Chapter VIII 

 ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS 



The President, with advice and assistance of the 

 new Office of Science and Technology, is respon- 

 sible for government-wide program planning and 

 coordination. In oceanography, the Director of 

 GST, who serves as Chairman of the Federal Coun- 

 cil for Science and Technology, looks to the Inter- 

 agency Committee on Oceanography to carry out 

 this activity. The present Chairman of the ICO is 

 the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research and 

 Development), and ICO membership includes 

 eight federal bureau chiefs. It carries out its func- 

 tions through special panels on Research, Surveys, 

 Instrumentation and Facilities, Manpower and 

 Training, International Programs, and Ship Con- 

 struction. It is an organization which is built on 

 the skills and competence found in the depart- 

 ments and which provides a means for the expres- 

 sion of many points of view. It is considered more 

 workable and responsive to the diverse and com- 

 plex requirements of the broad spectrum of ocea- 

 nographic management problems than would any 

 single executive department vested with the same 

 responsibility, an alternative which is sometimes 

 suggested. 



Its panel structure is highly effective in identi- 

 fying technical needs in various research cate- 

 gories, devising programs and measures to meet 

 these needs, identifying desirable allocations 

 of technical effort among the agencies and sug- 

 gesting assignment of technical leadership, and 

 facilitating interagency communication at manage- 

 ment levels. 



The ICO itself reviews these panel findings and 

 recommendations, assures an appropriate division 

 of technical effort, examines the balance of effort 

 among the different research categories and the 

 adequacy of the overall program, makes findings 

 concerning the technical manpower base for the 

 program, and recommends management policies 

 to improve the quality and vigor of the effort. 



Government-wide plans and programs, budgets 

 and organizational recommendations are reviewed 

 and approved by the ICO's parent body, the Fed- 

 eral Council for Science and Technology, based on 

 analyses developed by staff and consultants of the 

 Office of Science and Technology. 



The ICO depends on the individual agencies to 

 evaluate the scientific worth of projects within 

 their own programs. 



Including as it does technical, operating, admin- 

 istrative, and scientific people on the committee 

 and its panels, and functioning as it does within 

 the framework of the Federal Council for Science 

 and Technology, it has been able to avoid both 

 paralysis on the one hand and superficial and hasty 

 action on the other, the two fates on which most 

 committees founder. Nevertheless, deficiencies 

 and difficulties exist. Two in particular seem worth 

 noting. 



Although it has been highly successful in estab- 

 lishing effective communications at the manage- 

 ment level, the ICO needs to do more to improve 

 communications among the scientists, engineers, 

 and others at the working level. It has published 

 numerous pamphlets and bulletins on the results 

 of panel work of general interest: an annual inter- 

 agency plan, yearly ship operating schedules, 

 college curricula. Ocean Survey Plan, etc. This 

 series is intended to continue and to be extended. 

 It also intends to publish an encyclopedia of ocea- 

 nographic instrumentation. Being considered, but 

 not yet at the planning stage, are interagency ma- 

 rine centers in which interdisciplinary programs 

 of large scope could be carried on more efficiently 

 with pooled facilities than they could on a single 

 agency or laboratory basis. Finally, there is a pos- 

 sibility that something of value might result from 

 ICO-sponsored interdisciplinary conferences or- 

 ganized perhaps around particular goals in ocea- 

 nography, such as the federal goals discussed in 

 this plan or those of special seagoing groups such 

 as fishing, shipping, and mining. The ICO, through 

 its present panel structure, is probably already 

 capable of this extension of its activities if it should 

 undertake this effort. 



Second, to improve its own effectiveness in 

 decision-making and in planning, the ICO should 

 have the support of a small full-time analytical staff 

 in addition to its Secretariat. The staff should, in 

 effect, work for and be responsible to the Chair- 

 man of the Committee. It should be responsible 

 for systematic analysis which will aid in planning. 



44 



