The Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Reform asked RAND for an independent analysis of PPBE-like functions in selected countries and other U.S. federal agencies comparable to the U.S. Department of Defense. This executive summary distills key insights from seven case studies of budgeting processes, as detailed in two companion volumes, and compiles findings from all 16 case studies in the seven-volume series.

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations

Volume 7, Executive Summary for Additional Case Studies

Stephanie Young, Megan McKernan, Andrew Dowse, Nicolas Jouan, Theodora Ogden, Austin Wyatt, Mattias Eken, Linda Slapakova, Naoko Aoki, Ryan Consaul, et al.

ResearchPublished May 8, 2024

The U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process is a key enabler for DoD to fulfill its mission. But in light of a dynamic threat environment, increasingly capable adversaries, and rapid technological changes, there has been increasing concern that DoD's resource planning processes are too slow and inflexible to meet warfighter needs. As a result, Congress mandated the formation of a legislative commission in Section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 to (1) examine the effectiveness of the PPBE process and adjacent DoD practices, particularly with respect to defense modernization; (2) consider potential alternatives to these processes and practices to maximize DoD's ability to respond in a timely manner to current and future threats; and (3) make legislative and policy recommendations to improve such processes and practices for the purposes of fielding the operational capabilities necessary to outpace near-peer competitors, providing data and analytical insight, and supporting an integrated budget that is aligned with strategic defense objectives.

To inform this work, the Commission on PPBE Reform asked RAND to provide an independent analysis of PPBE-like functions in selected countries and other non-DoD federal agencies. This executive summary distills key insights from seven case studies of budgeting processes across comparative organizations, as detailed in two companion volumes, and compiles findings from all 16 case studies in the seven-volume series.

Key Findings

  • France, Germany, Japan, Singapore, and Sweden are highly capable U.S. partners that share some strategic concerns and priorities.
  • Foreign military sales are an important mechanism for advancing shared goals, but this support is balanced by initiatives to maintain domestic industrial capacity.
  • Several countries recently signaled an intent to increase their overall defense spending, but there will be countervailing pressures on top-line budgets.
  • Although the countries' political systems are diverse, there is limited friction between the executive and legislative branches in their budgeting processes.
  • The countries place greater emphasis on budget predictability and stability than on agility.
  • Despite the common emphasis on stability, each system provides some budget flexibility to address unanticipated changes.
  • There are varied approaches to oversight for ensuring transparency, efficiency, and accountability but fewer mechanisms for evaluating effectiveness.
  • Other U.S. government agencies looked to DoD's PPBE System as a model in developing their own systems, which subsequently evolved.
  • There are perceived opportunities to strengthen connections between strategy and budgets in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) planning processes.
  • VA and NNSA have a variety of mechanisms that enable budget flexibility and agility; these mechanisms can also help agencies weather continuing resolutions and other sources of budget turbulence.
  • The emphasis on evaluation rather than execution in some non-DoD PPBE-like processes could be instructive for DoD.
  • Analytical rigor has improved through NNSA's implementation of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)-like capabilities.
  • Consolidated resource management information systems could improve visibility across the federated structures of government agencies.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
52 pages
List Price
$17.00
Buy link
Add to Cart

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 2024
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 52
  • Paperback Price: $17.00
  • Paperback ISBN/EAN: 1-9774-1309-9
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA2195-7
  • Document Number: RR-A2195-7

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Young, Stephanie, Megan McKernan, Andrew Dowse, Nicolas Jouan, Theodora Ogden, Austin Wyatt, Mattias Eken, Linda Slapakova, Naoko Aoki, Ryan Consaul, Laurinda L. Rohn, Frank G. Klotz, Michael Simpson, Jade Yeung, Sarah W. Denton, Yuliya Shokh, Clara Le Gargasson, Charlotte Kleberg, Phoebe Felicia Pham, Madison Williams, Erik Silfversten, James Black, Turner Ruggi, Maxime Sommerfeld Antoniou, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Volume 7, Executive Summary for Additional Case Studies, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-7, 2024. As of September 19, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-7.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Young, Stephanie, Megan McKernan, Andrew Dowse, Nicolas Jouan, Theodora Ogden, Austin Wyatt, Mattias Eken, Linda Slapakova, Naoko Aoki, Ryan Consaul, Laurinda L. Rohn, Frank G. Klotz, Michael Simpson, Jade Yeung, Sarah W. Denton, Yuliya Shokh, Clara Le Gargasson, Charlotte Kleberg, Phoebe Felicia Pham, Madison Williams, Erik Silfversten, James Black, Turner Ruggi, Maxime Sommerfeld Antoniou, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Volume 7, Executive Summary for Additional Case Studies. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-7.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Commission on Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Reform and conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Program of the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD).

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo 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.