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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Andreas Hein & Maximilian Schreieck & Tobias Riasanow & David Soto Setzke & Manuel Wiesche & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2020. "Digital platform ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(1), pages 87-98, March.
    7. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    8. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Poul Houman Andersen & Ina Drejer, 2006. "Systemic Innovation in a Distributed Network Paradox or Pinnacle?," DRUID Working Papers 06-13, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    11. Milan Miric & Hakan Ozalp & Erdem Dogukan Yilmaz, 2023. "Trade‐offs to using standardized tools: Innovation enablers or creativity constraints?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 909-942, April.
    12. Stefan Haefliger & Georg von Krogh & Sebastian Spaeth, 2008. "Code Reuse in Open Source Software," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 180-193, January.
    13. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Bruijn, Hans, 2015. "Platforms and incentives for consensus building on complex ICT systems: The development of WiFi," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 580-589.
    14. Stefano Brusoni & Joachim Henkel & Michael G Jacobides & Samina Karim & Alan Mac & Phanish Puranam & Melissa Schilling, 2023. "The power of modularity today: 20 years of “Design Rules”," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(1), pages 1-10.
    15. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    16. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Joachim Henkel, 2015. "Modularity and intellectual property protection," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(11), pages 1637-1655, November.
    17. Droge, Cornelia & Vickery, Shawnee K. & Jacobs, Mark A., 2012. "Does supply chain integration mediate the relationships between product/process strategy and service performance? An empirical study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 250-262.
    18. Vanhaverbeke, W.P.M. & Torremans, H., 1998. "Organizational structure in process-based organizations," Research Memorandum 005, Maastricht University, Netherlands Institute of Business Organization and Strategy Research (NIBOR).
    19. Sezer Ülkü & Claudiu V. Dimofte & Glen M. Schmidt, 2012. "Consumer Valuation of Modularly Upgradeable Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1761-1776, September.
    20. Sebastian Ion Ceptureanu & Eduard Gabriel Ceptureanu & Marieta Olaru & Liviu Bogdan Vlad, 2018. "An Exploratory Study on Coopetitive Behavior in Oil and Gas Distribution," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, May.

    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.