Closing the adoption gap in MOSA-driven avionics modernization

Story

May 07, 2026

Open architecture has transitioned from a long-term objective to a mandatory design success factor for the defense industry. As modular open systems approach (MOSA) requirements move from high-level policy into technical procurement specifications, the engineering focus has fundamentally shifted. The industry is no longer debating the necessity of open standards; the current challenge is execution – specifically, ensuring that these architectures deliver sustained operational value once integrated into the fleet.

This shift reflects a broader evolution in U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) modernization. A 2025 Government Accountability Office (GAO) review found that while 14 of 20 programs reported implementing MOSA, most had not addressed the critical planning elements required to realize its intended benefits. This disconnect suggests that MOSA is often treated as a checkbox in procurement rather than a comprehensive strategy for the full life cycle.

Guidance documents from the DoD also emphasize MOSA not just as a technical framework, but as a core acquisition and sustainment strategy spanning the full life cycle. As this perspective takes hold, program managers are increasingly focused on ensuring modular avionics systems translate into capabilities that can be absorbed and sustained by the workforce in real operational environments. Technical modularity fails without organizational readiness.

Defining the adoption gap in embedded systems

The adoption gap becomes visible when the technical precision of a modular system meets the friction of real-world operational environments. This gap is rarely a failure of the architecture itself. Rather, it points to a disconnect between how the system was engineered and how it is actually used. In practice, this gap manifests as a reliance on extensive training to compensate for usability issues, an ongoing dependency on contractor support to manage updates, or the development of informal operator workarounds to accomplish mission tasks.

One example: In a naval-aviation program, operators required nearly twice the projected time to reach proficiency because training requirements were not integrated into the system design. While the system met performance specifications, the units relied on additional contractor support during early deployment, which slowed full operational adoption.

Modularity is raising the bar for readiness

The promise of modular avionics has always been speed, meaning faster upgrades, faster integration, and faster adaptation to meet changing mission needs.

In today’s environment, those expectations are no longer theoretical. The Navy’s continued emphasis on readiness and initiatives reflect a broader push to ensure that capability evolves in step with operational demand. Delivering on that expectation depends as much on program plans and structure as it does on system design.

One of the most common challenges is timing. Requirements are defined, solutions are developed, and validation follows a structured process. By the time systems reach the fleet, however, operator needs may have shifted. The system itself may be sound, but it can feel out of sync with the environment it enters.

In practice, the programs that maintain alignment are the ones that incorporate user feedback early and continuously. When input from actual users is built into planning and design from the outset, adjustments can be made in real time. When feedback arrives later, it becomes more difficult to translate into meaningful change.

Modularity creates the technical conditions for iteration. Realizing that advantage depends on how deliberately programs are structured to support it.

Designing for the operator, not just the architecture

Human-systems integration is more than just usability – it is a broader organizing principle for modernization where success depends on how well avionics align with the people and processes around them. This solution includes how operators interact with information, how maintainers manage updates, and how training pipelines prepare the workforce to keep pace.

This is not simply a user-interface question, however: It is a system-level consideration that spans workload, training burden, and the broader organizational impact of design decisions. It has been found that integrating training requirements into the Critical Design Review (CDR) process for naval aviation programs can reduce time-to-­proficiency by as much as 40%. By treating readiness as a design requirement, program managers avoid a permanent tether to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and ensure the system is actually usable upon implementation.

Programs that engage operators, trainers, and engineers early in design are better positioned to identify trade-offs sooner and deliver systems that are both technically sound and operationally effective. This approach supports more meaningful feedback: When user insight is incorporated from the beginning, systems are refined in ways that reflect how they will actually be used, not just how they were intended to perform.

Where structure and strategy determine success

As systems become more modular, organizational alignment becomes a visibility requirement. Traditional program structures often isolate engineering, acquisition, and sustainment into distinct silos. While each function is critical, this separation creates friction as systems evolve and dependencies tighten.

In contrast, forward-looking programs rely on cross-functional integration. This shift requires clearer decision rights and collaborative governance designed specifically to dismantle stovepiped efforts. Ultimately, organizational structure dictates how fast a program responds to the field. When alignment is strong, operator feedback moves efficiently into design decisions; when it is fragmented, even critical issues stall in coordination.

Planning is where these programs succeed or fail. The latest GAO [Govern­ment Accountability Office] findings (GAO-25-106931, which recommends 14 ways the DoD can better implement MOSA in acquisition programs) are a reality check. The bottom line: Fragmented coordination actively blocks MOSA from influencing early acquisition. For leadership, modularity is now more than a design choice. It is a mandate to reorganize the enterprise to support the technology.

Training as a design input, not a follow-on

This organizational mandate is most visible in the evolution of training. In many programs, training has traditionally been treated as a downstream activity. Systems are developed first with training refined as deployment approaches. In a modular environment, that sequence is evolving. Several naval aviation and C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] programs are now integrating training requirements during preliminary design review. This move enables training constraints to directly shape system design and reduces time-to-proficiency at fielding.

Effective training strategies often include multiple feedback loops. One loop assesses initial effectiveness, or whether users can reach proficiency quickly enough for the capability to matter. A second loop evaluates sustainability over time, or whether users retain what they have learned and apply it consistently as the system evolves.

These insights provide a clearer picture of how systems are performing in practice and also support continuous improvement in both the technology and the training that enables it. As avionics systems leverage more advanced software and automation, workforce readiness will continue to play a central role. Building that readiness early helps reduce reliance on external support and strengthens long-term sustainability.

Sustaining adoption at the pace of change

As MOSA expands across platforms, the priority must shift from simply fielding hardware and software to sustaining operational impact. Modernization is an ongoing process rather than a one-time event. In this environment, success is measured by how effectively a capability is used over time. Shorter learning curves and a reduced need for workarounds are the true signals that adoption has taken hold.

Open architectures provide the technical flexibility to evolve, but that flexibility is a stranded asset without organizational readiness. For program managers, integrating user feedback and training into early design is not a secondary task. It is a core requirement of the mission. Programs that prioritize adoption from the outset will be the ones that finally translate modularity into a permanent combat advantage.

Rasha Fakhreddine is a Senior Principal of Organization Development and Organizational Strategy at Evans. She partners with leadership teams to identify organizational challenges that prevent goal achievement, engages diverse stakeholders to align toward common objectives, and develops comprehensive strategies to address these barriers.

Evans • https://evansinc.com/