Final Report of the Panel on the Department of Defense Human Capital Strategy

Lawrence M. Hanser, John Campbell, Kenneth Pearlman, Frank Petho, Tom Plewes, Ken Spenner

ResearchPublished Sep 25, 2008

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) called for sweeping reform in the way the Department of Defense (DoD) manages its human resources in the new national security environment, which calls for more flexibility in quickly accessing the right skills at the right place. In response, DoD published a human capital strategy (HCS) in the summer of 2006 that it hoped would contribute to the transformation of the Total Force by providing a foundation for a coherent personnel management and manpower system. The HCS called for three initiatives: competency-based occupational planning, performance-based management, and enhanced opportunities for personal and professional growth. DoD requested that RAND form a panel of experts to perform an objective and independent review of the HCS and to help refine its implementation. This report presents the panel's review of the HCS, along with its conclusions and a number of recommendations that should be useful in the next iteration of the strategy. The panel recommends that DoD (1) establish an oversight organization, (2) develop a clear and specific statement of objectives and a range of options to meet those objectives, (3) conduct a cost-benefit analysis of options, (4) pilot-test selected options, and (5) regularly revisit the strategy. The HCS itself is reproduced in an appendix.

Topics

Document Details

  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 2008
  • Pages: 68
  • Document Number: TR-610-OSD

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Hanser, Lawrence M., John Campbell, Kenneth Pearlman, Frank Petho, Tom Plewes, and Ken Spenner, Final Report of the Panel on the Department of Defense Human Capital Strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR610.html.
BibTeX RIS

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.