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.

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

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

ResearchPublished Jun 20, 2013

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.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
86 pages
List Price
$32.95
Buy link
Add to Cart

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 2013
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 86
  • Paperback Price: $32.95
  • Paperback ISBN/EAN: 978-0-8330-7676-2
  • Document Number: TR-1277-NAVY

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Wong, Carolyn, Daniel Gonzales, Chad J. R. Ohlandt, Eric Landree, and John S. Hollywood, Using EPIC to Find Conflicts, Inconsistencies, and Gaps in Department of Defense Policies, RAND Corporation, TR-1277-NAVY, 2013. As of September 17, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1277.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Wong, Carolyn, Daniel Gonzales, Chad J. R. Ohlandt, Eric Landree, and John S. Hollywood, Using EPIC to Find Conflicts, Inconsistencies, and Gaps in Department of Defense Policies. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2013. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1277.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

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 publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject 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.