IPPC6

1. Defense management
research capacities and topics:
Blind spot defense acquisition management?
Christian von Deimling, Andreas H. Glas and Michael Essig
Bundeswehr University Munich
International Public Procurement Conference 2014
Track 3: Defense Procurement
August, 14th 2014

2. We would like to present and discuss the following topics with you…
2
Agenda.
(1) RQs & Framework.
(2) Methodology.
(3) Sample.
(4) Findings.
(5) Limitations & Further research.

3. This research is based on two research questions addressing the
research landscape in Europe.
3
Research Questions.
Research Questions
Research initiated as literature on defense
management and defense acquisition
management seems to be scarce in peer-
reviewed academic journals.
(1) What is the institutional status quo of
defense management research?
(1) Which defense acquisition topics are
addressed by that research?
Expected contribution
 Uncovers research organizations in the
field of defense science.
 Provides list of identified research
organizations and hence can be seen as a
„market overview“ of applied science
research.
 Maps research organizations identified
against topics covered.
 Reveals topics which are handled less
frequently.
 Consideres limitations and further
requirements to enhance and saveguard
(preliminary) findings.
 Helps researchers to quickly gain overview
on existing applied science research.

4. Basis for the analysis of defense management and procurement
research is the reduced-form model provided by Lynn et al. 2000.
4
Analytical Framework.
Framework Expected value of framework
 Model provides insights into how public
sector regimes, agencies, programs, etc.
can be organized and managed to achieve
public purposes.
 Fairly simple and broad entry point into
topic as underlying logic is included a priori in
any particular model of governance and
public management.
 Provides a ‚toolbox‘, which can be
transferred to defense context and which
helps to categorize findings.
 Additional categories and more detail can
be indroduced gradually before or during
research process.

5. Through observations from literature an expanded framework for
defense acquisition management has been developed.
5
Analytical Framework (expanded).
Analytical Framework (expanded, intermediate steps not presented here)
Contextual factors
Exogenous
 InternationalAgreements &
defence policies.
 National political structures
& monitoring authorities.
 Performance of economy &
budget constraints.
 Market structure & degree
of competition.
 Available technology &
technology dynamism.
 Threat scenarios.
Endogenous
 Own resource situation.
 Internal relations.
 Corporate culture.
Stakeholders
 Government officials.
 Political parties.
 Lobby groups.
Structure
Formal
 Organization.
 Standards.
 Contracts.
Informal
 Norms.
 Values.
 Behaviour.
 Info. Sharing.
Managerial roles and actions
 Leadership capacities.
 Sanctions.
 Incentives.
Processes (gen.)
 Planning and
Programming.
 Organizational
mobilization
and staffing.
 Directing and
Leading.
 Monitoring and
Controling.
Output
Effective and efficient
procurement of military goods
and services (provision of
high quality military and
operational capabilities in a
timely manner against set
objectives and against the
needs of the end user
according to economic
principles).
Perspective of the Defense Acquisition Agency
Functional process & improvement of
acquisition: design, engineering, test and
evaluation, production, inspection,
operation, support, disposal of the military
system or termination of service contract.

6. We would like to present and discuss the following topics with you…
6
Agenda.
(1) RQs & Framework.
(2) Methodology.
(3) Sample.
(4) Findings.
(5) Limitations & Further research.

7. The study has been conducted in five phases: searching, screening,
extraction, synthesis and reporting.
7
Applied Methodology.
Results
 List of applied
science
research
institutes (xlsx).
 Summative list
of research
topics and
themes per
institute.
 Findings
categorized
according to
analytical
framework.
 Report on
findings.
 Related terms
and synonyms
for „research
organizations“,
„defense“,
„acquisition/proc
urement“.
 Web-based
search to identify
research
institutes.
 Defense
procurement
agencies
excluded.
 Collecting &
Assessing
research
institutes
descriptions.
 Collecting &
Assessing
research topics
and themes.
 Cluster and
categorize
summative
findings
according to
analytical
framework.
 Reporting results
and findings.
Searching Screening Extraction Synthesis Reporting
 Structured list of
keywords and
combination of
keywords.
Tools
1 2 3 4 5

8. We would like to present and discuss the following topics with you…
8
Agenda.
(1) RQs & Framework.
(2) Methodology.
(3) Sample.
(4) Findings.
(5) Limitations & Further research.

9. Out of the 56 initially identified research institutes 29 covered defense
management and out of those 13 covered defense acqui. themes.
9
Sample.
Sample Scope / Constrains
(1) Search with keywords focused on title and
relevance of search results returned by
search enginge (first 5 pages examined).
(2) Collection and examination of themes
covered. Clear focus on defense
management and defense acquisition /
procurement required.
(3) Search limited to research institutes with a
clear content-based focus on the European
Union.
(4) Examination of research institutes covering
defense acquisition topics.
Research organizations not providing english
language content are excluded.
56 research
institutes
41research
institutes
29 research
institutes
13 research
institutes
Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Filter
Filter
Reporting

10. Most of the 29 research institutes covering defense management and
defense acquisition topics are located in GER, UK, and the US.
10
Sample (by geography).
Sample (by geography)
3%3%3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2
(7%)
3
(10%)
4
(14%)
5
(17%)
8
(28%)
Netherlands
Austria
Italy
Norway
Belgium
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
France
United States of America
United Kingdom
Germany
Observations
 High number of German and UK-based
institutes observed (reflects prioritization of
defense matters across EU, but is also
biased by use of german and english
keywords)
 Institutes from France, Spain and Italy could
(partly) not be assessed to limited language
offerings. Hence they are not included in
sample.
 US-based institutes also included as they
closely examine European defense matters
and as they have dedicated research
branches for Europe (e.g. RAND).

11. Out of the 29 research institutions 13 are dealing with defense
acquisition or defense procurement topics.
11
Sample (by number of topics covered).
Sample (by number of topics covered) Observations
 Among top 4 resarch institutions (according
to number of topics covered) only one is
located in Europe (Center for Defense
Acquisition based in UK).
 Center of gravity for research on defense
acquisition is located in the US.
 Institutes are often examining European
defense acquisition challenges and also bring
in a transatlantic defense acquisition point of
view.
15%
8%
8%
85%
92%
8%
8%
0%
ISPK
CDS 92%
AIES
RUSI 23% 77%
NOTRE EU. 23% 77%
SWP 31% 69%
FRIDE 31% 69%
CSS 31% 69%
ISS 38% 62%
CSIS 69% 31%
CfDA 92%
CCMR 92%
RAND 100%
Number of topics not covered
Number of topics covered

12. The 13 research institutions dealing with defense acquisition or
defense procurement topics covered a broad spectrum of themes.
12
Sample (by topics covered).
Sample (by topics covered, double entries
possible)
Observations
 The 13 different research institutions covered
a broad spectrum of defense acquisition
topics.
 Frequently adressed topics are centering
around defense & security policy issues
concerning defense acquisiton (Political
requirements to ease or facilitate
procurement) or on Armaments Cooperation
or on developments in Defense Spending.
 Less frequently adressed topics are
considerations on management strategy
implications , organization and processes in
defense acquisition management.
5
3
7
1
3
4
4
4
6
7
8
Armaments Acquisition Coop. 10
Defense &Security Policy (Proc.) 10
Defense Acquisition Mgmt.
Process
Strategy
Organization
Procurement Rules / Directives
Private Sector Participation
Defense Spending / Investment
Defense Contrating
Defense Equipment Programs
Defense Equipment Market
Defense Capabilities
Number of research institutions covering the theme

13. The 13 research institutions dealing with defense acquisition or
defense procurement topics covered a broad spectrum of themes.
13
Sample (in full detail).
Number
Institute
Focusondefenseprocurement
(EU)
Defenseandsecuritypolicy(proc.)
Defensecapabilities
Defenseequipmentmarket
Defenseequipmentprograms
Armamentsacquisitioncoop.
Defensespending/investment
Defenseacquisitionmanagement
Defensecontracting
Procurementrules/directives
Privatesectorparticipation
Organization
Process
Strategy
Sum
10 7 7 6 10 8 4 5 4 1 3 3 4
01 AIES 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02 CCMR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
03 CDS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04 CfDA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
05 CSIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
06 CSS 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07 FRIDE 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
08 ISPK 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09 ISS 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 NOTRE EU. 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 RAND 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 RUSI 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
13 SWP 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14. We would like to present and discuss the following topics with you…
14
Agenda.
(1) RQs & Framework.
(2) Methodology.
(3) Sample.
(4) Findings.
(5) Limitations & Further research.

15. Through observations from literature an expanded framework for
defense acquisition management has been developed.
15
Analytical Framework (expanded).
Analytical Framework (expanded, intermediate steps not presented here)
Structure
Formal
 Organization.
 Standards.
 Contracts.
Informal
 Norms.
 Values.
 Behaviour.
 Info. Sharing.
Managerial roles and actions
 Leadership capacities.
 Sanctions.
 Incentives.
Processes (gen.)
 Planning and
Programming.
 Organizational
mobilization
and staffing.
 Directing and
Leading.
 Monitoring and
Controling.
Output
Effective and efficient
procurement of military goods
and services (provision of high
quality military and
operational capabilities in a
timely manner against set
objectives and against the
needs of the end user
according to economic
principles).
Perspective of the Defense Acquisition Agency
Functional process & improvements of
acquisition: design, engineering, test and evaluation,
production, inspection, operation, support, disposal of
the military system or termination of service contract.
n Topic identified in search process 0 Topic not identified in search process and not covered by research organizations.
0
Contextual factors
Exogenous
 InternationalAgreements &
defence policies.
 National political structures
& monitoring authorities.
 Performance of economy &
budget constraints.
 Market structure & degree
of competition.
 Available technology &
technology dynamism.
 Threat scenarios.
Endogenous
 Own resource situation.
 Internal relations.
 Corporate culture.
Stakeholders
 Government officials.
 Political parties.
 Lobby groups.
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
8
7
0
3
1
5
0
0
0
4
10
0
7
22
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
22
8
10
12
DA=Topic identified in Defense Acquisition research DM=Topic identified in Defense Management research (if shared)
n=number of research organizations exploring the topic
DA DM
9
DA DM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DA DM DA DM
DA DM
DA DM

16. We would like to present and discuss the following topics with you…
16
Agenda.
(1) RQs & Framework.
(2) Methodology.
(3) Sample.
(4) Findings.
(5) Limitations & Further research.

17. Elaborations on the paper‘s limitations can be structured into four
primary topics: Framework, Methodology, Sample and Findings.
17
Limitations & Further Research.
Limitations
(1) Framework: Utilization of the reduced model
proposed by Lynn, Heinrich and Hill (2000).
Fairly simple, conceptual point of view.
(2) Methodology: Structured Literature Review
conducted. Room for subjective bias in
examining topics and defense research
areas.
(3) Sample: Web-Based Analysis is subject to
change and repeatability cannot be
guranteed. Scope is limited to research
institutes in Europe.
(4) Findings: In depth-analysis of publications
provided by research institutes not
conducted.
Further Research & Improvements
(1) Framework: Enhance validity, reliablity and
generalizeablity by employing multi-theory
point of view proposed by Cornelissen and
Durand (2014). Insights: DC, TCE, SCT.
(2) Methodology: Reduce subjective bias
through coding through other authors and
employ a structured questionnaire to
reasearch institutes.
(3) Sample: Evidence-based research as
proposed by Rousseach and Manning
(2008), Extend Scope to other geographic
areas, Employ reference on research think
tanks as provided by Mcgann (2014).
(4) Findings: Conduct in depth-analysis.
Compare results with research in academic
journals,

18. Let‘s open the floor for questions or comments…
18
Discussion.

19. Prof. Dr. Michael Essig
Fakultät für Wirtschafts- und
Organisationswissenschaften
Lehrstuhl für Materialwirtschaft und Distribution
Lehrstuhlinhaber
Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39
85577 Neubiberg
Telefon +49 89 6004 4220
Telefax +49 89 6004 4222
Mobil +49 178 377 4483
michael.essig@unibw.de
Dipl.- Kfm. Andreas Glas
Fakultät für Wirtschafts- und
Organisationswissenschaften
Lehrstuhl für Materialwirtschaft und Distribution
Projektkoordinator
Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39
85577 Neubiberg
Telefon +49 89 6004 3790
Telefax +49 89 6004 4222
Mobil +49 151 25274290
andreas.glas@unibw.de
Dipl.- Kfm. Christian von Deimling
Fakultät für Wirtschafts- und
Organisationswissenschaften
Lehrstuhl für Materialwirtschaft und Distribution
Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39
85577 Neubiberg
Telefon +49 89 6004 4246
Telefax +49 89 6004 4222
Mobil +49 176 24894400
c.von.deimling@unibw.de
Corresponding authors.
In case of any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate
to contact us by phone or email.