Measuring Defense Reform: A Proposed Methodology to Measure Efforts to Achieve the Objectives of PAP-DIB

Abstract

The development and continuous utilization of objective metrics to demonstrate the effectiveness of reforms instituted by countries to achieve the objectives established through the Partnership for Peace–Defense Institution Building (PAP-DIB) process should be seen as both essential and obvious. However, to date there have been only modest efforts by defense experts, as well as nations, to develop systematic and disciplined methods that ministries of defense and national defense headquarters can employ to ascertain whether the PAP-DIB reforms they are instituting are meeting their intended objectives. To be sure, PfP nations participate in the Planning and Review Process on an agreed time-table with the NATO International Staff. However, notwithstanding the usefulness of these review processes (both formal reviews and the accompanying informal dialogue with NATO officials and nations), these are essentially reviews to determine the degree to which a Partner has met the Partnership Goals it has agreed to with NATO (via the Membership Action Plan, PARP, or individual Partnership Action Plan processes). As such, these useful reviews and analyses can be more accurately assessed as constituting an important element of what should be a more comprehensive and inclusive analytical methodology. Despite the seemingly problematic nature of any attempt to measure the reform of public institutions, given their numerous subjective characteristics, there are analytical techniques that can be employed that can provide objective results to senior civilian and military officials that would enable them to measure the effectiveness of defense reforms. Indeed, such analyses should be viewed as being critical to enabling senior leadership to exercise requisite oversight through conducting informed cost-benefit analyses, based upon objective data. When developing metrics to measure effectives in the delivery of national defense reform efforts, a hierarchy should be employed that gives greater weight to those factors that are clearly objective in character. Other factors (e.g., those that might be more subjective) also need review, but their usefulness in determining the merit of specific reform projects and/or their envisaged methodological approach needs to be assessed in the light of the results of the first level of hierarchical analysis. The proposed categories of analysis suggested in this essay are: increases in defense capability/defense efficiency; improvements in the means to support/facilitate defense efforts; a review of the methodological approach of defense reform (e.g., review of assumptions and techniques); and analyses of other technical assistance options that might be employed to effect reform.