Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://dair.nps.edu/handle/123456789/5109
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Heidi Peters, Megan McKernan | - |
dc.contributor.author | Stephanie Young, Ryan Consaul | - |
dc.contributor.author | Michael Simpson, Sarah W. Denton | - |
dc.contributor.author | Laurinda L. Rohn, Frank G. Klotz | - |
dc.contributor.author | William Shelton, Devon Hill | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yuliya Shokh, Anthony Vassalo | - |
dc.contributor.author | Raphael Cohen, Madison Williams | - |
dc.contributor.author | John P. Godges, Lauren Skrabala | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-05-31T19:05:19Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-05-31T19:05:19Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2024-05-01 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | APA | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://dair.nps.edu/handle/123456789/5109 | - |
dc.description | SYM Paper | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) System is a key mission enabler for the DoD. As observers consider a dynamic threat environment, increasingly capable adversaries, and rapid technological changes, concern has emerged that the DoD’s resource planning processes are too inflexible to meet warfighter needs. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress mandated the formation of a commission to (1) examine the effectiveness of the PPBE process and adjacent practices, (2) consider alternatives to maximize the DoD’s ability to respond to potential threats, and (3) make recommendations for improvement in order to field the operational capabilities necessary to outpace near-peer competitors and support an integrated budget that is aligned with strategic defense objectives. To provide process improvement insights, the Commission on PPBE Reform asked RAND to provide an independent analysis of PPBE-like functions in non-DoD federal agencies. Here, the authors present case studies of PPBE-like functions in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | ARP | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Acquisition Research Program | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Acquisition Management;SYM-AM-24-044 | - |
dc.subject | Military Budgets and Defense Spending | en_US |
dc.subject | Military Acquisition and Procurement | en_US |
dc.subject | United States Department of Defense | en_US |
dc.title | Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Case Studies of Selected Allied and Partner Nations | en_US |
dc.type | Technical Report | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Annual Acquisition Research Symposium Proceedings & Presentations |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SYM-AM-24-044.pdf | 477.19 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.