Acquisition data play a critical role in the management of the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) portfolio of weapon systems. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) labels are one of the key methods for protecting sensitive information from disclosure along with appropriate information security. Mandatory U.S. government-wide policies governing handling of unclassified acquisition information exist because of concerns about exploitation by sophisticated adversaries. Executive Order 13556, signed by then-President Barack Obama on November 4, 2010, established a government-wide program for managing CUI, which includes personally identifiable information, proprietary business information, and law enforcement investigation information, among others. As the CUI executive agent, the National Archives and Records Administration is responsible for addressing over 100 ways of characterizing CUI, which it has done in the September 2016 CUI Federal Register. The rules in this register came into effect on November 14, 2016. This report provides a closer look at the current state of the CUI program as well as how the new CUI rules might affect DoD acquisition data management. We found a high degree of overlap in the content, if not the nomenclature, of past and present CUI labels used for acquisition data, but the problem going forward is translating policy into practice.

As the need to identify known and suspected combatants has elevated the importance of biometrics in the Department of Defense (DoD), RAND researchers assessed how current activities are supporting end users and how DoD is preparing to focus biometrics on different missions. As overseas contingency operations wind down, DoD's biometrics program must move in a new direction, and continued funding must be justified in new ways.

For the last decade, the U.S. Army has quickly acquired systems for war. By examining the nontraditional methods used, this study examines how the Army can improve rapid acquisition, focusing in particular on command and control systems.

"Proponents of commercial, or business-to-business (B2B), arbitration point to its potential benefits for dispute resolution compared with traditional litigation, including reduced congestion and costs for the courts, as well as expedited and less costly outcomes. However, a recurring complaint in the press and academic literature is that arbitration has become as costly and time-consuming as litigation, with sharp increases in pre-hearing discovery and motion work. Evidence suggests that arbitration clauses, though common in consumer contracts, are uncommon in domestic commercial contracts, but research on why this may be so is scant. The goal of this study was to use a survey and follow-on interviews of corporate counsel to discover what they thought about the relative benefits of arbitration and litigation in resolving B2B disputes. The findings highlight issues of importance to policymakers and practitioners concerned with arbitration as a valuable alternative to litigation. Key findings were that a majority of respondents believe that (1) contractual arbitration is better, faster, and cheaper than litigation (although most see it as just "somewhat" so); (2) professional arbitrators tend to split awards rather than rule strongly in favor of one party; (3) factors (beyond time and cost savings) encouraging the use of arbitration are avoiding exposure to potentially uncertain jury awards, control of arbitrator qualifications, confidentiality of proceedings and decisions, and complexity of cases and/or contracts; and (4) the one factor discouraging the use of arbitration is the absence of the right of appeal. These results may help to explain the apparent lack of enthusiasm for including arbitration clauses in domestic B2B contracts, but further research is needed"--Website (as viewed on 12/22/2011).

"Pressures inside and outside the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to reduce the incidence of problematic behaviors within the military are inducing the Office of the Secretary of Defense to rethink how it is organized to oversee and coordinate DoD's varied behavior-mitigation efforts. This report provides the results of a RAND study that examined the integration of programs for addressing a specified set of problematic behaviors: sexual harassment, sexual assault, unlawful discrimination, substance abuse, suicide, and hazing. The report combines the results of the two major lines of research: the first related to the development of a typology of common problematic behavior risk and protective factors and prevention methods based on a review of the behavioral science literature, and the second related to the organization, coordination, oversight, and managerial practices of programs to address problematic behavior based on document analysis and policy discussions with DoD and service headquarters officials. Following a discussion of findings from the two lines of research, the report lays out a series of recommendations for the Office of the Secretary of Defense to improve its understanding of the interrelationships among problematic behaviors and its oversight and coordination of programs to address those behaviors"--Publisher's description.

NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate asked RAND to assess flight research capabilities and needs, and to identify management options that would facilitate increased and improved flight research.

The Department of Defense must keep track of a large and ever-growing number of people, both known and unknown, as it executes its mission. The field associated with this responsibility is called identity management. One tool for identity management is biometrics, and some view DNA as a useful biometric for either identification or verification of individuals. However, serious questions remain about whether DNA is a viable biometric option, and it presents especially challenging questions. This paper examines DNA as a biometric from several perspectives, including technical requirements, policy and legal ramifications, and costs and benefits compared with other biometrics.