BT

Via N. Martelli 1/A

Rome, Italy 00197

9 February 1969

Dear Henry,

Myra and I were most excited and happy when the official confirmation was announced of the great trust which the President has placed in you; and we are also satisfied that he has the right man in the right place. Again our congratulations!

Should you have a minute near a telephone during what will be a most full visit here at Rome, would you give us a ring? Our home number is 877212, and one or the other of us is generally about. It would be a great pleasure to exchange a few words.

This brings every good wish from us both for the great work you are undertaking. There are bound to be rough times with the good. We know you have the attributes to see you through - the wisdom, the ability and the stamina, as well as that profound depth of vision which has brought you to your position of high trust.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger.

Captain B. Taylor
% Office of the Defence Attache
APO 09794

# Management by Perspective: The Seven Functions of Space Age Management

W. Sidney Taylor

Senior Management Analyst, Air Force Data Systems Design Center

Space Age managers, like Alice in Wonderland, must learn to step through the looking glass into entirely new worlds, competitive situations and operational environments. Modern science and technology are uncovering new discoveries and capabilities at a rate that threatens the status quo in almost every business, industry or profession. . . including the processes of government itself. Today's executive, manager or engineer may be called upon at any time to reconceive or redesign his entire business, program, operation or organization.

A single new discovery, invention or breakthrough can completely change the way a business, program or industry is operated. At the same time, today's executive is faced with new magnitudes of bigness, complexity, cost and risk in his systems and organizations. In this environment, he must learn to sense, value and respond promptly in total system perspective.

The recently established Department of Transportation provides a classic example of the need for "management by perspective." This new federal agency is charged with consolidating thirty-five programs previously dispersed through seven departments and independent agencies. It will bring together nearly 100,000 employees, and annual expenditures of more than six billion dollars. More than this, it involves a bitterly competitive, nationwide transportation complex including a 214,650-mile railway system, a 280,696-mile airline network, and a 3,600,000-mile maze of highways. Putting all these together into one logical, balanced and functioning network will require the utmost in perspective, judgment, and systems analysis.

Another example is the Supersonic Transport Program (SST). This billion dollar project has technical, economic, and political implications. Preliminary planning for the SST involved 22,000 pages of proposals concerning airframe and engine design alone. More than 235 aeronautical experts were involved. Aside from the problem of "sonic pollution" over populated areas, the challenge in developing the SST will be in achieving adequate managerial perspective rather than in assuring technological feasibility. There are a dozen other examples in the big systems category such as the Apollo Space Program, the C-5A jet transport, the Medicare Program, the F-111A fighter-bomber, the antimissile missile system, etc. All are in the billion dollar cost/investment category. All involve network or system complexity that almost defies human comprehension, control or analysis.

The challenge in this area was highlighted by Jay W. Forrester (3), where he stated:

> The manager's task is far more difficult and challenging than the normal tasks of the mathematician, the physicist, or the engineer. In management, many more significant factors must be taken into account. The interrelationships of the factors are more complex. The systems are of greater scope. The nonlinear relationships that control the course of events are more significant. Change is more the essence of the manager's environment.

This was enlarged upon by Robert E. Machol (7), where he says:

> The heart of the matter lies in the complexity of the system, and the danger of being unable to see the forest for the trees. The designer must somehow deal with the various subsystems and component parts in such a way as to optimize the cost/effectiveness of the overall system.

This poses a new question for the management profession. How should a Space Age manager manage? In most areas, there is little doubt that the modern manager must be systems oriented, cost versus effectiveness minded and computer or information network supported. However, more than this, he must first comprehend the functions of a Space Age manager. What are these functions?

Most management authorities today agree that the process of management involves from four to five functions. These have been variously defined as planning, organizing, staffing or actuating, directing and controlling. However, in the author's opinion, two functions are missing. These are identified in Figure 1 as "conceiving" and "improving." When combined with the other five, and as a total management process, they constitute the seven functions of Space Age management. They also introduce the term "management by perspective."

It is no longer adequate simply to plan, organize, staff, direct and control. Modern managers must develop total system perspectives and multidiscipline management vision. They must continually explore the full spectrum of science and technology, competition, innovation and improvement. They must periodically reconsider and requestion the concepts, assumptions, objectives, plans, requirements, functions, costs and levels of effectiveness for any large-scale system, organization or program they plan or operate. This goes beyond the feedback concepts of cybernetics or conventional information or management control techniques. In many cases, it is no longer adequate simply to "steer" the corporate

November, 1968

The Journal of Industrial Engineering

xi

Figure 1

ship by fixed or static objectives. Management navigation based upon dead reckoning or "management by objective" alone can prove costly, if not disasterous. It is possible to be on the wrong ship, on the wrong ocean, sailing in the wrong direction. The compass needle itself may be off. Fast moving technology, innovation by an imaginative competitor, changes in operational requirements or competitive environment can affect the validity of any or all business objectives.

In this context, even management by exception becomes suspect. The basic yardsticks or management criteria (like the objectives) for measuring the progress and performance of a total system or business may themselves become outdated or invalid. By the time the correct red light glows on the organization or system panel board, it may be too late. The system or business may have been overtaken by a faster-moving competitor or by a more imaginative idea.

Modern managers, on occasion and by degree, tend to manage by objective, by system, by exception, by results or by motivation (Figure 2). The missing link in the concepts of Space Age management is "management by perspective." Unfortunately, the need for perspective is often not detected, particularly in big systems, programs or organizations, until after millions of dollars have been misspent or diverted. Corrective action requires more than a synthesis of the five management concepts listed in Figure 2. Management by perspective requires an overview and comprehension of what the entire business or operation is all about. Today's manager must manage in three dimensions at one time. He must manage people, things and ideas. He must orchestrate his entire

effort and visualize fitting together all the functions, resources, facilities and equipments that make up his total system or operation.

This requires intra and inter-system insights. It also requires documentation, simulation and interrogation of the major components and forces in the total system network. This includes an awareness that any large-scale system or organization is composed of physical and non-physical componentry; value judgments and digital judgments; man-machine-environment relationships; objectives, goals and assumptions; forces, functions and resources; problems and opportunities; trade-offs, alternatives or choices; byproducts or side effects, and finally, direction, guidance and leadership. All of these, and more, must be polarized towards a profit, purpose, objective or concept.

It was with this thought that the seven functions of management shown in Figure 1 were developed. The function of "conceiving" was added as a result of the author's background in Air Force systems management concepts and processes. Air Force Regulation 375-1 (13) and Air Force Systems Command Manual 375-4 (14) both identify four phases in the "life cycle" of a big defense system or program. These phases are conceptual, definition, acquisition, and operational. The first phase, "conceptual," involves originating the basic idea, concept, need or requirement behind the entire system. This phase involves exploring and determining whether a proposed system is needed, essential, valid, feasible, and within the projected state of the art. In some systems or programs, the conceptual phase may involve millions of dollars in exploratory studies, technical or

competitive analyses, operational evaluations and state-of-the-art investigations. These must be accomplished before the system or program is approved for development or production.

For systems or programs in the billion dollar cost investment category, like the Minutemen missile, F-111A fighter-bomber, or the Polaris missile, the conceptual phase was a vital and necessary step. Inadequate analysis or validation of missions, requirements or competition, faulty planning assumptions or performance criteria, failure to assess alternatives, over or underestimation of costs, effectiveness or technology in the "concept" phase can misdirect millions of dollars or cause cancellation later on, when the system goes into production or operation. In this sense, an ounce of validated concept is worth a ton of reorganization or reengineering at a later date. DOD Directive 3200.9, dated July 1, 1965, for example, requires "concept formulation" for all new defense projects having research costs over $25 million or total production investments over $100 million.

The function of "improvement" was added partly as a result of Lehrer's book *The Management of Improvement* (6). This plus two articles by Moore (9), (10) make compelling arguments for "improvement" as a basic function in the process of management. In fact, it may be said that the primary objective, goal or end product of the management profession is or should be "improvement."

A major problem in big systems and organizations today is the tendency to overcontrol and under-improve. The system is often so big and complicated that management are hard pressed to comprehend or control it, let alone "improve" it. Even in

Figure 2

xii

Volume XIX • No. 11

progressive organizations, Parkinson's Law becomes a factor of age or expansion. The incumbent bureaucracy tends to perpetuate, standardize or even automate the status quo. Improvement often becomes a forgotten Cinderella in the scullery of management.

John W. Gardner described this process when he said:

> A society whose maturing consists simply of acquiring more firmly established ways of doing things is headed for the graveyard—even if it learns to do these things with greater and greater skill. In the ever renewing society what matures is a system or framework within which continuous innovation, renewal and rebirth can occur (4 p. 5).

It is important to recognize that the seven functions of management (Figure 1) place "creativity and innovation" at both ends of the management by perspective spectrum. This tends to insure a type of organizational self-renewal or regeneration that becomes a continuous feedback process from the moment a new system leaves the drawing board until it finally arrives on the scrap heap. This was underscored by Charles J. Hitch of The RAND Corporation when he said:

> The most valuable function of systems analysis is often the stimulus it gives to the invention of better systems (5, p. 17).

Invention, imagination and innovation are key elements in the function of "improving."

## PROBLEM OF SYSTEM OVERVIEW

A pressing problem in managing large and complex systems or organizations is the tendency towards tunnel vision or managerial myopia. Managers tend to appraise one function or segment without being fully aware of the impact or interaction it has upon other functions in the total system or network. One midwest corporation conducted a comprehensive management study into its supply function. The conclusions and recommendations of the study group resulted in a claimed $2 million annual cost reduction. One year after the so-called "improvement" was installed, the company beat a hasty retreat back to the old system. They found that in operation the $2 million improvement was costing $6 million in added costs in the maintenance function.

The Apollo space capsule fire was another example of the management or engineering myopia that often plagues big and complex systems today. The NASA report on the Apollo tragedy (3300 pages weighing 19 pounds) was summed up in the views of one NASA engineer who said they were so concerned with the perils of outer space that they failed to recognize the dangers of a relatively routine and simulated flight held only

a hundred feet off the ground. It was our blind spot, he said.

Another example was the failure of a single $2.50 rectifier tube in a Virginia air traffic control center that caused a three-hour delay in 120 airflights coming into Washington National Airport one day during April 1967. The effect of this single component malfunction upon the total system network was reminiscent of the 1965 New York power system failure that blacked out 25 million people for 13 hours.

Many systems in business, industry and government are today becoming so large and complex that a knowledge of the individual parts is not enough. In management, as in engineering, the interactions between the components of the system or network may often prove to be more significant than the separate components themselves.

## CHALLENGE OF THE COMPUTER

In many areas, the electronic computer has become a necessary tool for achieving "management by perspective." Knowledge of data automation capabilities and management information networks have become a must for the Space Age manager. This is true in almost every field and profession from medicine, law, business, and industry up to and including government. The electronic computer has introduced a form of extra sensory perception that enables managers to perceive and conduct analyses to a degree that is far beyond normal human sensory or analytic capabilities. Instead of a brief case, the businessman or executive of the future will probably carry his own miniaturized computer-information system to conferences or meetings. It will have the memory of 10,000 elephants and the mathematical matrix ability of a dozen Einsteins. Unfortunately, it will be weak in wisdom, value judgments, imagination and intuition.

If George Washington had an electronic computer at Valley Forge, he might never have crossed the Delaware. The mathematical probability of putting an Army in leaky rowboats, at night, during a snow storm, and crossing an ice-laden river in late December would have cancelled the expedition. Fortunately, George had no computer. But, he did have imagination. Most importantly, he seized the initiative. His success illustrates why, in competitive situations, mathematical probability may sometimes be far outweighed by managerial innovation or daring.

Although the computer is an extremely powerful tool of management, it can not replace management. It can widen management

vision and sharpen insights but it cannot synthesize all the elements and factors that of necessity remain a part of human judgment. There are many nonlinear and nondigital elements that cannot be programmed into any computer. Dr. Alain Enthoven, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis, covered this aspect when he said:

> ... the systems analysis approach bears no essential relationship to computers at all. ... This shouldn't be surprising, because the really difficult and important part of doing a good analysis is not the computation; it is formulating and defining the problem, clarifying the objectives, and determining which assumptions ought to be considered.

As Drucker (1) has stated:

> The computer makes no decisions; it merely carries out orders. It's a total moron, and therein lies its strength. It forces us to think, to set the criteria. The stupider the tool, the brighter the master has to be—and this is the dumbest tool we have ever had.

This presents a real challenge for the management profession. The problem today is not in computer hardware or software. Advancements in computer technology have far outdistanced progress in the concepts and techniques of managerial brainware. Installing a business-wide computerized data system does not eliminate the problems of top management perception. Rather, it increases them. Managements are being forced to re-examine their analytical and judgment processes in view of the incredible data and sensory feedback capability of modern computer systems. Some companies may well find themselves buried under their own information explosions (2). This is one reason for the growing sophistication in the design of corporate control centers and top management information and data display rooms. The computer is literally outdating the instrument panels of management.

## BIG SYSTEMS MEAN BIG RISK

Like Cape Hatteras, the history of the management profession is strewn with the wrecks of corporate or system ventures. The Great Eastern steamship of 1858, the Maginot Line, the F-107 fighter aircraft, the SKYBOLT missile, the nuclear airplane program, the TALOS missile, the B-70 bomber, the P6M jet flying boat program, and the GOOSE decoy missile are only a few examples of big programs or systems that were ill-fated or cancelled. Some were poorly conceived or planned. Others were ahead of their time. Some were supported by inadequate technology, overly complex in design, or based upon invalid requirements. Others miscalculated the competitive or operational environment, du-

November, 1968

xiii

plicated other systems, or grossly under-
estimated the development, production, or
operational costs. In any event, they all had
one thing in common—inadequate "man-
agement perspective."

This same problem applies in big business,
big industry, and big government. The Ford
Motor Company committed $225 million to
the Edsel before it was phased out. General
Dynamics Corporation, back in 1961, estab-
lished the biggest single-year loss in corpo-
rate history—$143 million. This was largely
the result of commitments to the Convair 880
and 990 jet aircraft. Both were highly re-
garded and well-designed aircraft. However,
they entered the Jet Age competition too
late and failed to catch up with Boeing and
Douglas. In 1967, Forbes Magazine (12),
pointed out that General Electric's activities
in the electronic data processing field since
1956 incurred a loss of $100 million. It also
pointed out that the problem was not lack of
technical expertise on the part of GE per-
sonnel, but rather a weakness in overall
management vision. This has since been cor-
rected.

Big business today means big risk. IBM,
for example, spent $500 million on engi-
neering development and programming (soft-
ware) to develop its new computer System
360. More than $8 billion may be involved
during the full life cycle of this one system.
This level of investment/risk requires the ut-
most insight, imagination and perspective on
the part of management.

The challenge was well summarized by
Arjay Miller, former President of the Ford
Motor Company when he said:

As technology advances, everything becomes
bigger, more complicated, and harder to under-
stand. As rapid changes occur, ideas and knowl-
edge become obsolete. To keep pace, we are
tempted toward specialization when what we
need, on the contrary, is a broadening of our
vision. As science increases the number of things
we can do, it becomes harder and harder to know
what we should do (8).

NEED FOR NETWORK PERSPECTIVE

A recent example of improving "network
perspective" is the newly established early
warning system for reporting adverse drug
reactions. This is a worldwide medical data
feedback network operated by the World
Health Organization utilizing Food and Drug
Administration computer facilities. It will tend
to prevent, or at least insure prompt detec-
tion of, unpredictable drug side-effects such
as the thalidomide tragedy that occured in
Europe. In the medical field, total system
overview and prompt feedback have become
necessities in today's era of new, powerful,

and sophisticated drugs and medical tech-
niques.

Another example of big system overview
is the $5 billion program to modernize the
U. S. Postal System. This 138-year-old sys-
tem originated by Benjamin Franklin is
plagued with outdated facilities (2,500 major
facilities built before 1940) and customer
overload (80 billion pieces of mail per year).
It has been described by former Postmaster
General Lawrence F. O'Brien as a "restric-
tive jungle of legislation and custom." His
proposal to make the 700,000-employee Post
Office Department into a nonprofit corpora-
tion is a classic example of bold management
perspective plus "conceptual re-thinking"
applied to a large-scale system.

The need for broader perspectives in
evaluating large-scale government opera-
tions was highlighted in recent Congressional
testimony on urban renewal. Considerable
testimony revolved around the management
difficulties in coordinating 170 different Fed-
eral aid or welfare programs, financed by
400 separate appropriations, and admin-
istered by 21 departments or agencies. In
summing up the problem, Senator Ribicoff,
Chairman of the Committee on Government
Operations, pointed out:

We do not lack the resources to solve urban
problems—we lack the vision. We fail to see the
challenge and the promise, because we are so
paralyzed by the problems (11, p. 20).

As we move deeper into a Space Age
environment, "management by perspective"
becomes increasingly important. Growing
complexity in big systems, technological
change and explosions in knowledge and
communications necessitate the utmost vision
and insight by managements. In the 1970's,
computerized data networks will become as
common as the quill pen of 1870 or the
manual typewriter of 1930.

William T. Brady, former Chairman of
the Corn Products Refining Company, points
out that our society tends to resist change
and innovation by the very fact that we
lionize men of "facts" as opposed to men
of "ideas." We need both. The computer is
a powerful tool for the man of "facts." How-
ever, the manager of tomorrow must also
energetically pursue new "ideas," concepts
and innovations. He cannot simply reflect in
the mirror of past experience or success.
Like Alice, he must learn to step through the
looking glass into new worlds and oppor-
tunities for product, system or service im-
provement.

This requires an overall vision or compre-
hension of what the total business or opera-
tion is all about. It also emphasizes that the

process of management, in tomorrow's fast
moving Space Age environment, will in most
fields and professions require seven distinct
functions in order to achieve real "manage-
ment by perspective."

REFERENCES

(1) Peter F. Drucker, "The Manager and the
Moran," McKinsey Quarterly, Spring 1967,
McKinsey and Company, N.Y., 1967, p. 48.

(2) General Howell M. Estes, USAF, "Will Man-
agers be Overwhelmed By the Information Ex-
plosion," Armed Forces Management Maga-
zine, Wash. D.C., Dec 1966, p. 75.

(3) Jay W. Forrester, "Industrial Dynamics," MIT
Press, 1961, p. 1.

(4) John W. Gardner, "Self-Renewal," Harper
and Row, N.Y., 1963, p. 5.

(5) "Analysis for Military Decisions," R-387-PR,
Edited by E. S. Quade. RAND Corporation,
Santa Monica, Calif., Nov 1964, p. 17.

(6) Robert N. Lehrer, "The Management of Im-
provement," Reinhold Publishing Co. N.Y.,
1965.

(7) Robert E. Machol, "System Engineering Hand-
book," McGraw Hill, New York, 1965, p. 1-8.

(8) Speech to Economic Club of Detroit by Arjay
Miller on 4 Oct 65.

(9) Leo B. Moore, "Too Much Management, Too
Little Change," Harvard Business Review, Jan-
Feb 1956, p. 41.

(10) Leo B. Moore, "How to Manage Improve-
ment," Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug
1958, p. 75.

(11) Federal Times, 7 Dec 66, p. 20, Army Times
Publishing Co., Wash. D.C.

(12) Forbes Magazine, 1 Apr 1967, article, "GE's
Edsel?" p. 21.

(13) AFR 375-1, "Management of System Pro-
grams," dated 25 Nov 63, Hq U.S. Air Force.

(14) AFSC Manual 375-4, "System Program Man-
agement Procedures," dated 31 May 66, Hq
Air Force Systems Command.

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS

A BETTER JOB
MAY BE
LOOKING FOR YOU
IN
CARDS

Let NATIONAL PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS
(NPC) Central Applicant Resume Distribution
System (CARDS) See what career opportunities
are available to you.

Industrial Engineering positions in all industries:
steel, rubber, metal fabrication, chemical pro-
cessing, electrical & industrial equipment.

Select your area of distribution & let CARDS give
your background immediate confidential expo-
sure to our many affiliate offices in the areas of
the country where you will relocate.

No charge. Fees Company Paid. Salaries $8,000-
$20,000. Send salary present & desired with
location flexibility to NPC Affiliate.

LEONARD PERSONNEL

310 Empire Bldg. Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222

xiv

Volume XIX • No. 11

W. Sidney Taylor

5053 SOUTH 22ND STREET
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22206

671-8189

Mr. Stewart Alsop
3520 Springland Lane, NW
Washington
D. C. 20008

Dear Stewart:

Congratulations on your excellent book "The Center".
I particularly enjoyed your treatment of JFK and the Bay of
Pigs fiasco. The managerial "learning curve" of some of our
new Presidents could well be one of the most deadly problems
facing us in a thermonuclear Space Age environment.

I often judge people and their motivations or primary
interests by the books that they write. JFK's "Profiles In
Courage" provides a classic example. I feel that he was
obsessed with the subject of "courage". I would have felt
much more at ease if he had written a book entitled "Profiles
in Wisdom". The world today is full of courage. The Chinese,
the Russians, the French, the Germans, the Japanese have all
proven over a long pattern of history and wars that they have
courage. The real poverty in the world today is wisdom.
That in part is why I wrote the attached article "Management
by Perspective".

It is a crude attempt to point out the difference between
information, knowledge and wisdom. The world is full of computers
grinding out mountains of information. The universities have
become production lines for the Knowledge Explosion. The only
thing missing is that we do not have a Wisdom Explosion to
match the progress, technology and explosions occurring in
today's fast moving Space Age.

We can store information and we can record knowledge
for all time. However, wisdom is a very perishable commodity
that seems to expire with each passing generation. It cannot
be stored or inherited. It can only be learned (often the hard
way). Each generation must manufacture its own wisdom. In
today's era of 6 day wars, 15 minute or less ICEM warning/re-
action times and 100 megaton bombs, we may never live long
enough to confirm the old truism "Good judgment comes from
experience, and experience comes from bad judgment". That is
why I particularly liked page 159 in your book concerning Mr.
McNamara's regret of only being in office 90 days when the
Bay of Pigs decision came up.

(over)

CURRICULUM VITAE of NGUYEN THAI

FAMILY

Born in Hue, Central Vietnam, January 30, 1930.

Married 1954 Nguyen Tuyet Mai; children: 2 girls, 2 boys.

EDUCATION

French Baccalaureate, 1948.

Master of Arts, Cornell University, 1954.

Nieman Fellow in Journalism, Harvard University, 1962-63.

AFFILIATIONS WITH CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS

Founder and Board Member of Vietnamese American Association.

Founder and Past President of Popular Cultural Association.

Member of Lions International.

Senator of Junior Chamber of Commerce International.

PUBLICATIONS

Founder and first Publisher of The Times of Vietnam, 1956-57.

Author of book, "Is South Vietnam Viable?" 1962.

Articles on Vietnam in *New Republic*, *Asian Survey*, among others.

ACTIVITIES

Special Assistant at Vietnam President's Office and Information
Department, 1954-56.

Director General of Vietnam Press National news agency 1957-61.

Assistant Minister of Information, then Special Advisor to
Deputy Premier for Cultural and Social Affairs, 1964-65.

Founder and Vice-President of International Business Associates,
Ltd. (IBA) 1965; General Manager and President, 1966.
(IBA is a limited company which, among other things, is
the first agent in Vietnam of Honda Motor Company which
introduced 150,000 Hondas into South Vietnam in 1966-67.)

President of Vietnam Business Associates (VBA) 1966. (VBA
is an import-export company with a declared capital of
15,000,000 piasters.)

Founding member of Vietnam Health Project for Self Development, 1967.

In late May 1967 Nguyen Thai was injured by a Viet Cong terrorist attack in his hometown of Hue. As a result, he lost his left leg and had to spend a few months in the U.S.A. for medical treatment. During his stay in America he developed extensive contacts with American businessmen interested in helping the Vietnamese people through the Vietnam Health Project for Self Development. This project aims at developing in South Vietnam the fields of nutrition, health education through mass media, planned parenthood and rehabilitation of the handicapped through the free enterprise approach.

The Rockefeller Foundation

111 WEST 50th STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10020

OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT

CABLE: ROCKFOUND, NEW YORK
TELEPHONE: COLUMBUS 5-8100

December 22, 1969

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your holiday greetings. It was good to hear from you. Congratulations on the dynamic and creative role you've been playing in shaping foreign policy.

With best wishes for an enjoyable holiday season and a happier, more peaceful new year,

Dr. Henry M. Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500

KWT:ck

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

The White House
Washington

WHD317 WAG330(1923)(1-056869A024)PD 01/24/73 1922

ICS IPMHENA HEM

ZCZC 01256 PWA003 NL PORT WASHINGTON NY 27 01-24 404P EST

1973 JAN 24 PM 8 00

PMS MR HENRY A KISSINGER, DLR
1600 PENNSYLVANIAAVE NW

WASH DC

PLEASE ACCEPT MY SINCERE CONGRAULATIONS ON ACHIEVING THE
AGREEMENT WHICH WILL BRING THE END TO FIGHTING ININDOCHINA DN
WILL HOPEFULLY RESULT IN LASTING PEACE

1973 JAN 25 AM 8 36

RECEIVED
KISSINGER'S OFFICE

FORM 0805 PRINTED BY THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, U. S. A.

MEMORANDUM

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

ACTION

October 27, 1969

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. KISSINGER

FROM: John H. Holdridge
SUBJECT: Request for Appointment for Jiro Tokuyama

Mr. Tokuyama has written, requesting an appointment with you (Tab B). Mr. Thomas Pepper sent you a note introducing Mr. Tokuyama in early September, and you replied on September 17 expressing the hope that you will be able to see him.

Mr. Pepper did not furnish any background on Mr. Tokuyama, and the only information we have is his letterhead, which identifies him as Director of the Nomura Research Institute of Technology and Economics, in New York City.

I think that it would be a bad idea to see Mr. Tokuyama, with the Okinawan negotiations at their present stage. There is no evident reason to see him, and some danger, given our lack of information as to his place in the political spectrum. It is hard to guess what lines of speculation you might start in the Government of Japan by taking the unusual step of seeing this private Japanese at this stage.

RECOMMENDATION:

That you sign the letter to Mr. Tokuyama at Tab A.

Attachments

MEMORANDUM

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

3806

ACTION

November 17, 1969

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. KISSINGER

I attach a re-drafted and warmer letter, as you requested.

RECOMMENDATION:

Att

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ECONOMICS

405 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017
(212) 661-3037

October 14, 1969

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I would like to congratulate you for the brilliant record you are making since you went to the White House. I am reading a great deal about your activities in the news media.

I believe you have received a letter from Mr. Thomas Pepper about my seeing you. I have refrained from asking you to see me, or even writing to you, as I surmised you were extremely busy. But, now with Prime Minister Sato's visit around the corner, I feel I can make a valuable contribution if you could see me.

The economic and defense issues between our two countries are becoming quite complicated. I am sure you have a lot of statistical and factual data on Japan, but I fear the United States side does not have a full grasp of socio-economic factors in Japan. I would like to talk to you on these intangible, yet very important, aspects which may help your preparations for Prime Minister Sato's visit to this country.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

MAIN OFFICE: 1600 KAJIWARA, KAMAKURA-SHI, KANAGAWA, JAPAN
TOKYO OFFICE: 6-1 EDOBASHI, NIHONBASHI, CHUO-KU, TOKYO, JAPAN

EXECUTIVE
N2018C0165
C0160
KISSINGER, HENRY A. /Moe-Rec'd/17

Dear Burke:

I want to thank you for your kind note of January 24 on the occasion of the Vietnam settlement, and your generous words.

As I have told you, the President is enormously grateful for the steadfastness of your Government's support throughout this difficult period. It has meant a great deal to us and we will never forget it. It will be reflected in the special closeness of our relations in the years ahead.

The President and I know how much we owe to you personally. He shares my enormous personal admiration for you and my regret that we will not have you as our interlocutor in the new period. We will sorely miss your skill, your graciousness, and your extraordinary dedication to our friendship. But I suspect that neither we nor your own Government will ever cease seeking your advice and wisdom.

Sir Burke Trend
Cabinet Office
London, S. W. 1
England

PR/drc/2-2-73

RECEIVED
FEB 3 1973

CENTRAL FILES

院 法 立 國 民 華 中
LEGISLATIVE YUAN

REPUBLIC OF CHINA
TAIPEI, TAIWAN, CHINA

January 25, 1969

Professor Henry A. Kissinger
419 Beacon Street
Boston, Mass.
U. S. A.

James T. Tsao
28-2, Lane 388
Aun-Tong Street
Taipei, Taiwan
The Republic of China

Dear Professor Kissinger:

First, let me extend to you my warmest congratulations
on your recent appointment by President Nixon to a key
position in his Administration. Your appointment was received
in this country with great enthusiasm, as we know for sure
that a man of your expertise in international affairs will
make invaluable contributions to world peace and order.

In spite of your duties in the White House, I still
hope very much that you will be able to find time to make a
trip to The Republic of China to see the development of this
country and to meet with people of interest. We are ready
at any time to roll out our red carpet for you. I shall be
most delighted to hear from you about your plan of visit to
Taiwan in the near future.

With Kindest personal regards,

James T. Taso

Sincerely yours,

With kindest personal regards,

Taiwan in the near future.

moat delighted to hear from you about your plan of a visit to at any time to roll out our red carpet for you. I shall be country and to meet with people of interest. We are ready to visit to The Republic of China to see the development of this hope very much that you will be able to find time to make a visit to us at your convenience in the White House. I still

that a man of your expertise in international affairs will in this country with great enthusiasm, as we know for sure position in his Administration. Your appointment was received on your recent appointment by President Nixon to a key

First, let me extend to you my warmest congratulations.

Dear Professor Klaasen:

U. S. A.

Boston, Mass.

416 Beacon Street

Professor Henry A. Klaasen

January 52, 1969

## LEGISLATIVE YUAN

### 院法立國民華中

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

QUAIN & RAMSTAD CLINIC

221 NORTH FIFTH STREET

223-1420

BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA

58501

January 26, 1973

Mr. Henry Kissinger
Presidential Advisor
United States Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20000

Dear Henry:

You have got to be the "greatest". You must rank with the greatest diplomats of history. I don't believe there is any question about your stature here in the United States.

I would like you to continue working with Japan and Germany so that we could have some type of understanding with these two nations with which we share so much. It always seems to me that we end up fighting those who should be attracted to us the most, and these two industrialized countries, with us, would make an impenetrable barrier against disturbances of the peace in the future.

I also have the feeling that we should have another State in the South Pacific and I would feel very kindly about having either the Philippines or some group from Micro-nesia join as the 51st State. Best wishes.

RBT:lab

INTERNL MEDICINE

C. H. PETERS, M. D.
M. J. E. JOHNSON, M. D.
K. J. JOHNSON, M. D.
P. R. GREGWARE, M. D.
D. DANIOLOS, M. D.
R. W. FRICKE, M. D.
D. M. PFEIFLE, M. D.
A. F. BERITAN, M. D.
K. G. FOSTER, M. D.
W. J. GUNDLACH, M. D.

CARDIOLOGY

P. R. GREGWARE, M. D.

ALLERGY
K. J. JOHNSON, M. D.

ONCOLOGY

D. M. PFEIFLE, M. D.

SURGERY

R. F. NUESSLE, M. D.
R. D. SCHOREGGE, M. D.
W. D. WALDSCHMIDT, M. D.
H. H. FISCHER, M. D.
G. E. TOLSTEDT, M. D.
W. M. SWENSON, M. D.
GILBERTO GONZALEZ, M. D.

HEMATOLOGY
W. J. GUNDLACH, M. D.

THORACIC AND
VASCULAR SURGERY
W. D. WALDSCHMIDT, M. D.
G. E. TOLSTEDT, M. D.
W. M. SWENSON, M. D.
GILBERTO GONZALEZ, M. D.

ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY
DIX CONLIN, M. D.

NEUROLOGY
D. M. LARSON, M. D.

NEUROSURGERY
E. J. LASKOWSKI, M. D.
R. F. KENNEDY, M. D.

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
P. W. FREISE, M. D.
C. J. BAUMGARTNER, M. D.
C. R. MONTZ, M. D.
J. W. CLEARY, M. D.

PEDIATRICS
R. B. TUDOR, M. D.
H. P. SMEENK, M. D.
W. C. RIECKE, M. D.

PSYCHIATRY
R. O. SAXVIK, M. D.
A. J. CANDY, M. D.
S. J. THAKOR, M. D.

OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
E. D. PERRIN, M. D.
HELMUT ARNOLD, M. D.

OPHTHALMOLOGY
E. D. PERRIN, M. D.

OPTOMETRY
J. F. WOODWARD, O. D.

RADIOLOGY
S. K. IMES, M. D.
R. M. BERG, M. D.
PABLO RAMOS, M. D.
W. F. HOOK, M. D.
W. A. HILL, M. D.

PATHOLOGY
D. E. NELSON, M. D.

FAMILY PRACTICE
A. E. VANVRANKEN, M. D.

ANESTHESIOLOGY
M. D. GATCHALIAN, M. D.

ORAL SURGERY
JOHN T. KEAVENY, D. D. S.

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
G. N. OLSON
E. J. ABFALTER
C. E. PENDERGAST