The US Department of Defense’s acquisition strategy incorporates directives to encourage the use of open architectures and modular solutions through the Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA). The ways in which open standards are currently implemented, and programmatic guidance regarding the adoption of modular approaches, are inadequate, however, because of limitations on how modularity is objectively viewed to achieve its perceived benefits. Furthermore, current examples of implementations of modular concepts largely do not consider interdependencies at the enterprise level. This paper reviews ongoing research on modularity and openness, to synthesize best practices, community driven knowledge, and technical and programmatic catalysts that can better shape the appropriate adoption of MOSA. These items will be part of a comprehensive decision-making framework that can provide guidance to program managers in defense acquisition.
BaldwinCYKimCB. Modularity in the design of complex engineering systems. In: BrahaDMinaiAABar-YamY (eds) Complex engineered systems. Berlin, Heidleberg: Springer, 2006, pp. 175–205.
2.
SchillingM. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad Manag Rev2000; 25(4): 312–334.
3.
GarudRKumaraswamyALangloisR. Managing in the modular age: Architectures, networks, and organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2003.
4.
FunkJLMetheDT. Market- and committee-based mechanisms in the creation and diffusion of global industry standards: The case of mobile communication. Res Policy2001; 30: 589–610.
US Department of Defense. Defense acquisition guidebook. Washington DC: US Department of Defense, 2017.
7.
US Department of Defense Open Systems Architecture Data Rights Team. Contract guidebook for program managers. Washington DC: US Department of Defense. 2013.
8.
US Government Accountability Office. DoD efforts to adopt open systems for its unmanned aircraft systems have progressed slowly. Report, July 2013. Washington DC: Defence Technical Information Center, GAO, 2013.
9.
CluneJMouretJBLipsonH. The evolutionary origins of modularity. Proc R Soc B. 2013; 280: 1755.
10.
LorenzDMJengADeemM. The emergence of modularity in biological systems. Phys Life Rev2011; 8(2): 129–160.
SimonH. The architecture of complexity. Proc Amer Philos Soc1962; 106(6): 467–482.
13.
Hölttä-OttoKde WeckO. Metrics for assessing coupling density and modularity in complex products and systems. In: ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 4–7 September 2007, pp. 343–352. New York: ASME.
14.
Hölttä-OttoKTangVSeeringW. Modularizing product architectures using dendograms. In: FolkesonAGralenKNorellMSellgrenU (eds) Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm, Sweden, 19–21 August 2003. Stockholm: Design Society.
15.
SuhNP. The principles of design. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1990.
16.
BaldwinCClarkKB. Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
17.
SimpsonTWMarionTde WeckO, et al. Platform-based design and development: Current trends and needs in industry. In: ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Philadelphia, PA, 10–13 September 2006, pp. 801–810. New York: ASME.
18.
GhoshR. An economic basis for open standards. Maastricht: University Maastricht Economics and Social Research and Training Center of Innovation and Technology, 2005.
NewcombPJBrasBRosenDW. Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. J Mech Des1998; 120(3): 483–490.
21.
BrahaD. Partitioning tasks to product development teams. In: ASME 2002 International Design Engineering Technical Conference, Montreal, Canada, 29 September–2 October 2002, pp. 333–344. New York: ASME.
22.
DaschJMGorsichDJ. Modularity in military vehicles: Benefits and burdens. Defen Acquisition Res J2016; 76.
23.
IlerC. Modular vehicle concept studies. Washington DC: Briefing to DARPA Tactical Technology Office.
24.
BaldwinCClarkKB. Managing in an Age of Modularity. Harvard Business Review75(5), September–October1997. pp. 84–93.
25.
ConwayME. How do committees invent?Datamation1968; 14(5): 28–31.
TakeishiATakahiroF. Modularisation in the auto industry: Interlinked multiple hierarchies of product, production and supplier systems. IJATM2001; 1(4): 379–396.
28.
O’RourkeR. Navy littoral combat ship/frigate (LCS/FF) program: Background and issues for Congress. Report, Congressional Research Service, Washington DC, 2017.
BallJMillerS. Daimler-Benz, Chrysler merger fails to live up to expectations. The Wall Street Journal. 26July2000.
31.
LeeFSorensonO. The dangers of modularity. Harvard Business Review2001; 79(8): 20–21.
32.
GershensonJKPrasadGJAllamneniS. Modular product design: A lifecycle view. J Integr Des Process Sci1999; 3(4): 13–26.
33.
AllenKRCarlson-SkalakS. Defining product architecture during conceptual design. In: OttoK (ed) ASME design theory and methodology ’98. DETC98/DTM-5650, 1998. New York: ASME.
34.
MikkolaJH. Modularization assessment of product architecture, DRUID Winter Conference, Denmark, 7–8 January 2000.
35.
MartinMVIshiiK. Design for variety: Developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Res Eng Des2002; 13(4): 213–235.
36.
MattsonCAMaglebySP. The influence of product modularity during concept selection of consumer products. In: ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 9–12 September 2001. New York: ASME.
37.
SosaMEEppingerSDRowlesCM. Designing modular and integrative systems. In: ASME design engineering technical conference proceedings, Baltimore, MD, 10–13 September 2000. New York: ASME.
38.
NewmanME. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl A Sci USA2006; 103(23): 8577–8582.
39.
ErixonG. Modular function development (MFD), support for good product structure creation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd WDK workshop on product structuring, 3–4 June 1996. pp. 13–16. The Netherlands: University of Technology.
40.
RipperdaSKrauseD. Cost effects of modular product family structures: Methods and quantification of impacts to support decision-making. J Mech Des2017; 139(2): 021103-021103-12.
41.
ThyssenJIsraelsenPJørgensenB. Activity-based costing as a methods for assessing the economics of modularization – A case study and beyond. Int J Prod Econ2006; 103(1): 252–270.
42.
FrancisPL. Defense acquisitions – Future combat system risks underscore the importance of oversight. Report, March 2007. Washington DC: US Government Accountability Office.
43.
PerninCGAxelbandEDreznerJA, et al. Lessons from the Army’s Future Combat Systems program. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2012.
44.
TamaskarSNeemaKKotegawaT, et al. Complexity enabled design space exploration. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), Anchorage, AL, 2011. IEEE.
45.
DavendralingamNDeLaurentisDFangZ, et al. An analytic workbench perspective to evolution of system of systems architectures. In: MadniABoehmB (eds) Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), Redondo Beach, CA: 21–22 March 2014, pp. 702–710. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
46.
FitzgeraldMRossARhodesD. A method using epoch-era analysis to identify valuable changeability in system design. In: 9th Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Los Angeles, CA, 14–16 April 2011. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
47.
TamaskarS. Managing complexity in aerospace systems. PhD Thesis, 2014.
48.
BrownOEremenkoP. Fractionated space architectures: A vision for responsive space. Arlington, VA: Defense advanced research projects agency, 2006.
49.
BrownOEremenkoP. The value proposition for fractionated space architectures. Arlington, VA: Defense advanced research projects agency, 2006.
