Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.9 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.

In 2008, the Netherlands Ministry of Defence (MoD) conducted a comparative analysis of three potential candidates to replace its F-16 combat aircraft. The analysis was performed along three main aspects: quality, life cycle costs and delivery timeline. RAND Europe was commissioned to provide an independent, overall assessment of the comparative analysis process, with a particular focus on objectivity and the transparency. In addition to evaluating the MoD's design and execution of candidate ranking against quality, life cycle costs and delivery timeline, our study evaluated the MoD approach to supplier engagement and internal management. Our overall evaluation was that both design and execution of the comparative analysis was satisfactory. We also concluded that the comparative analysis was sufficiently transparent and objective. This report presents the findings from our research, which were presented to the Netherlands Parliament in December 2008.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Comparative Analysis of Candidates for F-16 Replacement

  • Chapter Three

    RAND Study Methodology

  • Chapter Four

    Supplier Engagement and Internal Management

  • Chapter Five

    Evaluation of Process for Assessing Quality of Candidates

  • Chapter Six

    Evaluation of Process for Assessing Life Cycle Costs of Candidates

  • Chapter Seven

    Evaluation of Process for Assessing Delivery Timeline of Candidates

  • Chapter Eight

    Overall Evaluation of Comparative Analysis Process

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared for the Netherlands Ministry of Defence and was conducted by RAND Europe.

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.

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.