DoD Centralization
An Old Solution for a New Era?
ResearchPublished 1993
An Old Solution for a New Era?
ResearchPublished 1993
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.
This publication is part of the RAND issue paper series. The issue paper was a product of RAND 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.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND 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.