DOCSLIB.ORG

Explaining Variation in US Intelligence Reform by Louis P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Explaining Variation in US Intelligence Reform by Louis P Altering the Deal: Explaining Variation in U.S. Intelligence Reform by Louis P. Melancon B.A. in Political Science, May 1995, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign M.S. of Strategic Intelligence, July 2003, National Intelligence University M.A. in Defence Studies, December 2007, King’s College London A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 10, 2019 James H. Lebovic Professor of Political Science and International Affairs The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Louis P. Melancon has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of November 5, 2018. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Altering the Deal: Explaining Variation in U.S. Intelligence Reform Louis P. Melancon Dissertation Research Committee: James H. Lebovic, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Dissertation Director Steven J. Balla, Associate Professor of Political Science, Public Policy and Public Administration and International Affairs, Committee Member Eric Grynaviski, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Committee Member ii © Copyright 2019 Louis P. Melancon. All rights reserved. iii Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge a few groups of people: 1) His tireless and patient committee. They perservered through my stumbles to help me complete this. 2) My wife Heather and children Eloise and Teddy. They helped me remember that whoopee cushions are always funny. 3) My coaches and fencing sparing partners. They helped me forget the struggles of a dissertation through the struggles of a one-on-one fight with swords. 4) The faculty and staff of the National Intelligence University. Who had to endure me making sure they know that whoopee cushions are always funny. iv Abstract of Dissertation Altering the Deal: Explaining Variation in U.S. Intelligence Reform Since the formalization of intelligence as a standalone function of the U.S. government in 1947, there have been dozens of reform efforts. These efforts have produced a variety of outcomes; although most failed to produce any changes, some made superficial changes, and a small handful had drastic impacts on how the government organizes for and generates intelligence. This research is intended to answer this question: Why do some intelligence-reform efforts result in change but others fail? The vast majority of the established literature on this topic either lacks a theoretical basis or relies upon a biased status quo to explain the variation. Most work on intelligence reform places failure squarely on bureaucratic intransigence. Intelligence agencies prefer the status quo and can prevent change by holding an overwhelming information advantage. Yet information advantage is not fixed. Reformers can shift informational asymmetries to their favor through the apt design of the reform itself. Reformers that generate new solutions rather than simply recycle solutions, impose new definitions and terminology rather than use the intelligence agencies own jargon, or talk about systemic issues rather than specific actions of the intelligence agencies nullify the information advantage. When reformers take on two or more of these approaches, the information advantage shifts to their advantage at the expense of the intelligence agencies. When that happens, reformers can push reform through and create change. The examples of the Rockefeller Commission, the Halloween Day Massacre, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) all reflect v this dynamic. Failures of reform, such as the Maxwell Commission and the Church Committee’s work on electronic surveillance, reflect reformers not taking on these approaches and leaving the information advantage to the intelligence agencies. Put simply, reformers that shift the dialogue of the reform by imposing new definitions, propose new solutions, or examine the problems in broader contexts rather than individual actions, strip the tool of information advantage away from intelligence organizations, producing actual reform. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgments iv Abstract of Dissertation v List of Figures vii List of Tables viii Chapter 1: The Role of Information in Intelligence Reform 1 Chapter 2: Explaining Intelligence-Reform Outcomes 27 Chapter 3: Examining the Universe 63 Chapter 4: Information Advantage in Action 116 Chapter 5: Conclusions 148 Bibliography 163 Appendix A: Case Summaries 191 Appendix B: Counting Rules 208 Appendix C: Outside Coder Biographic Data 215 vii List of Figures Figure 1. Interests in Alignment 29 Figure 2. Agent’s Interest Drift 29 Figure 3. Oversight and Enforcement to Detect and Correct Agent Drift 30 Figure 4. Principal Interest Drift and the Irrelevance of Oversight and Enforcement 32 Figure 5. Matrix for Necessity and Sufficiency 80 viii List of Tables Table 1. Potential Cases 66 Table 2. Culled Universe With Assessed Outcomes 70 Table 3. Test for Time Necessity or Sufficiency 83 Table 4. Test for Visibility Necessity or Sufficiency 88 Table 5. Test for Relevancy Necessity or Sufficiency 89 Table 6. Test for Divided Government Necessity or Sufficiency 92 Table 7. Test for Unified Government Necessity or Sufficiency 93 Table 8. Test for Coalition Necessity or Sufficiency 96 Table 9. Test for Questioning Necessity or Sufficiency 99 Table 10. Test for Proposal Necessity or Sufficiency 102 Table 11. Test for Terminology Necessity or Sufficiency 103 Table 12. Consolidated Consistencies and Coverages of Conditions 107 Table 13. CHANGE Truth Table 111 Table 14. ~change Truth Table without ~term 113 ix Chapter 1: The Role of Information in Intelligence Reform The U.S. government has attempted intelligence reform on several occasions. Some of these attempts have led to real change—dramatically altering the intelligence functions and organizations by, for example, redefining oversight relationships. A few of these reform attempts led to only superficial adjustments, such as adding a new layer of management. Most attempts at intelligence reform, however, have simply fizzled out, producing no change at all (Jones, 2005; Neary, 2010). What explains this variation in outcomes? What variable is setting the conditions for change? As with almost any problem, any variation in outcome could be the result of external stimuli or internal processes (Jervis, 1976, p. 35). This research claims that the set of conditions that are most consistent and that best explain a reform’s success or failure are internal to the reform—specifically, those that deal with information asymmetry. These conditions show that actors who seek reform are actually seeking to renegotiate the relationships between themselves and the intelligence organizations that they are seeking to reform. Unlike most of the literature on intelligence reform, this research is not very interested in explaining why the reforms start—or even why they sometimes are resolved suboptimally. This research asks a more modest question: Once a reform starts, why do changes (optimal or not) occur for some but not for others? Though this is seemingly a fairly modest goal, the resulting explanation carries more power (based on the historical record) than do the suggestions from the literature that are purely focused on why an intelligence reform would start or on why its enacted solutions might not be optimal. The existing (largely practical) literature is focused on why reforms start and on 1 external stimuli as an explanation for why some intelligence reforms create change and others do not. Some researchers have looked at events that impact national security, whereas others have considered domestic struggles between political parties. The existing theoretical studies have not fully discarded either argument, but they mainly rely on explanations in which a government’s internal processes—almost exclusively the bureaucratic status quo—determine suboptimal outcomes. Researchers have considered the key variables for intelligence reform to be the events that cause the reforms, the political environments at the time of the reforms, and organizations’ status quo preferences. Each of these explanations, however, has a mixed record in terms of explaining why change does (or does not) occur. Although some significant events have resulted in change, many others have produced no change. Some minor reform-initiating events have produced great change, and other minor events have produced nothing. Some reforms have created change in times of divided government, and others have done so in times of unified government. Some changes have occurred despite a seemingly overwhelming coalition against change, and at other times, there has been a failure to produce change despite a seemingly overwhelming coalition in favor of it. These explanations take a broad view on intelligence reforms, as they incorporate factors that are interesting for other questions (e.g., Why do intelligence reforms start? Why are the results not efficient?), but in so doing, they lose explanatory power relative to the historical record. The basic question of this research (Why do some intelligence- reform efforts create change when others do not?) presents an opportunity to reexamine the problem and to thus gain previously unidentified insight. The small scope (inside the reform itself) and the loose assumptions are indicative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Directors of Central Intelligence As Leaders of the U.S
    All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in this book are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Central Intel- ligence Agency or any other US government entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US government endorsement of the authors’ factual statements and interpretations. The Center for the Study of Intelligence The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI) was founded in 1974 in response to Director of Central Intelligence James Schlesinger’s desire to create within CIA an organization that could “think through the functions of intelligence and bring the best intellects available to bear on intelli- gence problems.” The Center, comprising professional historians and experienced practitioners, attempts to document lessons learned from past operations, explore the needs and expectations of intelligence consumers, and stimulate serious debate on current and future intelligence challenges. To support these activities, CSI publishes Studies in Intelligence and books and monographs addressing historical, operational, doctrinal, and theoretical aspects of the intelligence profession. It also administers the CIA Museum and maintains the Agency’s Historical Intelligence Collection. Comments and questions may be addressed to: Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Printed copies of this book are available to requesters outside the US government from: Government Printing Office (GPO) Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 391954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Phone: (202) 512-1800 E-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 1-929667-14-0 The covers: The portraits on the front and back covers are of the 19 directors of central intelligence, beginning with the first, RAdm.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Order 12036 1-11. The
    Executive~ Order 12036 Proposed Executive Order Reason for Change 1-11. The Department of Defense. 1.11 The Department of Defense. The Secretary of The Secretary of Defense Defense shall: shall: 1-1101. Collect national (a) Collect national Technical change. foreign intelligence and be foreign intelligence and be responsive to collection tasking responsive to collection tasking by the NITC. by the Director of Central · Intelligence; I I 1-1102. Collect, produce (b) Collect, produce and Technical change. and disseminate foreign military disseminate military and and military-related intelligence military-related foreign intelli­ information, including scien- · gence and counterintelligence as tific, technical, political, required for execution of the geographic and economic. informa­ Secretary's responsibilities; tion as required for execution of the Secretary's responsibilities; 1-1103. Conduct programs (c) Conduct programs and and missions necessary to fulfill missions necessary to fulfill national and tactical foreign national, departmental and intelligence requirements; tactical foreign intelligence requirements; 43 E~ecutive Order 12036 Proposed ~x e c~ t ive Orae r Reason for Change (1.11 Continued) 1-1104. Conduct counter­ (d) Conduct counter­ Unnecessary language intelligence activities in intelligence activities in eliminated. support of Department of Defense support of Department of Defense components outside the United components outside the United States in coordination with the States in coordination with the CIA, and within the United States CIA, and within the United States in coordination with the FBI in coordination with the FBI, pursuant to procedures agreed pursuant to procedures agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense upon by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, and and the Attorney General; produce and disseminate counter­ intelligence studies and reports; 1-1105.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Background and Selected Options for Further Reform
    Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Background and Selected Options for Further Reform December 4, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45421 SUMMARY R45421 Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: December 4, 2018 Background and Selected Options for Further Michael E. DeVine Reform Analyst in Intelligence and National Security Prior to the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in 1976 and 1977, respectively, Congress did not take much interest in conducting oversight of the Intelligence Community (IC). The Subcommittees on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the congressional Armed Services Committees had nominal oversight responsibility, though Congress generally trusted that IC could more or less regulate itself, conduct activities that complied with the law, were ethical, and shared a common understanding of national security priorities. Media reports in the 1970s of the CIA’s domestic surveillance of Americans opposed to the war in Vietnam, in addition to the agency’s activities relating to national elections in Chile, prompted Congress to change its approach. In 1975, Congress established two select committees to investigate intelligence activities, chaired by Senator Frank Church in the Senate (the “Church Committee”), and Representative Otis Pike in the House (the “Pike Committee”). Following their creation, the Church and Pike committees’ hearings revealed the possible extent of the abuse of authority by the IC and the potential need for permanent committee oversight focused solely on the IC and intelligence activities. SSCI and HPSCI oversight contributed substantially to Congress’s work to legislate improvements to intelligence organization, programs, and processes and it enabled a more structured, routine relationship with intelligence agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • The CIA Mandate and the War on Terror
    The CIA Mandate and the War on Terror Grant T. Harrist I. INTRODUCTION The American intelligence infrastructure is in the midst of its most radical overhaul since the formation of the modem intelligence community following World War II. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,1 the political compromise resulting from the nation's post-September 11 intelligence soul searching, has fundamentally transformed the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy. Yet the policy debate to date has paid insufficient attention to whether the fifty-eight-year-old mandate of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) requires amendment in light of the contemporary fight against terrorism. A primary impetus for reform of the U.S. intelligence infrastructure was the breakdown of critical distinctions upon which the division of labor among national security agencies is based. The current national security context and the war on terrorism have blurred the line between intelligence and law enforcement, and it has become hackneyed to note that terrorist plots do not observe the foreign and domestic divisions that exist in the jurisdictional duties of U.S. agencies. Still an important area of analysis has so far escaped any serious public debate or legislative attention: Do the limits of CIA authority outlined in the National Security Act of 19472 meet the needs of the modem national security environment? Policymakers should revisit the CIA's statutory mandate in light of the current struggle against terrorism in order to clarify the limits of CIA authority. t J.D. expected 2005, Yale Law School; M.P.A. expected 2005, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
    [Show full text]
  • Allen Dulles: Reluctant Manager
    All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in this book are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Central Intel- lig ence Agency or any other US government entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US government endorsement of the authors’ factual statements and interpretations. Th e Center for the Study of Intelligence The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI) was founded in 1974 in response to Director of Central Intelligence James Schlesinger’s desire to create within CIA an organization that could “think through the functions of intelligence and bring the best intellects available to bear on intelli- gence problems.” The Center, comprising professional historians and experienced practitioners, attempts to document lessons learned from past operations, explore the needs and expectations of intelligence consumers, and stimulate serious debate on current and future intelligence challenges. To support these activities, CSI publishes Studies in Intelligence and books and monographs addressing historical, operational, doctrinal, and theoretical aspects of the intelligence profession. It also administers the CIA Museum and maintains the Agency’s Historical Intelligence Collection. Comments and questions may be addressed to: Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Printed copies of this book are available to requesters outside the US government from: Government Printing Office (GPO) Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 391954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Phone: (202) 512-1800 E-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 1-929667-14-0 The covers: The portraits on the front and back covers are of the 19 directors of central intelligence, beginning with the first, RAdm.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Intelligence Reform a Bureaucratic Politics Approach
    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2010 U.S. Intelligence Reform A Bureaucratic Politics Approach Bonnie M. Schickler University of Central Florida Part of the Political Science Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Schickler, Bonnie M., "U.S. Intelligence Reform A Bureaucratic Politics Approach" (2010). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 1669. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/1669 U.S. INTELLIGENCE REFORM: A BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS APPROACH by BONNIE M. SCHICKLER B.A. University of Central Florida, 2008 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science in the College of Science at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2010 © 2010 Bonnie Schickler ii ABSTRACT This study investigates the current bureaucratic struggles that exist within the U.S. intelligence community as a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004. The first part of this research examines the history of intelligence reform in the United States beginning with the National Security Act of 1947. The second part provides an in- depth discussion of the 2004 legislation as well as an examination of the main bureaucratic conflicts that have arisen between the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the rest of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • *1573 the Limits of National Security
    Jamshidi, Maryam 8/15/2019 For Educational Use Only THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL SECURITY, 48 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1573 48 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1573 American Criminal Law Review Fall, 2011 Symposium: Moving Targets: Issues at the Intersection of National Security and American Criminal Law Article Laura K. Donohuea1 Copyright © 2012 by American Criminal Law Review; Laura K. Donohue *1573 THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL SECURITY I. INTRODUCTION 1574 II. DEFINING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 1577 III. THE FOUR EPOCHS 1587 A. Protecting the Union: 1776-1898 1589 1. International Independence and Economic Growth 1593 2. Retreat to Union 1611 3. Return to International Independence and Economic Growth 1617 a. Tension Between Expansion and Neutrality 1618 b. Increasing Number of Domestic Power-Bases 1623 B. Formative International Engagement and Domestic Power: 1898-1930 1630 1. Political, Economic, and Military Concerns 1630 a. Military Might 1637 b. Secondary Inquiry: From Rule of Law to Type of Law 1638 2. Tension Between the Epochs: Independence v. Engagement 1645 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Jamshidi, Maryam 8/15/2019 For Educational Use Only THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL SECURITY, 48 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1573 3. Expanding National Spheres of Influence 1650 C. The Ascendance of National Security: 1930-1989 1657 1. A New Domestic Order 1658 a. Re-channeling of Law Enforcement to National Security 1661 b. The Threat of Totalitarianism 1665 c. The Purpose of the State 1666 2. Changing International Role: From Authoritarianism to Containment 1669 3. Institutional Questions and the National Security Act of 1947 1672 a.
    [Show full text]
  • The Progressive Era Origins of the National Security Act
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 1-1-2000 The Progressive Era Origins of the National Security Act Mark R. Shulman Pace Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, Law Commons, and the Public Affairs Commons Recommended Citation Shulman, Mark R., "The Progressive Era Origins of the National Security Act" (2000). Pace Law Faculty Publications. 223. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/223 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Progressive Era Origins of the National Security Act Mark R.Shulman* Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger; real or pretended, from abroad. -James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 1798' I. Introduction to "National Security" The National Security Act of 1947* and its successors drew the blueprint of the Cold War domestic political order. This regime centralized control of the military services-the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and a newly separate Air Force-in a single executive branch department. It created a new professional organization to collect and analyze foreign intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency. And at the center of this new national security apparatus, a National Security Council would eventually establish foreign policy by coordinating intelligence and directing military and para-military forces, as well as supervising a National Security Resources Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Bansemer: Intelligence Reform: a Question of Balance
    Brig Gen Kenneth Newton Walker Kenneth Walker enlisted at Denver, Colorado, on 15 December 1917. He took flying training at Mather Field, California, getting his commission and wings in November 1918. After a tour in the Philippines, he returned to Langley Field, Virginia, in February 1925 with a subsequent assignment in December 1928 to attend the Air Corps Tactical School. Retained on the faculty as a bombardment in- structor, Walker became the epitome of the strategic thinkers at the school and coined the revolutionary airpower “creed of the bomber”: “A well-planned, well-organized and well-flown air force attack will constitute an offensive that cannot be stopped.” Following attendance at the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in 1933 and promotion to major, he served for three years at Hamilton Field, California, and another three years at Luke Field, Ford Island, and Wheeler Field, Hawaii. Walker returned to the United States in January 1941 as assistant chief of the Plans Division for the chief of the Air Corps in Washington, DC. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel in July 1941 and colonel in March 1942. During this time, when he worked in the Operations Division of the War Department General Staff, he coauthored the air-campaign strategy known as Air War Plans Division—Plan 1, the plan for organizing, equipping, deploying, and employing the Army Air Forces to defeat Germany and Japan should the United States become embroiled in war. The authors completed this monu- mental undertaking in less than one month, just before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor—and the United States was, in fact, at war.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Security Council: an Organizational Assessment
    The National Security Council: An Organizational Assessment Richard A. Best Jr. Specialist in National Defense December 28, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL30840 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The National Security Council: An Organizational Assessment Summary The National Security Council (NSC) was established by statute in 1947 to create an inter- departmental body to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the military services and the other departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving the national security. Currently, statutory members of the Council are the President, Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and, since 2007, the Secretary of Energy; but, at the President’s request, other senior officials participate in NSC deliberations. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are statutory advisers. The President clearly holds final decision-making authority in the executive branch. Over the years, however, the NSC staff has emerged as a major factor in the formulation (and at times in the implementation) of national security policy. Similarly, the head of the NSC staff, the National Security Adviser, has played important, and occasionally highly public, roles in policymaking. This report traces the evolution of the NSC from its creation to the present. The organization and influence of the NSC have varied significantly from one Administration to another, ranging from highly structured and formal systems to loose-knit teams of experts.
    [Show full text]
  • CIA's Relationship with Congress, 1946–2004 L. Britt Snider
    THE AGENCY AND THE HILL: CIA’s Relationship with Congress, 1946–2004 L. Britt Snider The Center for the Study of Intelligence CSI was founded in 1974 in response to Director of Central Intelli- gence James Schlesinger’s desire to create within CIA an organiza- tion that could “think through the functions of intelligence and bring the best intellects available to bear on intelligence problems.” The center, comprising professional historians and experienced practitio- ners, attempts to document lessons learned from past operations, explore the needs and expectations of intelligence consumers, and stimulate serious debate on current and future intelligence chal- lenges. To support these activities, CSI publishes Studies in Intelligence and books and monographs addressing historical, operational, doctri- nal, and theoretical aspects of the intelligence profession. It also administers the CIA Museum and maintains the Agency’s Historical Intelligence Collection. Comments and questions may be addressed to: Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Printed copies of this book are available to requesters outside the US government from: Government Printing Office (GPO) Superintendent of Documents PO Box 391954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Phone (202) 512-1800 E-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 978-1-929667-17-8 GPO Stock#: 04101500257-1 All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in this book are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official posi- tions of the Central Intelligence Agency or any other US government entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US government endorsement of the author’s factual statements and interpretations.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing a Framework for the Oversight of Major Defense Acquisition Programs - a Historical Analysis
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by AFTI Scholar (Air Force Institute of Technology) Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT Scholar Theses and Dissertations Student Graduate Works 3-2004 Establishing a Framework for the Oversight of Major Defense Acquisition Programs - A Historical Analysis Diane I. K. Kuderik Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons Recommended Citation Kuderik, Diane I. K., "Establishing a Framework for the Oversight of Major Defense Acquisition Programs - A Historical Analysis" (2004). Theses and Dissertations. 3967. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/3967 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Graduate Works at AFIT Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AFIT Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS – A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS THESIS Diane I. K. Kuderik, Captain, USAF AFIT/GCA/ENV/04M-04 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States Government. AFIT/GCA/ENV/04M-04 ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS – A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS THESIS Presented to the Faculty Department of Systems and Engineering Management Graduate School of Engineering and Management Air Force Institute of Technology Air University Air Education and Training Command In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Cost Analysis Diane I.
    [Show full text]