Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.9 MB

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

In response to enormous pressures to economize, the Department of Defense has set out to reform the logistics and acquisition system. One of the options being considered is to centralize acquisitions in order to reduce overhead, improve management, eliminate duplication, increase economies of scale, and tighten controls to minimize cost growth and schedule slippage. This issue paper explores the idea through a summary of the history of the U.S. acquisition reform, a review of the centralized acquisition bureaucracies of some U.S. allies, and a discussion of current management theory and industry practice and how they might apply to defense acquisition. The authors suggest that instead of being centralized, the acquisition system should be reformed to encourage self-managed teamwork, efficient information technologies, flatter internal organizations, and integrated external networks of responsive suppliers.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation issue paper series. The issue paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003 that contained early data analysis, an informed perspective on a topic, or a discussion of research directions, not necessarily based on published research. The issue paper was meant to be a vehicle for quick dissemination intended to stimulate discussion in a policy community.

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.