[L.C]

CONVAIR

SAN DIEGO 12.CALIFORNIA

ELMER P. WOHL
VICE PRESIDENT

June 9, 1961

Dear Henry:

It was good talking with you from New York City recently. Since getting back I have talked with Jack Clark who, I am sure, has telephoned you by now concerning your visit in August.

Henry, if I am still in San Diego I most certainly would like to have you stay out at the house at that time. I'll be in touch with you concerning my future plans.

I hope that in the future we can have some contact with each other, for I value our association highly. Attached is some material you suggested I send you for whatever purposes you have in mind.

After June 15th I can be reached at:

4104 Palisades Road
San Diego 16, California
ATwater 1-3140

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University - Center
for International Affairs
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts

DUNLAP AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

429 ATLANTIC STREET, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT

Fireside 8-9271 In New York City, WYandotte 3-2464

January 22, 1962

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University - Center for International Affairs
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Henry,

It has been a very long time, indeed, since we have talked or corresponded.

As you know, last June 15, seeing the direction of events in General Dynamics Corporation, I resigned as Vice President Planning for the Convair Divisions. I severed all other ties with General Dynamics on December 15.

After having read the Fortune article, I am doubly glad that Betts and I dodged their intensive efforts for interviews. Joe McNarney had told them that I was the guy who knew as much about the situation as he did! Especially under the circumstances in which I found myself, this would have done neither me nor anyone else any good.

I spent the summer and early fall looking over the field; the presidency of a small financial institution and the usual offers of Vice President Administration or Vice President Planning for several large companies. I also considered carefully the possibility of developing my own business in Chicago. Instead, I decided to join the firm of Dunlap & Associates as Vice President and Assistant to the President.

Dunlap and Associates is a research-engineering-consulting firm located in Stamford, Connecticut. It originally was formed by Jack W. Dunlap, who is Chairman and the President, to work primarily in the field of human engineering. In recent years it has grown, developed, and diversified quite thoroughly. While we do much human factors work, with contracts for both the Air Force and the Navy, we are now in systems engineering (Navy, industry), management planning and research (Navy supply system; the claims process of the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance, etc.; -- this not from a typical systems and procedures standpoint but rather through establishment of mathematical models from which new approaches may be designed).

BRANCH OFFICES

425 THIRTEENTH STREET, N. W., WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
METropolitan 8-1140

1532 THIRD STREET, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
EXbrook 3-0166

DUNLAP AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

Page Two

We have a subsidiary -- Public Service Research -- in the health, education and welfare field; another subsidiary, Agri Research in the agricultural field; and a personnel and management consulting subsidiary, Clark, Channell, Inc. Our present industrial customers include International Minerals and Chemical, Hallmark, Raytheon, General Dynamics, IBM, Kimberly-Clark, among others. We have done work and have prospective contracts with many other industrial and governmental organizations as well as in the international field.

Our Board of Directors has an unusually broad makeup, including Leslie H. Warner, President of General Telephone & Electronics Corporation; Thomas M. Ware, President of International Minerals & Chemical Corporation; Dr. James. A. McCain, President of Kansas State University; Dr. Wallace H. Wulfeck, Vice Chairman of William Esty Company; John M. Budinger, Senior Vice President of Bankers Trust Company, New York; and John W. Spurdle, Vice President of Dominick & Dominick, Inc.

I think our organization represents an unusually challenging intellectual as well as work opportunity for me, since our skills range from electronics to anthropology, from physics to social psychology, from the various engineering disciplines to economics and biology, etc. Our work in operations research, systems engineering, human factors, and management planning and research is well known.

I must say that the change I describe has been the result of a very deliberate and thoughtful process and that I am keeping most stimulating intellectual company these days in terms of both non defense and defense problems.

I will be getting to both Boston and Washington reasonably frequently and will very much want to keep in touch with you. I think we are doing some interesting things -- some of which already have international applications -- and would like to bring you up to date. I will call for an appointment before visiting either city.

Betts and I have settled down in Stamford and we are, of course, delighted to be so close to Laurie at Wellesley. Our home address is:

Settlers Trail, Stamford, Connecticut Phone DA 2-4283

MEMORANDUM

May 3, 1962

TO: File

FROM: E. P. Wohl

SUBJECT: Luncheon Address before Science and Public Policy Seminar, Harvard University, April 26, 1962

Since I spoke from notes, the following summary of this talk is given.

I. Nature of Seminar

The Graduate School of Public Administration of Harvard University with the aid of a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, has undertaken a research and training program on science and public policy, including a seminar for advanced students. This seminar will enter its third year of operation in 1962-63.

About fifteen students are admitted each year. As in other research seminars of the School, such students are selected primarily from among candidates who have had a number of years of experience in government or in comparable research or administrative positions and who seek to prepare themselves to deal with public policy issues at a higher level of responsibility. Admission is based on a man's academic record, including graduate work, if any; on public service experience; and on recommendations, especially from his government agency if he has been selected by it for training.

Middle management personnel from federal agencies and from comparable organizations in foreign countries attended the Seminar.

In addition to the normal seminar program, members of the Seminar are assembled for special luncheon sessions at which scientists, government officers, educators and industrialists are guest speakers. A list of the 1961-1962 speakers is attached.

- 2 -

[LC]

May 3, 1962

## II. Substance of Luncheon Address

Luncheon speakers for the Seminar are free to discuss any aspect of the relationship of science to industry closest to their interest. In his invitation to me, Dean Price expressed the hope that I would be willing, on the basis of my experience at General Dynamics, to talk about the problems of large contractors for research and development. By telephone I arranged to enlarge this topic to include the problems of private research organizations, large and small.

Dean Price had been briefed on the nature of D&A's work and made a splendid introduction, both in terms of D&A and my past experience.

### A. Introduction

I introduced my subject by pointing up the nature of items crossing my desk over a two week period. These included the following:

* Time Magazine story of Mr. Leavis' attack on

* C. P. Snow as spokesman for the technologists:

* Review of Earle of Birkenhead's sympathetic book on Prof. Lindeman (Tizard Controversy).

* A copy of S2771 introduced by Senator McClellan

* Jan. 31 - proposed establishment of U. S. Commission on Science and Technology.

* A memorandum from Senator Humphrey re sampling of views of scientific authorities on the information - communication problem.

* Newspaper reports of Fountain Committee - investigations of NIH research grants.

* Profits on profits in missile contracting (Douglas).

* Newspaper reports concerning the Presidentially directed BOB studies of profit and non-profit research organizations.

- 3 -

[LC]

May 3, 1962

President Kennedy's memorandum of Feb. 9 to all Federal Department Heads re preventing conflicts of interest on the part of advisors and consultants to the Government (curiosly non-profit organizations are defined as business entities for certain conflict of interest purposes).

A Business Week article concerning the entry of Armour Research Institute, a non-profit research organization, in the investment advisory field

Reprints of talks by Jacques Barzun, Polykarp Kusch and Harry W. Jones of Columbia U., expressing concern over university affiliated institutions engaged in Government contract research and Government consulting.

A note that the National Planning Association is setting up a "center for priority analysis" with respect to national problems.

An inquiry concerning my interest in participating in a study on the problems of verification in disarmament.

## B. The Past Few Years in Defense Research and Engineering

I then went on to give the group a glimpse of General Dynamics' experience as an illustration and -- more importantly, the volatile environment in which it occurred. This portion of the talk briefly sketched the tremendous growth in sales, products, numbers of divisions, numbers of geographic locations, number of employees, the changing mix between technical and production employees; and the changing mix in backlog between management services, research and engineering, and products.

The statement concerning the "volatile environment" included such items as the following:

1. The rise of highly complex systems.

2. The introduction of new components or subsystems with little or no history behind them, such as transistors, jet fans, swivelling rockets, inertial guidance, ablating nose cones, and the resultant reliability problems.

[LC]

- 4 -

May 3, 1962

3. The new technology: the discovery of the super-sonic aerodynamic area rule; variable wing geometry; thin film electronics, molecular electronics; solid state physics; lasers; masers.

4. Tremendous increased cost per end item.

5. Fewer end items per program.

6. Changes in competitive structure: electronics firms in the missile and airframe business, and vise-versa; introduction of use of technical management and non-profit organizations.

7. Capability and lack of capability in the military departments in management of R&E programs.

8. Changing methods of contracting by the government: weapons systems management; use of evaluative committees; use of non-profit organizations in evaluation and in management.

9. Science vs. engineering: the growth of feasibility studies; the use of scientists; scientific problems vs. engineering problems.

## C. Problems and Inferences

The final major section of the talk was devoted to problems and inferences.

1. Little steps vs. big steps in research and development: improvement vs. discovery.

2. Evaluation of research and development goals in industry and government: Who sets research requirements, anyway? Who evaluates "possible", "feasible", and "desirable" in development -- by what means and criteria? The popular "we can, therefore, we should" school of setting development objectives.

- 5 -

May 3, 1962

3. Uses of creative technical talent in large and small research organizations; the validity of the premise: X is creative, therefore a group of N people directed by X will have X to the Nth creativity". (Thank you J.W.D.)

4. Management and ethical problems: government use of industry panels to evaluate proposals (example given); use of non-profit organizations such as Mitre in evaluation of proposals.

5. Profits: total confusion in the public mind; profits as a dirty word; Business Week article on Armour Research entry into investment advisory field; section of President Kennedy's Feb. 9 memorandum on conflict of interest treating non-profit organizations as "business entities" for certain purposes; current Public Administration Review article on need and method for insertion of profit motive in government.

6. Problem in management of research under government contracts.

7. Scientists: scientist - scientists; scientist - managers; The Groves of Academe in Washington and in industry; political scientists; the good guys vs. the bad guys; the well oriented vs. the idiots; increasing use of syllogism: "I disagree with X, therefore X is an idiot".

The talk closed on the following note.

In his Godkin lectures on science and government here at Harvard, C. P. Snow concluded with a quote from an old Icelandic saga, which he was applying to administrators: "Snorrie was the wisest man in Iceland who had not the gift of foresight". Snow worries about administrative foresight in the United States and Western Europe, and concludes, as he says, that we should have some scientists mixed up in our affairs. I contend that in the Tizard-Lindeman controversy in England they were mixed up! In that case it was the human evaluative question of: which scientist? and how should scientists be mixed up in our affairs? Running through my comments today you will find again it is not the question of are scientists or should scientists be mixed up in our affairs but rather, since they are, how best do we sort

[Lc]

- 6 -

May 3, 1962

out the man of judgment, scientist and non-scientist from the fool;
the man of insight, scientist or non-scientist from the merely technical
or administratively competent; and how does the honorable man, the
insightful man, the man of judgment who may have academic, industrial
and governmental ties, all at the same time, act as an honorable man
with all these influences playing upon him, in our very complex
capitalistic society? How do we so order ourselves as to effectively
manage research on large programs, obtain the necessary planning
and central direction, yet remain a pluralistic society in which free
inquiry is looked upon as a valued objective rather than an inefficient
III. Question and Answer Period

### III. Question and Answer Period

During the question and answer period there was considerable
interest in the points of view expressed. The questions ranged over
discussion of alleged vs. real shortages in technical talent; what I thought
of the true capabilities of some of the non-profit organizations; government
vs. private research organization pay; working in large organizations
vs. working in small ones.

Based on a question, I had 6 or 7 minutes in which to portray the
PSR situation, with Mr. Karl Yordy of National Institute of Health as the
"target". His reaction and that of the entire group was highly favorable.

### IV. Suggestion for Paper

It was suggested I may wish to prepare a paper or short book along
the general lines of this discussion. Dean Price will discuss this with me
further when I have time.

E. P. Wohl

EPW/jp

cc: Dr. J. W. Dunlap
Mr. R. C. Channell
Mr. H. E. Blank
Mr. K. Yarnold
Mr. M. Tolcott
Mr. J. Ely
Mr. A. Miller
Mr. J. Wulfeck

DUNLAP AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Firewall 8-9271 In New York City, WYandotte 3-2464

May 11, 1962

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
Center for International Affairs
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Henry:

I thought of you after attending this Monday's Council on Foreign
Relations meeting in New York City. Bill Foster was the speaker
and I. I. Rabi introduced him. I might summarize his talk this way:

He briefly described the history of the Disarmament Agency,
and the status of our present negotiations with the Russians.
Much of his talk was devoted -- without labelling it so -- to an
exposition of the so-called Weisner curve: i. e. the extent
of disarmament increases with the increase and enhancement
of verification and inspection measures. He discussed
Russian attitudes toward inspection and possible moves by the
United States to change these attitudes.

A fair part of Mr. Foster's address was devoted to the subject
of nuclear test bans. He pointed out that the report in Time
Magazine was wrong; that the Government had not yet decided
to propose a test ban immediately upon completion of our current
series of tests, but said that there definitely was a possibility
that such a proposal might be made. He also indicated that the
Russians are prepared for their next series of tests and are
awaiting only appropriate timing from their standpoint.

He also emphasized the importance of small initial steps in the
disarmament process, such as a first stage which might involve
10% then 20% then 30% across the board cuts in armament. He
spoke of these initial steps as having little effect on security
of any one country, pointing out that both we and the Russians had
surpluses in many areas: for example, we are far superior in

BRANCH OFFICES

DUNLAP AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

- 2 -

May 11, 1962

Navy surface vessels; the Russians have many more tanks
than they actually need. He also spoke of a possible
willingness to take some of these measures without necessarily
having an agreement with the Chinese Communists.

Foster stressed the importance of inspection and sampling
techniques and stated contracts had been let in these areas.

The above is from memory, but I thought you would be interested in a
summary of my impressions since you couldn't attend. I thought the whole
thing was quite "light".

I am sending along a copy of a letter one of our Vice President's
wrote to the U. S. Arms and Control Disarmament Agency concerning
their Request for Proposal on the subject of "verification". I had
the opportunity to scan briefly the Request for Proposal and to read
this letter, and I am in agreement with the idea that there may be more
fruitful specific areas for study than the general proposition put in the
Request. I think this is a rather unusual letter in that we decline to
bid and say why. I would be interested in your reaction, next time I see
you -- and, of course, will not use it in any way.

I truly am sorry my family cut short our too brief visit. It was
sophomore father's day at Wellesley and I really was not being a
very good sophomore father! It was good seeing you again and getting
on a more current basis with you.

I enjoyed my talks at Harvard very much. I remember you mentioned
that you might wish to have me talk at your Defense Policy Seminar in
the Fall. I suggest you check with Don Price as to whether or not I
was any good before you ask me!

Finally, concerning the Advisory Board of Directors which I mentioned,
I shall be thinking through more specifically how this will operate and
the personalities who might be involved. I know one thing: we need a
different plan than was used by General Dynamics. I shall be travelling
for the next 10 days but will write you further on the subject when I return.

EPW/jp
Attachment

[L.C]

30 April 1962

Dr. Leonard S. Rodberg
U. S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Dr. Rodberg:

After long and rather painful deliberation we have decided not to submit a formal proposal on "Verification Requirements for Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements." The decision has been a rather painful one for us because we find ourselves intensely interested in the subject matter, confident of our ability to work in this area, and yet out of position to prepare a proposal which has a high likelihood of award. It may be of some value to you, however, to know the basis for our evaluation of the situation.

It is our understanding that the proposed study (with other studies) is designed to provide the basis for negotiation and agreement on disarmament. What is required, then, is some sort of analysis of the alternative verification and inspection systems which might actually be considered for selection. Corresponding to each alternative system that may be suggested, there is some foreseeable set of subsequent events (including all of the things mentioned in your paper), and if these can be analyzed and predicted well enough, a basis for choice will have been provided. However, the proposed study expressly directs attention away from specific alternative inspection systems, and toward the attempt to deal with general requirements of such systems.

We believe that a study designed to yield "general" requirements for verification is doomed to failure. We think it impossible to come up with "principles and criteria" which will permit sensible choices to be made between alternative designs of verification and inspection systems, at least if opportunity is lacking for detailed analysis of particular verification and inspection systems as part of the over-all problem.

The position may well be taken, of course, that it is necessary to design verification and inspection systems before they can be analyzed. The designs which are worth looking at, however, cannot be inferred from any set of facts or from any analytical investigation. The designs which are worth looking at are limited only by the ingenuity and creativity of man. It is true that in the

[10]

Dr. Leonard S. Rodberg

-2-

30 April 1962

course of analysis one may obtain novel ideas for design, but even this possibility is likely to depend importantly on whether the analysis deals with alternative designs.

To see what is involved, consider a specific case, e.g., an agreement to limit the production of missiles, and the problem of attempting to establish general verification and inspection requirements.

Now the production rate of missiles can be "verified" in a number of ways. For example, the U. S. Government currently utilizes in its planning, it may be assumed, estimates of the Soviet production of missiles. These estimates, it may also be assumed, are based largely on information obtained from Intelligence sources, although the nature of this information can scarely be discussed here. And it is apparent to the ordinary citizen (who has no "inside" information) that this information has been "sufficient;" in the sense that we have been able to operate as a nation and reach some major decisions. For example, we have not disarmed; nor have we carried out a pre-emptive war. We spend very substantial sums on defense, but even electoral and other equally agonizing re-appraisals have not caused our expenditures to vary by more than, say, 10%. Presumably, of course, if additional information were available, we would in fact behave differently to some extent, but what information would be required to make us behave differently? I submit that almost any information, from almost any source, obtained by almost any means, is capable of influencing our national decisions, and if so, the concept of "required information" is a very difficult one to comprehend.

To put the matter in another way: If one could identify all of the interesting kinds of information (in advance), it would be necessary, to determine information requirements, to analyze what actions would in fact be taken on the basis of such information. But the actions which would or should be taken do depend not only on the information, but also on the verification system which gave rise to the information so that actions cannot be predicted without specification of the verification system. Consider the following sources of "information" on the production rate for missiles:

* A Khrushchev statement

* An article in Pravda

* An intelligence report

* An estimate based on "knowledge" of the rates of production of nuclear materials

* An estimate based on analysis of the Soviet budget

* An estimate derived from 10,000 U. S. inspectors

[lc]

30 April 1962

-3-

Dr. Leonard S. Rodberg

The fact is that we would not act in the same way for each of these possibilities--
to say nothing of the problem of conflicting information and sources.

Of course, one may ask a question like "What information would cause us to
sign a disarmament agreement?" but once it is put in this form, it becomes
clear that attention **must** be given to the possible disarmament agreements, in-
cluding the inspection systems embodied in them. Moreover, the information
on which a decision to sign would be based cannot be the information which the
verification system itself would yield.

To put the matter succinctly, it seems to us that what is being sought is a study
designed to assist in the making of certain decisions on disarmament agree-
ments, having to do with such questions as "What verification proposals should
be made;" "What provisions should be agreed to?" This kind of question,
although exceptionally difficult to deal with, can be easily and meaningfully
formulated. Such a study would consist very broadly of the following steps:

1. Identification of specific verification proposals

2. Identification of "information" which might result from each proposed verification system

3. Identification of the possible and probable actions which might be taken by each side on the basis of such information

4. Analysis of the outcomes of such interactions in terms of broken agreements, war, etc.

5. Revision of ideas on the verification proposals which are worth attention

6. Repetition of Steps 2, 3 and 4 for revised verification proposals.

The process can and should be repeated until acceptable verification proposals
are obtained.

On the other hand, if one is asked for verification requirements, particularly
when coupled with the instruction to avoid verification or inspection systems,
it appears that what is being **sought** is a study which begins with the desirable
outcome (e.g., perhaps disarmament agreements which are kept by both sides)
and which proceeds almost deductively to the specification of verification re-
quirements. We are convinced, from extended consideration of the verifica-
tion problem (and from much similar, prior experience) that a useful study
would not emerge from such a problem formulation.

It would, of course, have been possible for us to prepare a proposal which is
in line with our convictions about useful research, but it seems clear that this
would appear to be nonresponsive, and therefore competitively weak.

[L]

Dr. Leonard S. Rodberg

30 April 1962

So much for the substance of the research problem. We have, however, a
second difficulty in preparing an acceptable proposal. With the problem fog-
mulation that we see as appropriate, the aim of producing a first-class study
by October 30th on a matter of such significance seems to us optimistic in the
extreme. A guarantee of six months as the study period helps somewhat--
perhaps sufficiently if a way can be found meaningfully to cut the scope of the
study. But for a formulation which seems to us to be an appropriate one,
nine months would be a more reasonable period. The number of man-years
suggested is quite reasonable for an initial study, but manpower is no substi-
tute for time in a research project of this kind.

Perhaps I can summarize by saying that we felt we could prepare a good pro-
posal, but that we would have had to make it depart in two important respects
from what we perceived to be your intent. In these circumstances it seemed
better not to prepare a formal proposal. Should you, however, find it worth
while to consider our views in the matter, I should be more than happy to
explore them with you informally--and without obligation, of course.

Our interest in the program has in no way diminished, and we would be happy
to be considered for the future, or even to prepare a proposal on the verifica-
tion problem if you should feel that current proposals are less than satisfactory.

GC:FK

cc--Mr. Maurice O. Zimmerman

DUNLAP AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

September 24, 1962

Dear Henry:

It has been some time since we talked. I am planning
my travel schedule for the next several months, and,
of course, do get to Boston on occasion.

I remember you said something about a possible repeat
performance, to one of your groups, of my talk on
"Science and Public Policy" given at Don Price's Seminar
last spring.

Attached is an excerpt from a memorandum concerning
the talk previously given. The presentation of course could
be tailored to your requirements. The meeting developed
into a quite lengthy question and answer session.

If this does not fit into your plans for this year just let me
know. I will drop in anyway the next time I am in Boston.

As you might have suspected when you first talked with her,
Laurie lasted only two years at Wellesley. She married this
summer and is studying political science at UCLA!

EPW/jp

BRANCH OFFICES

NEWS

Dunlap and Associates, Inc., 429 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut

FROM: E. P. Wohl, Vice President

FI 8-9271

FOR RELEASE, DECEMBER 12

Dunlap Announces New Firm

Clark, Cooper, Field and Wohl, Incorporated, has been formed as a major business and general management consulting firm, it was announced today by Dr. J. W. Dunlap, Chairman and President of Dunlap and Associates, Inc., the parent organization. Formation of the consulting firm culminates almost a year of planning and preparatory work, including the establishment of objectives and the careful selection of new personnel to combine with existing organizational elements of the parent firm, Dr. Dunlap stated.

Elmer P. Wohl has been named President and Chief Executive Officer of Clark, Cooper, Field and Wohl, Incorporated. He formerly was Vice President for the five Convair divisions of General Dynamics Corporation.

Wohl stated that CCF&W was specifically designed from the start to combine the efforts of unusually talented consultants -- seasoned executives, scientists and engineers -- to resolve top management problems. Wohl said, "Our firm utilizes only highly experienced personnel who combine practical business judgment with the ability to use both conventional and the newer scientific approaches. CCF&W is completely at ease working with the application of computers, industrial operations research, and modern economics and mathematical methods in complex technical and economic environments. But we determine practical solutions to critical business problems in normal business terms. We can furnish provisional management staff when required."

John W. Field was named Senior Vice President of CCF&W for Management Engineering. He is an authoritative writer in the field and has served as a consultant to numerous Chief Executives and Boards of Directors. Field formerly was associated with Rogers, Slade and Hill, and Robert Heller and Associates.

[LC]

Page 2

Gershon Cooper, the Dunlap and Associates' Vice President in charge of Management Sciences, has been appointed Senior Vice President for Management Research in CCF&W. Prior to his association with Dunlap, Cooper served with the Rand Corporation and the Cowles Commission for Research in Economics.

L. Reed Clark, formerly President of Clark, Channell, Inc., was named Senior Vice President for Personnel Engineering, and Jerome C. Beam, formerly a Vice President of Clark, Channell, Inc., was named a Vice President of CCF&W.

CCF&W was formed through combination of the management sciences groups in Dunlap and Associates, Inc., with Clark, Channell, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, and with new elements in Planning and in Management Engineering. It is working primarily in the general management field on problems of planning, marketing, business economics, mergers and acquisitions, industrial operations research, business controls, and personnel.

CCF&W's present staff of 30 is engaged in assignments with twelve United States' corporations and four Federal Agencies. In addition to consulting experience, CCF&W personnel have held positions in General Motors, General Dynamics, IBM, American Cyanamid, The Rand Corporation, C-E-I-R, Young and Rubicam, Continental Can, Yale & Towne, Orenda Engines, American Airlines, and Curtis-Wright, as well as with the Defense Department and other federal agencies.

Headquarters of CCF&W will be housed in the former Clark, Channell, Inc., offices at One Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut, but will move to New York City early in 1963. The Management Research group will remain at 429 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut.

January 7, 1963

Mr. Elmer P. Wohl
President
Clark, Cooper, Field & Wohl
429 Atlantic Street
Stamford, Conn.

Dear Elmer:

This is just a note to tell you
how delighted I am at your appoint-
ment as President of the new company.
I wish you every success.

Do let me know when you come
through Boston.

With warm regards, to both you
and your family.

NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC.

GENERAL OFFICES • 1700 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY • EL SEGUNDO, CALIF. 90246

ELMER P. WOHL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MANAGEMENT PLANNING

JUN 16 REC'D

June 11, 1965

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
Center for International Affairs
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Henry:

As you may have heard, I recently left the Connecticut-New York area to join North American Aviation, Inc. as its Executive Director-Management Planning.

Betty and I are delighted with the prospect of being
Californians again. Our new address will be: Wilson
Towers, 17368 Sunset Blvd., Apt. 504, Pacific Palisades.

I would look forward to seeing you any time you come to
the West Coast. On occasion I shall be in the East and
will stop by.

Meantime, all my best, and keep sending me reprints,
please.

I hope this finds all of you well.

EPW:sd

Henry A. Klaasen
Secretary to Dr.
Jean Blanchard

Sincerely yours,

your letter to die attention at that time.
office early in July and I will bring
He is expected to return to the
June 11th.

writing to acknowledge your letter of
In Dr. Klaasinger's absence, I am
June 11th.

Dear Mr. Wohl:

El Segundo, California 90246
1700 East Imperial Highway
North American Aviation, Inc.
Management Planning
Executive Director
Mr. Elmer B. Wohl

June 19, 1962

July 14, 1965

Mr. Elmer Wohl
Executive Director
Management Planning
North American Aviation, Inc.
1700 East Imperial Highway
El Segundo, California 90246

Dear Elmer:

Thank you for your letter of
June 11th.

I am delighted with your new job
and I am sure you will add distinction
to the Company.

On one of my rare visits to the
West Coast I shall take the liberty of
giving you a ring. If you should come
East before then, please let me know.

Best regards.

Henry V. Klaasen

Sincerely yours,

Best regards.

Best before then, please let me know.
Giving you a ring. If you should come
West Coast I shall take the liberty of
On one of my rare visits to the
to the Company.

and I am sure you will add distinction
I am delighted with your new job
to the Company.

June 11th.

Thank you for your letter of

Dear Eimer:

El Segundo, California 90546
1700 East Imperial Highway
North American Aviation, Inc.
Management Planning
Executive Director
Mr. Eimer Wohl

July 14, 1962