The bureau chiefs were largely autonomous, reporting directly to the Secretary of the Navy and managing their respective organizations without the influence of other bureaus.
As part of the navy secretary's office, the board's jurisdiction generally extended only logistical matters such as supply and construction.
In the early 1840s, Congress decided to abolish the Board of Naval Commissioners and replace them with a more specialized bureaucracy based on broad functional areas such as shipbuilding.
As reorganized, these included the: The bureau system dominated the navy's procurement for the rest of the 19th century and into the World War II years.
The General Board had the advantage of being staffed with experienced former line officers and of being charged with determining long term naval requirements and policy.
[2] Ultimately, there were several cases of failures of coordination between bureaus, with three between 1938 and 1943 having major implications: For some reason neither bureau understood that ship and turret could not go together.
The General Board was incredulous...A member of the board asked the chief of BuOrd whether it did not occur to him, "as a matter of common sense," that C&R was vitally interested in which turret he was developing...Very fortunately BuOrd was able to save the day by developing a new lightweight 50-caliber gun, whose smaller outside diameter permitted installation in a turret of the required dimensions.
The SCB had the advantages of direct OpNav authority and of specialized staff who could spend more time on design work, but it lacked the long range planning role of the General Board.
The SCB role as a coordinator faded after the bureaus were reconstituted as System Commands and all were moved under the direct authority of OpNav in 1966.