Commonality in Military Equipment
A Framework to Improve Acquisition Decisions
ResearchPublished Nov 23, 2008
A Framework to Improve Acquisition Decisions
ResearchPublished Nov 23, 2008
Increasingly, the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense as a whole are developing families of systems built around common components. To inform the Army's decisionmaking process surrounding commonality, RAND Arroyo Center was asked to assess the advantages and disadvantages of commonality and how to best manage their trade-offs. To do so, this report uses historical analysis, literature analyses, and case studies of commercial and military efforts to exploit commonality. It presents analyses of the effects of commonality on costs, capabilities, and training and offers a decisionmaking aid that designers, developers, and procurers, in particular, could use to inform their decisions about commonality. It concludes with recommendations for the Army.
The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army and conducted by the RAND Arroyo Center.
This publication is part of the RAND monograph series. RAND monographs were products of RAND from 2003 to 2011 that presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs were subjected to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
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.