Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 6.2 MB

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


Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback201 pages $45.00 $36.00 20% Web Discount

This study examines the role of prototypes in the contemporary environment of weapon system acquisition. The research draws on case studies of four systems (two Air Force airplanes and two Army helicopters) that were developed in the early 1970s and that used prototypes in various ways. These were compared with a broad range of acquisition programs that used other acquisition strategies. The objective of the study is to sharpen the understanding of advantages and disadvantages of prototyping and conditions under which its use may be advantageous. Section II presents an outline of the different kinds of prototypes, and the various objectives that might be sought in a prototype phase. The section concludes with a description of the analysis procedure, a summary of the four systems examined, and the source of data on nonprototype programs used for comparison. Section III summarizes the results of the research, and Sec. IV contains the conclusions. Four appendixes are attached, each describing one of the case studies.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Report series. The report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.

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.