Center of Military History Publication 51-3-1. By J. Ronald Fox, et al. Discusses reform initiatives from 1960 to the present and concludes with prescriptions for future changes to the acquisition culture of the services, DoD, and industry.

In the Department of Defense, 63 distinct acquisition reform (AR) initiatives were undertaken from 1989 to 2002. By looking at what the AR movement "was" in the 1990s (by describing the initiatives launched under its name) and by letting acquisition personnel describe in their own words how their work was affected by those initiatives, the authors seek to shed light on what the AR movement has and has not accomplished in terms of changing the way the acquisition process works.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has a long history of seeking improvements in the way it goes about buying new weapon systems. In the past two decades alone, DoD has mounted two distinct movements that each carried the title "Acquisition Reform" (AR).' In the 1980s, reform efforts focused on reducing "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the system. In the 1990s, the emphasis shifted toward trying to make the acquisition process more responsive, effective, and efficient i.e., "faster, better, cheaper." Initiatives launched in the 1990s to support the latter goals included legislative changes to allow for more streamlined procurements, reductions in internal paperwork and required reviews, greater use of commercial practices, and expanded attempts to use the private sector to do more of the jobs traditionally done by government. DoD also sought ways to make it easier and more attractive for companies that previously had never worked for the DoD to begin pursuing military contracts; this was seen as a way to allow the military to tap into the expanded creativity and innovative prowess in developing and applying new technology that had come to the fore in the private sector, particularly in the 1990s.

In this book we have introduced the basics of the federal budget process, provided an historical background on the foundation and development of the budget process, indicated how defense spending may be measured and how it impacts the economy, described and analyzed how Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System (PPBES) operates and should function to produce the annual defense budget proposal to Congress, analyzed the role of Congress in debating and deciding on defense appropriations and the politics of the budgetary process including the use of supplemental appropriations to fund national defense, analyzed budget execution dynamics, identified the principal participants in the defense budget process in the Pentagon and military commands, assessed federal and Department of Defense (DoD) financial management and business process challenges and issues, and described the processes used to resource acquisition of defense war fighting assets, including reforms in acquisition and linkages between PPBES and the defense acquisition process.