Research Report Improvements to Air Force Strategic Basing Decisions Constantine Samaras, Rachel Costello, Paul DeLuca, Stephen J. Guerra, Kenneth Kuhn, Anu Narayanan, Michael Nixon, Stacie L. Pettyjohn, Nolan Sweeney, Joseph V. Vesely, Lane F. Burgette C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1297 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9205-2 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights 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. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The U.S. Air Force manages any proposed significant changes and additions regarding the location of weapon systems and personnel through its strategic basing process, and the Air Force has conducted more than 100 strategic basing decisions since 2009. Some notable recent examples of strategic basing decisions are the evaluations of which installations will host the F-35 and KC-46A major weapon systems. Air Force basing decisions are public, frequent, and occasionally contentious. Because these decisions affect force posture, local economies, and public trust, it is imperative that the decisionmaking process be objective and reproducible. The Air Force employs a three-step enterprise-wide process to ensure consistency when it makes basing decisions. In the first step, a set of criteria is developed to evaluate an installation’s suitability to support a basing decision. The basing decision criteria are developed by the applicable major command (MAJCOM), approved by the Headquarters Air Force (HAF) and the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF), and briefed to Congress. In the second step, individual basing scores for the defined criteria are assembled by the MAJCOM, and a small set of candidate bases, usually four to six, is selected for site surveys. In the final step, a preferred base is selected. The results of each step are approved by HAF and SecAF and briefed to Congress. The credibility of this process is dependent on these data calls resulting in high-quality data that are then analyzed in a transparent and objective manner. This report is an independent analysis of the Air Force’s basing process and the quality of the underlying data. It seeks to inform decisionmakers on potential improvements to the data and assessment criteria used in making basing decisions. It seeks to address three questions: 1. Are basing decision criteria aligned with Air Force intentions? 2. Are the data used in the Air Force’s strategic basing decisionmaking process authoritative, consistent, and auditable? 3. Is there potential for broader Air Force strategic or portfolio-wide inputs to strengthen the basing decisionmaking process? In answering the first question, we examined the actual data source for each base in enterprise-wide KC-46 and F-35 basing decisions. To assess the second question, we examined the desired and actual impact of each decision criterion for the past 25 basing actions. In addressing the potential for inclusion of strategic inputs, we assessed the historical impact of strategic inputs and possible mathematical techniques to incorporate such inputs into the current basing process. The research reported here was sponsored by the U.S. Air Force and conducted within the Resource Management Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE. iii RAND Project AIR FORCE RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Corporation, is the U.S. Air Force’s federally funded research and development center for studies and analyses. PAF provides the Air Force with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the development, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and future air, space, and cyber forces. Research is conducted in four programs: Force Modernization and Employment; Manpower, Personnel, and Training; Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine. The research reported here was prepared under contract FA7014-06-C-0001. Additional Information about PAF is available on our website: http://www.rand.org/paf/ This report documents work originally shared with the U.S. Air Force in October 2014. The draft report, issued in February 2015, was reviewed by formal peer reviewers and U.S. Air Force subject matter experts. iv Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................................ iii Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix Summary ........................................................................................................................................ xi Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... xvii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xix 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 The Current Basing Decisionmaking Process .......................................................................................... 1 The RAND Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2 Organization of This Report ..................................................................................................................... 3 2. Current Air Force Strategic Basing Process and Governance .................................................... 5 Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................ 6 Basing Decision Thresholds ..................................................................................................................... 7 Setting the Basing Decision Criteria ........................................................................................................ 8 Selecting Preferred Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 9 3. Is the Air Force’s Basing Process Aligned with Its Objectives? .............................................. 13 Understanding the Basing Criteria ......................................................................................................... 13 Analyzing the Relative Influence of Basing Criteria .............................................................................. 15 4. Assessing Basing Data Quality ................................................................................................. 23 Methodology for Assessing Basing Data Quality .................................................................................. 23 Data Quality Metrics .............................................................................................................................. 24 Sources Identified for Data Call Responses ........................................................................................... 25 Data Quality Assessment Findings ......................................................................................................... 26 Recommendations to Improve the Auditability of Data Quality ............................................................ 27 5. Implementation Challenges and Potential Improvements ........................................................ 31 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Challenges and Recommendations for the Collection of Basing Data ................................................... 31 Data Relevancy and Timeliness ......................................................................................................... 31 Auditability ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Data Management ............................................................................................................................... 33 Challenges