全球智库信息集成服务系统

Several Ways Exist to Insert Contestability into Processes That Have Appropriate Independence, Authority, and Resources

• Contestability manifested in multiple ways: scrutiny, oversight, due diligence, and auditing.
• Each organisation developed a unique approach to establishing checks and balances that govern large capital expenditure decisions.
• There are no simple metrics for success for defence contestability functions, although there is general agreement that they improve decisionmaking.
• While private-sector contestability functions link outcomes to quantitative metrics related to profit, these do not transfer easily to the public sector.

Aspects of Contestability Vary Across Approaches

• Military contestability most commonly focused on significant procurement decisions; no organisation reviewed all possible decisions.
• The biggest differentiator among organisational designs was whether the function was stand-alone, as opposed to integrated or ad hoc.
• Engagement types varied: annual, periodic, or ad hoc.
• No interviewee at organisations with formal, stand-alone contestability expressed funding concerns. But no defence organisation had the resources to execute all possible analyses in-house.
• Typically, contestability reviews contributed to interim, not final, decisions and did not tend to be released publicly.
• Contestability reviews incorporated a range of standards, models, and methodologies, depending on the decisions.
• Contestability functions were typically staffed with seasoned experts.
• Internal contestability functions in defence organisations were more likely seen as necessary and organisationally beneficial; external functions housed in other parts of the government were viewed as more of a hindrance.
• Both public organisations and commercial companies monitor and account for risk, with the latter group focusing on financial risk.