This paper analyzes the problems inherent in the Defense Acquisition System as indicated in a sample of six studies conducted between 1986 and 2007. It explores the major legislation that developed the system since 1947 and identifies how much of this legislation served to complicate the system. Rather than fix its problems, this complexity served to thwart repeated attempts at centralization. Next, this paper evaluates two types of alternative acquisition structures developed by Congress and the department to compensate for inefficiencies in the core system: rapid acquisition processes and the granting of service-like acquisition authority to the United States Special Operations Command. It identifies the shift toward joint operations that exacerbates existing inefficiencies in defense acquisition, demonstrating a need to alter fundamentally the current structure. The final section proposes that Congress and the Department of Defense alter the Defense Acquisition System from a service-centric, domain-based focus to a streamlined, joint, capabilities-based construct that consolidates responsibility for requirements, resources, and acquisition. This consolidation of authority will align the acquisition system closer to the warfighter and provide the increased accountability lacking in the current structure.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.