits to Portland and the NW may continue under such pleasant circumstances as they have in the past.”

 

5/6/54, Outline of speech printed by Hewlett on 3×5” cards

5/5-6-7/54 Copy of printed program of conference

 

 

Box 1, Folder 7 – General Speeches

 

May 9-12, 1954, National Conference on Airborne Electronics, Dayton Section IRE, Dayton OH

 

5/9-12/54, Outline of speech handwritten on notebook paper by Hewlett.

As President of the IRE Hewlett discusses various policies, aims and procedures of the Institute.

5/9-12/54, Same outline as above hand-printed by Hewlett on 3×5” cards.

5/9-12/54, Copy of typewritten comments, presumably by Hewlett, on the conference – the papers to be presented, the exhibits, as well as the future of aviation. He says “The National Conference on airborne Electronics is dedicated to aiding in the transfer of knowledge of significant electronics  progress, and we hope that you will find our three-day conference both interesting and entertaining.”

4/26/54, Letter to Hewlett from Robert J. Doran giving details of conference schedule

5/3/54, Copy of a letter from Mickie Ayres, Secretary to Hewlett, giving information on his flight schedule

Undated, Handwritten page which appears to state a policy on the aims of an organization, possibly the Engineers Joint Council named below

1953, Copy of a page from the Institute News and Radio News. Apparently the question had arisen as to whether the IRE should affiliate with the Engineers Joint council. This article cites several conflicts between the way the EJC and the IRE operate, and says that the Board of IRE has concluded that “…it is not desirable to reverse these policies at this time in order to permit affiliation with the Engineers Joint Council;” and “The Institute must regretfully decline the invitation to join the Engineers Joint Council.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 8 – General Speeches

 

August 27, 1954 – “Why Electronics Grows in the West,” WESCON Show and Convention, Los Angeles, CA

 

8/27/54, Copy of typewritten speech presented at the Convention by Hewlett

 

In searching for a subject for his speech, Hewlett says he had for some time been interested in “making a study of our West Coast electronic industry with the objective of analyzing its characteristics and its reasons for growth.” In making his study he admits that the data is primarily from California – because this was the most readily available – but he says he believes the conclusions are equally true of all the West Coast electronics Industry.

 

Electronics got off to an early start on the West Coast Hewlett says and he lists some of the contributions: the Poulson Arc, the first important source of high-powered continuous wave radio frequency energy, Lee DeForest’s work on the three-element tube , the dynamic loud speaker, aircraft and marine communications. A first in radio broadcasting was achieved at the Pan-Pacific Expedition in 1915 with broadcasts from San Jose to San Francisco.

 

“…other influences stimulated the growth of Western electronic activity,” Hewlett  says. “One of the most important of these…was the introduction of talking pictures….In a similar fashion the Los Angeles area was an early center of oil developments.”

 

These “seeds” of West Coast electronics activity fell on fertile ground, he says, and he mentions such assets as favorable climate, space for plant growth, and colleges and universities which have “furnished an important reservoir of engineers.”

 

As to liabilities, Hewlett sees the distance that separates the Coast from sources of components and materials, and which, similarly, separates the Coast from its market areas.”

 

Next, Hewlett looks at “the peculiar properties of the electronic industry that seem to adapt it to this location.” He says he would like “to postulate two important characteristics and then demonstrate that my postulates are correct. First, I say that electronic equipment requires more than the average amount of research and development to obtain a marketable product. Second, I say that the production costs and investment per dollar produced are far less in the electronic industry than in industry as a whole. Some careful research was required,” he says, “to prove these postulates.”

 

On the first point, the high engineering content of electronic equipment, Hewlett says he found a survey from Harvard Business School which “showed that in the field of industrial research the national average for spending was 2% of net sales; for the electronic industry it was 5.4%.”

 

Since data were not available to prove that production costs were low in the electronic industry, Hewlett conducted his own survey. “…I made a survey of some 14 West Coast electronic concerns,” he says. He did not include companies associated with the aircraft industry.

 

“The survey indicated,” he says, “that the average investment in machinery and equipment of these 14 concerns was approximately 9% of sales.” He found comparable cost data from a survey made by the Machinery and Allied Products Institute. “This study showed that the national average for the investment in machinery and equipment as a percentage of sales was 70%; thus per dollar of sales, the electronics industry has only about one-eighth as much money invested in machinery and equipment as the national average.”

 

As to research and development costs, Hewlett found that this was 5.4% of sales revenue for the electronics industry  – 2% for all industry. Another factor included in Hewlett’s survey was working capital per employee. “A typical national figure would be approximately $4,000 per employee. The average for the 14 concerns surveyed was about $2,500 per employee; thus, again, less investment required per dollars produced.”

 

Hewlett describes a typical West Coast electronics company. “…in general it is not a particularly large company and its market tends to break down into one of two classifications. Either it is a concern which has a specialized product and a national distribution or it is a concern which builds high quality consumer items primarily designed for local consumption. Thus, we see that both types of products are designed to minimize the liabilities of freight differentials, for the specialized product is usually relatively non-competitive and contains a high engineering content whereas the product of consumer consumption is not seriously affected by the adverse freight rates. The typical West Coast concern has usually been built on a firm financial foundation. In general the original founders are still closely associated with management.

 

Looking at the future Hewlett says “I would be safe in making a general prediction about the future of the western electronic industry. I would make this prediction in the form of a paraphrase of the theme of this year’s WESCON. I would predict that ‘Electronics will Continue to Grow Faster than the West.’ I would justify this prediction on the basis that I cannot convince myself that there will be any major reduction in the aircraft electronics industry in the foreseeable future; on the basis that the population will continue to increase in California, resulting in continued expansion of the local consumer market. I would justify it on the basis that our colleges and universities have kept abreast of the growth of the West and are turning out well-trained engineers at a high rate. And finally, I would justify it on the basis that high research and development expenditures are always a precursor of high production in the years to come. Yes, I think I would be safe in saying that ‘Electronics will continue to Grow Faster than the West.”

 

7/54, Copy of the IRE publication “The Bulletin” which announces the WESCON show.

8/25-26-27/54,  Copy of the printed program for the WESCON show

8/25-26-27/54, Printed list of registrants for the technical sessions

5/5/54, Letter to Hewlett from Walter E. Peterson, WESCON Chairman of the Luncheon Committee confirming Hewlett’s acceptance of their invitation to speak at the Convention

5/5/54, Copy of a similar letter from Peterson to Dr. W. D. Hershberger, Chairman WESCON Board of Directors

6/18,21/54  Copies of fourteen letters written to West Coast electronics companies seeking information for his survey

6/18/54, Letter to Hewlett from Walter Peterson asking for the title of his intended speech at the Convention

6/21/54, Letter to Hewlett from Mal Mobley, Jr. WESCON Business Manager, asking for a message from the IRE President for the IRE Bulletin announcing the WESCON Convention

6/23/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Walter Peterson saying he is awaiting replies of letters sent to several West Coast electronics companies and will be in a position to decide on a title after he receives these replies

6/23/65, Letter to Hewlett from H. L. Hoffman of Hoffman Radio Corporation giving some information in response to his request for data.

6/22/54 and 6/23/54, Letters to Hewlett from E. P. Gertsch of Gertsch sending information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to E. P. Gertsch thanking him for the information and sending copy of his speech

6/24/54, Letter to Hewlett from A. A. Ward of Altec Lansing Corporation giving some information in response to his request.

6/25/54, Memo by Hewlett to his file on this speech saying he had visited Eitel-McCullough and collected data for his survey

9/2/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Mssrs. Eitel and McCullough thanking them for their cooperation in the survey, and enclosing some figures from the survey

6/30/54, Copies of seven letters sent to various organization and government agencies seeking information for his survey

7/1/54, Copies of four letters written by Hewlett to respondents of his survey thanking him for their replies

7/1/54, Letter to Hewlett from Andrew Orrick of the SEC saying they do not publish data of the type he desires, but information along the line he requested is available for review at their office in San Francisco.

7/1/54, Letter to Hewlett from Dorothy Brooks of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in San Francisco saying they do not have the information he requested, but they have referred the matter on to the Chamber office in Washington D.C.

7/1/54, Letter to Hewlett from Frank S. Schaumburg of Advance Electric and Relay Co. saying they will send the information he requested shortly

7/1/54, Letter to Hewlett from W. H. Moore of Packard-Bell Company giving some information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to William Moore of Packard-Bell thanking him for the information which he sent, and giving some data from the survey results

7/7/54 and 7/12/54, Letters from Kenneth Anderson of the Scientific Apparatus Makers Assn. sending information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Kenneth Anderson of the Scientific Apparatus Makers Assn. thanking him for the information he sent and sending him a copy of his speech with survey results

7/7/54, Letter to Hewlett from J. R. Bradburn  of ElectroData Corp. giving information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to J. R. Bradburn of ElectroData Corp. thanking him for the information he sent, and enclosing a copy of his speech

7/8/54, Letter to Hewlett from E. W. Robertson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce giving some references for information for the survey

7/21/54, Another letter to Hewlett from the U.S. Chamber giving another reference for data

9/1/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Fred Lindsey of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thanking him for his help

7/9/54, Letter to Hewlett from Frank S. Schaumburg of Advance Electric and Relay Co. providing information for the survey

9/1/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Frank S. Schaumburg thanking him for the information he sent and noting that he thought it was interesting that whereas the national investment of machinery and equipment as a ration of sales was 70%, for the fourteen West Coast electronic concerns surveyed this same ratio was only 9%

6/25/54, Letter to Hewlett from L. G. Erickson of Lenkurt Electric Company sending information in response to his request

9/1/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to L. G. Erickson thanking him sending information for his survey

6/29/54, Letter to Hewlett from George Long of Ampex saying it may be a week or ten days before they can send the information requested

7/1/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to George Long saying he will be putting his data together the last week of July.

8/4/54, Letter to Hewlett from James E. Brown of Ampex enclosing information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to George Long of Ampex thanking him for the information they sent, and sending a copy of his speech

7/8/54, Letter to Hewlett from John F. Byrne of Motorola in Corona, CA responding to his request for information for his talk, and saying that they located in Southern California because of the availability of engineering personnel

7/13/54, Letter to Hewlett from L. W. Holland, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce giving some information in response to his request.

7/14/54, Copy of a letter to Mrs. Marilyn Porter of the National Association of Manufacturers in Palo Alto, CA from K. E. Cook, Ass’t Secretary at HP, thanking her for the information sent to Mr. Hewlett for his survey

7/14/54, Copy of a letter sent by K. E. Cook to Merrill Woodruff of the U.S. Department of Commerce thanking him for the information requested and returning it as requested

7/20/54 and 7/26/54, letters from Merrill F. Woodruff of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce giving more references and information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett  to Merrill Woodruff thanking him for his help and enclosing a copy of his speech

7/15/54, Letter to Hewlett from Jo Emmett Jennings, President of Jennings Radio Mfg. Corp. providing information in response to his request.

9/1/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to J. E. Jennings saying he appreciated the information he sent.

8/1/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Charles Stewart of the Machinery & Allied Products Institute asking for information

8/4/54, Letter to Hewlett from Charles Stewart of MAPI  sending some information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a  letter from Hewlett to Charles Stewart of MAPI thanking him for his help and enclosing a copy of his speech

8/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Howard Vollum of Tektronix asking for data

8/23/54, Copy of a letter to Hewlett from Howard Vollum of Tektronix, Inc. giving some information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Howard Vollum thanking him for the information and sending him a copy of his speech

8/12/54, Letter to Hewlett from W. D. Hershberger, Chair of WESCON Board of Directors, inviting him to a press conference in Los Angeles on 8/25/54

8/16/54, Copy of a letter to W. D. Hershberger from Hewlett’s Secretary, Mickie Ayres, saying Hewlett is away and she cannot say whether or not he will attend the press conference

8/24/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Hershberger saying he will  attend the press conference

8/23/54, Letter to Hewlett from Christian J. Matthew of Arthur D. Little, Inc. giving information for the survey

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Christian J. Matthew thanking him for his help and sending a copy of his speech

9/1/54, Letter to Hewlett from John F. Byrne of Motorola saying that “in spite of Motorola’s non-cooperation” he thought Hewlett gave “a very good speech”

9/2/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Thomas P. Walker of Triad Transformer Corp. saying he appreciated his help with the Convention

9/2/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to W. D. Hershberger thanking him for his work putting on the WESCON show

9/2/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Walter Peterson thanking him for what was done for him at WESCON

9/1/54, Letter to Hewlett from D. C. Duncan of Helipot, saying Beckman Instruments had been moving and his letter requesting information had been misplaced. He says Dr. Beckman offers his apologies

9/2/54, Copy of a letter to D. C. Duncan saying he completely understands the reason he received no reply from Beckman instruments and asking that he pass this along to Dr. Beckman

8/30/54, Letter to Hewlett from S. E. Howse of Technicolor  Motion Picture Corp. asking for a copy of Hewlett’s speech

9/3/54, Copy of a letter to S. E. Howse from Hewlett’s Secretary sending a copy of his speech

9/3/54, Letter to Hewlett from Merritt Cutten sending a clipping from the L.A. Times

7/8/54, Letter to Hewlett from Weldon B. Gibson of SRI giving some suggestions on gathering data for his speech

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Weldon Gibson thanking him for the suggestions and sending a copy of his speech

9/3/54, Letter to Hewlett from Audrey Carlson  saying Mr. Gibson is away and she will give him the copy of Hewlett’s speech when he returns

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to L. M. Holland of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce thanking him for his help in gather data for his speech

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to H. L., Hoffman of Hoffman Radio sending a copy of his speech and thanking him for his help

9/13/54, Letter to Hewlett from Kenneth Anderson of Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, thanking him for sending a copy of his speech

9/14/54, Letter to Hewlett from H. L. Hoffman congratulating him on his “fine talk”

9/3/54, Letter to Hewlett from Walter Peterson of WESCON, thanking for his speech, and asking for a copy

9/16/54, Letter to Hewlett from George Long of Ampex Corp. thanking him for the copy of his speech

9/23/54, Letter to Hewlett from E. P. Gertsch, President of Gertsch Products, thanking him for the copy of his speech, which he says he gave to an interested visitor – he asks for another copy

9/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to George Bailey expressing appreciation for his help in finding needed statistics

9/13/54, Letter to Hewlett from George Bailey saying he read the speech with interest and passed it on

9/29/54, Copy of a letter to George Bailey urging him to visit next time he is in California

9/28/54, Letter to Hewlett from Fred W. Morris, Jr. of Gray Scientific Division, asking for a copy of his speech

9/29/54, Copy of a letter to Fred Morris from Mickie Ayres, sending a copy of Hewlett’s speech

10/4/54, Letter to Hewlett from A. C. Prendergast asking for a copy of his speech

10/5/54, Copy of a letter to A. C. Prendergast from Mickie Ayres, sending a copy of his speech

11/5/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to John S. Morgan sending a copy of his survey speech in response to a request from A. M. Zarem of the Stanford Research Institute in Los Angeles

12/9/54, Letter to Hewlett from A. M. Zarem, of SRI, sending some information and asking for a copy of Hewlett’s speech

12/13/54, Copy of a letter from Mickie Ayres to A. M. Zarem sending a copy of Hewlett’s speech

12/2/54, Letter to Hewlett from David Goodman asking for a copy of his speech

12/13/54, Copy of a letter to David Goodman from Mickie Ayres sending a copy

12/8/54, Letter to Hewlett from W. P. Von Behren of General Electric, asking for a copy of Hewlett’s speech

12/15/54, Copy of a letter to W. P. Von Behren sending a copy of Hewlett’s speech

12/26/54, Letter to Hewlett from Norman H. Kalson asking for a copy of his speech

12/28/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Norman H. Kalson enclosing a copy of his speech

10/7/55, Letter to Hewlett from Ellis F. King asking for a copy of Hewlett’s speech

10/17/55, Copy of a letter from Mickie Ayres sending a copy of the speech to Ellis King

Undated, copy of an article from the Atlantic titled “The Prospects are Bright”

Undated, Typewritten page of data on several companies, listing Sales, Profit, Net Worth – HP is included

Undated, Typewritten note with some data from the Electronics Industry Conference, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce

Undated, Listed several companies in the survey showing the sources of some of the published data about them

12/7/56, Letter to Hewlett from David M. Goodman requesting a copy of his 1954 speech  on electronics growth in the West.

12/28/56, Copy of a letter from Mickie Ayres, Hewlett’s Secretary, to David Goodman sending the requested copy

 

 

Box 1, Folder 9 – General Speeches

 

September 10, 1954 – A Radio Engineer Looks at Radio Physics, National Bureau of Standards Boulder, Colorado

 

9/10/54, Hewlett’s speech, in outline form, handwritten by him on notebook paper

 

Hewlett says he was “taken aback” to be asked to speak on radio physics. His field, radio engineering is “remote” from radio physics,” he says, “but it might be interesting” to take a look at radio physics from that viewpoint.

 

He says he wants to develop the idea of the importance of radio physics to radio engineering. To do this he follows the contributions made by such people as Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Heinrich Hertz, He says that these three were probably the first radio physicists.

 

He goes on to explore the development of the “Ionosphere Theory.”

This started he says  with Marconi in 1901 with transatlantic transmission. He mentions the Heavyside Theory, a reflecting layer, and  Kennelly and J. J. Thompson in 1902

 

He says, “One is impressed by the slow but steady accumulation of evidence that eventually led to proof of layer existence.” A 23 year period followed, and he mentions the contributions of many people during this period: Watson, Eckersley, Appleton and Barnett, Breit and Tuve.

 

Since 1925 “there has been continual improvement in methods of measurement of height – methods of prediction and methods of use.”

 

He discusses studies into the troposphere saying its “Importance for the radio engineer  was that it might  provide a means of communications when the ionosphere was not reliable.”

 

Hewlett discusses meteors and says that there is a strong belief “among many that meteors may be the real cause of major forward scattering [?] in the ionosphere.”

 

In summarizing his conclusions Hewlett says that “It is easy to see an indispensable role played by radio physics in the development of what is now the whole field of radio engineering.

 

“We have seen how the experimental work of Faraday, backed by the theoretical work of Maxwell layed [sic] the foundation for the whole field of Electrical Engineering.

 

“How the experimental work of Hertz placed scientific props under radio and paved the way for the works of Marconi and others.

 

“How the theories of Kennelly and [?] …culminated in the demonstration of Tuve and Breit, Appleton and Bernett that the ionosphere did exist.

 

“And how through continued work by radio physicists, reliable ionospheric data is now available in useable form to the radio engineer.

 

“How systemic investigation of the troposphere has given the radio engineer valuable information on what he may expect in the VHF and UHF regions.

 

“And how the study of meteor reflections may open up new fields of communications.”

 

As a radio engineer Hewlett says he must point out that the contributions have not been “one-sided, and that without the parallel development in engineering the work of the physicist  would have been much more difficult if not impossible.”

 

He concludes with the thought that now that his research into these two fields, and his talk given, “I can look back and see how much I as a radio engineer have enjoyed my look at radio physics. I hope that you as physicists or engineers have also enjoyed this look.”

 

9/10/54, Several pages handwritten by Hewlett which appear to be earlier drafts of his talk

8/8-14/54, Copy of a printed program for the dedication ceremonies for the new National Bureau of Standards Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.

6/16/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Dr. Alan Schockley of the National Bureau of Standards saying he would be “most pleased” to participate in the dedication ceremonies of the new central Radio Propagation Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards….

6/24/54, Letter to Hewlett from F. W. Brown of the NBS discussing details of the program

8/3/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Dr. Brown suggesting the title of his talk as “A Radio Engineer Looks at Radio Physics.”

8/18/54, Letter to Hewlett from F. W. Brown offering to reimburse him for travel expenses

8/24/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Dr. Brown saying he will not need travel expense reimbursement

8/19/54, Letter to Hewlett from Ronald G. Bowen , an electronic manufacturers’ representative, offering to be of service in any way while Hewlett is at the dedication.

8/24/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Ronald Brown saying he has not yet firmed up his schedule and will see Brown there in Boulder

8/27/54, Letter to Hewlett from Wayne D, Phipps of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce inviting to him attend a luncheon while he is there.

9/3/54, Copy of a letter to Wayne Phipps from Hewlett accepting his invitation

 

 

Box 1, Folder 10 – General Speeches

 

November 16, 1954 – “Is There a Future in Electronics,” Kansas City, MO, IRE Section Conference

 

Hewlett, as President of the IRE, was invited to speak at the sixth Annual Electronics Conference of the Kansas City Section of the IRE

 

11/16/54, Copy of  a double spaced typewritten draft of Hewlett’s speech with many handwritten changes/additions by Hewlett.

 

Hewlett’s one-year tenure as IRE president is drawing to a close, and he says that  his travels of over 75,000 miles during the past ten months have given him “a much better appreciation of the tremendous scope and potential of this electronic industry of ours.”

 

“Today,” he says, “I would like to discuss briefly the tremendous opportunity that is available to those of us who have elected to earn our living in this field of electronics.”

 

He says electronics is a big business – eight billion dollars a year – and it can be divided into three rough categories: radio and TV, (three billion in sales); military spending (2.7 billion); and the remainder (2.3 billion). He looks at each of these areas separately.

 

Although “there has been some slump in [the radio and TV] market,” he says, “…there is every indication that when color television sets become generally available there will be a resurgence in this whole field.” He says he has confidence that the cost of a color TV set will “be beaten down” to where it is “only” 30-40% higher than a comparable black and white set.

 

As to the military arena, he says trying to estimate growth here is a difficult problem. “One can, however, bound the problem. If peace continues and the cold war becomes de-emphasized, there can be no doubt that there will be a reduction in total military spending. Of course, if our cold war should flame into full scale conflict the whole electronic industry would be drafted to meet the tremendous wartime requirements of full scale military mobilization.”

 

“I would hate to feel,” Hewlett says, “that the future of the electronic industry was dependent solely upon these two components, for, important as they are, their potentials, except in case of war, have obvious limits. It is really to the segment which I classified as ‘other’ that I feel our future depends.” Trying to describe all the activities would be impractical he notes, but he says he would like to mention a  few which appear “destined to assume roles of increasing importance.”

 

“Let me take, for example, the field of data processing (computers). Today this represents about a 25 million dollar business. A recent survey of this field indicated that by 1960 this would probably be a 500 million dollar industry.

 

“Another field, closely associated with the first, is that of industrial application of electronics. I don’t suppose that you can pick up a paper today without reading some new or amazing job that electronics is performing. The fact of the matter is that prior to World War II electronics was simply the tool of a small group of engineers who were specialized in the field of communications. Today electronics is rapidly being recognized as a basic and important tool for all industry. I can’t say that the day of the automatic factory is here, but certainly many elements of it are well on the way. I feel it is particularly interesting to note that the entrance of electronics into this field has not been necessarily at the expense of the older methods –hydraulic, pneumatic, mechanical, etc. –but it is primarily to supplement them and to intelligently direct them. But if we do not now have the automatic factory I think we will have it within the next ten years. Even today many important operations are being carried out through the assistance of electronics. This can range all the way from controlling the amount of beer in a beer can down to the guiding of an intricate milling operation for jet aircraft skin structures.”

 

Another area which Hewlett thinks will undergo rapid growth is medical electronics. Including X-rays, Hewlett says estimates are that this field has about one billion dollars of electronic equipment in use. He says “the IRE as an organization is vitally concerned with the contributions that electronics may be able to make to the general field of medicine, and is planning an all out effort to develop every facility at its disposal to help the medical profession use and understand this new tool.”

 

Hewlett concludes saying that “…the electronic engineer as a group has one, if not the most, promising future of any field in the engineering profession.” He discusses four factors favoring this point: electronics is a rapidly expanding field; secondly, there is a serious shortage of all types of engineers; third is the high percentage of engineering that is required in electronic gear; and finally, the vitality resulting from the relatively low investment costs that are required in the field of electronics.

 

Concluding his remarks, Hewlett says that as he looks back on his year in office as President of IRE, he may have undersold the promise of electronic engineering as a field. “After some eleven months in traveling around the country I certainly have raised my sights and now feel that the opportunity it affords the engineer, either as an employee or as an entrepreneur, is without match in the engineering profession.”

 

11/28/54, Several pages of Hewlett’s handwriting and mathematical formulas apparently made as he drafted his talk

3/11/54, Letter to Hewlett from William H. Ashley, Jr. of the IRE Kansas City Section inviting him to their annual conference – and asking for a copy of his remarks

4/20/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to W. H. Ashley accepting his invitation

7/9/54, Letter to Hewlett from William Ashley listing speakers and their topics – and asking for a copy of Hewlett’s manuscript by Oct. 22. He also asks for suggestions for a speaker at one of the conference dinners

8/2/54, Copy of a letter to W. H. Ashley from Hewlett saying he has not come up with any suggestions for a dinner speaker

9/29/54, Handwritten letter to Hewlett from Bill Walters, inviting him to stay with them during his stay in Kansas City

10/4/54, Copy of a letter to William Walters for Mickie Ayres, Hewlett’s Secretary, saying Hewlett is away and will return on October 24^th

10/24/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to William Walters saying his schedule is not yet firm, but when it is he will let him know and maybe they can get together

10/4/54, Letter to Hewlett from W. H. Ashley asking if Hewlett will be able to submit a manuscript by October 22

10/7/54, Copy of a letter to W. H. Ashley from Mickie Ayres, Hewlett’s Secretary, saying Hewlett will not be able to submit an abstract of his talk before Oct 22

10/12/54, Letter from W. H. Ashley saying they are printing a booklet on November 10 and would be able to include his material then if he is able to submit it by that time

11/8/54, Letter to Hewlett from W. H. Ashley sending a copy of the program for the conference

11/23/54, Letter to Hewlett from K. V. Newton, Kansas City, IRE Section, thanking him for his visit and his talk

11/30/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to K. V. Newton saying he enjoyed his visit

11/29/54, Letter to Hewlett from W. H. Ashley thanking him for coming to their conference

12/6/54, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to W. H. Ashley saying he enjoyed his visit

Box 1, Folder 11 – General Speeches

 

March 6, 1956 – “What’s wrong with the IRE and What You Can Do About It”

 

3/6/56, Copy of typewritten text of Hewlett’s speech

 

Addressing his audience of senior engineering students Hewlett says he was “somewhat coerced into selecting a title, and in desperation I chose a title under which I could say most anything. Actually, I’ll be fair, I’ll discuss the subject ‘What’s wrong with the IRE’ – it’s very simple, many of you are not members. What can you do about it – join!”

 

Having said that much, Hewlett says what he really wants to talk about is “you- your prospects and…incidentally, the extent to which the IRE may help you in the next few years, the years that are probably some of the most formative in your life.” He talks about the growing job opportunities in research and development, although reminding them they will start at the “bottom rung of the engineering ladder.”

 

And he adds that “you are entering probably the most productive ten years of your life. And I intend to prove this.” He gives some specific examples:

 

Marconi – age 21 when he first established the principle of radio transmission.

Newton – 23 when he proposed his three basic laws.

Maxwell – 15 when he read his first paper before the Royal Society in Edinburgh, and was only 26 when he presented his paper on lines of force which was really the basis of his theory of electricity and magnetism.

Madam Curie – only 31

Edison – only 30 when he developed the incandescent light and the carbon microphone.

 

And to be fair, he cites Laplace who he says was about 79 when he finished his treatise on celestial mechanics.

 

Hewlett refers to a book titled ‘Age and Achievement,’ by Lehman, who said that ‘for each field of endeavor there is an age at which you arrive at the maximum rate of highly superior production.’ Hewlett gives examples from this book: “In the field of chemistry this maximum rate is in the age group of 26 to 30. In our own field of electronics, and incidentally of physics and mathematics, the age group is 30 to 34. So you see,” he says, “that you are entering one of your most productive age brackets”

 

This all leads to Hewlett’s punch line: “Now I don’t want this to sound like a graduation address, or even like a sermon, but I think it is important for what I propose to say now and this is – how the IRE, or any other technical society, can be of assistance to you in developing you to your greatest potentiality.”

 

Hewlett says he has a “soft spot” in his heart for the IRE. And he goes on to tell how, in about the year 1938, he attended his first IRE convention where he was scheduled to speak, although he had never spoken in public before. He says “I put something I had made into my car, something I was supposed to talk about, and drove up [to Portland]. When I got up before the microphone I was so nervous that I could hardly speak. But I got up there and I talked about this project which, interestingly enough, was a new type of oscillator. It was an RC oscillator, and since that time we have built something over 60,000 of these oscillators. So here’s an example of the facility that the IRE furnished a young man just starting out. What better chance could you offer. Here was a chance for him to really sell his wares, his ideas. This, however, is just one example of how a professional society can help the engineer who is just starting out.”

 

Hewlett goes on to tell of other ways in which the IRE society can be of assistance, an important one being technical publications. Here at college you have, for the most part, been following “a prescribed course,” he says. “From now on you must strike forward, and it is really here that the professional society and its publications are of major importance. It would be a catastrophe if your education and learning were to stop upon graduation. If you are to be successful you must continue to learn, and it is through the publications of a technical society that you have one of the best opportunities to do this.”

 

Hewlett adds other ways IRE membership may help with career advancement: Professional Group specialized “Proceedings” which offer specialized tutoring, and seminars at field meetings and conventions.

 

“There is one additional phase of a professional society that I would like to mention,” he says, “and that is taking an active part in the committees and panels of the society. Now I’m perfectly willing to admit that this doesn’t sound like a very fascinating occupation and, true enough, there are many of these committees that would not interest you, many of them don’t interest me, but I think that if you investigate, for each one of you there is some particular phase of a professional society where you can make a contribution.”

 

Hewlett returns to his original question – “What’s Wrong with the IRE?”  And he provides some answers: “Well, the principle thing that’s wrong with the IRE is the fact that it’s had to increase seven fold in the past fifteen years. Before the war it was an organization of about 6,000 people, now it’s well over 40,000. In addition to this, it’s undergone a major subdivision program for professional groups that would have wrecked, I think, a less vigorous society. There’s nothing wrong with the IRE that a little understanding, that a little imagination and a lot of hard work isn’t going to help. And these are just the things that a youthful membership can give the organization. They are the same vitality and energy that you will bring to a professional organization that you join….The professional society can certainly be no stronger than the outlook of the majority of the members who form it. What’s wrong with the IRE – we need your membership, and we don’t just need the $10.00, because that $10 will just barely pay for the cost of publications. What we do need is your interest and your activity and your support, both in its publications, in its meetings and in its professional panels and committees. What does all this gain you – by building a strong, young and vigorous institute you guarantee yourself that there will be an adequate professional society to guide you in your professional development during the next five or ten years, the most critical and the most productive years of your life.”

 

3/6/56, Outline of speech handwritten by Hewlett on 3×5” cards and on notebook paper

3/6/56, several typewritten pages of drafted sections of the speech

3/6/56, Typewritten sheet with what appears to be a short introduction of Hewlett by John O’Halloran, Chairman of the IRE Student relations Committee

12/8/55, Letter to Hewlett from John F. O’Halloran, confirming their previous conversation about the IRE meeting and a possible topic for Hewlett’s talk to the students

1/17/56, Copy of a letter from Mickie Ayres, Hewlett’s secretary, to John O’Halloran enclosing a biographical sketch and photograph

1/27/56, Copy of a letter from Mickie Ayres to Joseph Sodaro saying Mr. Hewlett does not yet have his talk sufficiently prepared to send an abstract

3/2/56, Note from John O’Halloran enclosing minutes from January 27 meeting of the IRE student relations committee

3/7/56, Letter to Hewlett from Alois W. Graf saying he missed Hewlett’s speech on what is wrong with the IRE and asking for a copy so he would know more about this subject

4//3/56, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Alois Graf saying the title, What’s Wrong With the IRE,” was actually a “gag” and the talk was actually intended to be inspirational for the students

4/10/56, Letter to Hewlett from John O’Halloran expressing appreciation for his talk and enclosing a copy typed from a tape

4/17/56, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to John O’Halloran thanking him for the copy and asking if he could send more so they could answer requests

4/30/56, Letter to Mickie Ayres from John O’Halloran sending more copies of the talk

3/12/56, Letter from A. N. Curtiss asking for a copy of his talk

4/3/56, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to A. N. Curtiss saying no typed copies were made of this talk and offering to have the transcript typed

4/10/56, Letter from A. N. Curtiss saying he would appreciate a copy if it becomes available

5/3/56, Copy of a letter to A. N. Curtiss from Mickie Ayres sending  a typed copy of the talk

5/10/56, Letter to Hewlett from A. N. Curtiss thanking him for the copy of his talk

 

 

Box 1, Folder 12 – General Speeches

 

August, 1956 – Talk on HP’s Engineering Program, Palo Alto, CA

 

8/56, Copy of pages from the August, 1956 issue of Watt’s Current magazine

 

The magazine appears to have printed a transcript of Hewlett’s talk to HP engineering personnel.

 

Hewlett says he wants to talk about “…the importance of an effective research and development program to our company and about the plans we have made and the steps we are taking to augment our engineering activities.

 

“Importance of the HP engineering program”

 

He says “from the very beginning,” they wanted to develop a reputation for quality, in their engineering and in the quality of their products. Having once built such a reputation they “had a bear by the tail,” as he put it. “We had the reputation, and we didn’t want to lose it.”

 

Hewlett says HP’s engineering force remained fairly stable for several years, when they were making a limited variety of instruments. They were able to satisfy their modest needs for new engineering people through their contacts with professors and others they knew throughout the country.

 

“Today, however,” he says, “the need for expanding our engineering force has increased.” With sales running 20 to 30 million dollars a year, Hewlett says, “Our customers have come to expect forward engineering ideas in hp equipment. If we don’t produce equipment embodying these forward ideas, someone else will and, quite frankly, we intend to discourage competition – not through price wars and restrictive trade practices but by doing such a damn fine job of engineering there will be little opportunity for anyone else.”

 

“Expansion of the hp Engineering Program.”

 

Hewlett says there are three factors forcing an expansion of the laboratory group:

 

“First, there are ideas from our customers and our sales representatives as to the various things we can and should manufacture.” He sites the Dynac Variable Time-Base Counter as an example of a general purpose test product they probably never would have thought of building had it not been for receiving a “number of requests from the field.”

 

“Secondly, our own laboratory staff, as they have become more versed in the field of electronic measurements, …have generated ideas for the extension and improvement of our product lines.”

 

And Hewlett says the third factor has been the impact of new techniques and methods. “It is absolutely imperative that we work on new techniques and methods to keep our position in the field.” He gives the transistor as an example.

 

“Recruiting of Engineering Personnel”

 

Hewlett describes their first effort to launch a college recruiting program which took place this year. They thought candidates would sign up ”in droves,” and were much surprised that only a couple of students showed up. But following this “eye-opening” he says they came home and put together good material about HP and its engineering activities. They visited universities across the country and the results were dramatic: “…we made about 40 offers,” he says, “ and got about 20 people…. We intend to continue this engineering recruiting program and I think the experience we have gained will allow us to do an even better job next year.”

 

Another step Hewlett says they have taken to “back up their engineering program is to expand our summer help program. We employ a large number of college students during the summer and, in general, we have been giving preference to the students who will probably go into engineering.”

 

The employment of high-school students during the summer is another program Hewlett describes. He says it is not simply a way to help them earn money over the summer, but they try to put the “boys” to work on actual projects doing something useful to HP. He sees this program as a general effort to encourage more young people to become interested in a science career – not limited to electronic engineering.

 

Hewlett closes by saying that the important point of these programs to increase their engineering staff is that “…we recognize the significance of engineering in our product line and that we are going to put on the best engineering program you have ever seen. If you think we have done well so far, just wait until two or three years from now when we get all of our new lab people producing and all of the supervisors rolling. You’ll see some real progress then!”

Box 1, Folder 13 – General Speeches

 

January 11, 1957 – Management Conference, Sonoma, CA

 

1/11/57 –  Four pages of notes for his remarks handwritten by Hewlett on accounting type paper.

 

Hewlett says 1956 has been the best year for sales, good start on oscilloscopes, good performance across the board.

 

Sold 2.5 million more than produced. Problem was that we prophesized a sales drop off to be filled by scopes.

 

Reviewing HP’s corporate objectives Hewlett says these are a sense of where we have been, and also an indication of where we are going.

 

1. To make a profit of about 20% on sales before taxes.
   1. Enables us to meet other objectives
   2. Best measure of all as to how well we are doing
2. Develop, manufacture and sell electronic measuring instruments and techniques that will contribute to the advancement of the science and practical application of electronic and electrical engineering.
3. Make available to industry instruments which have inexpensive quality.
4. Provide employment opportunities for HP people which includes:
   1. Good standard of living
   2. Security
   3. Personal satisfaction
5. Meet the obligation of good citizenship to the community and to the institutions in our society which generate the environment in which we operate.
6. To let our growth be determined by our performance in meeting our other objectives.
7. Build sufficient strength into our organization so it is not dependent on any one or two or three people.

 

Relative to Sales organization Hewlett says they were neither committed, or not committed to sales reps. The objective of sales reps organization is to prove that the concept of a true partnership between a group of representatives and a strong manufacturing organization will work to the benefit of all.

 

Proposed objectives for reps:

 

1. Sales to help us meet our objectives
2. Service and follow-up
3. Communication with development and production
4. Growth – keep up with us, all the better if you can stay ahead. We are going to go through some rough times. If you are just hanging on you are sure to fall off sooner or later.
5. Opportunity – to make history

 

Box 1, Folder 14 – General Speeches

 

January 28, 1957 – “Why California will Continue its Leadership in Electronics,” Electrical Club of San Francisco

 

1/28/57, Copy of typewritten outline of Hewlett’s speech, no transcript in folder

 

The following lists some of the points Hewlett lists on the outline

 

Why California will continue its leadership in electronics

1. Leadership does not mean just greater numbers
2. What standards to judge by – IRE membership?

States with largest IRE membership: NY,CA, NJ, PA

During period 1950-55 IRE membership increases:

NY – 58%

NJ – 67%

PA – 55%

National ave. – 14.7%

CA 112%

1. Employment.

During 18 months from March 1950 to Sept. 1951 (Korean War) national employment in electronics rose 18%; in CA 117%

1. Areas in which California leads
   1. Military electronics
   2. Specialized products
   3. CA lacks in consumer items – too far from center of population

 

Drawing on his notes from his speech “Why Electronics Grows in the West” Hewlett briefly reviews the background of electronics in California.

 

Bay Area is seeing expansion because

1. Overflow from Los Angeles

Example – Lockheed

 

2.   Eastern firms attracted to California because:

Example – IBM liked “livability, labor supply,  excellent highways, rail and air transportation, social, cultural and educational facilities

 

Others – Sperry, Federal Telegraph, Philco, Sylvania

GE said Stanford was big attraction

 

Hewlett’s  outline continues with a look at the future

 

He sees:

Expansion of basic industry which is built on a sound fundamental basis

New products through advanced engineering

Good management

Expanding market for the types of items they produced

Outstanding scientific leadership in our universities

 

“Electronics is a dynamic and rapidly growing industry, but most important is that it is growing in the direction that the West Coast industries have chosen to follow. Maybe this is foresight or maybe it is luck, but it is none the less true. I am convinced that the upswing and advancement of electronics in California will continue and that California will maintain its leadership in electronics. The truth of the matter is that electronics is a natural for California, and California is a natural for electronics.”

 

1/28/57, Outline of speech printed by Hewlett on 3×5 inch cards

1/28/57, Two handwritten pages in Hewlett’s handwriting as a start on notes for his speech

1/28/57, Printed announcement of speech “The San Francisco Electric Club invites all members of the Electronics Industry in the Bay Area to join in celebrating Electronics Day”

1/21/57, Copy of typewritten flyer from the West Coast Electronic Manufacturers Association saying they have joined with the Electrical [?] Club of San Francisco to sponsor this event

12/5/56, Letter to Hewlett from Calvin K. Townsend WCEMA, SF Council Program Chairman, thanking him for agreeing to speak at their event

12/14/56, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Calvin Townsend confirming his commitment and agreeing to send a title shortly

Undated, Several pages handwritten by Hewlett with notes for a speech to the Upsilon Club of the Eta Kappa Mu [spelling?] Fraternity where he spoke on the growth of electronics in the West

 

The folder also contains many reports, papers and miscellaneous documents with information and statistics relative to his speech subject

 

 

Box 1, Folder 15 – General Speeches

 

July 23, 1957 – “The Challenge of Technology in Electronics,” Stanford Business Conference, Stanford University

 

7/23/57, Copy of typewritten text of Hewlett’s speech

 

Saying that it is really the “new technology” that is the challenge, Hewlett divides this into two categories, challenges to industry and challenges to the consumer. First he defines the field of electronics as “anything that has in it a vacuum tube, or its counter-part, a solid state device such as a transistor.”

 

In 1956 he says the field of electronics amounted to 11 ½ billion dollars worth of business – 55% in manufacturing, 45% in non-manufacturing fields such as broadcasting and services. “…the industry is dominated,” he says, “by large companies with annual sales in excess of 100 million, twenty-two of which produce over 70% of all electronic equipment.

 

“One of the salient characteristics of the industry is that it is definitely research and development oriented. It is estimated that of the 500,000 engineers in this country 20% of them are engaged in the field of electronics.”

 

Hewlett says the most serious problem facing the electronics industry is that “fully half its manufacturing effort is supported directly by the government….Any appraisal of the future of the electronic industry must obviously start with the study of the Department of Defense uses of electronics.”

 

Hewlett refers to a study made by RCA on the subject of defense spending from 1956 to 1961, which forecast that “defense spending for electronics over this period would increase about 50%.” He sees spending for electronics for missiles growing much more rapidly than spending for aircraft or communications electronics.

 

“Non-military spending is divided rather equally between consumer and industrial applications. The consumer field is an old one and one that has somewhat leveled off. We have gone through our ‘boom and bust’ on TV and things are stable enough that the long range market can be fairly well predicted.”

 

“It is in the area of industrial uses of electronics that the greatest expansion, exclusive of the military, will probably be seen. A recent study estimated that industrial spending for electronics would increase 25% between 1956 and 1957,” Hewlett says.

 

“The real up-and-comer is the computer field which has shown an incredible rise in the past few years. From almost nothing in 1952 it has risen so that it is now estimated that in 1957 there will be about 350 million dollars spent for computers, and that this will rise to about one billion in 1960 and about two billion in 1965. It does not look as though any other field of industrial electronics has a chance to match this growth rate. The computer field, however, has many built-in problems – education of the consumer, obsolescences through rapid technological advances and high capital costs (about $1.00 of capital to $1.00 of sales).”

 

Automation and control is another area which Hewlett says has received “considerable attention…representing about 18% of the industrial electronics dollar [in 1956]…..Increased labor costs, shortages of adequate labor supply and requirements for increased precision all spell a long-range growth for this field – [one which] also has its own built-in problems. Two of the most serious of these are the high initial cost of the equipment and the basic difficulty of two independent industries, the machine tool and the electronic, trying to sit down and work out a joint program.

 

“The final area I would like to mention is that of medical electronics. This represents about 15% of the industrial electronics dollars – almost half of which is in X-Ray and radiological equipment. Again, the potential in this field is tremendous – but there is a serious problem of communications between the doctor or the medical scientist on one hand, and electronic engineer on the other. Thus, I would like to point out that of the 4 broad divisions of industrial electronics, 3 of them have a basic problem of trying to work with another discipline – this is an example of a major challenge of technology.”

 

Looking at the probable effects of a major reduction in government defense spending upon the electronics industry, Hewlett says,  “There can be no question of the seriousness of any substantial cutback program. In all probability, however, the cutback would be somewhat gradual, not only for the sake of the electronics industry alone, but for the national economy as a whole. There are some indications that a reduction in defense spending would be accompanied by an increase in spending by some of the other governmental agencies….Obviously, however, only a fraction of the slack would be taken up in this manner. Basically, there would have to be a tremendous re-organization of the electronics industry, and in all probability this re-organization would take the form of a vigorous and concerted attack upon the problems of industry’s uses of electronics.

 

“This brings up the question as to why these problems are not strongly attacked now. Well, basically, it is because it is not economically profitable for the moment. When all is said and done, defense business can be profitable. The selling costs are not great, for you are dealing with relatively few customers. The problems are challenging, and up to now there has been ample money. A major move of the industry into industrial electronics would pose many problems on education, distribution and maintenance, but basically the potentialities are there. It  would be the real challenge of technology.”

 

Hewlett returns to his statement that the challenge of electronics takes two forms – one to the manufacturer, and the other to the consumer. “To the manufacturer,” he says, “the challenge demands that he keep abreast of all major technical developments in his field, while continually monitoring related technologies, with an eye to borrowing from them when applicable. To the manufacturer this is a critical job, for as new technologies develop he must time his entry so as to be neither too early nor too late. Perhaps the effect of the introduction of the transistor is a good example. The first rather quiet announcement of the transistor was followed shortly with tremendous enthusiasm by potential users. It was the answer to all problems – it had infinite life – it was shock and vibration proof – it was infinitely stable, etc. Some manufacturers were lured into producing equipment taking advantage of these alleged assets of the transistor. But they found that many of these claims were not true, at least as of that time, and that, in addition, there were many difficulties that no one had anticipated. The result was obvious – the products failed. Yet, on the other hand, a company that is now not doing some work on the uses of transistors, where they are applicable to its field, is just asking to be scooped by its competition.”

 

Looking at the situation for the consumer, Hewlett says he, too, must “maintain his competitive edge in his own field, and he must continually monitor those products or techniques that will improve his production efficiency or his degree of management control. If this represents radical departures from standard practices, he must insure that he has adequate technical competence within his organization to exploit to the fullest the new equipment. The introduction of the electronic computer emphasized this point in the strongest terms. When the first Remington Rand Univac 1 was delivered to General Electric in Louisville it turned out that no one knew how to use it. It was a useless tool. The measure of success of the computer in its introduction into business has been marked by the adequacy of preparation for its intelligent use.

 

“The eventual introduction of automation will face the same kind of problems – and yet come it must…..Members of the manufacturing industry must follow closely activities in this field so as to time their entry for maximum effectiveness. Similarly, they must  be prepared to handle the increased technical complexity of a very sophisticated system.

 

“The challenge of technology is to keep abreast of the products of sciences applicable to your business – to choose carefully the time of entry – and to be internally qualified to fully exploit the equipment or technique so as to insure maximum return of the investment.”

 

7/26/57, Telegram to Hewlett from Herbert Seibert, Editor of “The Commercial and Financial Chronicle” asking for a copy of his speech, along with a photo

8/14/57, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Herbert Seibert sending a copy of his speech

8/14/57, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Russell Robins, Vice President L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, sending a copy of his speech in response to his request

8/30/57, Letter to Hewlett from R. Robins’ secretary thanking him for the copy

8/28/57, Article clipped from “The Commercial and Financial Chronicle” printing his speech and photo

 

 

Box 1, Folder 16 – General Speeches

 

December 4, 1957, “Growth Industries in the West – Electronics,” Stanford Business School

 

12/4/57, Copy of a two page typewritten outline of Hewlett’s speech

 

From this outline we see that he discussed “pre-war” electronics, particularly in the Bay Area,  mentioning such companies as H & K, Eimac, Lenkurt, Dalmo Victor, Remler, Fisher, Kaar, Litton, and, of course, HP. During the war the Bay Area produced vacuum tubes and general commercial systems; the Los Angeles area, aircraft. All this pulled people to California – who liked it.

 

Post War growth saw electronics established as a general purpose tool, and an increase in the technical abilities of personnel, stemming from training received during the War. California universities became strong in the field of electronics. All this providing a favorable climate for engineering firms.

 

Korea created a big increase in demand for electronic equipment by the military – G.E., Sylvania, IBM, aircraft.

 

Currently Hewlett says military spending is cutting back – this is recognized by the industry which is broadening its product lines. In the long run military spending must taper off, but not suddenly.

 

He says the “Long range outlook is extremely dependent on how non-military product development programs proceed. I am no prophet” he says, “but—

 

1. There is the non-military business – untapped
2. It will entail clever imaginative engineers
3. W. C. [?] has what it takes
4. Management young enough and energetic enough to grab their share”

Box 1, Folder 17 – General Speeches

 

December 8, 1958 – “U. S. Businessman Looks at European Common Market,” Palo Alto, Rotary Club

 

12/8/58, Outline of speech handwritten by Hewlett, in pencil on lined notebook paper

 

The major points in this outline are:

 

What is the ECM?

Three wars in 100 years, it was basically a move to stop the causes of war

 

Post War

Marshall Plan, from 1948 –1952 GNP up 25%, trade up 73%

 

ECM

General objective more political than commercial

Treaty of Rome, March 25, 1957

Plan will

Eliminate internal tariffs and quotas

Provide anti-trust laws

Eliminate restrictions on flow of capital and labor

 

Importance of ECM to the U.S.

 

U.S. exports to Europe

40% raw materials and fuel

25% manufactured goods

How U.S. competes

Low labor rate

Effect of ECM on U.S. manufacturing

GNP 1/3 of U.S. – but increasing rapidly

 

HP Plans

 

Trip this spring – discussion of countries

Trip this fall – down to details

Points of interest

Law by decree

Hidden reserves – no C.P.A.

Labor’s role

Social security

Basic problems

How to join U.S. production and sales ideas with older and different traditions of Europe

 

General

 

Will be a rough 10-15 years, particularly for Europe

May be hard on U.S.

Exports to Europe

Compete in 3^rd markets

A strong Europe will be a major U.S. ally and a major defense against Communism, both internal and external

Box 1, Folder 18 – General Speeches

 

January 4, 1959 – Talk to Palo Alto Chamber Of Commerce on Medical Center

 

1/4/59, Outline of speech, handwritten by Hewlett, in ink, on lined notebook paper

 

I Introduction

1. Aims and Goals
2. Problems

 

II A Major Medical Center

1. What makes a major medical center
   1. Teaching – Research – Practice of medicine
   2. All strongly based on a first class hospital

 

1. Elements of the Hospital Center
   1. Stanford Pavilion
   2. Palo Alto Pavilion
   3. Core facility
   4. Stanford outpatient
   5. Stanford Rehabilitation
   6. Existing P. A. hospital

 

1. Responsibilities
   1. Teach – Stanford
   2. Residents – Stanford
   3. Practice at P.A. and Stanford

 

D. Have been divergences – aim will be to pull together

 

III  Problem – Money

1. Background Planning
2. Change of Plans
   1. Report of last year: over bedded, OB the worst
   2. Place OB in new building
   3. Old hospital plans

 

IV  Status

1. Set by July
2. Closing Old hospital will help shake down
3. Should be pretty well shaken down by this time next year

 

 

Box 1, Folder 19 – General Speeches

 

April 9, 1959 – “The Development of a Medical Center,” Palo Alto Hospital Employee Award

 

4/9/59, Outline of speech, handwritten by Hewlett on lined notebook paper. [See also speeches June 18, 1959 and December 2, 1959, on this subject.]

 

I  Past History

 

A  Student Guild Hospital – 1909

Litton and Cowper

First students the Palo Alto residents

 

 

B  Private Hospital

Reynolds, Williams, Kirk, Black

Built own hospital, 3 story frame at Cowper and Embarcadero     1910-1917 – old fire trap

Fell on poor days during World War I

Palo Alto bought in 1917/1918

 

C  Palo Alto Hospital

Asked Stanford to run

Ran a tight ship, made money

One of first X-ray

By 1928 was inadequate for size and real fire trap.

1926 fire had caused roof to fall into operating room

 

D  New Hospital

Some funds were made available by philanthropists …for the establishment of a non-profit hospital. Because of the experience of the old private hospital, Dr. Leary [?] sought to interest Palo Alto and Stanford in starting another hospital. In 1929 Roth got Stanford to give money, and Ed Thorts [?] got Palo Alto to match funds:

Palo Alto – 200,000

Fund [?] – 160,000

Built hospital in 1929 and 1930 for about $3000 a bed. Filled up at once. Still managed by Stanford.

 

II Problems of Joint Operation

 

A  Two things obvious

1. Great advantages

2.   Great problems

B  Problems

1. Having greatness thrust upon us – Must reorganize and reorient our thinking
2. Suspicion springs from lack of understanding
3. This last improved by having doctors getting together. Palo Alto people do not have new concept of Medical Center

 

C  Advantages

1      Tell what I think will happen

2      Tell why

Major western University Medical Schools few

Privately endowed have certain advantages

Palo Alto an ideal community – people understanding and far sighted, climate and physical location

 

“I saw again that this area was destined to become the major medical center of the West and to be one of the foremost in the Nation. That is if we thought of this operation in lesser terms we are doing ourselves a disservice and, like Esau, selling our potential for a pot of porridge.

 

“All of you have a major stake in the future.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 20 – General Speeches

 

June 4, 1959 – Address to Third National Conference of IRE Professional Group on Production Techniques, San Mateo, CA

 

6/4/59, Outline for speech written by Hewlett on notebook paper. Hewlett was the Keynote Speaker.

 

Hewlett says he is “not so stupid as to speak on electronic production” – will present a broader discussion of production techniques

 

Background

For background Hewlett goes back to the Industrial Revolution, starting in England. He says it started with Richard Onwright [?] and the cotton spinner.

 

He says a Frenchman named Vaucanson [?] developed a silk factory in 1756, but France was not ready – a luxury product.

 

In England cotton mass produced, needed for export. Could not do in new locations isolated away from old guilds and monopolies of ruling class.

 

In Europe the emphasis was on simple crafts – weaving, spinning, iron making.

 

Situation in the U.S.

 

The situation was quite different in the United States Hewlett says. Large country, large problems, large solutions needed. Shortage of labor, high labor costs, national independence – not cluttered with traditional ideas.

 

He says the U. S. turned to the mechanization of complete crafts – and he gives a few examples:

 

Oliver Evans, at the end of the Revolution built a completely automatic flour mill.

 

Eli Whitney and the cotton gin

 

In 1836 a complete threshing machine was available that would thresh, clean and sack.

 

Farm equipment, with a long list of replacement parts, was available by 1866 – 50 years before Ford.

 

By 1860 an assembly line was used in a meat packing plant in Cincinnati.

 

Developed on the basis of creative concepts – not hardware.

 

Role of Production Management

 

Long history of pioneering in this field. In the 1880s Fredrick Taylor, father of Production Management:

 

Set production norms by scientific method – broke away from old apprentice system.

Study led to shorter hours and rest periods – resulted in increased production at same pay

Introduced incentive pay

Established scientific job training

Developed status of foreman and supervisor

 

Followed by Frank Gilbert with Time and Motion Studies, and

Henry Gantt, ideas on incentive pay and cost accounting. Charts still bear his name.

 

Willingness to invest Capital

 

10 fold investment/worker in last 75 to 80 years

4-5 fold increase in physical product/worker

Made U.S. the greatest producing country in the world – turning out twice as much per worker compared to any other country.

 

What this means today

 

“The U.S. is no longer an isolated self sufficient country. It is a major factor in the world today. As such it has a dual challenge to its productive capabilities and resources.

 

“The secret of U.S. production is well known and understood. Other nations of the world are making concerted efforts to catch up. On the whole this is good for it lifts the general standard of living, but for the American manufacturers it spells real competition.

 

“The U.S. has the real responsibility to fight the economic war with Russia. The Russians are smart, capable people who are in a position to capitalize on the best in our system. This is where the real challenge is. The battle lines will be drawn in the long run on the basis of production ability.

 

“I think it is particularly significant that the leading engineering society in the country today has seen fit to establish a major group dedicated to the improvement of production techniques. The character of the speakers and the quality of the papers to be presented at this the 3rdConference on Production techniques indicated that the electronic industry is ready and able to meet and take up this challenge.”

 

6/4/59, Copy of the printed program for the conference

5/22/59, Letter to Hewlett from Emmet G. Cameron, Program Chairman, reminding him of the program schedule and sending a copy of all technical presentations

6/5/59, Letter from F. K. Shallenberger enclosing some material that may be helpful to Hewlett in preparing this speech

 

 

Box 1, Folder 21 – General Speeches

 

June 18, 1959 – Presentation to Finance Committee, Stanford Board of Trustees

 

6/18/59, Outline of speech, handwritten by Hewlett on notebook paper

 

I  Definition of Palo Alto – Stanford Hospital

 

A   By agreement of 29 May 1956, Palo Alto and Stanford agreed to form a non-profit organization to manage and run the following:

 

1. Palo Alto Pavilion
2. Existing Palo Alto Hospital
3.  Stanford Pavilion
4. Stanford Outpatient Clinic
5. Stanford Rehabilitation Clinic
6. Core facilities

 

B  Board of Management is Responsible to:

 

1. Manage, control and set general policies
2. To prepare budget and submit to owner:
3. Make recommendations to owners as necessary

 

C  Board of Management General Views of the Operation

 

1. Run a top level and tight show in a business-like manner, make clear to owner the proper proceeds, true costs of the operation.

 

II Areas of Discussion

 

“A  Hospital Budget –2 Pavilions and core

1. As carefully worked out as possible
2. Review by Palo Alto and approved
3. General review by Stanford staff
4. Discuss allocation of income and expense
5. Will ask approval

 

B   Requirement for Working Capital

And other medical cash outlays – will ask approval

 

C   Clinic Budget

1. Preliminary draft – information only

 

D   Rehabilitation and Old Hospital

Nothing

 

III   Hospital Budget

 

A   Summarize Letter

1. [?]
2. Expense comparisons
3. Rate structure
4. Budgeted surplus of $52,000
5. Method billing to Stanford

 

B    Discuss Fixed Costs

1. Ordinarily educational institutions do not amortize plant
2. Equipment replacement fund

 

C   Capital Costs

1. Capital items
2. Contingent [?]
3. Balance against equipment sinking fund

 

D   Allocations

1      Method

2      Result

3      Cash reconciliation…$6,107 short

4      Payments to Stanford staff of almost $150,000 for professional services

 

E   Working Capital

1. Total estimated 609,000
2. Allocation 1/3 Stanford, 2/3 Palo Alto
3. Palo Alto prepared to turn over present working capital in hospital, less $90,000 needed for  [?] payments
4. Ask that Stanford furnish before July 1:

 

1. 100,000 now
2. Estimated Stanford payments

50,000 August

50,000 September

48,000 October

1. Palo Alto make final payment @ 21,000 in fall

 

 

IV  Clinic Budget

A. Preliminary only

B.   Estimate 677,570, or 13.55 a visit

C.   Offset with Proper Rates – structure to show deficit of 64,134

D.  Discussion of rate structure

 

V   Rehabilitation – Old Hospital –discussion

 

VI  Action Required

A   Approve Budget

1. Approve use of $100,000 sinking fund
2. Approve method of allocation
3. Approve principle of Working Capital allocation
4. Agree to schedule of payments

 

 

Box 1,  Folder 22 – General Speeches

 

December 2, 1959 – On Palo Alto Medical Center, Palo Alto Residents Association

 

12/2/59, Outline of speech handwritten by Hewlett on lined notepaper

 

I   Hospital Center like Iceberg

A)    Have been working on budget

B)     What most people see is plant

C)     In case of Center what is behind is important

D)    Therefore, would like to talk about:

1)     Background

2)     Plant

3)     Finances

 

II   Discussion of Medical Education

A)   Background

B)    Flexner [?] report of 1910

C)    Rise of great leaders of clinical medicine

D)    Recognition of trend towards science promoted move of Stanford to Palo Alto

E)     Comparison with Engineering

F)     New connection at Stanford

 

 

III   Development of Medical Center

A)     Reason to move catalyst [for] other action

1)     V.A. Hospital – 1000 beds

2)     Palo Alto became partner plans

 

B)     Relations between Palo alto and Stanford Medical School

C)     Ultimate role of Center

 

IV   Physical Plant

 

A)     Basic Elements of Plant

1)     Core plus 2 Pavilions

2)     Old Palo Alto Hospital

3)     Outpatient Clinic

4)     Rehabilitation Center

5)     Edward Building

6)     Center Building

 

B)     Description of Plant

1)     Location – 56 acres

2)     General layout

3)     Architect – Ed Stone

4)     Tie in with Stanford style

5)     Cost: Stanford – $16.9M

Palo Alto – $4.1M

V   Operation

A)    Administration

B)     Opening

C)     Professional staff

D)    Finances

1)     Competition for tax support hospital

2)     Importance of occupancy

3)     Importance of attracting patients

4)     Basic costs

5)     Working capital $1600/active bed

6)     Budget balance for year

 

VI   Summary

A)    Wonderful Plant

B)     Outstanding medical staffs

C)     Real challenge is the degree to which staffs can work together

D)    If they do we should have the finest medical center west of Mississippi, or one of the finest in the country

 

Undated, Outline, written by Hewlett, covering  background of hospital development in Palo Alto. Similar to speech given April 9, 1959.

11//23/59, Letter to Hewlett from Robert J. Debs of the Palo Alto Residents Association inviting him to come and speak to their group about local medical facilities

6/22/59, Handwritten note to “Bill” from “Lyle” giving some facts about hospital operations

Undated, typewritten sheet giving dates of events in hospital development in Palo Alto

Box 1, Folder 23 – General Speeches

 

September 13, 1960 – “International Expansion – A Case Study” Stanford Conference titled “American Business Looks Abroad”

(See also Hewlett speeches dated April 14, 1961, March 8, 1962 and June 14, 1962 on this general subject.)

 

12/13/60, Typewritten text of Hewlett’s speech

 

This Conference is titled “American Business Looks abroad”, and Hewlett says “I interpret my role at this session as follows: To report on a moderately sized company’s international expansion program in Europe. The fact that this expansion program was stimulated by the signing of the Treaty of Rome, and the reality of a European Common Market, is pertinent to the theme of this meeting.

 

DESCRIPTION OF HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

 

Hewlett starts with a brief description of HP, saying that “We are a manufacturer of precision electronic test and measuring equipment. Our instruments are characterized by a high engineering content, and by high quality and reliability of operation. We manufacture about 300 to 400 standard catalog items most of which would be classed as off-the-shelf capital goods.” He gives the location of the main plant in Palo Alto and adds that “…we have three domestic subsidiaries, one on the East Coast, two on the West coast, and we have recently started another manufacturing branch in Colorado.” He says 2500 people are employed in Palo Alto, 3500 in total.

 

Hewlett says products are marketed in the United States through independent representatives who also handle “compatible lines of equipment” for other manufacturers.

 

FOREIGN SALES

 

Hewlett says that foreign sales were initially handled by a “local export agent” from the U.S. These agents had representatives in various countries throughout the world. As the Company grew they found it “appropriate,” to take over the direct contact with the representatives in the foreign countries. “By and large,” he says,” these same representatives now form the backbone of our present international marketing organization.”

 

Hewlett tells the audience that exports have traditionally been about 10 to 15% of total sales – but currently running about 15%. “To understand the character of our foreign market,” he says, “it should be realized that broad scale use of electronics is almost exclusively confined to the more technically advanced countries of the world….About 66% of our foreign sales traditionally go to Europe, about 15% to Canada, about 9% to Japan, and the remaining 10% is spread throughout the world.”

 

PRODUCTS

 

Hewlett classifies HP’s products into two broad groups: “One group of products,” he says, “is represented by fairly sophisticated engineering designs, but is basically an assembly of standard component parts. Another group of products is equally sophisticated in design, but requires a great many special and precision parts for which expensive and extensive tooling is required. In the former group we have found that our competitors abroad have had no difficulty in duplicating or paralleling our designs, and thus we find that sales of this class of product have been small in foreign markets. In the latter group, however, our heavy tooling and production expenses may be liquidated against the large mass market which exists in the United states, and this gives us a clear advantage over our foreign competitors who do not have such a mass market. As a result our sales have been almost exclusively in this latter classification.”

 

DECISION TO EXPAND FOREIGN OPERATIONS

 

It was against this background that Hewlett says they evaluated the long range effect of the Treaty of Rome which was signed in March of 1957. “It was our conclusion,” Hewlett  says, “that the coming of the Common Market would provide Europe with a true mass market, unrestricted by tariff walls. This would give them the same advantage that the United States has enjoyed for so long on almost an exclusive basis. To the Hewlett-Packard Company this would mean a potential loss of its present competitive advantage and a consequent reduction of sales in Europe. On the other hand, if we were to enter the European Common Market with a manufacturing facility, we would be in a position to protect our existing market and in addition to compete in the assembly type of operation from which we were almost completely excluded at the present time. The choice was obvious, we had to move at once to develop a manufacturing operation somewhere in the Common Market. The question was, what type of operation – joint endeavor or 100% owned subsidiary – and where should this operation be located?

 

Hewlett says the first question was easy – they definitely felt that a 100% owned subsidiary was the most desirable way to go. The choice of what country to locate in was more difficult. By studying informational material from such sources as the U.S. Department of Commerce, and from individual countries, they were able to evaluate factors like general character of the countries, tax structures, labor situations and so forth. “By studying such sources,” Hewlett says, “we were able to narrow the selection to the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany.” So, in the spring of 1958 Hewlett went to Europe to try and determine which country would be the best country for their manufacturing plant – and, if possible, just where in that country it would be best to locate their plant.

 

While visiting each country Hewlett would visit U.S. Counselor officials, as well as local government people. He had letters of introduction to local manufacturing executives as well. And he also talked to local Americans who represented U.S companies. He says local banks were “one of the most important sources of information.”

 

GERMANY AS A BASE FOR MANUFACTURING

 

“As a result of this survey,” Hewlett says, “it was decided to establish an operation in the Stuttgart area of southwest Germany. The basic advantages of Germany were many. First, it had a large internal market. Second, one of our toughest competitors in Europe was located in Germany and we felt that the best way to compete was to be in the same country and not interpose an artificial tariff wall between the two of us. Thirdly, Germany has long had a strong and aggressive export policy and as we planned to export over 80% of the products manufactured there this was an important factor. Fourthly, Germany traditionally has had a supply of skilled and experienced labor, particularly at the foreman and supervisory level. Finally, Germany has had a fine record of a stable economy since the war.”

 

They did see some disadvantages to locating in Germany: no governmental aid, high employment, tax structure not as favorable as elsewhere.

 

To sum up Hewlett says “Our selection of Stuttgart was primarily based on the fact that it was an excellent light manufacturing area and that the people in the community were noted for their industry and hard work”

 

NEED FOR CORPORATE OFFICE IN EUROPE

 

Hewlett says they found some problems in considering the implementation of their decision to locate a plant in Germany. “One such problem was that of order distribution,“ he says. An example would be a situation where a local representative receives a composite order from a customer. He would have no way to find out what part of the order should be sent to the HP plant in Germany,  and what part should be sent to the U.S. “Thus, some decision making agency was needed abroad to cope with this type of problem,” he says.

 

Hewlett tells of another problem they ran into, — the matter of a “Travel Lab.”

He explains that a Travel Lab is a large bus in which are set up various operating displays of HP equipment. This bus needed a home base in Europe.

 

They also needed a way to carry out training programs in Europe for sales personnel.

 

“All of these problems,” Hewlett says, “ suggested that we needed a corporate office of some nature in Europe, and the decision was made to establish a primary subsidiary company in Switzerland to perform all of these various functions and, in addition, act as a holding company for our German operation. Switzerland was selected for several reasons. In the first place, it is centrally located. Secondly, the Swiss are generally accepted throughout most countries of Europe, and indeed through most countries of the world. Switzerland has one of the most stable currencies of the world. It has tax treaties with Germany which would facilitate the holding company operation which we envisioned. Finally, the tax laws in Switzerland are favorable to the type of operation that we wished to establish.”

 

ESTABLISHMENT OF OPERATIONS

 

So Hewlett says he went back to Europe in the fall of 1958 with three objectives in mind, –  the first being to select a canton in Switzerland, negotiate a favorable tax agreement with the authorities, and set up a basic corporate structure. Secondly, he wanted to establish the ground work for the German manufacturing plant. Thirdly, he needed to recruit key personnel for both the German manufacturing operation and the German sales organization. He says he took with him on this trip HP’s Export Sales Manager (who was to be the manager of the German manufacturing plant until a German national could be trained for this spot), and HP’s U.S. attorney.

 

Hewlett says they  “…were successful in completing all three objectives and, in looking back, it is apparent that in two areas local contacts were most important; good bank connections and the best possible legal advice. Without either of these, it would have been infinitely more difficult to have obtained our objectives.

 

“By February 1959,” he says, “nearly all preliminary steps had been completed. By April, 1959, we had actually opened our Swiss office with two months inventory in a bonded warehouse in Basel under its control, and by the first of July our sales operation in Germany had commenced. Our manufacturing operation near Stuttgart did not start, however, until September of that year.

 

OPERATIONS IN SWITZERLAND

 

Hewlett says he wants to “summarize” operations in both Switzerland and Germany. In Switzerland He says the first step was to start a training program. “To understand the importance of this training…,”he says, “one must understand the character of our products. Our products are those which are sold at a technical level. That is, they are sold well down in an organization. This means that our representative group must have an adequate and well trained sales force that can work directly with the customer’s engineers, and scientists. This sales force must understand the customers’ technical problems and must be able to make intelligent suggestions as to what type of equipment will be helpful. Domestically we had found that to achieve this competence, we had to have intensive training programs for our representatives’ sales engineers. In Europe we had never had the opportunity to furnish this type of sales training. At best, we were fortunate if the principals visited us once every two or three years, and when they did they were usually more interested in matters of policy than in technical questions.

 

“The first training program was so successful that we repeated it again the following year with Mr. Packard and myself in attendance. I think it is interesting to note that at this second sales training conference we had representatives from every nation of Western Europe with the exception of Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg. We even had a representative from Yugoslavia.”

 

After starting a training program, the next task was to find local warehousing for their equipment. Hewlett says, “This program has proved to be of great value. Customers like the idea of being able to get delivery of equipment on short notice and not wait for it to be shipped from a foreign country 8000 miles away. In a sense, the fact that stock is maintained locally is a symbol that you are really interested in helping them and they react accordingly.

 

“The Travel Lab, too, has been a most effective sales tool. In the first place, our customers in Europe have been able to see operating displays of our most recently developed equipment without having to wait for the next International Trade fair, and without having to leave their own local community. This program has been welcomed by management for it keeps engineers current on modern instrumentation without the expense and inconvenience of travel.”

 

MANUFACTURING OPERATION IN GERMANY

 

Hewlett says progress on the manufacturing operation in Germany “has made headway, but at a slower pace than the Swiss sales company for it is a much more complex operation to establish. After about a year of operation it had recovered initial start-up expenses and was operating at a slight profit. We currently employ about 60 people and, according to plan, are manufacturing the assembly type of products referred to earlier.”

 

Hewlett says they found local community people more interested in helping their operation than were those in the federal government. “We were fortunate in finding …the town of Boblingen , just outside of Stuttgart. The town was most helpful for it was willing to purchase a site and lease it to us at a nominal rate. Further, if at a later date we wished to acquire the land, the town would sell it at a price that was roughly one-third of what it had originally payed [sic]for it. In a number of ways also, the town has shown a great willingness to help. This all proves the value of selecting a community that has a genuine interest in the welfare and prosperity of your facility.”

 

Communications, “the problem of establishing understanding with an operation some 8000 miles away,” was a serious problem Hewlett says. “It has been with great difficulty and several trips of Hewlett-Packard people to Germany that we have been able to reestablish …understanding.”

 

Getting component parts from local suppliers was also been a problem. “This is due in part” he says, “to the booming Germany economy, but it is also due to the presence of traditional patterns that often exist between supplier and consumer in many countries of Europe. These trade patterns pose real problems to a new concern when it endeavors to develop its own sources of supply, particularly during a period of booming economy.”

 

“[A related problem has] arisen in trying to find suppliers who will furnish equipment or who will make special items for us and also have a realistic delivery schedule. This, coupled with the component parts problem, has made it extremely difficult to develop a flexible production schedule; one key to efficient and economical operation.”

 

Hewlett says they also have had some problems with unsatisfactory quality of workmanship. “I feel that this can be accounted for primarily by the inexperience of the employees in the particular type of assembly work that we were asking them to perform, for Germany, as is most of Europe, is changing from a craftsman approach to production, to an assembly line approach. This problem of quality became so severe that we found it necessary to send over a third level supervisor from Palo Alto to help train the employees and to establish better quality control procedures. We sent over one of our young Stanford Business School graduates to work out some of the practical problems of integrating local procedures with U.S. procedures in such areas as inventory control, scheduling, record keeping and the like. Both of these moves have helped substantially to improve the effectiveness of the German subsidiary.”

 

CONCLUSION

 

Hewlett concludes that “…our original objectives have been met successfully. A sales development and coordination program has been established and is now operating more effectively than was anticipated. A manufacturing operation has been set up within the European Common Market and is now producing satisfactory equipment. These two operations have generated capital outside of the U.S. which may be used effectively for the next logical step – a manufacturing plant within the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). [In a handwritten note Hewlett added]: This we plan to do starting this fall in England, where it can serve both the EFTA group and the Commonwealth nations. With our experiences now behind us [in startups in both Germany and Colorado], I look for a much smoother startup than we experienced in Germany.

 

“In all, I think we as a company should be deeply grateful for the Treaty of Rome and for the European Common Market which developed from it. Its establishment has forced us into an international expansion program that was long overdue and, judging from results to date, gives every indication of becoming a vital part of our total corporate operation.”

 

 

Undated, Three handwritten drafts of a speech on this same subject (that is the considerations given to HP’s movement into Europe). A typed page outlining these notes is also enclosed.

 

Box 1, Folder 24 – General Speeches

 

Late 1960 or early 1961 – Speech on HP organization, no location

 

Speech, Written in outline form and handwritten by Hewlett

 

Hewlett titles the first section, ”Origin in Engineering,” with the following sub titles:

 

1. Company founded on engineering
2. Method of product selection at start
3. Developed into “development of opertunity [sic]
4. Expansion with Engineering Div. Concept
5. Change in Microwave div.

 

Discussion of each division:

 

1. Counters
2. Oscilloscopes
3. Audio-Visual
4. Microwave
5. Other Supporting Areas

 

Conclusions

 

1. HP reputation has been built on quality of engineering and responsibility of its production
2. Trend towards more research with growing decentralization – with engineering in each division
3. This does not represent movement away from organization principles – rather a division of work that will guarantee maximum yield.

Box 1, Folder 25 – General Speeches

 

April 14, 1961 – “International Expansion – A Case Study” 2^nd Annual Conference, Western Division, Academy of Management, Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, CA

 

4/14/61, This speech is the same as that given on September 13, 1960, with the same subject, so it is not repeated here. See also speeches given on April 14, 1961, March 8, 1962, and June 14, 1962.

 

4/25/61, Copy of a typewritten case study entitled  “Hewlett-Packard Company,”

evidently prepared for use by the Stanford Graduate School of Business

Undated, one typewritten page titled “Shipments to Europe”

Undated, map of Monterey area

3/24/61, Letter to Hewlett from Carlton A. Pederson, Associate Dean, Stanford University, enclosing a copy of the program for the conference, and discussing arrangements

3/38/61 [sic], Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Carlton Pederson, saying he will arrange his own travel

6/10/61, Letter to Hewlett from C. Mark Thomas of the Mark Thomas Inn where he stayed. Thomas encloses a copy of a letter from the Academy of Management to the Thomas Inn returning the statement for Hewlett’s stay saying they could not pay because they did not have any record of Hewlett having attended the conference. Hewlett evidently sent this to the Academy with a handwritten note saying “I was your dinner speaker. The bill has been paid.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 26 – General Speeches

 

September 25, 1961 – Indoctrination Seminar, New Engineers, Palo Alto, CA

 

9/25/61, One handwritten page outlining notes for his remarks to the new engineers

 

Hewlett describes the company as it is today

60 M sales this year

2500 in Palo Alto, 3500 in all

two Palo Alto plants, plus Loveland

Basic business is standard instruments

How we got here

Hewlett and Packard both engineers

Growth determined by contribution of new products

Our people are the most important thing we sell

Management by Objective

 

9/5/61, Memo to Hewlett from Ted Anderson attaching the schedule for the seminar

9/22/61, Copy of formal, typed statement of Corporate Objectives

 

 

Box 1, Folder 27 – General Speeches

 

December 19, 1961 – Review of Trip to India for The Executive Roundtable and Research Advisory Council, San Francisco, CA

 

12/19/61, Outline of speech handwritten by Hewlett on lined notebook paper

 

The following is a copy of this outline

 

I   Background for Interest

A.  Original plan – no basic wish for Indian partner

B.  Result of visit – feel that Indian partner necessary

 

II   Operating Problem {dominated by foreign exchange)

Materials – Need high inventory

Transportation

Rail

Air

Sea

Availability

Crude industrial economy

Import Controls

Red tape at point of entry

 

Labor – See comment in conclusion

 

Facilities

Five plants going up – quality of fixtures

Problem of housing

Favorable depreciation

Operations and Management

Not too many experienced managers

Shortage of foremen and supervisors

Requirement to train labor

Importance of development of entrepreneur

Dealing with Indian government

Difficult at best – red tape, large, complex

Freight, customs, permits, labor

Problems of a  “Closed Economy”

Hi internal prices

Price control

Pressure to export vs. high prices

Leverage of import controls and [?] for expansion

Conclusion

1)     India is making remarkable strides and some day will solve its most pressing problems.

2)     It is a country with a population of 438 million, not counting two provinces which were too unsettled to bother with.

3)     For many products it is a good market today – for other products a good market for tomorrow. Because of foreign exchange problem and concessions tend to limit number of competitors in a field, therefore, some advantage in being a little ahead of time.

4)     Good profits can be made.

 

12/1/61, Copy of a memo to members of the Executive Roundtable and Research Council from Richard P. Conlon announcing the forthcoming meeting, listing speakers

who will give their observations on India from their week long trip there. Hewlett is listed as one of the speakers.

12/19/61, Copy of the typewritten program of the meeting

11/29/61, Letter to Hewlett from Richard P. Conlon, Business International, discussing arrangements for the meeting

Box 1, Folder 28 – General Speeches

 

March 5-6, 1962 – Background of HP Development Program, HP R&D engineers

This was a general training program for engineers – and over 400 attended the day at a local hotel. Several managers spoke, including both Hewlett and Packard. There are two speech outlines in this folder. The first is clearly for the conference on March 5 – the second may have been prepared for another training seminar at an earlier date. Both are covered below.

 

3/5/62, Outline of first speech handwritten by Hewlett on notepaper

 

I   Introduction

Will talk about the R&D programs in general terms – its importance to the Company, what it costs, and return on investment. Source of projects and where ideas come from. How projects are scheduled.

 

II   The Vintage Chart – based on HP parent – instruments only

A)   Comparison of 1954 products to 1961

1)   Same items 13 mil, now 18 mil

2)   In 7 years new products have added 30 mil – 2 ½  times larger

 

B)   Life History of a product

1)     Fast start – peak – tail off

2)     Considering products in production in 1954

a)     1955 – 100%

b)    1958 – 81%

c)     1961 – 56%

 

C)  How is HP doing – Comparison-wise?

1)     HP 14.5 in 1955 to 49 in 1961 = 3.4 : 1

2)     U.S. Mil. & Ind. 3.25 in 1955 to 8.19 in 1961 = 2.5 : 1

3)     In six years have increased penetration 35%, or 5%/year

4)     Validity of U.S. Mil.-Ind. 1954 to 1960

a)     U.S. 2.44

b)    Electronics market data 2.27

 

D)  Return on Engineering $

1)     Cost of Engineering 1955 thru 1961: $16M

2)     Increased sales 1955 thru 1961: 92 ½ M

3)     Assume pre-tax profit to be 17%, profit would be $16M

4)     Run down 5 year life  4:1, 10 year life 7:1

 

E)   Effect on Development Policy

1)     Engineering one of greatest assets – must use wisely

2)     Specials uneconomical – Dymec

3)     Effect of military contracts – policy

 

F)   Factors determining proper level of R & D

1)     Conservation practices – payout in three years, 3/4 of growth    is from industry [?], ¼ from penetration. If doubled engineers effort would require 5 fold increase in penetration rate.

2)     Rate at which we can assimilate new people and train leaders from within – also space

3)     Mention a balanced staff

4)     A level that we might maintain even if the industry took a turn for the worst

 

III   Source and Selection of Products

 

A)     Basic policy: Make a contribution to art: scopes

B)     Obvious field requirement 606 sig. gen., 560 printer, scopes

C)     Logical extension of line: 614-616-618 sig. gen.

D)     Matching requirements and techniques: 650, 202A, 428, 524, 185 sampler scope

E)      “Redesigns”: 400D, 400H, 400L, 96G, 80G, 110G, 100G,

F)      External Sources: 803 bridge, 415 USWR, noise factor, 721 power supply, sampling recorder

G)     Project Selection

1)     Seat of pants – own best judge – basic contribution

2)     Factor of merit – modifying factors

3)     Support of total line

 

IV   Character of recent projects and instruments

 

A)     Reliance on proprietary components

1)     Better performance

2)     Protection

3)     40% of equipment now use proprietary components

B)     Integrated Electro-mechanical design

Microwave – sig, gen, recorders, clock

C)     Vast increase in sophistication

1)     More performance – simpler operation

2)     Requirement to work as part of system

3)     Greater reliability – customer should not field test

 

V   Problems

 

“What are the most pressing problems facing HP? In the case of R&D it is organization.

 

“How can we set up so that we may have all the advantages of flexibility of a small company, and still capitalize on advantages of large one?

 

“How can we provide an environment in which you can contribute both to the individual engineer…and also stimulate the basic thinking that leads to technical breakthrus that lead to new families of instruments?

 

“How can we organize so that all the steps necessary to carry a project from conception to production can be planned and executed so that this total cycle will take a minimum of time thus reducing costs and guarantee maximum mileage out of new ideas?

 

“When Warner of BTL [Bell labs?] was out here last month he commented to Dave that ‘It was generally understood that HP had the best capability in circuit design of any organization in the country.’ We intend to retain the reputation.”

 

 

Undated, outline of second talk to engineers

 

I)  Professional Judgement

 

A)    New trend in Eng. Education

B)     Corollary in industry

C)     [?]

D)    Means open for professional development

1)   Formal

a)     Honors Coop

b)    College extension

c)     HP policy not to give [training] material that is available on outside

 

2)   Informal

a)     Technical reading, Stoft program, discussion with colleagues

b)    Technical talks

 

E)     Application of knowledge

 

Collection of knowledge for collection sake is fruitless and stupid. The important element is application of knowledge. Application leads to more creative work – better and more creative work leads to advancement. I would like to point out there is a great deal of lateral movement.

II)   Personal Development

 

A)   Professional Societies

1)   Make contacts that are so important later on

2)   Gives experience in working with diverse group

3)   Forced feeding by listening to papers

4)   Is a responsibility to support anyway

 

B)   Community Activities – Church, government, charities

1)     These are important functions and deserve support – it is company policy

2)     How does it help you

a)     Get engineer out of his shell

b)    Provide an opportunity to develop a broader base of thinking – to develop the necessary logic for conviction and vital experience selling and putting over your position – this is essential as a good supervisor both up and down

c)     You learn to work with people

 

C)   Reading

1)   Business related

Organization Man

Management Theory

Technical Manager

3)      Non-Business, Non-Fiction – U.S. and World around

Ugly American, Nation of Sheep

Rise and Fall of the German Reich

 

How much history have you read since school?

What do you read in the newspapers each day?

What do you think is the solution to the segregation         problem – to unemployment?

Should the U.S. work towards a general dismantling of tariffs?

 

Become interested in some special subject of great personal satisfaction

4)     Theater, opera, symphony, folk dance – take season seats

 

“It all comes down to the question of motivation. You can become a happy, uninformed, obsolete vegetable, or you can be a creative productive engineer or manager with a keen interest in the world around you and what makes it tick.

 
“One requires nothing more than an 8 hour day at the plant, and a TV at home. The other requires a dedication to self-improvement and a willingness to allocate and schedule time and effort for this purpose.

 

“One leads to stagnation, one leads to advancement.”

 

3/5/62, Copy of a sheet containing charts of operations data

2/23/62, Copy of a memo from Lee Seligson to Barney Oliver discussing arrangements for the conference

2/27/62, Copy of a memo from Ray Wilbur to various managers outlining arrangements and the program for the engineering conference

February, 1962, Several lists and pages of questions submitted by engineers for the conference

Undated, copy of several pages of notes handwritten by Packard for an engineering development session

 

 

Box 1, Folder 29 – General Speeches

 

March 8, 1962 – “European Integration and the Industrial Electronic Industry,” World Affairs Council, San Francisco

 

(See also speeches dated September 13, 1960, April 14, 1961, and June 16, 1962)

 

3/8/62, Typewritten copy of Hewlett’s speech

 

Hewlett says he is like a “homespun economist” [one] “who develops basic ways of thinking on certain broad problems. It is in this context that I would like to comment about my views on the industrial strength of the U.S. and the factors that have affected it.”

 

Hewlett feels Americans may not be any more creative or smarter than people in other countries, nor work any harder. But he says the big advantage we have had “has been the tremendous mass market that exists within the U. S. The U. S. has tailored its economy to serve this mass market and as a result found itself in recent years with a considerable competitive superiority over other nations of the world who were denied this advantage….If the basic national requirements for a commodity are large enough in a given country to justify mass production and distribution techniques, it is pretty obvious that someone in that country will take advantage of this situation. In such cases, mass produced U.S. products will have greater difficulty in successfully penetrating such a market. A case in point as far as the electronic industry is concerned is that part related to consumer goods such as radios, TV, phonographs, and the like. As a group, these products have not kept pace with the rest of U.S. electronic exports.”

 

Hewlett explains that, in contrast to the radio and TV group, American industry finds its greatest advantage where its market in the U.S. is large enough to warrant mass production techniques, but the market in other major countries is below that threshold.  “An example,” he says, “is in another major sector of the electronic industry, the fields of industrial, scientific and military related electronics. In addition, domestic industry in this sector has full advantage of the very large Government expenditures resulting from our space and defense activities.” Taken as a whole, Hewlett points out that in the field of military and industrial electronics, the U.S. has had a commanding lead over practically any other country in the world. This is the area where HP operates.

 

Thus, when the Treaty of Rome was signed, and when the countries of Europe supported its provisions, “…it became pretty evident,” Hewlett says, “that the great advantage the American economy had had in the past, that of its mass market, would soon be shared with those countries within the European Common Market. To assess the situation Hewlett made a trip to Europe in 1958. “As a result of this visit,” he reports, “ I became strongly convinced that we should establish a manufacturing operation abroad, and at that time Germany appeared to be the logical country.”

 

Hewlett recalls the days after World War II when the U.S. put Europe “back on its feet. We taught them all we knew about production techniques and about modern management methods and they were very good students. In addition, due to war damage many of the plants abroad had much more modern equipment than their U.S. counterparts….In one area, however, either we did not teach them or they did not listen carefully, and this was in the field of marketing. I feel very strongly, and many people share this view, that American marketing practices are considerably ahead of those in Europe.” This encouraged HP to establish an “aggressive marketing organization in Europe in addition to the more obviously needed manufacturing unit,” according to Hewlett. So, implementing this course of action, a marketing centered organization was established in Geneva in the Spring of 1959 – with the first products “out the door” from the new European plant in the fall of 1959.

 

To show how successful the European venture was Hewlett cites some before and after figures. He says “In 1958, the year before we made our European move, we sold about 1.75 million dollars worth of equipment in Europe. Three years later, we sold 5.6 million or about a three-fold increase.”

 

Looking back, after 18 months of operation, Hewlett says the new plant “produced about $800,000 worth of equipment and is operating at a profit level which is quite comparable to our costs here despite the fact that due to unavailability of proper materials and components we have found it necessary to import almost 75% of such items from the U.S….All in all, I would say we are very pleased with the total program in Germany.

 

Moving on to discuss activities in England, Hewlett says that in 1961 they became “greatly concerned about the trend of our business in England. This was primarily due to the very strong protective tariff that exists for our type of products.” As a result, he says they decided to establish a plant near London. “It is really too early to comment on the success of this program but I think it is interesting to note that we felt it necessary to take this step.”

 

Concluding his remarks, Hewlett says “I would like to say that in the consumer electronics field, the rise of the ECM probably will have very little effect upon U.S. based industry. For the section of the electronic industry in the industrial and scientific fields, the ECM will continue to be a strong market for U.S. exports. Where production quantities are large enough to warrant, it will probably be desirable for many companies to establish their own manufacturing facilities abroad. I am bullish about the effect of the ECM on the electronics industry – at least for the next five years.”

 

3/8/62, Two pages of handwritten notes by Hewlett which appear to be the start of outline for this speech.

 

 

Box 1, Folder 30 – General Speeches

 

March 27, 1962 – “The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Program,” The House Ways and Means Committee, Washington D. C.

 

3/27/62, Copy of a typewritten text of Hewlett’s speech before the Committee

 

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

 

Hewlett says he appears before the Committee as a representative of the Hewlett-Packard Company,  which he says “is a concern specializing in the development and manufacture of precision electronic test and measuring apparatus. In size, we are one of the largest firms in the United States concentrating in its field. We employ somewhat over 5000 people and our gross sales last year were about 85 million.” And he goes on to tell where the major plants are, both in the U.S. and abroad. He says “Foreign sales are an important element of our operation as they account for approximately 14% of our total sales, or reduced to people, represent jobs for about 650 Americans.

 

THE ELECTRONIC INDUSTRY

 

Hewlett explains that HP’s principal customer “is the electronic industry itself, specifically those firms operating in the industrial, military and scientific fields….A realistic evaluation of the segment of the industry we serve, indicates that the United States is substantially ahead of the rest of the world in both technology and production practices.”

 

Hewlett mentions two major reasons why this is so. “Perhaps the first…is the increasingly large percentage of the military budget which is being spent in the electronics field. Much of the technology so derived becomes an important and exportable by-product of such spending and serves to give U.S. industry a great competitive advantage.…A second important source of technological competence is the very high general level of industrial research maintained by U.S. firms, specifically those in electronics. These factors combined with the increasing domestic demand for electronic products throughout industry, give every indication that U.S. electronics is going to maintain its superiority for a number of years ahead. What I am saying is that in a field like electronics, superior technology will demonstrate and that should tariff restrictions be reduced or eliminated, the U.S. would be in a position to increase substantially its balance of exports over imports.

 

HEWLETT-PACKARD EXPERIENCES ABROAD

 

Hewlett tells what two things HP did when it became apparent that the European Common Market would be a reality – “establish a manufacturing operation within the Common Market to protect against the adverse effects of foreign tariffs, and [secondly], …mount a major European sales program. The results since 1958 are of interest for total sales in Europe have increased four fold even though there is an average effective tariff against our products of about 20%. Had this tariff been lower, there is every indication that our exports from this country would have increased even more sharply. A corresponding reduction in U.S. tariff, we feel, would have had little effect upon our domestic sales. If we can compete successfully with foreign competitors in their own country we are certainly not going to worry about competition from them on our own home ground.

 

“Our experiences in the manufacturing field were equally interesting. Contrary to expectation, we found that by-and-large the quality of foreign electronic components, the basic building blocks of our assembly operation, were inferior to those of U.S. manufacture. To maintain comparable performance standards for our equipment, we have been forced to procure almost three quarters of such items from U.S. sources. I am sure that should European tariffs be reduced on such items there would be a substantial increase in their export from the U.S.

 

Hewlett says he wants to give another example of the adverse effect of foreign tariffs. “Most of the equipment we manufacture,” he says, “is classified by the United Kingdom as equipment that may enter duty free if there is no comparable product in the UK. If, however, such a product is available from local sources, then our product carries a 33 1/3% tariff. We enjoyed a sizeable and growing business with a certain class of instruments in England for which there was no local counterpart. Two years ago, a well known British firm introduced what appeared to be an almost identical copy of our instrument. We lost our preferred tariff rating and the sales on this instrument were reduced by fifty percent -–a dramatic indication of how U.S. exports can be affected adversely by foreign tariffs. Our only course was to either give up our position in the market or to set up a subsidiary to produce this item in England. We chose the latter course and I am happy to report the latest figures indicate that we have recaptured our position in this field, but it was done at the expense of setting up a second manufacturing facility in Europe long before we would have normally chosen to do so.

 

SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL

 

“The Hewlett-Packard Company is strongly convinced that House Resolution 9900 is a major and important step in liberalizing world trade. Should it be passed and implemented by the President, there is every indication that our exports would increase even further. We are not fearful of the effect of competition from foreign imports.”

.

 

Box 1, Folder 31 – General Speeches

 

April 2, 1962 – Boblingen Plant Dedication

 

4/2/62, Typewritten text of Hewlett’s talk

 

Hewlett says “It is with great pleasure that he and Mr. Packard take part in the dedication of this plant, our company’s first permanent home in Boblingen, indeed our first permanent plant outside the United States.”

 

He indicates they started negotiating for this site some two and a half years ago. “In the intervening period we have moved from temporary quarters in an old building on Karlstrasse to more modern quarters on Konigsbergerstrasse, and now to this fine building.” He thanks the many “fine people” who made the move possible.

 

“Many of you may not realize,” Hewlett says, “that not only was this our first foreign endeavor but that it was our first plant located away from our home city, Palo Alto. In establishing this operation we had much to learn, not only how to live and work in your country as good corporate citizens but also how to operate a truly independent manufacturing operation.”

 

He says about a hundred people are employed at this plant now, and “we are really proud of their skills and achievements. The production per employee has been rising steadily and is now equal to, or better than, several of our operations in the United States. [This], despite the fact that the production quantities are smaller than those common in the United States, making it more difficult to achieve a high degree of efficiency.”  Hewlett says the plant is now making over twenty-eight standard HP products, and more are coming.

 

An R & D operation has been authorized for the plant, he says. “We feel that by drawing on the fine engineering and technical schools of this country we will be able to set up a research and development program, that not only will design equipment for the European Market but will also form an important part of our total corporate engineering program.” He adds that they have enough land here to build three more buildings, and he sees the possibility of the first in “not too many years.”

 

Hewlett says that [Ray] Demere, an HP manager from the U.S., will be leaving shortly. He announces that Mr. Schroeder has been appointed as plant manager. “I am sure,” Hewlett says, “ that under his directorship this company will continue to prosper and grow as it did under Mr. Demere and will develop into one of the major plants in the Hewlett-Packard family.”

 

In closing, Hewlett says that they “have recognized the importance of the establishment of this plant by including a comment about it in our most recent ‘Quarterly Report of Earnings’ sent to all our shareholders as well as a picture of this building.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 32 – General Speeches

 

May 7, 1962 – ”Electronics and Medicine,” Hewlett Club, San Francisco, CA

 

5/7/62, Outline of speech, handwritten by Hewlett

The following is a summary of topics listed in this outline.

 

Hewlett starts with a review of electronics and electronics in medicine. He mentions Galvani, Waller EKG in 1880, Eindhoven, Roentgen, X-Ray 1895.

 

Hewlett discusses various electronic applications in medicine:

Diagnosis:

EKG, X-ray, EEG, endoradiosona…?

Treatment:

X-ray, isotope, electronic bombardment, diathermy, defibrillator, coherent light

Monitoring Equipment

Operating room, recovery room, ICO

Automatic processing

Automated blood testing, blood cell counter, cancer cell studies

Data storage

EEG, group statistics – analysis and retrieval

Scientific and Instrumentation uses

Brain process, theory of vision, medical engineering and physician team, blood flow, circulation studies, reaction studies, muscle studies

 

Under Economic aspects of Medical Electronics, Hewlett lists return on engineering dollars, and the effect of hardware, computer people, bio-medical engineers

 

Some basic problems

Diagnosis and monitoring

How to get what is needed for data acquisition – fetal heart beat, blood flow, continuous blood pressure

 

How to determine if medical correlation exists between what we can measure and medical needs

 

Treatment

Hewlett discusses the economics of medicine in modern society. He says “More and more people will have the right and the means for better medical care. The supply of doctors is limited – must find a way of utilizing M.D. more effectively.

 

“It is through education and people who are trained to see both sides of the problem.

 

“It is through research both within and without the university.

 

“It is through government support where the cost or the scope is too great for industry or the university to carry alone.

 

“HP has no interest [in this area], but this is where the government can really help in giving more medical care to more people.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 33 – General Speeches

 

June 14, 1962 – Talk to University of California School of Business Administration, Berkeley, CA

 

6/14/62, Typewritten draft of speech with many handwritten notes by Hewlett-Packard

 

This speech is very similar to speeches dated March 8, 1960, September 13, 1960, and June 14, 1962. In this speech Hewlett again describes the HP organization, its products and the events that led to the decision to expand to Europe. He discusses  some of the difficulties in integrating into the European world. We will up pick the story here with their decision to expand further into England.

 

Hewlett says the decision to establish a plant in England was “partially forced by economic developments. Most of our products are classed by the UK as essential items and essential items of our type carry an import duty of 33% if there is a comparable item made in the country. If not, they come in duty free. On a major class of equipment, we had enjoyed this duty free status for several years, but a well known and reputable British manufacturer chose to produce an almost Chinese copy of our product, and thus impose on our imports a very heavy duty.”

 

“Our choice,” Hewlett says, “…was to [leave] the market or try to set up a manufacturing operation and compete there. We chose the latter course and I am pleased to report that the sales trend has now been reversed.”

 

In conclusion, Hewlett says that “it is certainly evident that we have benefited greatly from this expansion program. This year we will probably sell about $9,000,000 worth of corporate products in Europe.” He says “…that this program of ours in its own small way has contributed in a helpful sense to the U.S. balance of payment problem. Further, it is certainly not exporting jobs, on the contrary, it has generated more jobs at home.”

 

He says the U.S. Government’s policy on taxing foreign earnings really “bugs” him.  “We must look forward to the country drawing ever closer to a community of free nations. We must be prepared to accept changing trade patterns throughout the world. For every dollar we lose in foreign trade balance in one area we must be picking up two in some other area. The people of U.S. must understand this. The industry of U.S. must understand this. The government of the U.S. must understand this and support it not by just words but by its actions.

 

“We are at a critical time in the economy.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 34 – General Speeches

 

August 13, 1962 – Statement to Palo Alto City Council re Palo Alto Hospital

 

8/13/62, Very cryptic outline of comments prepared by Hewlett for his remarks, all in his handwriting. He discusses the needs for medical care in the Palo Alto area and the facilities available to furnish it. [See also his speech to the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce on the same subject, dated January 4, 1959.]

 

 

Box 1, Folder 35 – General Speeches

 

October 10, 1962 – Role of R & D in Future Profits, IRE National Electronics Conference Panel, Chicago IL

 

Hewlett was invited to be a member of this panel, the objective of which was stated to be ‘…to stimulate research and development in electronics and to create a better understanding between industry and the universities in regard to the advancement of the electronics science….’

 

10/10/62, Outline of speech handwritten by Hewlett.

Hewlett’s outline starts with a section on the role of R & D in past profits. He lists  these topics:

Analysis of past return on R & D

Effect on present policy

Contribution of new products to growth

 

Under a section on the Role of R & D in future profits

Proper level relative to one’s industry

$ established by industrial patterns

 

The third section is titled Getting the most out of your R & D

Quality of people

1. More R & D demands highest quality of people – best minds, best training, most creative
2. Proximity to centers of learning is important
3. Rapid tempo of change in our technical world demands sound fundamental training in sciences
4. No “all chiefs and no indians” setup, must have full spectrum of personnel for advanced research of top technical and production engineering staff.

 

Motivation

1. One of the finest motivations is the personal intellectual challenge – the selection of projects, the assignment of people
2. Conviction of the value of the program and what they as individuals can contribute
3. Recognition. A job well done, association with a successful product, pay

 

Program Selection

1. Importance of a device that does an old job a better way, or that does a brand new job
2. The importance of leading, vis-a-vis capitalizing on a breakthrough

 

Project Administration

1. Flexible administration
2. Discontentment reflects NIH [not invented here] factor

Conclusion

R&D is important and can pay off

 

There will be a practical limit to how many $ can be spent

 

If these two facts are true – then the laurels will go to those companies who can select and attract the best people, and who can stimulate and direct these people in the most effective and efficient fashion.

 

It is a challenge to management.

 

10/5/62, One typewritten page listing  product  and production data evidently put together by Hewlett

10/9/62, Copy of a one page typewritten program describing the panel discussion and listing the panelists

6/5/62, Letter to Hewlett from Frank Waterfall, HP’s sales representative in Chicago. He asks if Hewlett would be interested in participating in the IRE panel discussion, and mentions having panelists who could tell of “success stories” emphasizing the importance of R & D.

6/19/62, Copy of a letter from Hewlett responding to Frank Waterfall’s letter above. Hewlett says: “Every time someone wants me to talk about a success story I shudder. I feel this subject is so overworked that I simply can’t develop any enthusiasm to expound on the incredible foresight that Dave and I had some 234 years ago about the future of the electronic industry. Nor to get up before a crowd of people and publicly acclaim that I am one of the smartest guys you have ever seen.”

6/21/62, Letter to Hewlett from Angus A. MacDonald of IRE Asking if Hewlett will participate in their panel discussion.

7/2/62, Letter to Hewlett from Cletus Wiley asking if Hewlett plans to submit an abstract of his remarks ahead of time

7/17/62, Copy of a note from Hewlett to MacDonald saying: “If I run true to form on this one, I won’t have a draft copy until the night before. I’m sorry I can’t accommodate you further on this point

8/24/62, Copy of a letter to panel participants from the Panel organizing committee discussing approaches to the subject of R & D

8/28/62, Letter to Hewlett from Jean Paul Mather of the Purdue Research Foundation extending an invitation to join other panelists for lunch on October 9

9/21/62, Letter to Hewlett from Jean Paul Mather saying the proposed luncheon on October 9 has been cancelled.

 

 

Box 1, Folder 36 – General Speeches

 

October 13, 1962 – Talk at the Dedication of the Loveland Plant, Loveland, CO

 

10/13/62, Outline of remarks handwritten by Hewlett

 

Hewlett says HP has a partnership with the State of Colorado, the County and the Loveland community. He expands on this partnership theme under three headings:

Common objectives

Cooperation and understanding

Both partners receive a share of the benefits

 

Common Objectives – HP

1. to build a sound autonomous division of parent company in a community that could grow and develop with it. Sometimes have to go slowly so will not have to step back
2. To build as a firm foundation for long-term growth and not just for profit
3. To provide stable employment

 

 

Cooperation and Understanding

1. Mostly what HP has received
2. Reason we came because you wanted us not because of concessions
3. Understanding – Problems that our being here may cause – growth and expansion

 

Value Received

1. HP
   1. Everything that a friendly understanding government can give – not just the big things, but the little things too
   2. Some of the hardest working and most concerned employees have  been associated with the feeling of being a part of something new and growing and important
   3. You have taught us the great advantages associated with an independently run geographically separated operation

 

1. Community
   1. Balance of payments
   2. Opportunity for citizens of this growing community to find stable long-term job opportunity both for themselves and for children who wish to remain here
   3. Taxes

Box 1, Folder 37 – General Speeches

 

February 14, 1963 – “The Importance of Being Wrong,” Brigham Young University, Provo, UT

 

2/14/63, Draft of speech handwritten by Hewlett

 

Speaking to his audience of students, Hewlett says “the three most difficult statements for people to make are: I don’t know, I don’t understand, and I was wrong.” Saying that while any one of these would be worth considerable discussion, he wants to talk about the subject of being wrong while in the pursuit of truth, first in the context of scientific and engineering endeavors, and, secondly,  as it might apply in the field of management.

 

Looking at the matter of being wrong as it might apply in field of science, Hewlett goes back to the Greek era – and to Aristotle in particular. “Aristotle,…the pupil of Plato, the teacher of Alexander the Great,” he says, “is important because of his profound influence on the scientific thought of the Western world.”

 

In explaining Aristotle’s approach to science, Hewlett says “…he believed in the natural path of investigation, starting with that which is observed and readily observable and evident, and proceeds to the more self-evident and intrinsically more intelligible. From these intelligible principles observable facts can be predicted and verified by experiment. From such experiments come confirmation or refutation of the applicable intelligible principle, i.e., success or failure – right or wrong. Some conclusion would be reached and action taken. Progress was made by some correct decision, some action.

 

“Aristotle,” Hewlett says, “is alledged [sic] to have stated that in his work he learned more through a study of his failures than from a review of his successes.” Hewlett notes that while this is a “truism,” it is “more often observed in the breach than in its observance.” But he emphasizes the point that after action comes observation and then analyses.

 

“Aristotle’s approach, as important as it was scientifically, had certain weaknesses,” Hewlett tells his audience. “…it presupposed a theory and set about to prove it rather than the more wide open theory of investigation that studied general principles, rather than seeking to prove a theory.”

 

“A second failure of the Aristotelian approach was the acceptance of the ‘self-evident’ or ‘generally accepted’ basis for subsequent theory,” Hewlett says. He tells how Copernicus, in 1530, completed his treatise saying the sun was the center of the solar system. This was a challenge to the commonsense feeling that the solid and immovable earth was at the center, with the sun and other planets rotating around it. And, for the first time, it was a challenge to the authority of Aristotle himself.

 

“The reaction to Copernicus,” Hewlett says, “was typified by the comment of Francis Bacon who said of Copernicus that he was a man who ‘thinks nothing of introducing fiction of any kind into nature, provided his calculations turn out well.’”

 

And  Hewlett tells how, three-fourths of a century later, Isaac Newton “knocked out theory and created new fiction – gravity. It was only a matter of time before his fiction was accepted as theory and, in turn, was to be modified by the 20^th century fiction of Einstein’s relativity.”

 

“Therefore,” Hewlett tells the students, “you have a responsibility to question – not that you will all be Newtons or Einsteins – but in the day to day world that surrounds you, you will find many things that ‘always have been done’ – but that does not make them correct. All of this [is] to say that in science man’s progress has been made by the questioning of ‘authority’ by more advanced theory, the proving out of the new theory…with resultant advancements – and in time the now old authority [becomes] challenged by new ‘fiction.’ ”

 

Hewlett moves on to show how all this has application to the world of management – or, more specifically, decision making.

 

He says, “In a group your reputation is built by a series of good decisions, large and small. Some mistakes will be tolerated particularly if it is noted that you learn from them. A long series of decisions that have stood up gain you leadership among your associates. Your own success can be judged when more and more people both at your organizational level and above seek advice. When people no longer question why a decision is made but merely accept your views, you are on the road to being an expert (ugh) and have achieved leadership in that field.

 

“All of which is a long way of saying that personal progress is made in management by your skill in successful decision making and not by not making decisions.”

 

Dealing with Failure.

“Failure can be a shattering experience. What to do about it.” Hewlett advises maintaining equilibrium, “don’t panic – ask yourself how big was the failure, who thinks it is a failure. Is it indeed a failure – not to be defensive, but self analytic – to learn from experience. One of the hardest things about failure is to recognize it as an opertunity [sic]. One of the hardest questions is ‘Was it me or was it bad luck.’ A time for self-analysis, often an inflated ego, toughest when [failure] comes after a long series of good decisions. A sense of infallibility has been established – all the more reason to get back on beam….Sometimes failure comes from being too much of a perfectionist with a resultant inability to make a key decision, for not making a decision is often as much a decision as making one.”

 

Hewlett tells the students that as they start out in the world as junior employees they “have a right and a responsibility in your mind to challenge the status quo of your new environment – to ask questions, to listen and to learn. In due course I’m sure you will want to make constructive suggestions. Not all organizations, – not all supervisors, are the same. In a good organization, with a good supervisor, consideration will …be given to thoughtful suggestions and their source noted.” He tells them they may be rebuffed, and he councils moderation in such circumstances; “but above all,” he says, “remember your reaction to this disinterest and vow to be more responsive when you are in an equivalent position.”

 

Conclusions

Hewlett concludes with a quote from a book ‘The Art of Decisions Making,’ by Joseph D. Cooper:

 

‘The aftermath of decision is action and the aftermath of action often brings some measure of failure. In a sense, anything short of perfection constitutes a fraction of failure. However failure is to be avoided, when it comes you must learn from it.’

 

Hewlett continues, saying, “I know of many people who have great ability and good ideas – but who are afraid to act for fear of being wrong. I know of others who are such perfectionists that unless every eye is dotted and T crossed they will make no decision – take no action.”

 

“In a measure, my being here today is proof of what I say for this is but an imperfect presentation of a very important phylosophical [sic] point. I am willing to be called wrong, but even here I have a hedge, for to those of you who do not agree, who believe I am wrong, at least I am practicing what I am preaching. But to those of you who agree I may have made some small contribution.”

 

 

 

Box 1, Folder 38 – General Speeches

 

April. 1963 – “The Changing Scene of Engineering,” Tokyo Section of  IEEE

 

4/63, Outline of speech handwritten by Hewlett

 

Hewlett says he has not been active in the IEEE for the last 8-9 years, although one of the HP Vice Presidents is a VP of IEEE.

 

Therefore, he says he would like to talk about long term trends in science, particularly engineering trends —  the recent merger of IEEE and AIEE being one example.

II Background

 

1. [Science] is growing exponentially – 90% of scientists are now alive, double every 10-15 years.

Problems of education

Uses and control

1. Overall growth [of science] consists of whole series of lesser growths – some arrested and now static – some declining like steam locomotives.

 

1. As science becomes more complex there are some significant changes taking place that I believe are worthy of noting. One of these is the tendency of all sciences to spread out and overlap related areas.

 

III Engineering

 

1. Military engineering – civil engineering
2. New fields – specialists, ME, EE
3. IRE, AIEE,
4. Educational process follows – how to do courses
5. Professional consultants
6. Changing pattern

1.   Professional to employee

1. Some fields peter out – mining engineer
2. New societies spring up, like IRE – some short lived
3. Professional group section in IRE
4. Technical committee  AIEE

 

1. Significant of new phenomenon
2. Areas of related interest spreading out
3. Other areas finding commonality
4. Concept of team approach
5. The broader base of science has encouraged companies to speak out on new areas, thus the phenomenon of everyone speaking out on new areas, getting into each others fields. – rubber into petrochemical, petrochemical into plastic, chemical into drugs…

 

III What to do about it.

 

1. Recognize it as it happens
2. Education as it happens
3. Develop management skill to cope with it.
4. Be prepared to adapt marketing, strategize to exploit own ideas and to react to others.
5. Be as flexible and mobile as possible – both in technical and management sense. A fixed position is just as obsolete as the Maginot Line.
6. As to the merger of IRE and AIEE, it was the recognition of facts and a symbol of the changing times. It was a wise and courageous move, and one from which we may learn something about the problems of overlapping disciplines.

 

 

Box 1, Folder 39 – General Speeches

 

May, 1963 – “An Executive View of Industrial Planning,” Before the Conference on Planning for Industrial Growth, sponsored by the Stanford Research Institute, Stockholm Sweden

 

5/63, Typewritten, double-spaced draft of Hewlett’s speech with several notations in his handwritting.

 

Hewlett says he “looks forward to the opportunity to visit with many of you and to learn of the similarity of problems on both sides of the Atlantic. I hope that later in the day I may have the opportunity to discuss subjects of mutual interest with members of the conference.” For those who come to the western U.S. he extends an invitation to visit HP’s headquarters in Palo Alto, California. He says HP has employed several young men from Scandinavian countries,  and, “without exception these young men have been highly regarded by their American colleagues and a number of long lasting friendships have been established.”

 

In considering what he might say about the subject of industrial planning he wondered what light “an executive from a relatively small electronics firm” might “cast on this subject when there are representatives from so many world famous companies participating in  these discussions” He says he concluded that there was one important field of planning “where the experiences of my own company might be of value – the field of planning in a growth company.”

 

Hewlett says he has seen HP grow ten-fold over the last ten years, growing from “500 employees in a single plant to more than 6000 employees spread through ten plants in the U.S. and two in Europe.”

 

He says he has had the opportunity to observe “the transition from the highly informal planning which is characteristic of a small company, to the clear recognition of the requirements and advantages to be derived from a more precise corporate planning program.” Saying that the advantages of such a program are “abundantly clear,” he gives one example: “Ten years ago,” he says, “if we wished to expand our production by a ten percent increment, it was relatively easy to find a thousand square meters or so of additional space to house this increment. Now, a ten-percent increment requires more than ten thousand square meters of plant space, and our experience has indicated that to locate, plan, construct and equip such a facility takes almost two years. This single fact alone has forced planning out by at least that length of time. In addition, there must be parallel planning to insure that there will be production workers, supervisors and managers…to staff this addition.”

 

Hewlett says he would like to continue the discussion on the subject of planning in a growth company, particularly with “the transitional  phase that starts with the individual personal planning of the chief executive, [which is] so characteristic of a small company, and carry it through some of the steps that ultimately produce the more formal planning associated with a large corporation.”

 

He says he would like to do this “by means of a hypothetical company – a company that is a composite of all that I have observed. In discussing this hypothetical company, I would like to postulate that it has certain characteristics – one of the most important of these would be that it has had good management. This good management has been adequate to provide it with the type of product planning necessary for small company growth and further has provided it with financial planning sufficient to solve the fiscal problems associated with growth. The company has been able to establish a marketing organization that is reasonably efficient in the distribution of its products; and finally, and most important, the company has reached a size that taxes the span of control of the chief executive as yet unaided by strong staff support.”

 

“It is at this point,” Hewlett says, “that the prior skill and foresight of the chief executive in his alter ego as corporate-planner will show up. Does he have the executive material [available inside the company], trained and ready to help him share the increasing administrative load – or must he go outside the company to find such help? To have been ready for this need, he must long ago have anticipated such a requirement and have committed the company to the added expense of hiring junior personnel with less experience than required for the job but with promise of great potential for executive development.”

 

Hewlett admits that such preparation “takes courage to do, for the horizon of the small growth company is never very far ahead. It is truly difficult without the elaborate planning staff of a large company to predict future growth. All the chief executive can conclude is that the company is doing as well today as yesterday, – that he sees no worse storm clouds ahead than in years past, and that having experienced a certain average growth rate for the past few years he must be prepared for the problems that will arise if such growth continues in the future. In a gross sense, these are the bases on which the additional overhead of executive training must rest.”

 

Following the further development of this hypothetical company, Hewlett says, “It must have a second echelon of management capable of sharing the responsibilities of administration with the chief executive. This staff was either developed from within the organization in which case the transition can often be made smoothly or it was obtained from outside the company and the transition may be considerably more difficult. Regardless of the source of such personnel, the delegation of responsibility to the staff creates new problems within the organization. One such problem is the need for a clear set of broad corporate objectives – of corporate goals to guide top management. Often these corporate objectives have been locked in the mind of the chief executive and were never clearly expressed or even fully thought out. The formalization of goals and the acceptance of them by all is an important step in …corporate planning. Time may change them in detail or even in some major aspect but these goals, these objectives will ultimately become the backbone of the more formal corporate planning to follow.”

 

Increasing size brings many problems which, Hewlett says “in a small company may be solved almost on a day-by-day [basis], but which in a large company require much longer lead times and therefore, better long-range planning….Another example of the need for increased lead time with [increasing] size, is related to the necessity to have an adequate supply of trained personnel, [not only] at the management level, [but] at the foreman and supervisory level, to meet the demands of growth. As a small company, such needs are not hard to fill. A large company may find it desirable to establish in-plant training programs to assure the availability of such people as needed.”

 

The area of “plans and procedures” is another field where Hewlett says, increased planning is required as the company grows larger. “In the small company,” he says, “ where communication is less of a problem, greater flexibility exists with respect to adapting procedures to meet changing requirements. As a company grows, much of this flexibility is lost and much more planning is required in the development of new procedures to insure that they are in themselves flexible enough to adapt to the changing environments without disrupting the normal operation of the company.

 

“Closely related to this problem is that of internal accounting procedures…to revamp this important phase of accounting to accommodate the greater volume and complexity of the firm. Changes in such procedures are highly critical for they are the standards by which performance is measured. It is important, therefore that when such changes are made that they be made only after the most careful study and planning. Planning to insure that the new accounting procedures will be viable despite the changing patterns of growth.

 

“A final step towards formal corporate planning must be taken if size and geographical disbursement indicates a move toward management decentralization. Without corporate planning such decentralization can lead to corporate anarchy. The objectives, the goals, the inter-operation of all elements of the decentralized company must be carefully planned if full advantage is to be taken of the inherent assets of a large corporation, yet at the same time capitalize on the flexibility that lies in the smaller operating unit. If I may return to our own company for a moment – our entry into the European market added much to our understanding of  the need for better planning, for it forcibly took us out of  our domestic environment where many functions and operations had been taken for granted and forced us to look objectively at them for the first time. This look gave us a better insight into such areas as flow of funds, transfer of know-how, market strategy, management rotation and the like. As a result of such planning, we have been able to adapt ourselves to our new environment and, indeed, benefit greatly from our new associations, not only in a technical sense but in the broad area of mutual understanding.”

 

Hewlett says people in Europe are more accustomed to a multi-country environment and “may fail to realize the truly stimulating effect of moving out of your home country environment,  which inevitably tends to be restricted in view, and into other countries of the world where one has the opportunity to observe the many and varied approaches both to the day to day and long term problems that face an industrial concern. For us, the planning that led to our markets in Europe has proved to be an indirect but important key to better international understanding by our entire top staff.”

 

In closing, Hewlett says he has “just touched on a few highlights of the step-by-step growth of planning that leads to a more mature company. “I have dealt,” he says, “with the structural aspects of this development rather than with the more obvious and more widely recognized need for product planning, for market planning, or for financial planning. Indeed, each of these is a major subject in  itself. One of these, product planning, is a subject for discussion during the afternoon session.

 

“As I look back on our own experiences, I am convinced of the fact that, almost without exception, we have not initiated a given planning program until appreciably after the need was first evident. If I had the ability to relive this phase of our development, one of the aspects on which I would lay the greatest stress would be an earlier recognition of the need for planning. We have lived through this phase but we could have done better.”

 

5/63,  Typewritten, single spaced, copy of Hewlett’s speech. Has no notations added and does not incorporate the handwritten notations he had added on the copy noted above.

 

 

Box 1, Folder 40 – General Speeches

 

May 23, 1963 – Testimony at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, San Francisco, CA

 

5/23/63, Copy of typewritten text of Hewlett’s remarks

 

Hewlett says that he hopes, as a representative of the Western Electronic Manufacturers Association [WEMA], “to give some indication to this Committee about the steps being taken by the electronics industry in the West to increase its share of trade in the Pacific area.”

 

He says the electronics industry is so diffuse that a detailed analysis of the overall export program could not be given without “a tremendous amount of research. Lacking the time to undertake such a survey he says “I will therefore be forced to deal in either broad generalizations about the industry or by means of specific references to the experience of my own company.”

 

“Electronics” he says, “ in California is the seventh ranking industry in this State in terms of export.” Behind aircraft, food products, and petroleum, “it is still an important and significant phase of the State economy.” Based on data that he has been able to gather, including various governmental reports, Hewlett reports that “as far back as 1957 (the most current data available), California was the third ranking state in the export of electronic equipment in the U.S. Although it may be very difficult to obtain an exact estimate of the distribution of U.S. electronic products, it is possible to make a reasonable estimate based on the very close correlation that exists between the sale of precision electronic test and measuring equipment and the total electronic market. This is exactly the field in which my company, the Hewlett-Packard Company, is engaged – and thus a study of the U.S. Department of Commerce classifications covering this category of products,  as well as our own experience, gives a reasonable clue to the relative importance of various world trade areas for U.S. electronic products. Using the most currently available…that of 1961, one finds the following approximate breakdown of the market areas of the world:

 

Europe – 50%

Canada – 20%

The Pacific area including India and Pakistan – 15%

The rest of the world – 15%

 

“A more careful scrutiny of the 15% of the exports that go to the Pacific area reveals that 75% of the product goes to 3 countries – Japan, Australia and India, and the remaining 25% to the 15 other countries listed in the Department of Commerce survey.”

 

Noting the higher percentage of exports to Europe, Hewlett says “U.S. industry in general has not been particularly export minded. It is really only in the past decade that the full importance and potentialities of the export market are being appreciated by American industry,”

 

Hewlett inserts a related thought: “In passing, I might comment that the 1962 changes to the Revenue Act as they affect taxation of foreign income were in my opinion most unfortunate. At a time when every effort should be made to encourage trade, these revisions I am afraid, will have exactly the opposite effect. There certainly were certain abuses of the existing law but why try to carve a chicken with a meat cleaver.”

 

Returning to his primary subject, and referring back to the rather recent recognition of the importance of exports by American industry, he says “It is quite natural that the industry world tend to look first at the most important market areas – Europe and Canada, and only after these markets were reasonably in hand to such secondary markets as the Pacific area.

 

“From this fact, it an be concluded that reasonable opportunities may exist for expansion of electronic exports to the Pacific area.”

 

Hewlett says customers for electronic equipment are “generally found  in those countries [with] a reasonable degree of sophistication in their industries, or have a large internal military demand. It is for this reason, I believe, that one finds the heavy predominance of electronic exports to such countries as Japan and Australia. Let me discuss …some of the problems of expanding exports to these countries as well as some of the steps that are being taken to overcome them.”

 

JAPAN

 

Hewlett says Japan is greatly concerned with its balance of payments and “husbands her reserve of dollars with great care. Thus, U. S. exporters to Japan

face serious limitations on import licenses and dollar exchange available for [imported] products. Unless Japan can export more of its manufactured products, it is unable to increase its imports.” Hewlett feels U. S. policy towards Japan has been “liberal and enlightened.” But Europe, on the other hand, he says,  has “…by one means or another managed to restrict seriously the import of Japanese products. He recommends that the U.S., therefore, “continue to push, in the most vigorous fashion possible, for a more enlightened policy by our European allies in this respect.”

 

Hewlett says “Many American electronic manufacturers are establishing manufacturing operations in Japan in an attempt to increase the sale of products  [there.]” He says these operations are usually established in conjunction with a Japanese partner. Hewlett feels these operations will inevitably lead to an increase in exports [from] the U. S.  “Part of this increase in exports will come in the form of components whose specialized nature precludes their manufacture in Japan -part [will come] in the form of fabricated items which can be more economically manufactured in the U. S.,  and part through improving the reputation of American made products, thus increasing the share of import dollars made available for their purchase. Part [of the increased exports from the U.S will come] from the export of U.S. production machinery which may be necessary to support local manufacturing.  Our own experience with the establishment of manufacturing operations in Europe has borne out these factors. We have found that our total export of manufactured items to Europe has increased at a rate substantially larger than our domestic market, and further, that it is necessary to import almost 70% of our components and materials from the U.S. to support these foreign manufacturing plants.”

 

“Up until recently it was not possible for products of foreign manufacturers to be displayed at…trade shows in Japan,” Hewlett says. On the other hand, he points out that Japanese products are regularly displayed at trade shows in the U.S.

 

He says some progress is being made for U. S. products to be shown in Japan, saying that “two booths may be assigned to the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association at a show later in the year.”

 

And Hewlett adds that at HP they “have found that some of the steps taken by the U.S. government to promote the sale of U.S. manufactured products in Japan have been most successful. In 1961,” he says, “we had an exhibit at the U.S. Department of Commerce exhibit at the Tokyo trade fair and found this to be a most valuable means to make known to the Japanese on a broad base the character of our products.”

 

AUSTRALIA

 

“Australia, like Japan, has a serious shortage of dollar exchange,” Hewlett says. And he adds that the discovery of oil in Australia may help alleviate this problem.

 

Australia has a high import duty regulations on electronic products, Hewlett says. He suggests that it would be helpful if the U. S. government urged Australia to ease this problem, although he doubts they would be receptive to any such requests “as long as there are equivalent clauses in the ‘Buy America’ act.”

 

INDIA

 

Hewlett feels that India, with its large population, should be a prime target for U.S. products, although he says they, too, have a difficult currency exchange problem. He says, “The long range policy of lending every assistance to India to facilitate a limited degree of industrialization will do much to hasten the day when India’s balance of payments problems will be lessened, and it will be in a position to import, on a freer base, manufactured products from the U.S.”

 

Hewlett says other countries such as Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia may become important export markets for U.S. electronics, but the “primitive state” of their industry limits imports now.

 

“In conclusion,” Hewlett says, “it can be said that to date the Pacific area has represented only a small fraction of the world export market for U.S. electronic products, and that only most recently has increased attention been focused on this market area.

 

“Sales penetration of the market will undoubtedly take the form of local manufacturing coupled with more aggressive sales effort. U.S. help to date through the media of trade fairs and trade centers at least in the more developed countries has been of value.

 

“Finally, any factors which improve the balance of payments position of customer nations will have a direct and beneficial effect on U.S. exports of electronic equipment.”

 

8/28-29/62, Booklet titled “Pacific Trade Patterns”  containing the hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce in August 1962, which Hewlett no doubt obtained as background for his remarks.

5/31/63, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Senator Clair Engle in which he requests a copy of the proceedings of the Senate Committee on Commerce in San Francisco in May, 1963

5/23/63, Copy of a statement by George L. Mehren on the subject of agricultural exports given at the Senate hearing in 1963

 

 

Box 1, Folder 41 – General Speeches

 

July 15, 1963, Talk to HP Senior Sales Seminar

 

For years, HP had sold its products through independent sales representatives. In late 1962, HP completed negotiations with all sales representatives to acquire them, most through the exchange of stock. These remarks by Hewlett appear to be given at the first meeting of all of the senior sales people, including those overseas, as HP people rather than as independent representatives.

 

7/15/63, Handwritten speech written by Hewlett on notebook lined paper

Hewlett says this is the first “Full Sales Group” meeting and the 1962 meeting was the last sales representative seminar. He says he knows there is much apprehension among those attending as to the details of the new organization and how it all will work – apprehension about “change.” He says “I would like to single out this question of “change” and look at it carefully – pick it up by its heels, turn it around, examine it top and bottom.

 

 “There are going to be changes,” he says, underlining it twice in his notes.

And saying that there will be many types of change, he starts with “Changes in Conformity.”

 

Using the analogy of gears, he says not all gears of their new organization are yet meshing. “And,” he says, “usually [where gears don’t mesh] it isn’t the ‘bull’ gear that does the changing – specifically, there will be some areas where conformity is both necessary and desirable. He enumerates these

 

1. One obvious field is accounting and accountants
2. Not all changes to conform to parent sales organization. Different than manufacturing – desirable that there be some similarity between sales organization in different parts of the country.
3. Why conformity when in the next breath we will talk about the advantages of decentralization….Effective management is a complex mixture of likeness and differences. From differences spring new ideas, new techniques. From likeness can come true comparison of results, flexibility that will allow transfer of a man from one job to a more promising and challenging one in another area – the ability of the whole organization to work together as an effective unit.
4. Change, because now we can do some things in an integrated fashion which were not possible when our organizations were separate. Changes that will allow us to more effectively present our wares to the customer – more effectively give him the service and backing that spells future sales.

 

1. Order processing
2. Area stocking
3. More effective transportation

 

Change because we must adapt to changing environments

 

1. Competition
2. Government regulation
3. New technologies

 

Change is not necessarily bad

 

A.   Tendency to resist change – no one likes it

1.  Good changes bad changes, no changes
2. We do not want change for change’s sake – we do want no change for no change’s sake
3. Deep responsibility for those who cause change – results not always evident

 

Living with Change

 

1. Do not want to give the impression that we are going to change the     hell out of everything – far from it. You were all successful in your [business] – why change more than absolutely necessary. Will not be capricious, worked out with principle.
2. No point in looking back at the ‘good old days’…
3. We are all part of one organization. Let’s all get our shoulders to the wheel and push.”

 

Conclusion

 

“There may be change in form and detail, but not in basic principle.

 

1. HP is in the business of developing, manufacturing and selling quality measuring equipment – when possible, of making a contribution to the art, at the lowest possible cost consistent with long range picture.

 

1. We are in business for the long haul and not for the quick buck. This means that in field of selling we must know as much as possible about the equipment we are selling so that we can intelligently recommend the proper equipment for the proper job. This is a relentless and unending job – to the extent that you are successful at this task you will be welcomed back – next week, or next year.

 

1. It is our continuing desire to make it as easy as possible for the customer to procure maintenance and receive the finest possible follow up service for his HP products you people are selling and have the unique responsibility to see that these objectives are met. You stand between the customer and the plants. You are a spokesman from the company to the customer is obvious – that you are a spokesman for the customer to the plant is, however, equally important. If you overlook this aspect of your job your long range effectiveness will be greatly impaired and never forget it.”

 

“So let’s get in and make this the best senior sales seminar ever – let’s quit worrying about the past and think about the future.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 42 – General Speeches

 

August 12, 1963 – Talk at Scope Plant Ground Breaking Ceremony, Colorado Springs, CO

 

8/12/63, Handwritten notes by Hewlett for his remarks at this ceremony.

8/12/63,  Typewritten copy of same, somewhat expanded.

 

Hewlett says that when he and Packard first started thinking about starting up a company in 1934,  they had tentatively planned on doing so in Denver, Colorado. But by 1939 they “were well established in Palo Alto.”

 

“[This new plant] is a good deal – one in which both parties feel that they attain value received from the transaction.

 

“HP wanted :

 

(1)  A stable, intelligent, hard working labor force, because of the type of  products we make

(2)  A community that was intellectually interesting and stimulating

(3)   A community that was attractive and an interesting place to live.”

(4)   A stable and responsible community that could understand our problems and work with us in resolving them – [we] do not expect special treatment, just a willingness to work out problems;

(5)   And most important, a community that wanted us.”

 

He says these points are important because “…we need to bring in certain technical and managerial people into the community and these conditions make it more acceptable.”

 

“I need not tell you people of Colorado Springs that one would find these conditions here. I can tell you that we have indeed found these characteristics here

 

He says he cannot speak for the city of Colorado Springs, but he can do a little selling on behalf of HP –

 

“Colorado Springs will be getting:

 

(1)  A company that is dedicated to a responsible labor policy – stable employment, even sometimes at the expense of short term dollars

(2)  HP will bring technical and managerial personnel into the community that will complement and fit in well with the quality of the community

(3)  [The technical nature of HP’s products] will encourage technical training in the area,  as well as a general endeavor to continue to improve education at all levels

(4)  Tax income and general benefits to the area to be derived from a 10 to 15 million dollar business

(5)  A company that really wants to make a permanent establishment in your community”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 43 – General Speeches

 

September 10, 1963 – Acceptance of Honorary Lifetime Membership in the Instrument Society of America, Chicago, IL

 

9/10/63, Handwritten notes for his speech, written by Hewlett

 

With some interpretation of his notes:

 

Hewlett says he has been interested in ISA activities and their important leadership – he is sorry he has not been able to participate more fully.

 

ISA is like other organizations – “you have to sing for your supper,” and they “tell you what to talk about – technical contributions Dave and I have made – damn few.”

 

“Our contributions are really a product of the whole staff. All Dave and I can do is get the best people and provide a good environment.”

 

As for the environment, he says this includes physical, educational, intellectual, administrative

Problem getting people to move to Palo Alto

Stanford is a source of students, higher education, consultants, intellectual     stimuli, interplay with good technical staff in shops

 

Company environment most important:

Top management deeply convinced that the future of the company depends on the quality and contribution of the technical effort.

 

Encourage people’s ideas that may lead to technical breakthroughs and support work

 

Pays off

 

Importance of forward effort leads to balanced program

 

Breakthrough that work contribute to measurement  science

 

Opportunity of people to develop to fullest

 

Same horizons we had when we started – reserve for our people

 

It is the effort of all the people who make the people in the front office look good

 

9/10/63, Copy of the program for the ISA Honors and Awards Ceremony

 

 

Box 1, Folder 44, General Speeches

 

October 2, 1963 – Indoctrination Seminar for New Field Engineers, Palo Alto, CA

 

10/2/63,  Handwritten notes by Hewlett for his talk

 

Most of you will be concerned about selling HP products: what policies, what background, what precedents of the company influence our products, our policies

 

To understand us you must know about our background and how it affects the company and its people.

 

Did better on general purpose than on special purpose instruments

 

Thought when we made a truly basic contribution we were repaid

 

As a young company we could not afford frills

 

The Company Today

Appearance of confusion (maybe there is)

Acquisition of sales organization

Some divisions, some subsidiaries, sales new territories

 

In foreign field same patterns – some are our offices, some are independent representatives

As far as you people are concerned a great confusion of products

Birth pains of a new company – an important new company in the making

You are in part also seeing the working of free enterprise system – the willingness to tolerate some degree of confusion and overlap so that the spark of creativity and innovation may have a chance to be exercised.

 

What this means to you

A company in motion is a company where excellent advancement of the able is possible, vis-a-vis the stable company

 

Finally, the idea of the sales engineers as the front door of the company

 

Corporate Objectives

 

9/27/63, Memo from Ed Winn to Hewlett confirming arrangements for the seminar and attaching list of field attendees

 

9/30/64, Memo from Ed Winn to Madelen Schneider, Hewlett’s Secretary, listing other attendees at the seminar

 

 

Box 1, Folder 45 – General Speeches

 

December 2, 1963 – Fred Jones Dinner, Mills College, Oklahoma City OK

 

12/2/63, Outline of remarks handwritten by Hewlett in pencil on notebook paper

 

Hewlett discusses the “Case for  Private Colleges, ”and Private education as a national asset. His conclusions are:

 

1)    U. S. education has developed and prospered because of the important balance between private and public education

2)    Private education is a national asset for students and a source of future faculty

3)    Face a crisis

4)    Mills College