IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joudef/v16y2019i4p373-388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Considerations and examples of a modular open systems approach in defense systems

Author

Listed:
  • Philomena Zimmerman
  • Monique Ofori
  • Donald Barrett
  • Joseph Soler
  • Anthony Harriman

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of modular open systems approach (MOSA) design principles and open business practices in Department of Defense (DoD) programs, as well as selected examples of MOSA implementations by the Military Departments. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Public Law 114-328) Section 805(a) requires DoD to implement MOSA, and an increasing body of evidence indicates MOSA can enable outcomes that merit consideration and advancement. Most DoD programs had already incorporated MOSA to some extent before the NDAA required it, but the formal acknowledgment in law further emphasizes the currency of the approach. MOSA has multiple, similar definitions. For the purposes of this paper, MOSA is defined as a method to design systems with highly cohesive, loosely coupled, and severable modules that DoD can compete separately and acquire from independent vendors. MOSA is an approach rather than a technical or warfighting requirement. The approach allows the Department to flexibly acquire full capabilities and individual components – including systems, subsystems, and software – and create end item systems and services that can respond to changing threats and missions, allow for technology advances, upgrade and sustain when necessary, and maintain appropriate security assurances. Through this paper, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering (ODASD(SE)) discusses considerations for implementing MOSA, provides three examples of specific implementations by the Air Force, Army, and Navy, and discusses the vision for the future of MOSA application in DoD. The information is based on a literature review of published DoD reports and public documents, interviews with DoD Services discussing lessons, the Services’ written responses to the authors’ requests of exemplars, and review and comments from stakeholders across DoD. The authors concluded that the DoD Services and Agencies’ initiatives contribute to the MOSA body of knowledge and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Philomena Zimmerman & Monique Ofori & Donald Barrett & Joseph Soler & Anthony Harriman, 2019. "Considerations and examples of a modular open systems approach in defense systems," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, , vol. 16(4), pages 373-388, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:joudef:v:16:y:2019:i:4:p:373-388
    DOI: 10.1177/1548512917751281
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1548512917751281
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1548512917751281?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 1995. "Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(S1), pages 93-109.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Arman Avadikyan & Patrick Llerena, 2009. "Socio-technical transition processes: A real option based reasoning," Working Papers of BETA 2009-21, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Félicia Saïah & Diego Vega & Harwin de Vries & Joakim Kembro, 2023. "Process modularity, supply chain responsiveness, and moderators: The Médecins Sans Frontières response to the Covid‐19 pandemic," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(5), pages 1490-1511, May.
    4. Glenn Hoetker & Anand Swaminathan & Will Mitchell, 2007. "Modularity and the Impact of Buyer-Supplier Relationships on the Survival of Suppliers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 178-191, February.
    5. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    6. Jared Fortune & Ricardo Valerdi, 2013. "A framework for reusing systems engineering products," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 304-312, September.
    7. Andrew A. King & Christopher L. Tucci, 2002. "Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 171-186, February.
    8. Samina Karim & Chi‐Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn‐Weiss, 2023. "Task bottlenecks and resource bottlenecks: A holistic examination of task systems through an organization design lens," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1839-1878, August.
    9. Arun Kumaraswamy & Raghu Garud & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, 2018. "Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1025-1042, November.
    10. Nathan R. Furr & Daniel C. Snow, 2015. "Intergenerational Hybrids: Spillbacks, Spillforwards, and Adapting to Technology Discontinuities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 475-493, April.
    11. Simge Tuna & Stefano Brusoni & Anja Schulze, 2019. "Architectural knowledge generation: evidence from a field study," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(5), pages 977-1009.
    12. Paul M. Vaaler & Gerry McNamara, 2010. "Are Technology-Intensive Industries More Dynamically Competitive? No and Yes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 271-289, February.
    13. Jonatan Pinkse & René Bohnsack, 2021. "Sustainable product innovation and changing consumer behavior: Sustainability affordances as triggers of adoption and usage," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3120-3130, November.
    14. Autio, E., 1997. "New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative impacts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 263-281, October.
    15. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy & Anna Roberts & Le Xu, 2022. "Liminal movement by digital platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber Technologies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 447-475, March.
    16. Nicholas Burton & Peter Galvin, 2020. "Component complementarity and transaction costs: the evolution of product design," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 845-867, August.
    17. Bendik Bygstad & Hans-Petter Aanby, 2010. "ICT infrastructure for innovation: A case study of the enterprise service bus approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 257-265, July.
    18. Forrest Briscoe, 2007. "From Iron Cage to Iron Shield? How Bureaucracy Enables Temporal Flexibility for Professional Service Workers," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 297-314, April.
    19. Patricio Duran & Nadine Kammerlander & Marc van Essen & Thomas Zellweger, 2016. "Doing More with Less : Innovation Input and Output in Family Firms," Post-Print hal-02276703, HAL.
    20. Munehiko Itoh, 2004. "Modularization for Product Competitiveness - Analysis of Modularization in the Digital Camera Industry -," Discussion Paper Series 164, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:joudef:v:16:y:2019:i:4:p:373-388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.