This study examines conceptual interoperability between Sweden and NATO by comparing how mission command is described in their respective doctrines. Using a qualitative comparative case study design and qualitative content analysis, six doctrines are analysed through six principles operationalised from mission command derived from previous research. Conceptual interoperability is assessed by comparing how the principles are defined, given meaning and concretised within and between the cases.
The analysis shows broad conceptual coherence between the cases but also identifies important differences regarding decentralisation of decision-making and initiative. The study argues that procedural interoperability depends not only on shared concepts, but also on how these are expressed within different organisational contexts. The findings further suggest that shared doctrinal terminology does not necessarily ensure conceptual alignment in practice.