Box 3, Folder 6 – General Speeches
March 31, 1967, Comments on Opportunities Industrialization Center West (OICW),
Palo Alto, CA
It is not clear who the audience was to whom Packard was speaking, however HP was a strong supporter of OICW and these remarks, although brief, give an emphatic response to some negative reports that had been made in the community.
3/31/67, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s comments
“Since it was organized in 1965,” Packard says, “OICW has created and conducted well-managed, effective job training programs geared to the specific needs of Peninsula business and industry. It has received, and continues to merit, the enthusiastic support of all segments of our community.
“Through its emphasis on self-help, it has enabled hundreds of unemployed and under-employed people on the Peninsula to obtain worthwhile jobs and to bring hope, confidence and dignity to themselves and to their families.
“Our company, as well as many other firms in the area, has hired several OICW graduates, and we intend to hire more. We find these people capable, industrious, and able to make an important contribution to the community’s growth and progress.
“It is gratifying to note that throughout local industry there is a growing appreciation and endorsement of OICW. Many firms are pledging increasing financial support to the program, are contributing equipment and teaching skills, and are broadening job opportunities for its graduates.
“As with any positive, energetic movement, OICW has gathered a few critics along the way. Several of us in industry have recently investigated and evaluated its criticisms. We find that these are not based on fact but on fancy. They are a product of negativism and questionable motive. It is regrettable that not everyone in our community approaches important social problems in a positive, constructive manner. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the overwhelming majority of people who are directly exposed to OICW heartily endorse its principles and programs.
“The beauty of OICW is that it works. It represents accomplishment, not promise; hope, not despair; affirmation, not protest; action, not apathy. It is a vital, moving force in the betterment of our community and as such, deserves our continuing interest and support.”
Box 3, Folder 7 – General Speeches
October 9, 1967, Dedication of Lou Henry Hoover Building, Hoover Institution, Stanford Alumni and Friends, Hoover Institution
10/9/67, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech,
“I am pleased to be able to participate in the dedication of the Lou Henry Hoover Building. This is an important occasion for the Hoover family, I know, to have their mother – as well as their father – honored here at Stanford and remembered by this beautiful building.
“The occasion is also an important and memorable one for many of Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover’s friends and admirers a number of whom have helped to make this building possible. From among these, I would like to say a word about two.
“Mr. Jremiah Milbank, because of his close friendship with and great admiration for Mr. And Mrs. Hoover over the past forty years, has been generous to Stanford and the Hoover Institution on many occasions. It is indeed appropriate, and I must add very gratifying personally to me, that the main reading room in the Hoover Tower is being renovated and will be hereafter known as the Jeremiah Milbank Room. Mr. Milbank attended many Advisory Board meetings of the Institution with Mr. Hoover in that room, and I know The Chief would have been very pleased that Jerry Milbank’s name will be permanently inscribed there.
“I am sorry to tell you that Mr. Milbank’s health is so uncertain that he cannot be with us today. We are honored, however, by the presence of his son, Jeremiah Milbank, Jr.
“About sixty years ago, a penniless and virtually illiterate Serbian youth named Todor P9lich arrived in Los Angeles. He learned English – and through hard work and no small measure of innate ability – he became a successful businessman. His two sons graduated from Stanford, and both played on the football team.
“ Mr. Polich came to admire Herbert Hoover and what he stood for and what he believed in, and I, in turn, have been a great admirer of Mr. Polich and of his accomplishments.
“Through his generosity, Mr. Todor Polich has helped make the Lou Henry Hoover Building possible, and I am certain that both Mr. And Mrs. Hoover would have been very proud to know that he main seminar room in the Lou Henry Hoover Building will carry his name.
“Our dedication today is not only an important event to commemorate the memory of Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover, and to acknowledge those who have given so unselfishly in their tribute to them. The event also has significance in the progress of Stanford University.
“The Hoover Institution here on the Stanford campus has become one of the strong and prominent segments of this University. The books, documents, and archives of the Institution constitute a significant proportion of the University’s library collection, and in fact have contributed tremendously to the nation wide prestige of the Stanford Library.
“The Institution also has become an important center of scholarly research, study, and publication on subjects which have great significance in these troubled times. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hoover placed great hope that this Institution would serve well in man’s continuing search for a better world. That is also the hope of a great university.
“In many ways Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover reflected the tradition of Stanford. They combined a love of scholarship with a dedication of service to their fellowman. I have often marveled at their accomplishment in the translation of Agricola’s De Re Metallica.
“Lou Henry Hoover’s involvement in help for young people was extensive throughout her lifetime, and Herbert Hoover set the finest example for young people who would seek to serve their fellowman in a career of public service. In Mr. Hoover’s case, it began with his relief work, continued with numerous assignments under five Presidents, and as president himself.
“Nevertheless, he always stoutly maintained that the private sector – the professions and the private business establishment – make the most important contributions to both the social and economic progress of the world.
“Every student should read his statements about his profession of engineering.
“It is a great profession,” he said, “There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer’s high privilege.”
“If this is not enough to appeal to the socially oriented student of today, Mr. Hoover also pointed out that “from works of engineering, new laws and regulations have to be make and new sorts of wickedness curbed He, the engineer, is also the person who really corrects monopolies and redistributes national wealth.”
“Herbert Hoover also had something to say which might help enlighten those students who look with disdain on business as a career. He was a businessman as well as an engineer, and during the last fifty years of his life, which he spent in public service, he had many dealings with the business community. He recognized that the vast majority of businessmen are not motivated by selfish interests. As Food Administrator during World War I he relied largely on voluntary cooperation of the business community in solving the many problems of maintaining an adequate supply and distribution of essential foodstuffs to mount a successful war effort.
“In accepting President Wilson’s appointment, he responded by saying, “I hold strongly to the view that while large powers will be necessary for a minority of cases, the vast majority of the producing and distributing elements of the country are only too willing and anxious to serve.”
“In his administration of this program, there were great and serious difficulties. Most of these were solv4d, however, because the business community rose above their selfish interests under his leadership.
“His leadership toward a higher ethic in business affairs continued as he took charge of the Department of commerce and introduced many programs in which the business community cooperated to better serve the public welfare.
“It is an image widespread among students, and professors too, that service to humanity is not a common characteristic in the world of commerce and industry. Such an image was perhaps justified during the early decades of the 20th Century.
“Fortunately, during the last three or four decades, the social attitudes in the world of commerce and industry have undergone a momentus (sic) change for the better. Mr. Hoover’s influence, by way of example and by way of his constructive thought and action throughout his many years of public service, have had no small effect on contributing to this higher ethic in the administration of business and industry.
“I am particularly pleased, therefore, that today’s dedication of the Lou Henry Hoover Building recognizes the expanding role of the Hoover Institution in the affairs of this University.
“It is my hope that this new building will help the Hoover Institution serve well both faculty and students in their scholarly studies – in their search for new understanding, and new answers, to the perplexing questions of today and tomorrow.
“It is my hope also that this new building will serve as a continual reminder – to present and future generations of students and faculty – that Stanford has a great heritage. It is a heritage worthy of preservation, and one reflected in many ways in the lives of Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover.
“In particular, this heritage includes a tradition in which the University and its graduates have served their fellowman in the practical as well as the intellectual affairs of the world. It also includes a tradition of strong involvement in – and commitment to – the principles of free and private enterprise as well as public and social service.
“I know my hopes in these matters are shared by the vast majority of the Stanford family, as well as those who have made the building possible.
“On their behalf it is my privilege and honor to resent the Lou Henry Hoover Building formally to the President and Board of Trustees of Stanford University.”
10/9/67, Copy of speech handwritten by Packard.
Undated, Handwritten note from Packard to his secretary Margaret Paull, asking her to arrange to have copies of his speech go out with the Alumni letter.
Copy of the printed invitation to the dedication ceremony.
Box 1, Folder 2 – Stanford
January 6, 1957, Function of the Trustee of the Privately Endowed University, Stanford Business School, Palo Alto
1/6/57 Handwritten speech given by Packard at Stanford’s Japanese Seminar.
He goes into considerable detail describing how the Board of Trustees operates at Stanford. He describes the history of private universities in the US saying, “Although private individuals started the institutions, in most cases they received support from the local government during the early phases of their history. Soon, however, the administrators, particularly those on the academic side, found it desirable to be entirely free from political influence and so very early divorced themselves from state control. They remain independent and privately administered to a large degree today.”
Speaking of the contribution of private universities to the country Packard says, “Although the public institutions outnumber the private universities and are proportionately much better supported, the private universities exert a tremendous influence in the United States and provide most of the leadership both in the academic and professional areas. for example, in a rating recently made by a large American newspaper, seven out of the top ten universities were privately supported. In the sixty largest business concerns in the United States two-thirds of the officers and directors are graduates of or attended one of these seven leading privately endowed universities. The responsibility of the privately supported university therefore is one of leadership, as even the proponents of publicly supported universities recognize”
Packard describes the organization of the Board of Trustees, its responsibilities as well as limitations placed on it by the founding grant. He covers the work of several committees one of which is the Committee on Investments. “One of the very important responsibilities of the board of trustees is the preservation of the endowment funds that were originally given to the university by the Stanfords and of the funds that have been given subsequently by other donors.” Packard goes on to list the types of investments held and the percentage each represents of the whole $43 million fund.
Packard says that the Committee on Finance “is responsible for overall financial policy, as well as for day to day financial operation. For example, its most important job is to review the annual budget of the university in order to recommend it to the board of trustees for approval.” The Committee on Buildings and Grounds, Packard says, “assumes responsibility for maintenance of the physical facilities of the university and studies plans for expansion, new buildings, rehabilitation of older buildings, and all of the things having to do with the physical plant with a view to making specific recommendations to the board of trustees.”
Packard says the board of trustees is less active in the area of academic affairs and that “The control of academic affairs is centered in the president of the university (as distinct from the president of the board of trustees) and the faculty. In the selection of the president of the university, however, the board of trustees has an important influence on academic affairs because the president, in principle, provides the leadership and, to a large degree, determines the academic caliber of the university.”
Packard gives a detailed description of Stanford’s fiscal budget listing income and expenditures. Endowment income, he says, “is a rather small portion of the total amount of available money. …Generally this money is contracted for the purpose of some specific research in a particular area.
2/30/57 Letter from Oswald Nielsen, Professor of Accounting, sending Packard a typewritten copy of the above speech asking that Packard make any corrections.
1/24/57 Letter from Gail Saxon (Packard’s secretary) sending the draft back to Professor Nelson with minor changes.
Box 1, Folder 28 – HP Management
January 11, 1967 – Management Conference, Monterey
1/11/67, Typewritten comments prepared by Packard to be given at the conference.
Packard congratulates everyone on the good things done during 1966, but says he wants to talk about areas “where we have done, in my opinion, a disgracefully poor job.”
One example”, he says, “is our management of inventories and accounts receivable.” Dave goes on to say that the problem with receivables started when responsibility was assigned to the sales offices.
Dave shows some slides on both inventories and receivables concluding that “this is poor management.” “To put it bluntly – I submit to you that a division manager who is unable to keep his inventories in line better than some of you did in 1966 may be miscast in his job. And, the same applies to an area marketing manager and his receivables. I hope a word to the wise will be sufficient.”
“Now all of this has to do with the proper management of our resources – and it goes back to one of our basic objectives – and a very important one – to keep our corporate -wide profits at a rate which will generate resources sufficient for us to finance our growth. It follows logically that we must utilize these resources efficiently. Let’s look at our performance over the last few years in this respect, as shown in Figure 4.” He shows a slide which shows that growth in net worth has not kept up with growth in shipments. He concludes the answer is to increase profits. “It seems to me”, he says, “that any division which is in the ten to twenty million dollar area of sales, should be expected to generate a profit adequate to finance its own growth, and provide a little extra for seed. Here again, I hope a word to the wise is sufficient.”
Dave says he has some specific suggestions for consideration:
“First, making a profit adequate to support your own growth is primarily a matter of attitude – you can do it if you decide it is that important – and as far as I am concerned, from here on it is going to be that important.
“Second, it is highly dependent on pricing policy. The main opportunity we have to raise our profit performance is to develop new products good enough to justify an adequate profit. They must be priced accordingly, and as I have said before, you have to find new product projects which will generate a substantial volume when proceed to produce an above average profit. If you have development projects which are likely to give you products with large volume and below average profits, you better think about cutting them off – they won’t help you get your performance where it has to be. If you take business on an incremental basis, it had better be a small increment of hour total business, or you are in trouble before you start.
“The object of the game is to increase your profits at least as fast, but hopefully faster, than your growth in sales. You are likely to turn in better performance at a higher price level and a lower volume. If your growth in profits is not equal to your growth in volume, an increase in prices will have the effect of bringing them in line. Taking on incremental business will make this relationship move the wrong way.
“Third, the problem often starts at the design stage of a new product. If you design an instrument that has more components than its competitive product, or is more difficult to produce, even the most efficient manufacturing effort won’t bail you out.
“Fourth, if you don’t take a tough minded attitude about your people and their performance, you are sure to be in trouble. We have emphasized over the years, the importance of being fair to our people, and certainly we must be. But, this does not justify condoning poor performance by anyone in a management position. We cannot build a future for all the people in this company with mediocrity. We must demand excellence.
“Fifth, I do not believe we have done a good enough job in our planning. We have not developed an adequate, well considered strategy for what we want to do.
…….”The underlying strategy in our new product program must always be to make a contribution – to be ahead of, and better than, our competition.”
“Sixth, we are not yet doing a good job in every division in the transition from development to production. This, again, is as much a failure in planning as in implementation. Last year we had several new products put into production, and on the market, before they were ready to go. This is not good management. This is just floundering around. It wastes resources, as will as effort and every of people.”
Packard closes by asking that each division manager submit a written report to him on his strategy and plans for the future in specific detail to improve the performance of his group.
1/12/67, Typewritten pages by Dave Packard . He says that last night we looked at the BIG job we have to do. And now he invites all to take a look at our FIVE YEAR plans. Packard spends some time talking about opportunities in the medical and analytical areas and then moves on to the bigger picture:
“In addition to the medical and chemical markets, we believe there will be a trend toward more automation and data handling in our traditional market. We have been working in systems at Dymec, and we have been developing many instruments which are programmable and produce data in digital form We have looked forward to a growing interest in fully automated instrumentation systems. the introduction of our Computer this year brings us closer to the capability of producing viable, fully automated instrumentation systems. We are not there yet, and I hope we can keep working on the interface problem between instruments produced by different division and with our Computer.
“I would summarize the outline of our over-all corporate strategy in regard to our markets and fields of interest as follows:
A. First to strengthen our position in our traditional field of electronic instrumentation.
1. Put more emphasis on instruments which make a real contribution in this field.
2. Build a stronger position in automated instrumentation systems.
3. Keep up with latest technology, such as integrated circuits in our new products.
B. Build a viable position in Medical instrumentation.
1. Put more emphasis on instruments which make a real contribution in this field.
2. Build marketing capability to support the program.
3. Recognize that the medical market is fragmented, and concentrate our effort on the portion of this market where we have, or can expect to build a viable position.
D. Build a position in electronic instrumentation for Analytical Chemistry.
1. Place more emphasis and effort on areas where we can really make a contribution.
2. Build marketing capability to support program.
3. Be sure we keep close coordination and compatibility between marketing capability and new product program.
E. Work to bring and concentrate total corporate strength into these four field of activity.
Development programs, acquisitions, or other endeavors, which are not directed into these specific areas should by undertaken only with great caution.
The balance of the material in this folder is support papers for the conference
Box 1, Folder 29 – HP Management
June 12, 1967, Division Managers Meeting
1/12/67, Folder contains various supporting charts, spreadsheets, for the meeting