<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comparative Defence Data Analysis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec Reports</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">November 2011</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">90</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institute of Information and Communication Technologies</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">„Comparative Defence Data Analysis” outlines what is considered good practice in formulating defence policy, in particular in emphasising particular missions of the armed forces, in managing defence personnel, in understanding what a certain level of defence allocations would mean for the capacity of the armed forces to perform assigned missions, and in managing main categories of defence assets. Towards this purposes the study compares the practices of 18 mid- to small-size countries – all more or less transparent in their defence affairs, based entirely on publicly available data</style></abstract></record></records></xml>