Now your product officer has to be able to recognize a product, and he has to want the product. And the org officer has to be able to make somebody a member of the team, and give him enough expertise so that he can demonstrate his competence. And if he gives him enough expertise so that he can demonstrate his competence, he becomes a member of the team. So these are quite different functions, aren't they?

Now as an executive director running an org officer and a product officer, you will run into this immediate problem - you won't know who to give orders to. You will become foggy, you will sometimes give the product officer the orders which should go to the org officer, you'll sometimes give the org officer the products which should go to the product officer. Now I'm saying this, I'm not putting this up as a possible aberration for you to shoot at, I'm just telling you that this point exists, otherwise you'll make ducks and drakes out of this system.

Now we could write all about this in cold words and you still wouldn't have the music, because the music is a speed up beyond belief. When you start these two actions together it's something like mixing fire and dynamite. You get a speed up. Now as you get that speed up, all those portions of the area, first all those team members who are not really part of the team and so forth, and all those portions of the area at large in which you're running this team will be impinged upon by the team, because you're running at a much higher velocity level than the area is running, and it inevitably will happen. There will even be a thought like, "Maybe we ought to slow this thing down." It's something like this, it's the old, old story about the salt mill. And the salt mill started grinding out salt, and it perpetually ground out salt, and nobody could stop this thing from grinding out salt. Part of an old story. And it ground out so much salt that nobody could put any of the salt anyplace, so they threw it in the ocean, and that's why the ocean is salty. It's still down there grinding out salt.

But, there's some thought like, "Hey," somewhere along the line you say, "Any product officer that," he all of a sudden, it'll be if he wishes to trace it back, he's just had a little failure ten, fifteen, twenty minutes ago, or that morning or something. And you'll trace it back saying, "You know, I ought to slow this thing down. Let's, let's slow this thing down a little bit, you know? Because this is starting to roar." Now that is the music that goes along with this system.

Now look at the, look at the factors which are stacked up here. The scarcest thing in the universe is a hat. And you will find first and foremost, the org officer will find at every one of his blunder points an unworn hat. The person will have not quite taken over the hat, the person will have really just left the hat. The person is not wearing his hat. Well now, that not wearing his hat is insufficiently expletive, or it doesn't explain it enough rather, for the org officer to handle the situation. He just goes in and he says, "Wear your hat," you know? No, no, no. The org officer has got to be an expert mini-hatter.

Now you can run through an organization as an executive, and you can actually hat people without any hat check sheet or pack. You can tell them, "There's your post, there's where you are on the org board, there's the division, this is your boss, and you're supposed to sit there and do so and so." But that's, that's just a lick and a promise. That's about as good as any business ever does, and then the guy is there for a year or two, then he finds out what his job is, maybe. He actually has never been hatted.

Now this rapid hatting is always your first action of the org officer. It isn't ethics, it's just a rapid hatting, because the guy really must have some kind of a doubt or misunderstood, or he didn't quite know what he was doing, or he didn't quite something or other something or other, and he'll get killed in the rush. And it's only kindness to hat him, and hat him rapidly, because he's something like a soccer player that has thrown himself across the shins of his fellow team mates. And they not only will get some sore shins, they will start getting mad at him. He becomes a social pariah, very quickly. And so therefore the org officer has to be there to catch the ball, putting the guy back in the team line.

Now he can always put a better team member there, he can always put a better organization there. Now you as executive director, if you're operating with an org officer; you'd have to have a pretty big sized org to be operating with a product officer and an org officer. Normally speaking the executive director would be the product officer. He'd be both the product officer and the planning officer, and he'd have an org officer backing him up. You get a little bit larger, he's the planning officer, coordinating officer, he's got a product officer, he's got an org officer. And you get a little bit bigger than this, he has to have a messenger, and he has to have a PR man. And the product officer actually is the person who handles the PR man, and then the org officer will use the results of the PR, and so forth, because you're doing rapid survey, because what slowed your production down? Human emotion and reaction. So PR suddenly swings into the line.

Now I clarified PR with you first so that you wouldn't have a misunderstood, thinking you should be nice to people or something. By all means be nice to people, but it isn't, it isn't the substance of PR. PR is that technology which handles human emotion and reaction.

So, that's what you're going to run into. Now why isn't this guy hatted? Well he could be unhatted by ignorance, which is the charitable fact, or he can be unhatted by human emotion and reaction. "Yeah, I'm not going to play, I'm going to sit over here on the side lines," and so forth. "The last time they went down the field they kicked me in the ribs, and they're still sore." So the org officer is actually in the business of picking up the pieces and putting the team back together again. And the product officer is only interested in products. And you as executive director have to be able to get these two things untangled so that you just know them instinctively. Pongo! Or, a product officer has to know these things instinctively. Both of them have to know the organization inside out.

There's a system by which you do this, and which I advocate. In org series ten, The Analysis of Organization By Product, we find there are four products. These four products are the establish machine, the machine's product, the corrected machine and the corrected product. In other words, there is the established machine and the corrected machine. Just think of a generator, see? It's putting the generator there, and then there's repairing it. See? And then, the product officer, he doesn't have anything to do with this machine, except just saying what speed it's to be run at and so forth and so on, because he's not interested in the machine, he's interested in what the machine is producing. It's either producing power delivered or it's producing electricity, or it's producing something. So that is what he's interested in, see?

So actually your org officer has the established-ment, the establishment. He's got the establishment, he establishes the establishment. And when it goes a little awry, he corrects the establishment. So he has products one and three. And then, we've got the product that the establishment has, or the many products which it has, and then the correction of the product, as two and four. The pattern that is followed on this is when the product officer finds himself, this is the law governing it, when the product officer finds himself with product four, which is correcting the establishment's product, he immediately shoots it over to the org officer, organizationally at three, who tries to get it back to one. So it goes four, three, one. You follow this now?

The org officer is finding out, he's having to, "What-what-what, where the devil is the wmfh? And waof and waof and waof and waof." Well he goes right ahead and gets that. He doesn't try to put the establishment together. He doesn't try to correct the establishment any. He can grab anybody that's passing by and say, "Tally onto this waof and produce this waof right away." Do you see? But at the same time he's doing that he's got to make some kind of a notation in passing, and slide it back, "Hey, the waof cutter wasn't here." And that goes to the org officer. And now the org officer has some how or other got to get that corrected, see. And these two guys work against and with each other, on entirely separate things.

Now the org officer does not work for the executive director or the CO. The org officer works for the product officer. The first product an executive director or commanding officer is a product officer. The first product of the product officer is an org officer. The first product of the org officer is an HCO area secretary, and the first product of the HCO area secretary is an HCO. HCO continues the establishment.

Now, with that in train, and keeping that in mind, and tracking back to it when you find the system is going loyadle, now you just concentrate on products, as the executive director or a product officer. You just concentrate on products. Just products, that's all. You don't take your attention off of products and say, "I wonder why the organization didn't get its FP into the woggle bogs, and why we didn't get any raw materials into the fuel spits, and so forth." Keep it on product two. Product two, product two. Each time you slide into the corrected product of the establishment, slide it to the org officer and say, "Hey, hey, hey. There's no waffle cutter here. You know? We're cutting waffles over here, we don't have any waffle cutter."

Now this makes the org officer go a bit out of phase, so he has four things. He has the immediate action, he has the medium range action, he has the long range action, and he has the very long range action, which is, "What's this place going to look like two years from now? What's it going to look like in six months?" And what are we going to have here in six months, that's your long range action. The medium range action, organizationally and so forth, well that's maybe a couple of weeks. And the immediate, that's anything from five minutes to a day, or something like that. Usually in actual practice, probably about ten, fifteen, twenty minutes. "I'll get you a wog cutter," you know, something.

So these operate one to the other, and the org officer; let's go back to basics now; he has to know a product when he sees one. And he has to want that product, and he has to get that product, which is the third line. That product he's got to get. He might not get it on schedule, it might not be as fancy as it was, it might not be as big as it is, but he's got to get it.

Now one of the greatest training mechanisms which you can go through with this system is to get a short term, close up organizational action. Training in a Flag bureau or a liaison officer, you actually are on a very hot line yes, but the product is not as visual in its final accomplishment. For instance, your product is a project, which is sent out, let us say. Alright, that's fine. It doesn't give you as neat a view. It gives you a plenty good view, and they work great as teams, as working with something, "What's my product?"

Let us say, let's take a ship, voyage. "The product I'm working on is a voyage." Now the voyage product, somewhere here I've got a sample of trying to get a voyage. Yes, here we are. Product, a voyage. Now this was the write up, this was the write up which ensued in trying to get this product called the voyage. It's actually Flagship order 201. It's investigation and remedy of sailing delay. All of a sudden I noticed that we didn't have a product. Now I'd decided this was a good time to get my hands dirty on the subject of product officer/org officer system, so I stepped in. And much to the dismay of everybody involved and so forth, operated as a product officer without an org officer, for about forty-eight hours, just to find out what this was all about and do it. Working on a tied up product like a voyage, that's the product.

Well we have to get the product started, and the product wasn't starting. There was all kinds of wild things going on. Now because I wasn't operating with an org officer, some of those cycles are still going on at this moment, that came off of this, although this date is one January, which was eighteen days ago, making it a medium range project.

So after I got all this I wrote it all up. And, working on this, trying to get the voyage started; the voyage had begun fifty-eight minutes late, and the faulty product of course was traced down. Why? How come, how come, how come? Actually it had to do with not getting cleared, and somebody had let a customs official and the agent go ashore, to come back later. And we found that an outness there was that there was an apparency of a person scheduling the sailing of the ship who shouldn't have been. In other words, we found a counter-policy.

Now by getting that out of the way, and somehow getting the voyage started, and then carrying on that voyage to complete that voyage as a product, and nothing but a product, and then working on a product at the end of that line I was able to get a hand, first hand knowledge of this system. These were the products which I worked on. One of the first things I found out is you have to be able to recognize the product you're working on, with no nonsense. You've got to state that's the product. It doesn't matter whether it's in a policy letter or not, it's the product you're working on at that moment. You'll find yourself working as a product officer on a typing typist. See? I got a product here, I got a typing typist. This is the product, you see. And you'll start working on a typing typist and suddenly realize that you're working on an org officer's product. Do you follow?

So you hastily, you find yourself, you can't get these mimeos out, so you've got a product in your lap which is typing typist, that's an org officer product. So you promptly would get a hold of the org officer and say, "For heaven's sakes, give me a typing typist so I can get my attention back on this mimeo." So there, you would be a little bit late. But if you couldn't identify what product your attention was on, you might find yourself working with the wrong product, which belonged to the org officer. You see what I mean?

So, now what would have missed then is, you were trying to get a mimeoed project, and you were trying to finish this up so that you could say, "Period to that. That is the product I'm working on." And all of a sudden, you find yourself in four. You're having to do something to correct this thing, and it's not coming out in the org line. Then you just shift it over, it's obviously a three. So it goes over to three, you say to the org officer, "Get me a typing typist." And then the org officer can do that right away, and then try to get the establishment back into line on a medium range thing, like get enough typists in mimeo, you know? And that might become a long range of trying to employ some and so on, and it drifts around that way. But they'd have to know what they're operating on.

So, it is necessary for the product officer to make notes of everything he passes to the org officer. If you were the commanding officer in this instance, you'd write up something like this product, a voyage. And it goes on and on and on and on and on. And then this is passed over to the org officer. And he can jolly well repair all this, and patch it up. Now what got in the road of this is the fact that the two orgs split. This thing has not been totally done yet. Do you see?

Now the way you get this in line is to drill yourself as an executive director on this thing, is to write product one, the establishment, product three, the corrected establishment, product two, the establishment's product, and the corrected product of the establishment is four. Alright, now you get those cards, you could put them down on your desk. That's product one, two, three, four, with these wordings written on them. And then you put down volume, quality, viability, on three separate cards. And every action you do, just turn these cards to the right one. And all of a sudden, all the clouds will come out of your skull on the subject, and you'll be able to hand the rights things to the product officer and so on. Product officer can do this, "What am I working on?" See, each one of the products has volume, quality and viability.

Now this whole subject goes along on this, that an intermittent or Un-uniform; now an intermittent flow is one thing, but a non-uniform flow is quite something else. And what will really get in your hair is non-uniformity on your assembly line. So, one of your main things of a product officer is spotting non-uniformity, so that he can hand it to the org officer to get uniformities.

Well I'll give you a weird one. We have a staff hat, fifty percent of the staff members have one staff hat, and the other fifty percent have another staff hat. Entirely different. They tell them to write their dispatches in an entirely different way and route them in entirely different routings. You've got a dog's breakfast at once. Now that would be a gross, silly example. Yet we have a tech services just twenty-four hours ago, who had some of their auditors writing up their sessions immediately after the session, and the bulk of their auditors writing up all their sessions later. Some of their auditors came to tech services to ask for a pc, and some of the auditors have an arrangement whereby the pc was sent to the session. Now you see what I mean about non-uniform flow? In other words, you've got a non-uniformity which is so great here that you can't get a team function. When people are unhatted entirely, you get almost total non-uniform flows, and total non-uniform flows can become so great that they practically overwhelm an org. Yet at this time that I speak I doubt there are very few orgs which have staff members which have done a staff hat. Just the basic staff hat. See? Practically none of them around. It's almost an unknown action at this immediate time. So you see, by not having in a basic staff hat, or a basic division hat, or a basic section hat, a department hat or a section hat, if you don't have those things you'll get a non-uniform flow. So your production line won't run. And now you've got trouble, trouble, trouble.

So as far as the group is concerned, it's the non-uniformity of flow, and different systems at work internally which then sort of block it all up. And if the individual gets across the track of the team members, or the department gets across the track of the team members, when it isn't wearing its hat. So just remember, there are two types of hats. There's the hat of the group and the hat of the individual. And if you don't have a group that is fairly uniformly hatted, you're going to run into a certain amount of trouble. They have to have some kind of a group hat.

Now with that you can get a tremendous amount of action out of all of this. I'm trying to give you the music. You can read all the rules and laws, I'm trying to give you the music that goes along with this thing, see? It's a wham, bam, bong. You have to be right on the ball. You have to be right on the ball as a product officer, and as an org officer.

Now one of the ways a product officer keeps track of the org officer is everything he passes to the org officer he says date, item, date, item, date, item, date, item. He can say more than that if he wants to. Now he keeps a record of this. He keeps a notebook. He's got to keep a notebook of this so that he knows if the establishment is improving.

Now how would he know if the establishment is improving? Because the notes he gave to the org officer in the week from the first to the seventh, should be different than the notes he gives to the org officer between the seventh and the fourteenth. And if they are not, then the org officer's being ineffective.

Now there's an immediate check of course, instant check on a well staticized org, on the product officer of that org. Oh, it is a marvelous check. It's the stats.

Now I hope we don't change the method of reporting of our present stats, because they give us, in some mysterious way, they are not just volume stats. And they interlock in such a way that they're subject to an analysis of the whole org. Whereas the product of each department, or the four final valuable products of the org, or something like this, if they were simply staticized you might not be able to get a total picture. So volume stats which do not give you any idea of viability, and no idea of quality, can give you a false picture.

For instance, we had some very, very high hour stats, without any completions. Now let me show you how an org officer could change that picture. It's rather fantastic, by the way. I can't give you the exact to the hour and minute, I just had a report on it, because I'm not sure how far we are into this week. What is today? Alright. During the previous week, stemming back from last Thursday, they had six completions at fifty-eight hours each. Uh!)From Thursday 'til Monday period, after it had been worked over product officer wise and so forth, it had improved to I think something on the order of sixteen completions at about sixteen hours each. Now what's the quality of the completion? Well the policy is fairly well guaranteed, because there isn't any completion permitted to go through the lines that is not an attest. And we haven't put down a success line, but in your machinery if it was put down also as a success line, if the success line was well in you would have your quality check.

Now it could be very, very misleading. This organization audited four hundred and one hours. Well you say, "Great." We've got one right now. We've got an org which has a very high rising stat of very well done auditing hours, and a reducing stat, almost in danger, on completions. What they doing? Well they could easily be repairing repairs, and doing all sorts of things. But I was just showing this that there is a stat change as a result of the product officer's intervention, backed up by an org officer. See? That sure changed the hell out of that, didn't it? Bongo!

Now these things run very fast. These things run very fast. And you get into the most amazing tangles, and you get into the most wild jungles you ever heard of, and it's enough to discourage most anybody, and a fellow just ought to quit, of course.

But what we're trying to do, what we're trying to do of course is bring about a product, and that product has got to be of good quality, and then we've got the factor of viability. Now what knocks people's eyeballs out is viability does not necessarily have anything to do with money. What coin is the division spending? An HGC spends an auditor's hour. The student hour and the instructor minute are the coins being spent by a training division. Now what do they buy with it?

Now if they owe too many, here's your backlog, they can be bankrupt. And a lot of orgs right now are running on, they're bankrupt with auditing hours. There's a lot of orgs right this minute are bankrupt on auditing hours, has nothing to do with cash. They owe far more auditing hours than they have any possibility of delivering. Well, what's an exchange money system? You owe more money than you've got, brother, you're bankrupt.

Now let's look at this in the form of economics. Let's move it right out of the field of money, and you'll find out that the economics of this situation open the field of economics wide open. You've got a subject of economics opening up in front of you. We haven't touched it. But economics actually is not the buck that is published in a printing press someplace, it has to do with viability. And there's in internal production viability, the like of which; you start studying this thing, you become absolutely amazed.

For instance, how many minutes of the MAA's time buys a product of a corrected situation? Now if you add the number of corrected situations that the MAA has engaged upon, an investigation leading to a correction, and you divide that into the number of work minutes of the MAA, you have his viability.

Now you take the number of situations which exist that aren't corrected and the average amount of time it will take to correct them, and you may find yourself with a bankrupt MAA. Just like that, see?

Now what do you owe and what do you got? Now an over manned post, an over manned post could also be expressed this way: You have three MAAs and you have two situations a week, so the number of MAA minutes which you are spending to handle the two situations, it may be that only two situations exist a week. The police solve this, by the way, very well. They just go out and make the situations. But we don't go in for that sort of thing, but there we are.

So viability to a product officer is what has he got to spend, for god's sakes spend it, and what can he buy with it? And don't owe too much of it that he can't supply. In other words, these are factors that are involved with the economics of the job. And the economics of the job is, what is the coin of this division? What is the coin of this section? How many does it owe, how many does it have, what is it buying with this coin, and so on.

Now oddly enough, you'll find all this translates directly over into money, if you're in a commercial society, or it would translate directly over into shoe coupons in a communist society, because the basis of money is; of course money is an idea backed with confidence, or enforced confidence, and is actually a representation. The basis of money is eggs and beans, it is not gold. Gold is a complete non-sequitur wrong item, because when inflation occurs, what do they drop back to? When an inflation occurs, they drop back to barter, they don't drop back to gold. So therefore, the basis of money is barter. And what does an org have that is barter, eggs for hams, milk for shoes? What does it have to barter with? It has minutes, production minutes. Do you see? So actually, the internal economics of an org is what have you got to spend, are you spending it, do you owe more than you could have to spend? If you just regard an auditing hour, for instance, a coin. If you regard the PR man's time and staff time, what he is buying with the number of surveys, what they're buying with the number of campaigns, what they're buying with the number of releases and so forth against this. Ignoring totally the amount of cash involved you will have the actual ecology of the PR department.

Now the product there might wind up in a final product which has value, if they're working on campaigns to sell something, and so forth. The sales and the investment of time and the number of products that it took that much sales, gives you the economy of the PR man. Now if you want to reverse all this back to short handedness, sloppily, you can; I said sloppily; you can translate it across to money in each case. But it's very sloppy.

PR costs us six thousand dollars a month, and that's what it costs us, six thousand dollars a month. And let's see, we had three stories published in the local newspaper, and therefore those stories cost two thousand dollars apiece. Well there's some fact in this. There's some fact in it, but it's sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. It doesn't take into account anything about the efficiency, or the cleverness, or the anything else, and so forth.

Now if there was one PR man there and he got three newspaper stories published in a month, he wouldn't be doing too bad, providing they weren't just death notices or something. You see, he wouldn't be doing too bad. If he had page two, page three, blurbs of some kind or other. Somebody, some actor's PR man would be deliriously happy with this, don't you see? It might cost quite a little bit to do so, but maybe it required a tremendous amount of cleverness. So quality went into this, didn't it? So what was your final product? It was printed publicity in the mass news media, or the TV minutes, or something like this. So you figure these things out.

You could get quite dizzy doing this. You could get quite dizzy doing this, until all of a sudden it becomes very real. You'll find out such thing as the auditor who didn't audit today has just cost you five auditing hours you will never get back. It's a decaying coin, it isn't anything could be put in the bank. That's five hours that were never spent, so they didn't buy anything. You get this kind of thing. And you say, "Wait a minute. What the hell's going on here?" See?

Now you turn over to the org officer, "What's going on there?" something like that. Or you gets into some kind of a program of action. Then you can figure out the economy of something. What is the economy of a section, a department, a division, an org? You can get too tight to this, but if you don't follow it through from the valuable final products; the valuable final products - well that's pcs, students, different types of students, course supervisors, money, these are valuable final products of an org. Valuable final products, because they translate into the society. Now we're into a completely new subject. They translate into the society for the wherewithal to survive.

A valuable final product by definition is something that can be translated into the society for the wherewithal to survive. Just by definition. Therefore you could run an org in a communist society, so therefore we've jumped up ahead of the economic pattern which we have been occupying before. Not that we intend to go into a communist society, but you do have, it does translate.

Now what do you know? We had some people in Washington and so forth, who are trading furniture for auditing and that sort of thing. That's a barter. A barter action. But it translates up into money, and because the furniture doesn't then translate into food, it's not a very good deal. So no staff members can eat, and unless they could translate the; so it isn't a barter economy, it's a cash economy. You walked into the Safeway with an over stuffed chair and it didn't buy a thing. It would in Russia. Rubles snubles, who wants rubles? Where's my shoes? "A man told me three years ago they had a five year plan on shoes, and it ain't up yet, so therefore I got to go two more years with no shoes."

Anyhow, do you get something of what the product officer's working with? So he's actually working with an economy. What is the production? What did the production cost? These are the things which he is asking for, but he isn't asking for what did the production cost in dollars, he's asking for what did the production cost in terms of the coin of what was producing it. And what is the coin? So a product officer has to recognize the coin. And the org officer has to make it valid coin.

Let's have an auditing hour. Oh boy, that's general. And they're not delivering any auditing hours to amount to anything, because the public doesn't come in anymore or something or other and so on. How valuable is this coin, an auditing hour? Well a bad auditing hour would be a very bad coin. Somehow or another the org officer would be required to increase the value of the coin, an auditing hour. But the product officer has also got to work on the value of this coin, by getting it better applied. So there's where they get their heads together, because they're both into it with the economy. One's got it to spend and the other is spending it.

It's the product officer that says what this division should be working on in the way of its product. So the validity of the coin and the value of the coin and so forth, can be disturbed by working on something that isn't very valuable as a product. So just as there are various nuances and changes in an economic system, so there is in this product officer/org officer system. They've got all of the economic values, they're right there in the middle of the org.

"We produced a grade two release today." "What'd it cost?" I can hear it now, "What'd it cost?" "Well actually, it was a very tough pc, and it cost fifteen auditing hours. And seven hours in review. Yes, that's what it cost." "What'd we get for it? How much are we selling an auditing hour here for today, and so forth?" Well that was how much the value of that thing was. And they all of a sudden will find something amazing, if you follow that back, that we're on a slightly wrong track. Selling auditing hours doesn't pay. Too valuable. I'll give you a wild economy. This is not an org's economy that we operate on at Flag. We don't operate here, neither does CLO. It operates on a different economy, because it's got one more via. It's what can it make the org make? And can it make the org make enough to afford having made the org make it? Do you follow?

Now I'll tell you something shocking, and what is, introduces this whole thing. I can tell you a great deal more about this. This is a ball. There is the subject of economics. And you want to work it out, you fool with it in your head, and all of a sudden you'll say, "Well, what, what, what?" You know? "Gee whiz, god. How can we make this place more viable? How can we make that division more viable? Well, you could make the division more viable by actually filing this stuff into the CF folders instead of letting it occupy floor space. And then it would have something to spend."

So, you could go on with this considerably, along the economic lines. Don't let me detour you too far, because the basic thing is the product officer gets the product, and the org puts the org there that gets the product, and the product officer is senior to the org officer. Why? Well, that's because the product of the org is not the org. But you've got to have an org in order to get a product.

Now the way you'd increase the quality, the way you increase quality is increase the organization. And that is a basic law, that isn't just a comment. You increase the organization. You increase the quality of the organization, you increase the quality of the coins the organization is spending. And you will increase the quality of the product. So the pcs in the neighborhood that you're auditing are not feeling very well, and they're not happy with their gains, and so forth. How do you increase that? Do you do in and yell at the auditors? No. Some of that will serve. Yell at the C/S? No. You have to sit back and project this. And you will find out there's something wrong with your organizational assembly line, which is another subject entirely different. There'd be something wrong with this.

The pcs come in at reception at the registrar, and the registrar sets their schedule in auditing, and then having set the schedule in auditing there isn't much, there's no auditor there at that time. Anyhow, you have thirty-five auditors who are delivering some of them two and a half hours a week, and; you get the idea? Your assembly line's just bonkers. So, there's no tech services, so that nobody can find the pc's folder, so he's audited without one. This just gives you some of the horror stories that you might run along. "We don't know what to run on this pc, so we'll run anything that comes to somebody's mind." This is terrible, see? So you increase your organization. You increase its effectiveness. You may have to increase it numerically. You certainly refine the steps, and you certainly uniformize the actions.

One of the first things to increase the efficiency of an organization that happens is the most obvious one, which is the org officer simply walks up to the registrar and says, "What is your hat?" And the registrar says, "Scheduling pcs." Well he's, he's got it solved right there. The org officer's got it solved right that minute. It's all solved.

"Now let's take the misunderstoods out of this. Now here's a meter, and you sit there and I'll sit here. And now, what does the word registrar mean?" You could go at it that crudely or, you could go at it that thoroughly, or you could do it a number of different ways, but what you're trying to do is get the registrar to wear the hat of registering and selling packages of this and that.

Now one of the things that you run into in your team work of trying to do this, is sometimes registrars think they're selling pie in the sky because they're totally unfamiliar with what product there is. They sign it up on this end of the line, and the internal briefings of the organization are so scarce and so rare, that they don't really know what comes up out of the other end of the line, particularly if their re-sign up line is out. So they don't know what's happening. And I've had registrars think they were just selling pie in the sky when the preclears were just happy as jay birds, totally out of communication. So the registrar feeling guilty of an overt every time they sold some auditing. I've actually had this happen. Actually in two orgs, not just one.

So, I put the registrar back on an information line, of the success story line. And that looked very practical, like the registrar is sitting there with a packet of success stories. "Well," they say, "well I can read these to the pc, or something like that. Somebody wrote them and so forth." But she obviously is not a member of the team. In other words, you haven't got a team operating.

Now that was true right here. We had some public division people who did not know actually, and we were actually producing some miracles, at a low level here, in qual. We were actually producing some absolute miracles. People had come down from here and there, and we were auditing them up, and all of a sudden they didn't have to have their epizudicks cut out, and so forth. And, they never got in on it. And they didn't get in on it to the point where they never mentioned it to anybody. Here you would think your promotion people actually didn't know what product you had, so they of course were not very enthusiastic about pushing the product, because they didn't know what the product is.

So an essential in any team is briefing. The people have to know what the hell's going on, that's all. And the product officer, if he had a PR, he would have a sort of a cheerleader who kept everybody informed as to what was going on. And you'd get the PR function of interpreting the policies of management and so forth, being used as briefing staff, and so on. So you'd get an org magazine, and so forth. Well usually this falls off to a total banality. It's the quality of difficulties you're having with products which would determine that, because your public involved of course is your staff. And there's too little briefing, people are too poorly informed. When you have a staff meeting, why people nya, nya, they want to know about the new water stand that's going to be put in in the hall or something. That isn't what they're for. It'd be to keep them informed as a team.

So essential, first, last and always, it is a team. Now how does an org become a team? Alright, well I'll tell you that very rapidly. The deputy secretary is the org officer, the secretary of the division is the product officer. There is an org officer and there is a product officer for every division. And then, there's an org officer and a product officer for the org. So the org officer has all the product, he's got all of the number one, org officers, under him as a conference. And the product officer has got all of the product officers under him as a conference. There are two conferences. The product conference senior to the org conference.

So the product conference lays it out, "This is what we're going to do, and this is how we're going to get the products and so forth." And they write up the projects and products and plan everything out as to what they're going to do in order to get this thing out. And then they make sure that they keep that machine running that way. And the org officer, with your org officer conference, they've got a certain deadline and they're coming up to the planning of the next fifteen days, and so forth, of operation. "And that's the org actions which we're going to have to take, because we've got in front of us the product conference. The product conference has decided this is what they're going to have, so therefore we're going to have to put in this action here in order to back this up."

Now those projects would be immediate, which are done verbal. Maybe with a note in a notebook, maybe on a scrap of paper, but it'd be hot line. Then they would be medium range, and then they would be long range, and then they would be very long range.

Now that makes a team. When you get a fair sized org that's the team you're working with. There'd be an executive director, and org officer, a product officer, the deputy secretaries would make up the conference or organization, handling products one and three, and the product officers which, of the secretaries, would be handling the products which they have to push out.

They would find all sorts of things. But their team work would involve by deadline. And team work is established by time deadline, within some reasonable facet, so that your org is always working on your immediate, medium, long and very long range. Very few orgs even work on medium range. It's usually immediate. Well you want to get out of immediate if you possibly can. That's what makes it a team.

Now naturally your product conference has to occur before your org conference has to occur. And it isn't a question of whether or not the product conference can order and/or the org conference can rebut, and it isn't a democratic problem at all, it's the product conference orders the org conference, and the org conference tries to cope with the things that they can't move ahead with, with their project. So it takes a double project situation.

Now in your targets, in your target series it's the org conference would be handling the primaries, primary targets. So the product conference could write something up that they wanted in that division, and the org officer of that division would have to write the primaries for it. But the primaries can appear actually as, on a separate issue.

Now what determines all of this? It would be determined by the planning officer. The planning officer should then be terrifically well informed. You can't have an executive director, or an executive director serving as a product officer, sitting in an ivory tower.

Now a product officer's best friends are his feet. It's just run, run, run, run. Here, there, so on, up, down, back and forth. I can keep three messengers, four messengers busy around the clock, when I'm running along this particular line, and so on. And then I myself, pulling back off this line and getting more service and more communication lines, have not done as much moving about as I might have. But when I started to become a product officer I found out I was running my messengers to death and I was running too.

So, it's based on the reality of the situation. And if the data isn't coming in to you, why you don't have it. Now the data is a stat. The data is a stat. That is the data. That's the data you've got to have, it's a stat. I'm repeating that several times because it's really, really, honest to god, it is pathetic how people will fall for what we could call laughingly; we shouldn't use the word in this because we've gotten the thing dignified up; just PR. It's amazing, it's amazing. It's heartbreaking actually to trace back the reports you erroneously operated on, because you get into a wrong why. And you all of a sudden have removed Gertrude, when her stats were out the roof. Do you see? And you've promoted Gus, and the next guy onto the post finds out there weren't any files there, that he was raising rats. Do you see? And what tells you is stats, but stats must be real. Stats must be actual. Stats do not always represent quality, and they do not also represent viability. For instance, you hear an auditor say, "Why I had fifty-five hours or something last month," or something like this. Now we put quality on it when we said, "F/N VGIs at the examiner." That determined the quality of his auditing. It doesn't always determine the quality of his auditing because the auditor can end the session, and the pc's so relieved he gets F/N VGIs at the examiner. But it does straighten up. And it does keep the line. And all of a sudden, auditors had to start producing. And better tech started coming out of the assembly line when that was the criterion.

Now the number of lost hours you get are also important. And if you don't see those on a stat, they could overwhelm you. So you have to know how many auditors are auditing for the stat to be real. See? It could totally overwhelm those well done auditing hours. I mean, so they got fifty well done auditing hours that week. Well that's great, great. There were five hundred and twenty-five expended. What kind of a field are you going to have very shortly?

So, your stat has to be a real stat. You have to know what this stat is. You have to be familiar with a stat. You have to know the tricks of a stat. It isn't that you see an up stat and you say, "Well it wasn't good quality so you can't have the stat." No, that's your fault for not having a good stat there that also represented the quality.

Alright, now how much can organization improve things? We're a very long way from being perfect at this stage of the game. A very, very long way. Yet we are vested in a great deal of information, technical data, training expertise and so forth, and we certainly have technology that hasn't seen the light of day before. So we've got all the tools in the world. All we have to do is know those tools, and get those tools applied.

All organization has value to the degree that it brings about production. An organization tends to get into trouble, I don't care what organization it is, if it doesn't have a product. If it doesn't have production. You can say all you want to about, "Well, there was a so on, so on, so on." Actually there was one organization which ruled the planet which had the trickiest valuable final product that ever existed. Marvelous. Marvelous valuable final product, 'cause nobody could count it. Nobody could count its stat, and nobody could count the valuable final product, nobody could count the stat in either heaven or hell. The valuable final product of the Christian church obviously was souls gone to heaven. Marvelous, marvelous organization.

So you don't even have to be very good to succeed. Did I suddenly give you some margin? You don't even have to be very good to succeed.

Now when you actually add it up to where you really have a product, and when you really got the laws and rules of organization that put the thing there, and then you've got a team, and then you've got a product system, and you've got your product/org officer combination as it runs it up the line, and you know the ins and outs and ramifications of this sort of thing, god help the planet. Thank you. OK, don't be fooled by the clock. It's four o'clock in the morning. (Thank you.) You bet 'cha.