IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v54y2025i2s0048733324002002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Colatat, Phech, 2015. "An organizational perspective to funding science: Collaborator novelty at DARPA," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 874-887.
    13. 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.
    14. Stefan H. Thomke, 1998. "Managing Experimentation in the Design of New Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 743-762, June.
    15. 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.
    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. Cujean, Julien & Bustamante, Maria Cecilia & Frésard, Laurent, 2019. "Knowledge Cycles and Corporate Investment," CEPR Discussion Papers 14152, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Hidalgo, César A., 2023. "The policy implications of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    3. Christoph Riedl & Victor P. Seidel, 2018. "Learning from Mixed Signals in Online Innovation Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1010-1032, December.
    4. Añón Higón, Dolores, 2016. "In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 816-829.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Carmen Elena Stoenoiu, 2022. "Sustainable Development—A Path to a Better Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-13, July.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Beck, Susanne & Brasseur, Tiare-Maria & Poetz, Marion & Sauermann, Henry, 2022. "Crowdsourcing research questions in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    11. Alnuaimi, Tufool & Opsahl, Tore & George, Gerard, 2012. "Innovating in the periphery: The impact of local and foreign inventor mobility on the value of Indian patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1534-1543.
    12. Scazzieri, Roberto, 2014. "A structural theory of increasing returns," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 75-88.
    13. Chihmao Hsieh, 2011. "Explicitly searching for useful inventions: dynamic relatedness and the costs of connecting versus synthesizing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 381-404, February.
    14. René Belderbos & Marcelina Grabowska & Stijn Kelchtermans & Bart Leten & Jojo Jacob & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Whither geographic proximity? Bypassing local R&D units in foreign university collaboration," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(7), pages 1302-1330, September.
    15. Kuan, Jennifer & West, Joel, 2023. "Interfaces, modularity and ecosystem emergence: How DARPA modularized the semiconductor ecosystem," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    16. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2016. "CROSSROADS—Identifying Viable “Need–Solution Pairs”: Problem Solving Without Problem Formulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 207-221, February.
    17. Matthijs Jansen, 2022. "Legitimation and Effects of Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies: A Spillover Perspective," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 243(4), pages 7-28, December.
    18. Frank Nagle, 2018. "Learning by Contributing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Contribution to Crowdsourced Public Goods," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 569-587, August.
    19. 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.
    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.

    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.