by WALTER S. STARKEY

Because proposal storyboarding began at Hughes-Fullerton(a division of Hughes Aircraft Company), I have beenasked a number of times whether storyboarding wasimported from Hollywood to the proposal management

profession under the personal auspices of Howard Hughes. That isa fetching myth, but it is not the way the STOP (SequentialThematic Organization of Publications) storyboarding techniquebegan. To the best of my knowledge, Howard Hughes nevergraced Hughes-Fullerton’s hallways, and movie-making influencehad nothing to do with the conception and gestation of STOP.

The STOP technique, which eventually permeated much ofthe defense/aerospace industry as the preferred proposal develop-ment approach, began as a simple formatting idea, which thenbecame the nucleus for a cluster of strategizing, composition, andpublication disciplines focused on managing the complex task ofproposal development.

The DilemmaFor people in the business of writing, editing, and producingengineering publications in the defense/aerospace industry, theearly 1960s were an era of daunting challenges. Within the firsttwo or three years of the decade, the relatively small engineer-ing report lost its place as the chief publication product. Suchreports had usually stemmed from the activities and intellect ofa single author, or at most a handful of authors, and movedthrough the publication process at a sedate pace. With the seem-ing abruptness of a seismic event as our nation’s military com-mands became increasingly ravenous for complex computer-based systems, engineering reports were supplanted by sales pro-posals typically running hundreds and sometimes thousands ofpages. These proposals were generated by a large, multi-disci-pline author corps, and were driven by Red-Alert schedulesimposed by the procuring customer (Department of Defenseagencies or other equally demanding customers).

Often, just getting the books offthe presses in time to hustlethem onto a last-chance, red-eye flight was a victory in itself.

Under these circumstances, the hope of instilling qualities such asstrategic unity and overall coherence into a proposal were dim atbest. Often, just getting the books off the presses in time to hustlethem onto a last-chance, red-eye flight was a victory in itself.Under particularly desperate schedules, niceties such as pre-printbuyoff had to be forgone, and a scramble to deliver errata sheetsfollowed hot on the heels of proposal delivery. At the climax ofone short-fused proposal effort, I remember spending a long nightin the print shop at Hughes-Fullerton, eyeballing pages for glitch-es as they came off the press while Jim Tracey sat next to me typ-ing errata sheets that were printed on the spot and bundled up fordelivery in the same package as the proposal volumes themselves.

I will resist the temptation to regale the reader with early-60swar stories, since anyone who was in the proposal business in thatera could match them or top them with stories of their own. Eventhose who were not can appreciate the urgent need of publica-tions specialists for some way to cope with the overwhelmingmatrix of dilemmas confronting them: How could the individualcontributions of dozens or scores of authors be brought into linewith the strategies management had in mind for the proposal?How could the proposal manager guard against unpleasant sur-prises when the authors’ inputs finally reached his desk—surpris-es that could activate management’s panic button by exposing theneed for agonizing, eleventh-hour revisions? How could eachauthor be assured that he was not spinning his wheels when heknuckled down to generate his inputs (i.e., that he was writing

The Beginnings ofSTOP Storyboarding andthe Modular Proposal

more...

ProposalManagement 41

ProposalHistory

To separate fact from fanciful folklore, we asked Walter Starkey, co-author of the 1965 STOPManual, to reflect on the genesis of that legendary manual and its then-revolutionary technique.

what the proposal manager really wanted)? How couldthe strong points of the company’s approach be madeglaringly clear to the proposal evaluator? How couldthe publications specialist make any meaningful contri-bution to the editorial caliber of the proposal?

As it turned out, workable (but not fail-proof)answers to these dilemmas were afforded by the story-boarding, composition, critiquing, troubleshooting, andediting disciplines embodied in the STOP process. TheSTOP disciplines, of course, did not, like Pallas Athena,instantaneously appear in full battle array from the headof one individual or the collective heads of a group oftech-pub specialists and proposal managers—but theydid germinate at a pace that seems breathtaking in ret-rospect once the seed of the approach was planted.

An early impetus for the origination of this newpublications approach came from a tough-minded pro-gram manager named Mike Rapport. The proposal hewas charged with developing represented an entreeinto a product area deemed by Hughes-Fullerton’s man-agement luminaries to be crucially important to thecompany’s future. With the spotlight on him, a fierydetermination to make Hughes’ proposal stand outfrom those of the competition marked Mike’s discus-sion of his proposal plans with Jim Tracey and DaveRugh. Tracey headed the publications group whereRugh worked as writing supervisor and I worked asediting supervisor, and which served the proposalneeds of Hughes-Fullerton’s Data Processing ProductsDivision and Systems Division.

There seems to be a naturalpassage length that iscompletely compatible withtreating a specific topic withinthe confines of a two-pagemodule.

In early 1963, Tracey, Rugh, and Rapport considered a numberof approaches to making the proposal distinctive. At one point, Ibelieve, Mike advocated some sort of comic-book treatment (myapologies to him if my memory is wrong), which clearly would havebeen too frivolous for proposal purposes. Finally, Tracey’s suggestionof a modular approach won Mike’s endorsement. The notion was toconstruct the proposal entirely of two-page modules, with text andany associated visual facing each other. Such a format, they agreed,would offer important reader advantages, and would certainly dis-tinguish the proposal from any that had come down the pike thus far.

The Two-Page ModuleEvolvesShortly after the meeting with Mike Rapport, Tracey convenedour group for an after-hours brainstorming session to explorewhere the modular-proposal idea might take us. The response was

enthusiastic. I voiced the thought that the two-page modulescould be treated as self-contained themes, akin to college “blue-books.” Others were quick to point out that treating them thatway would help us to exploit some of the proven techniques ofexpository/persuasive composition that were often lost in the fogof loosely structured proposal discourse (e.g., clearly identifyingthe subject and its relevance, sticking to it, making a strategicallypersuasive point about Hughes’ approach to the issues pertinent toit, and presenting an argument to prove this point via the module’stext and visual). The desirable thematic character of the moduleslater led to the appellation Sequential Thematic Organization ofPublications, and STOP was born.

It seemed probable that working at the level of two-page mod-ules could solve a lot of problems in proposal-cadre communica-tion. An author could jot down a paragraph outline for his mod-ule (call it a “storyboard”, somebody said) and include a roughversion of his visual. His storyboard, along with related story-boards from other authors, could then be pinned up and reviewedjointly by manager, editor, author, and anyone else concerned withthe subject (Figure 1 shows an early-days storyboarding session atHughes-Fullerton). The author’s argument could be honed by dis-cussing its pros and cons, and he could walk away with a marked-up storyboard like that shown in Figure 2, reflecting what inputthe manager really wanted. In other words, the module could berevised at the outline level before the author invested his time andenergy in the difficult chore of composing it. What a boon thatcould be! I wish I could remember everyone who took part in thatfirst brainstorming session, because, as things worked out, themeeting proved to be a momentous one. Writers and editorsincluded Walt Starkey, Dave Rugh, Dave Gater, Mal Gable, StuJones, Ailleen Lang, Carole McCorkindale, and Larry McCollum.Art supervisor Jack Hunt and production supervisor DorothyMorico also took part. I left the meeting, as I know others did,exhilarated by the feeling that we had hold of an idea that could

STOP Storyboarding

42 APMP Fall 2000

Figure 1. This photograph shows an early-days storyboarding session at Hughes-Fullerton.

STOP Storyboarding

reshape our professional lives in a rewarding way. We did notthink of the meeting as the first shot of a revolution in proposaldevelopment at that moment, but we later became fond of think-ing of it in that light.

Everyone at the meeting deserves credit for their constructiveideas about implementing the modular approach and their effortsof putting them into practice in the ensuing weeks, as we appliedthe approach to Mike Rapport’s proposal and to two others thatwere active at the time.

Having acknowledged that, I want to make it clear that with-out Jim Tracey’s influence, the STOP approach would not havetaken root and flourished as it did. Jim passed away shortly afterhis retirement in 1989, but those of us who worked with himshare indelible memories of his stubborn dedication to improvingthe quality of the proposal product.

The Challenge ofEstablishing a“Standard”As we launched our campaign to establish the modular approachas the standard for Hughes-Fullerton proposals, the motto of ourpublications group was “sell STOP.” Two aspects of the approachraised objections in some parts of the engineering community.First, limiting the discussion of a subject to the word count accom-modated by a two-page spread appeared to some authors toinfringe on their freedom to thoroughly develop their subjectSecond, other authors objected that mandatory visualization wasan artificial requirement on the grounds that some subjects simplydid not call for or support a figure.

The notion was toconstruct theproposal entirely oftwo-page modules,with text and anyassociated visualfacing each other.Relative to the first objection, DaveGater and others did yeoman work inlocal libraries checking word counts ofpassages in various genres. Happily forthe practicality of the two-page module,they discovered that many authors tendto change the subject on themselvesafter every 400 to 1,000 words. Theclues are easy to spot: subheadings,phrases such as “On the other hand,”“Another problem is” “Having deter-mined that, the next step is,” etc. Thereseems to be a natural passage lengththat is completely compatible withtreating a specific topic within the con-fines of a two-page module.

(Incidentally, we began referring to the modules as topics early on,and I will call them that for the rest of this article.)

The objection to mandatory visualization was overcome byinventiveness at the storyboard wall. A visual does not have to bea figure. Building on the line of argument in the text (or themebody, as we began calling it), we learned to develop several kindsof verbal visuals, all of which could illuminate and support a givenargument. Examples are the dot and indented-dash list, whichamounts to an X-ray view of the entire argument, and the dialec-tic verbal visual (problem vs. proposed solution, trade-off candi-date vs. advantages and disadvantages, key requirements vs.Hughes’ approach, etc.). These turned out to be valuable brows-ing aids for the evaluator.

ImplementationBroughtImprovementsFigure 3 shows several of the features that distinguish STOPtopics. These features were incorporated one after another inthe course of developing a fair number of proposals. A phrase-structured topic title that suggests the author’s intention orattitude about a subject replaced the conventional, simplenoun title of the subject almost immediately. Topic tie-back ref-erences under the title, which lead the evaluator from thetopic back to his own requirements documentation, alsoappeared almost immediately. The two-part figure caption (aTracey invention), which adds a strategic commentary about

more...

ProposalManagement 43

Figure 2. This is a sample of a marked-up storyboard showing the author the pros and cons of hisor her argument.

STOP Storyboarding

the figure to its noun title, came a little later. Shortly after that,Mal Gable invented the “balloon rubric,” which uses a comic-strip type of balloon to draw the evaluator’s attention to somesignificant feature of the figure. Although we had all appreci-ated the thesis-driven nature of STOP topics for some time,several months went by before I wrote the first thesis sen-tences ever published in a proposal. The thesis sentence (dis-played via bold type, underlining, or some such device) sum-marizes the main strategic point of each topic, hopefully lead-ing the evaluator to mentally challenge the author to prove it,which, again hopefully, the theme body and visual proceed todo. (After I had written thesis sentences for the 50 or so topicsin that first proposal, I copied them out in order, added someconnective tissue, and found myself with a concise two-pagesummary of the proposal. This convinced us that if we dis-played thesis sentences in all topics, an evaluator could gain afair grasp of the thrust of a proposal just by reading them beforedelving into the details.)

These focusing features — phrase-structured title, verbal visu-al, figure, two-part caption, thesis sentence — found high favoramong proposal evaluators.

Early Reviews NowFocused Our MessageAs we implemented storyboard reviews, there was grumblingin some quarters that they imposed too much front-loading of

the proposal effort — that too much time would be spent inthe reviews before the actual composition task could begin.This objection faded away as it became clear that because eachtopic was a self-contained theme, authors could launch theirwriting chore as soon as the agreed-upon writing plan camedown from the wall (i.e., writing could begin within an houror two of beginning storyboard reviews). The self-containednature of the topics also permitted lock-step scheduling, inwhich the phases of the development effort overlap (story-boarding, writing, technical/management approval, critiquing,troubleshooting, editing, production, preprint buyoff, andprinting). In other words, no phase of the effort had to be com-pleted before the next phase began. Suddenly, short-fuse pro-posals were easier to cope with than they ever had been. (Themodular approach also eliminated the domino effect in which,under the conventional approach, late changes in one part ofthe proposal threatened the schedule by impacting other partsof the proposal.)

The author who came to thereview with a skimpy storyboardleft the review with a fleshed-out, agreed-upon writing plan.

44 APMP Fall 2000

Figure 3 shows sever-al of the features thatdistinguish STOP top-ics. These featureswere incorporatedone after another inthe course of devel-oping a fair number ofproposals.

As we put storyboard reviews into practice, we were struck by thecreative force that group dynamics brought to bear on the pro-posal development process. The shared goal of making each topicand topic string as telling as possible on the proposal’s chances ofwinning energized the review cadre to debate and improve uponthe strategic point of each topic and the themebody/visual supporting it. The author who came tothe review with a skimpy storyboard left the reviewwith a fleshed-out, agreed-upon writing plan. Attimes the review process went far beyond topic-levelcritique once the review cadre’s creative juicesbegan to flow. I have seen systems redesigned andmanagement plans retailored at the storyboard wall.

To ensure consistent steering of proposal strat-egy, we determined that, as a minimum, thereview cadre should include the proposal managerand technical director or their representatives, sec-tion or topic-string honchos, the topic authors, anda STOP specialist to conduct the review.

STOP Became a Wayof LifeThe STOP specialist was a new breed of technical editor, oneequipped through mastery of STOP disciplines to be instrumentalin developing and presenting sound proposal strategy. Our mostsenior STOP specialists were dubbed Managing Editors. They weresupported by topic critiquers, troubleshooters, and copy editors.

Once the STOP storyboarding technique was adopted, it didn’ttake long for Hughes-Fullerton’s win-percentage to mushroom. Andit did not take long for the technique to be widely adopted in ourindustry, spread at first by our proposal-teaming efforts with othercompanies, and then by its own momentum as word got around.

In the mid 1960s, I served as managing editor for a consor-tium-generated proposal to implement the air-defense groundenvironment for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Theproposal ran into thousands of pages and involved, on a limitedschedule, teaching STOP and conducting storyboard reviews at

companies in Italy, France, The Netherlands, WestGermany, England, and Canada.1 The coherenceand strategic unity of the finished proposal were notperfect, of course, but they were good enough tobeat the competition. Considering the diversity ofcontributors to the proposal, I believe they couldhave been achieved in no other way than by theapplication of STOP principles. As had been thecase a number of times in the past and would be thecase many times in the future, this effort demon-strated the effectiveness of the proposal storyboard-ing approach.

The promise we sensed at our initial brainstorm-ing session was fulfilled. The challenges of the pro-posal adventure were still there and still real, but the

STOP disciplines gave us the tools we needed to cope with them.

ReferencesTracey, J.R., Rugh, D.E., and Starkey, W.S., 1965, STOP, How

to Achieve Coherence in Proposals and Reports,Fullerton, CA, Hughes Aircraft Company

Special Interest Group for Documentation, 1999, The Journalof Computer Documentation, Vol. 23, No. 3, New York, NY,Association for Computing Machinery

ProposalManagement 45

STOP Storyboarding

ProposalManagement 45

1As luck would have it, a general greve struck Paris at the beginning ofthe storyboard review schedule there, shutting down electricity amongother things. Because the schedule, which could not be slipped, calledfor review sessions extending late into the night, these were the only sto-ryboard reviews ever conducted by candlelight.

Except for four years at the University of Chicago, where he investigated infrared and

cosmic-ray detection techniques as a research physicist, Walt Starkey’s career has

been spent in engineering publications. During his 29 years at Hughes Aircraft

Company, he was one of the developers of the STOP storyboarding technique. Since he

retired as head of Hughes-Fullerton’s Proposal Development Section in 1989, his free-

lance articles, short stories, humor, and poetry have appeared in numerous periodicals.

He can be reached at Starkeys@worldnet.att.net.

See excerptsfrom theHughes

Aircraft STOPReport on the

followingpages

APMP ACQUISITION REFORM TASK FORCEAPMP has an important voice in government acquisition reform. Its Acquisition Reform TaskForce (ARTF) represents the membership at government and industry forums, disseminatesinformation and helps APMP members understand upcoming changes and prepare their organi-zations for a new way of responding to solicitations. The ARTF welcomes your support fromthroughout the U.S. to attend meetings, generate white papers, respond to requests for informa-tion, and support acquisition efforts as requested by the Federal acquisition community. Watchthe APMP Web site (www.apmp.org) for additional information and requests for feedback. To par-ticipate, contact Patty Nunn, ARTF Leader, at Anteon Corporation, Fairfax, Virginia;PNunn@anteon.com; (703) 246-0246.

GOVERNMENT LIAISON TASK FORCEThe APMP Government Liaison Task Force (GLTF) was formed to enhance communicationsbetween government and industry. Both public sector procurement activities and private sectorbusinesses benefit from an increased understanding of each other. GLTF provides a liaison func-tion to facilitate APMP events that require public/private sector interaction and achieve the goalsof improved communication and understanding. For more information, contact the ExecutiveDirector at (909) 659-0789.

APMPTask

ForcesWorking

ForYou!

STOP Storyboarding

The STOP

Technique at

a Glance

STOP: A bettermethod oforganizing andwriting reports andproposals

STOP is a systematicmethod of organizing andwriting the technicalreport and proposal whichsignificantly improves out-lining control and editorialcaliber of the content.Essentially, the methodspoon-feeds the reader in“bite-size,” 2-page topics.

STOP stands forSequential ThematicOrganization ofPublications. It is a newand unorthodox methodthat is surprisingly effec-tive for outlining and writ-ing technical reports, andproposals, particularly thelengthy, detailed and tech-nically complex publica-

tions prepared by teamsunder time stress. In aSTOP report or proposalthe subject matter is orga-nized into a series of rela-tively brief themes, eachpresented in a “module” oftwo facing pages, completewith associated figure, ifany. Thus, you change thesubject whenever you turnthe page and your attentionis occupied with only onemessage at a time. Thisframing of message “mod-ules” in a STOP bookincreases the impact ofeach and makes it easier tocomprehend. What makesSTOP work as a practicalmethod for all thematictypes of technical writing isthat it makes use of themore-or-less uniform topi-cal structure that existsnaturally in ordinaryexpository discourse, butwhich is hidden by conven-tional outlining practices.It can be shown statistical-ly that this natural topicalstructure exists and thatthe topics, once you recog-nize them, fit the 2-page

spread in an overwhelmingmajority of the cases.Therefore, recasting or boil-ing down is not required inthe STOP technique.

Conventional outliningpractices not only hide thenatural topics of a dis-course, they allow the the-sis of the topics to remainunstated, and this makesit easy for the reader tomiss the most importantpoints the author wants tomake, and for the authorto miss making them inthe first place. The conven-tional outline is “categori-cal” rather than topical, soit is essentially a one-mantool. To supplant the cate-gorical outline,Storyboards are used inthe STOP technique to pre-pare a detailed, “team-visi-ble” outline for each thememodule. The traditionalbut neglected ThesisSentence, which is the keyto coherent outlining andwriting, guides the designof each Storyboard formaximum thematic unity.The Thesis Sentence

shows the reader at aglance the essential argu-ment of the theme body,and since the total shape ofthe theme body is readilyapparent, the reader isrelieved of the commonvexation: “When will thispassage end, and whatpoint is the author drivingat?”

STOP is based on theprinciple of ThematicQuantization, which assertsthat proper recognition andtreatment of topical units ofdiscourse is the essence of“coherence,” and that thebest way to achieve topicrecognition is the device ofuniform modules.

For a given subjectarea, the author alwayshas the option of spinningoff additional topics, pro-vided each is treated in aunified manner, but henever exceeds a 2-pagespan of attention at any-one moment. The topicalsegmentation of naturalexpository structure isthus taken advantage of: itreplaces the arbitrary and

46 APMP Fall 2000

Figure 1. Page-by-pageprinting of the conven-tional “run-on” proposaltends to conceal the factthat it takes the form of ascroll or a river of words.Since the usage andlocation of the figuresare unpredictable, fig-ures are referred to asrafts. The permissivecharacter of the river-raftproposal is reflected inthe categorical outlineon the left, whose riddle-like headings may becompared to the perti-nent topics of the samematerial treated modu-larly on the right.

Excerpts from the Original STOP ReportTitled “Sequential Thematic Organization of Publications (STOP): How to Achieve Coherence in Proposals andReports,” the 65-page Hughes Aircraft Company manual published by J.R. Tracey, D.E. Rugh and W.S. Starkey inJanuary 1965 was revolutionary in concept and in the affect it had on a burgeoning industry.

artificial rules of “logical”categorizing as the issue ofthe “organizing” process.

Experience with STOPover a period of years hasdemonstrated the practica-bility of this seeminglybrochure-like organizingmethod for detailed techni-cal exposition. One hundredand twenty major STOPproposals and reports havebeen produced sinceNovember 1962. It is con-sidered now to be demon-strated as a practicalmethod for all types of sub-ject matter, the usual mix ofengineering writing talent,typical crash schedules,and conventional methodsof multilith production.

As evidenced by reader

reaction, increase in com-prehensibility of STOP doc-uments as compared to theirRiver-Raft counterparts canonly be described as dramat-ic. This has been especiallytrue in the proposal field,where the quantizingmethodology reveals compa-ny intention more plainly,and provides a standard“processing” framework forthe evaluator, who is con-cerned with identifyingpoints for scoring purposes,spotting areas of disagree-ment, and rank-orderingitems for priority analysis.

CONCEPT OF THETOPICAL MODULE

Because it has obvious

boundaries (both physicaland editorial) and an appro-priate capacity, the self-con-tained theme of two-pageproportions becomes a pre-scription for thematic coher-ence that is more objectiveto the author and reviewer,while being compatible withthe natural behavior of theauthor and reader.

Application of ThematicQuantization to the printeddocument is illustrated inFigure 2. The reader is con-fronted with a se1f-con-tained and easily assimilat-ed theme wherever he mayopen the document. Sinceall discourse on a topicceases within the moduleboundary, turning the pagemeans starting a new topic.

The number of topics select-ed during initial outliningto cover a given subject cat-egory can be as few or manyas desired, depending uponthe emphasis intended andthe overall page limit of thepublication….

The only absoluterequirement is that eachresulting theme must becoherent, pertinent and notin excess of two pages.Violations of thematic unityare easier to spot and there-fore more likely to berepaired early in the game.In the typical STOP publica-tion, the text is placed onthe left and the figures areplaced arbitrarily on theright, but since the use ofillustrations is not essentialto the method, the text may“slop over” as desired.Conventional 8-1/2 by 11reproduction methods allowabout 500 words per page,for a maximum topic lengthof about 1,000 words with-out illustration. Multiple fig-ures can be employed perpage, to the limits of art-siz-ing ingenuity, as can fold-outs in the customary way,which, however, must be“backed up” with the text forthe subsequent module.

It will be shown that theengineer writing a report orproposal invariably starts anew topic after about 500words on the average. Thisis fortunate because itmeans that the STOP for-mat accommodates normalwriting habits without a lotof copyfitting trouble asmight be feared… Theessential argument of thetopic is crisply summarizedfor the reader by the printedout Thesis Sentence, whichfacilitates scanning, and thefigure is always found rightthere, without the nuisanceof page flipping to locate it. —————————————Acknowledgement: theSTOP report excerpts arereprinted with permissionof the copyright owner,Raytheon Company, dbaRaytheon SystemsCompany, formerly HughesAircraft Company.

Figure 2. The modular organization with printed thesis promotes stronger coherence and conti-nuity within the topic simply because the point is more clearly defined and the space restrictionprevents the author from over-reaching it unwittingly.

ProposalManagement 47

STOP Storyboarding

more...

STOP Storyboarding

48 APMP Fall 2000

Appendix

Background andAcknowledgements

The STOP technique wasnot born by invention, butthrough the unfolding ofnumerous insights and acci-dental discoveries by a groupof people over a 2-year period.

The idea of a modulartreatment for organizingthe full text of a technicaldocument, and the decisionto try it on a typical propos-al, was reached by JimTracey and Dave Rugh atthe close of a proposal crashin October 1962. It wastheir conclusion that thebrochure-like, text-and-pic-ture organizing methodthat presented story ele-ments in a spread-by-spread sequence could offerthe same reader advantagein the case of the fullydetailed technical exposi-tion as it did in the case ofthe slide and flip-chart pre-sentational booklet. Theassumption was that diffi-culties in writing and edit-ing would necessarily haveto be overcome to fit thedetailed technical narrativeinto such a pattern. Theplan was that the extrawork of revising and rewrit-ing would be shouldered bythe technical editor .

The significant point isthat this assumption wassoon proved incorrect, but atthat moment it was felt (in amood of desperation) thatthe existing problems ofachieving comprehensibilityin the conventional produc-tion were already so difficult,and being so poorly resolved,that any change could onlywork for the better, especial-ly if it entailed a modularend result of proven readerbenefit. For implanting this

attitude of letting the deviltake the author for a change,credit must be given to MikeRapport, who had propelledthe authors into the recogni-tion that traditional editorialelegance was incontestablybeside the point when havingto spoon feed hard argu-ments to soft customers .

The modular techniquewas therefore adopted ontwo proposals in Novemberand December of 1962: theSmall Ships Data Processor,and the Space-Ground LinkSubsystem. Both of theseproposals lost. Importantdiscoveries were made, how-ever, which justified the edi-torial efforts. First, it wasseen that the topicizing oper-ation inexorable shook outeditorial defects (most mate-rial was being convertedfrom River Raft) as thoughby formula. Second, it wasobserved that the text bodywas already naturally struc-tured by topical segments,accomodating modular uni-formity without extra work,but that the possibility wasbeing concealed by the cate-gorical headings . This wasin January of 1963.

By February , theStoryboard concept of out-lining was accepted as anessential step in planningthe modular publication,and its superior role in man-aging proposal content wasseen. A Storyboard form wasprinted up (on B-size vel-lum), though it did notinclude a Thesis Sentence.Instead, space was providedat the bottom of the sheet toanswer this question: “Whatconclusions do you want thereader to draw from thiswrite-up ?”

As the number of modu-lar proposals grew throughMarch and April of 1963, arealization dawned concern-ing thematic unity which,

looking back, seems asthough it should have beenself evident. This odd dis-covery was voiced by WaltStarkey, who held up a topicin genuine surprise andsaid “Look, each of these isa self-contained theme.”…This occurred during theedit of the first AADS-70proposal, the eleventh mod-ular document produced bythe then SystemsPublications Sections.

By the end of 1963, 44modular publications hadbeen produced. It was feltthat a decided measure ofcontrol had been gained overthe basic parameters ofcoherence, and enough cus-tomer favor was filteringback to verify that theimprovement existed for thereader. But one dissatisfac-tion persisted, namely asense of low pertinence ormissing significancethroughout the technical“descriptions” which. makeup the bulk of the averageproposal. Must proposals bedull ? This question led to asearch for ways to insurethat the author would electand declare a propositionalintent, rather than justdescribe. It was then foundthat the traditional ThesisSentence could be appliedrepeatedly to the topic ele-ments for this purpose…This was in November 1963,one year after the basic mod-ular technique was adopted.

The first modular docu-ment employing the printedout Thesis Sentence wasprepared as an experimentin December 1963. In July1964 three modular propos-als were also so prepared (aninexplicable delay, thoughthere was as understandablereluctance to become com-mitted to the “exposure andlabor” of the technique).

Since then, the Thesis

Sentence has lost its threat,becoming a highly usefulstandard device and theidentifying symbol of boththe Storyboard and thetopic. Thus the various mod-ular ideas had matured intothe full STOP technique bythe Summer of 1964. By theend of 1964 about 120 docu-ments of major proportionshad been produced by themethod. Several technicali-ties were also clarified thatyear, such as the identifica-tion of the operational para-meters of organizing, theessential procedural defectsof the categorical outline,and some of the secrets ofStoryboard reviewing.

The Audio-Visual tech-nique of handling mathwriteups (a Tracey-Rughproduction) was developedin detail in November 1964with the encouragementand examples of Ron Long.

As can be seen, the devel-opment of the STOP tech-nique was a gradual processof worry, speculation, brain-storming and fumblingexperience. Members of theWriting Services Sectioncontributed valuable assis-tance, particularly DickMcCormack, who provided amuch needed layman’sdescription of STOP, andDave Gater,who assistedRugh in proselyting a gener-ation of skeptical authors.Walt Starkey proved theefficacy of Storyboardingonce and for all on the 6,000-page cross-cultural NADGEprogram. Jack Hunt andDorothy Morico led the revo-lution in graphics that wasprerequisite to smooth pro-duction of STOP books. BobPerry furnished theStoryboard clue, discoveredParkinson’s Law of theTrivial, and endorsed allwith an enthusiatic man-agerial indulgence.

Excerpts from the Original STOP Report (continued)The STOP manual concludes with this eloquent appendix, offering more insights into the gestation of a suc-cessful process.