REF ID:A72391 

DRAFT 31 October 1951 - ----

SUBJ: Blanket;r-Blank 

Reviewing action taken up to this date. 

It was decided by this engineer that, in view of the extremely wide extent and broad ramifications of the operation under review, in the interests 

of avoiding confusion of thought, the project as a whole.must be studied 

thoroughly as a first step on a purely organizational basis. To this em 

the contacting members of the staff were requested to prepare departmental 

flow charts, these to be subsequently embodied into an over-all organizational flow chart. 

After appropriate discussion, it was decided that the flow charts would 

be made as simple as possible, first in the interests of security, and then 

in the interests or unobstructed ani uncluttered basic thinking. Superimposed 

on each of the departmental or divisional flow charts, also on the over-all 

activity flow chart, would be annotations indicating: 

a. Yearly budget figure showing dollars required to finance current operations. 

b. Manpower authorized, am in being, to operate the activity. 

c. Floor space per divisional or major unit. 

* * * ~~ * * * * * * * * * ·U· -I~ * * .* * * * 

'laking ad.vantage of the Commanding Officer's invitation to look at all 

angles of the matter under review, serious question arose as to the wisdom of: 

a. Making aey move at all. 

b. The possible alternative of a move into new quarters 'Within conm.uting distance or the present activity. 

c. The_ presently projected move to the Middle West. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 01-30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
:;. • REF ID:A72391 

It will be noted, that in the foregoing discussion, little weight was 

given to the subject or military security, based on the philosophy that assuming that the Armed Forces could contemplate, with equanimity, the continued existence of the Pentagon, then this much smaller activity, involving 

about one-third of the people engaged at the Pentagon, could very well be included in the Washington picture • . Discussions with various people and benefiting by their tremendous background of knowledge and experience pertaining to the subject under review, 

' 

a new evaluation regarding the projected move was obviously in order. '!he 

net of this discussion is depicted on attachments (B) and (C) with tentative 

factor evaluations dubbed in more as a basis of discussion than as figures 

submitted wi~~- any finality attached to them. 

'lhe opinion of the appropriate Officer regarding these tentative factor 

evaluations would be most helpful at this time. 

******************** 

Conclusions as of this date. 

a. The move to a new site in the interests of military security is neeessaey. This move obviously being predicated on the belief that existing 

defense measures cannot offer a sufficient degree of physical security to the 

Washington area. 

-2-
REF ID:A72391 

b. The operations now spread between NEB am A can be sub-divided 

without a fatal loss of productive efficiency. This sub-division can 

envisage retention in Washington of a very carefully selected, ef.f'icientl;v 

operating nucleus, and the transfer of the rest of the activity to some 

point in the Central States. 

c. Assuming that un-interrupted service must be maintained, then the 

logistics applicable to the move should be drawn up as a rigid operational 

order. 

d. The next move, required of the engineer, is a review of the flow 

charts coupled. with discussions with the appropriate staf'f members, in an 

endeavor to eliminate possible or probable duplications, an:l an endeavor 

to obtain more simplicity in the picture. 

************************* 

'lbe overriding problem of military physical security is obviously going 

to exert a major influence on all decisions, and it is judged to be 

· essential at this time that a restateme~t be made of milit&ey' security 

evaluations in respect to: 

a. Continuance of operations at the present site for the contemplated 

two-par period. 

b. The selection of a site for the residual 2o,g nucleus retained in 

the Washington area. 

c. Evaluation of the projected site in the Middle West. 

d. The degree of dispersal or concentration necessary to obtain 

physical security. 

************************** 

It is perfectly obvious to the engineers that deep thought and 

clear logistical thinking has already been applied to the many aspects 
• • REF ID:A72391 • 

of the problem ahead. Probably no one aspect of the overall problem is 

more important than that of housing. 

It is recommended that this housing matter be dealt with in a generous 

frame of mind, ani that the final housing pl.an be envisaged not in terms 

ot, say, five years, but p:tlased out in terms of ten, twenty and thirty 

years from now. 

From the point of view of morale, operational efficiency, security, 

and career desirability, the housing question can and will exert a major 

intluence. Because of the utterly- vital importance of the activity being 

relocated, the usual policies pertaining to the housing of civilian am 

military employees are inadequate, and looking at the matter from the 

other extreme, it.be provision of a "cardboard cit;y" with inadequate 

conveniences, muddy streets and location in a strange, and perhaps hostile, 

community could result in a drop in morale, which, in turn, could be 

fatal to the success am integrity of the project. In other words, the . housing, both temporary and permanent, of the people involved in the 

move, should be regarded as just as important as the moving of the 

activities• extremely valuable machinery, and should be treated with 

the same care and discrimination. In the long run people are much 

more valuable than machinery as productive essentials. 

R. E. W. Harrison 

Captain, USN 
t«>ll • COIOIJTJH l>ISTAJm: 

' J 

IHllJ 101l VJ:IGH! I!EMS AGAIIS! DIQll! 

1. lnadeqll&C)' of present Facilities ) l. •o decentral1satioa :to 

2. A4a1~1atrat1Te and Serrice - 2. :lo bu1o illproTaent la &o "-lp•tion ~ K111tal7 aecar1'7 

'· Aft1lab111t7 ot Houai"QC, Social lo I c-r;% and :Educational Faoilitiea in area. 

4. Good Ia'bor Market !:> - s. Prozimit7 ot Contractor'• Plant• 7) · and ~epreeent..q,\iTe• 

6. Prozl•tt7 ot dependent OoTGrnmen' 

a .. earch 7acilit1es ID -

?. P:rox1ait7 to Cheltenham for 

Operational Testing 0 

8. Jlet~tion of tr~ined per1onnel ( {) 
I Uw.'' 1.d I a Ll •I ':i/ I /6f ··.~ r:)"i' 

llOQ • 7 4 A.VAT 

. I~ FOR ~ ~41IGHT 

1. Decentralisation - M1lita1"7 _ 'bo l. 

Securit7 

2. InaclequacJ" of present faci11t1ee 5' 2. 

3. Adll1n1atrative 11.nd Service 

) J. 

.Amalgamation 

4. Adequate houajng can be constructed Jo 4. 

/&o fa s. 

6. 

ITEMS AGAllfS'! 

le.ck of liouain&, Sod.al u.d 

Educational Vae111t1ea 

Poor J.a.bor Market 

Remote from Contractor's Plants 

and llepreaentativea 

Beaote froa depend.at Govel'Dllent 

llaaearcb Facilitiee 

Remote from present Operational ~eating facil1t7 - Oheltenhaa 

(A new similar facility 1111at be 

con•trooted at new •ite) . 

lioas of tre.illed peraonnel predieted by apot survey 

'---....~- '""'-. ... - -- J - ... ~., 

vJm 

5" 

s·· 

sJo 

' 

rj 

lo 

'j !>/ 

..; S- /o