Rapid Development 1 65 



get at Dahlgren because I saw what he was trying to do at China Lake, and it 

 sounded absolutely right. His philosophy was to have a research and develop- 

 ment activity in which you could think of an idea, do some analysis on it, 

 whatever is necessary, make some drawings, get some people to make them for 

 you, put it in the shop tonight, have it finished tomorrow morning, take it out to 

 be tested, and by the end of the second day, you get results to tell you whether 

 your idea was worth a darn — all in one place. Vou don't have to ship anything; 

 you don't have to negotiate a contract to have this made or this tested or this 

 analyzed or anything like that. That's what I tried to do at Uahlgren, and to a 

 large extent, I think that I was able to do that. Of course, not by myself. I had 

 good people who all understood what the goal was — to be self-containing so 

 that you can work fast. You make your mistakes very fast, and that's how you 

 beat the world. 



Dahlgren has merged with the former Naval Ordnance Laboratory [NOL]. Do you see 

 any significant impact that this will have on the Dahlgren work environment? 



I think Dahlgren was headed in the right direction in systems before that 

 merger. I think the problem would more nearly be how to get NOL to make the 

 adjustment from a very formal organization to an informal one. It's losing a 

 litde formality with Chuck Bernard there now, which is a good thing, but prior 

 to the merger, it was highly organized. Everything had to go up through the 

 chain and come down before it could be approved, sanctioned, financed. It was 

 much easier going at Dahlgren. I was criticized more than once for running this 

 loose organization. "You don't even know what the hell the organization is!" 

 No, I don't want to know what the hell the organization is, and I don't really 

 care. It certainly isn't the chart. At Dahlgren, far more attention was paid to 

 objectives and goals than to organizational structure. You really have the best 

 kind of organization when there's no discipline required and no one needs to 

 resort to the authority of the organization to get the work done or as an excuse 

 for not getting it done. When somebody has done the wrong thing, you let him 

 into your office when he comes to tell you what he's going to do to fix it. Don't let 

 him in to alibi, to explain how he goofed off and it isn't his fault and the 

 organization is to blame. Just tell him to forget it and work on the problem 

 instead of the alibi, and he'll be much more impressive. It's a hard thing for 

 people to learn, to give up trying to explain their failures. I sincerely hope that 

 the merger will not introduce the kind of formality that will cause Dahlgren to 

 lose its easygoing ability to admit mistakes and go on to the next thing. 



Was this merger discussed during the 1960's? 



Oh, yes, it was discussed from a different angle, of how Dahlgren was going 

 to be absorbed by White Oak. That was the topic of conversation in 1966. 



