Download

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback47 pages $23.00 $18.40 20% Web Discount

This documented briefing examines both the acceptance/progress of current acquisition reform efforts and the factors affecting the support for these efforts within the Army's acquisition work force. Acquisition reform, in this context, is limited to three initiatives: (1) the discontinued use of military specifications and standards, (2) the use of integrated product teams (IPTs), and (3) greater use of government-industry "partnerships" in the procurement process. The data used in this study were gathered through detailed interviews with and surveys of acquisition personnel in the military, government, and private sectors. Although milspec and standard reform have strong support within the work force, the data suggest that resistance to reform efforts is largely related to one's functional domain within the work force. In general, beliefs about how eliminating milspecs and standards affects product quality, life-cycle costs, and current program costs were the most important predictor of whether or not a worker "supported" the elimination. Support is also strong for greater use of IPTs within the acquisition process, although there is much room for improvement in implementing them. Finally, greater cooperation with industry — in the form of "partnerships" — is supported within the acquisition work force. However, the full use of partnerships has been hampered by significant organizational and process barriers. Chief among these are a lack of trust between government and industry, inflexible requirements, functional resistance, and inadequate past performance data. Overcoming these factors may rely greatly on the success of the other reform efforts (milspec and standard elimination and IPTs) as well as the refinement of existing contractor certification processes.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation documented briefing series. RAND documented briefings are based on research presented to a client, sponsor, or targeted audience in briefing format. Additional information is provided in the documented briefing in the form of the written narration accompanying the briefing charts. All RAND documented briefings undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity. However, they are not expected to be comprehensive and may present preliminary findings. Major research findings are published in the monograph series; supporting or preliminary research is published in the technical report series.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.