‘Structural Changes’ Needed at Pentagon, Study Panel Chairman Says

A new blue-ribbon commission investigating Pentagon management practices already has found widespread problems that will necessitate “structural changes” in the way the Defense Department does business, the panel’s chairman said Thursday.

David Packard, who has spent his career in the defense Establishment, charged that Pentagon problems have worsened in the years since he served as deputy secretary of defense under President Richard M. Nixon.

Moreover, he declared, reforms in a wide variety of activities involving procurement, military bureaucracies and congressional oversight are needed.

Packard, who spent nearly three years as deputy secretary of defense, now is chairman of the Hewlett-Packard Co. of Palo Alto, an international manufacturer of computer and measurement products for both industry and defense uses.

Indication of Direction

His views, disclosed to a small group of reporters, provide the first indication of the overall direction his commission is likely to follow when it reports to the President. In addition, his comments add weight to growing Capitol Hill criticism of Pentagon operations, which has widened to include some of the most respected members of Congress who deal with defense issues.

“The system isn’t broken; it’s working fairly well,” Packard said. But, he noted, “it should work better. Structural changes are necessary. Things are not only going along the way they were--they’re worse than they were 15 years ago.”

Without offering any specific recommendations, he added: “We’ve got to do something about the system. There are a lot of people in the bureaucracy doing a lot of things that don’t contribute to better capability.”

While stating “there is no question that our defense capability is stronger today” than when the Reagan Administration embarked on a $1-trillion military buildup in 1981, Packard said: “The general conclusion is we should have gotten more for our money.”

Panel’s Instructions

In the wake of widespread criticism of Pentagon procurement practices and studies calling for improved coordination of military operations, President Reagan asked the panel “to look at the organization and decision-making procedures” at the Defense Department.

The commission has met in private several times over the last two months and has heard from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, congressional leaders, Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other senior defense officials, analysts and industry experts.

The group, formally known as the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, is scheduled to produce three reports beginning in December and has been given a $4-million budget.

Expressing concern about Pentagon growth, Packard observed that a five-person, senior-level acquisition panel has grown over 15 years to about 15 members and that a small research board has blossomed into a 40-member committee.

Weapon Production Time

He said the commission is looking at ways to speed the production of new weapons and that the United States is developing high technology weapons five years ahead of the Soviet Union--only to lose the advantage as the result of long delays in building and deploying the weapons.

The former Pentagon deputy said that the panel also is looking at the organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a topic under study by two congressional committees, and the extent to which congressional oversight of the Pentagon introduces inefficient practices--an area criticized by Gen. John W. Vessey Jr. when he retired last week as chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Packard also spoke of making more efficient the highly classified programs where secrecy limits the number of people involved. “There are some lessons we can apply--the fundamental principle of giving a guy some responsibility . . . and getting rid of this micromanagement,” he said.

Other Recommendations

In other areas where recommendations of changes apparently are contemplated, Packard said:

--Better program managers monitoring Pentagon weapons development programs are needed.

--Multiyear funding approval could add stability to weapons production, which some say would also lower costs.

--Greater fiscal guidance should be given by the defense secretary, National Security Council and Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He praised Weinberger, whom he described as a personal friend of long standing, for his work as defense secretary. But he said that “it’s very hard for the guy over there in the job to admit he’s all screwed up”--a crack meant only as a reference to his own experience at the Pentagon, Packard added with a smile.

C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE