The authors present a framework and methodology to identify the roles and responsibilities of those implementing Department of Defense policies and also potential conflicts, ambiguities, gaps, inconsistencies, and redundancies in those policies. They introduce a new software tool that automates one step of the methodology — EPIC — and demonstrate its use with three case studies to illustrate the technique and also the tool's flexibility.

Cover: Using EPIC to Find Conflicts, Inconsistencies, and Gaps in Department of Defense Policies
Read Online

Using EPIC to Find Conflicts, Inconsistencies, and Gaps in Department of Defense Policies

by Carolyn Wong, Daniel Gonzales, Chad J. R. Ohlandt, Eric Landree, John S. Hollywood

Download

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2.6 MB

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

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

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

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback86 pages $32.95 $26.36 20% Web Discount

Research Questions

  1. Are there inconsistencies or gaps in the body of Department of Defense policies that assign roles and responsibilities to defense executives?
  2. Can such inconsistencies lead to potential conflicts as executives attempt to execute their duties?
  3. Can an automated capability help analysts more effectively or efficiently review large bodies of policy to identify potential inconsistencies and gaps in the roles and responsibilities assigned to executives in defense policies?
  4. Can an automated capability facilitate the ability to compare roles and responsibilities in draft policy with those in existing policy and help ensure the development of consistent non-redundant policy?

The authors present a framework and methodology to identify the roles and responsibilities (R&R) of those implementing Department of Defense policies and also potential conflicts, ambiguities, gaps, inconsistencies, and redundancies in those policies. They introduce a new software tool that automates one step of the methodology — EPIC — and demonstrate its use with three case studies to illustrate the technique and also the tool's flexibility. EPIC allows analysts to efficiently analyze multiple policy documents to detect potential conflicts in policy early on, thereby allowing policy developers to focus their attention on the need for clarification and, possibly, changes in policy. The authors relate executive positions to R&R and the products that result from their execution. If it can be shown that more than one actor is assigned to take the same action on the same product, then a potential conflict exists in the body of policy. If, on the other hand, no executive is assigned to take action on a product, then there is a potential gap in the body of policy. Use of this new tool will result in better and more consistent defense policy.

Key Findings

A new capability for policy analysis has been developed

  • The authors have developed a new software tool — EPIC — which can be used to analyze large numbers of policy guidance directives for completeness and consistency in the roles and responsibilities assigned to defense acquisition executives.
  • In three case studies, EPIC proved its flexibility and utility.

Recommendations

  • Investigate potential conflicts identified in the case studies.
  • Develop a process to identify the origins of conflicts in roles and responsibilities.
  • Use EPIC to review draft Department of Defense and Navy policies.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    The R&R Policy Analysis Framework and Methodology

  • Chapter Three

    The EPIC Tool

  • Chapter Four

    The Program Manager Case Study

  • Chapter Five

    The Interoperability and Standards Case Study

  • Chapter Six

    The Information Assurance Case Study

  • Chapter Seven

    Closing Remarks and Recommendations

  • Appendix

    EPIC

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared for the United States Navy. The research was conducted in the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Technical report series. RAND technical reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet 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.

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.