IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v54y2025i2s0048733324002002.html

Governance of knowledge development in a public-private partnership: NASA's efforts to design the Space Shuttle

Author

Listed:
  • Roy, Raja

Abstract

What conceptual opportunities for the theory of innovation governance are uncovered by analyzing the knowledge development required to design the first reusable spacecraft, the Space Shuttle, through a public-private partnership? Using data collected from various sources, this study provides insights into how NASA, a public agency, governed knowledge development while engaging private actors in anticipation of creating a long-running shuttle program. First, within each phase of the design process, knowledge was developed through knowledge generation, knowledge filtration, and knowledge combination and involved a division of labor. Second, knowledge reinforcing—whereby the knowledge developed in the previous phase was innovated upon using new knowledge—occurred between phases. In summary, the paper highlights how public-private partnerships govern knowledge development by managing division of labor and reinforcing knowledge. These insights pave the way for future investigations at the intersection of governance mechanisms and innovation processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Roy, Raja, 2025. "Governance of knowledge development in a public-private partnership: NASA's efforts to design the Space Shuttle," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:2:s0048733324002002
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324002002
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105151?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colatat, Phech, 2015. "An organizational perspective to funding science: Collaborator novelty at DARPA," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 874-887.
    2. Mariana Mazzucato, 2018. "Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 803-815.
    3. Marengo, Luigi & Dosi, Giovanni, 2005. "Division of labor, organizational coordination and market mechanisms in collective problem-solving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 303-326, October.
    4. Natalya Vinokurova & Rahul Kapoor, 2020. "Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2372-2399, December.
    5. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    6. Maureen McKelvey & Olof Zaring & Stefan Szücs, 2020. "Conceptualizing evolutionary governance routines: governance at the interface of science and technology with knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 591-608, July.
    7. Sandeep Devanatha Pillai & Brent Goldfarb & David Kirsch, 2024. "Lovely and likely: Using historical methods to improve inference to the best explanation in strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1539-1566, August.
    8. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    9. Joseph T. Mahoney & Anita M. McGahan & Christos N. Pitelis, 2009. "Perspective ---The Interdependence of Private and Public Interests," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(6), pages 1034-1052, December.
    10. Sen Chai & Anil R. Doshi & Luciana Silvestri, 2022. "How Catastrophic Innovation Failure Affects Organizational and Industry Legitimacy: The 2014 Virgin Galactic Test Flight Crash," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 1068-1093, May.
    11. Mowery, David C. & Simcoe, Timothy, 2002. "Is the Internet a US invention?--an economic and technological history of computer networking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1369-1387, December.
    12. Stefan H. Thomke, 1998. "Managing Experimentation in the Design of New Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 743-762, June.
    13. Andrea Contigiani & Daniel A Levinthal, 2019. "Situating the construct of lean start-up: adjacent conversations and possible future directions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(3), pages 551-564.
    14. Klein, Peter G. & Mahoney, Joseph T. & McGahan, Anita M. & Pitelis, Christos N., 2009. "Toward a Theory of Public Entrepreneurship," Working Papers 09-0106, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    15. Steven Klepper, 2016. "Experimental Capitalism: The Nanoeconomics of American High-Tech Industries," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10614 edited by Serguey Braguinsky & David A. Hounshell & John H. Miller, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roy, Raja & Lampert, Curba Morris & Polidoro, Francisco & Kim, Minyoung, 2025. "Creating a breakthrough invention: NASA’s internal knowledge generation for the Space Shuttle," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(10).
    2. Mechthild Donner & Damien Guimond & Emmanuelle Lagendijk & Maurine Mamès & Angela Baker & Hugo de Vries, 2026. "Critical success factors and a modus operandi framework for managing multi‐actor research partnerships for sustainable food systems," Post-Print hal-05557438, HAL.
    3. Angelo Cavallo & Christina Theodoraki & Alessandro Lucini-Paioni, 2026. "Building a space entrepreneurship industry: The role of entrepreneurial support programs for startup growth," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 773-795, February.
    4. Thomas John Fewer & Dali Ma & Diego M. Coraiola, 2025. "Working with the “Enemy”: Supervised Space, Free Space, and Cross-Border Collaboration amid Geopolitical Rivalry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 1909-1938, September.

    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. Roy, Raja & Lampert, Curba Morris & Polidoro, Francisco & Kim, Minyoung, 2025. "Creating a breakthrough invention: NASA’s internal knowledge generation for the Space Shuttle," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(10).
    2. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    3. Cujean, Julien & Bustamante, Maria Cecilia & Frésard, Laurent, 2019. "Knowledge Cycles and Corporate Investment," CEPR Discussion Papers 14152, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Lorenzo Ardito & Roger Svensson, 2024. "Sourcing applied and basic knowledge for innovation and commercialization success," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 959-995, June.
    5. Francesco Zezza & Dario Guarascio, 2024. "Fiscal policy, public investment and structural change: a P-SVAR analysis on Italian regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(6), pages 1356-1373, June.
    6. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Konstantin Kosenko & Jungkyu Suh & Yishay Yafeh, 2025. "The Rise of Scientific Research in Corporate America," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 1466-1488, July.
    7. Hidalgo, César A., 2023. "The policy implications of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    8. Christoph Riedl & Victor P. Seidel, 2018. "Learning from Mixed Signals in Online Innovation Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1010-1032, December.
    9. Añón Higón, Dolores, 2016. "In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 816-829.
    10. Dolores Añón Higón, 2016. "In-house versus External Basic Research and First-to-market Innovations," Working Papers 1601, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    11. Xiaosheng Ju & Shengjun Jiang & Yuxuan Hu, 2025. "Corporate basic research and technological capabilities: Evidence from China," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 275-304, April.
    12. Carmen Elena Stoenoiu, 2022. "Sustainable Development—A Path to a Better Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-13, July.
    13. Leonardo Bargigli, 2005. "The limits of modularity in innovation and production," KITeS Working Papers 176, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Sep 2005.
    14. Vivek Tandon & Puay Khoon Toh, 2022. "Who deviates? Technological opportunities, career concern, and inventor's distant search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 724-757, April.
    15. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    16. Becker, Markus C. & Salvatore, Pasquale & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2005. "The impact of virtual simulation tools on problem-solving and new product development organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1305-1321, November.
    17. Ziyu Qin & Jia Wang & Yunhan Wang & Lihao Liu & Junye Zhou & Xinyu Fu, 2025. "Assessing the Impacts of New Quality Productivity on Sustainable Agriculture: Structural Mechanisms and Optimization Strategies—Empirical Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-47, March.
    18. Eduardo Melero & Neus Palomeras & David Wehrheim, 2020. "The Effect of Patent Protection on Inventor Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5485-5504, December.
    19. Beck, Susanne & Brasseur, Tiare-Maria & Poetz, Marion & Sauermann, Henry, 2022. "Crowdsourcing research questions in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    20. Magnus Henrekson & Anders Kärnä & Tino Sanandaji, 2022. "Schumpeterian entrepreneurship: coveted by policymakers but impervious to top-down policymaking," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 867-890, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:2:s0048733324002002. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.