When Policy Structures Technology: Balancing upfront decomposition and in-process coordination in Europe׳s decentralized space technology ecosystem ☆

Abstract This paper examines the decentralization of European space technology research and development through the joint lenses of policy, systems architecture, and innovation contexts. It uses a detailed longitudinal case history of the development of a novel astrophysics instrument to explore the link between policy-imposed institutional decomposition and the architecture of the technical system. The analysis focuses on five instances of collaborative design decision-making and finds that matching between the technical and institutional architectures is a predictor of project success, consistent with the mirroring hypothesis in extant literature. Examined over time, the instances reveal stability in the loosely coupled nature of institutional arrangements and a trend towards more integral, or tightly coupled, technical systems. The stability of the institutional arrangements is explained as an artifact of the European Hultqvist policy and the trend towards integral technical systems is related to the increasing complexity of modern space systems. If these trends persist, the scale of the mismatch will continue to grow. As a first step towards mitigating this challenge, the paper develops a framework for balancing upfront decomposition and in-process coordination in collaborative development projects. The astrophysics instrument case history is used to illustrate how collaborations should be defined for a given inherent system complexity.

[1]  Kazuto Suzuki,et al.  Policy logics and institutions of European space collaboration , 2003 .

[2]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  Task Partitioning: An Innovation Process Variable , 2015 .

[3]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[4]  Alan MacCormack,et al.  Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis , 2011 .

[5]  Scott Stern,et al.  Complementarity Among Vertical Integration Decisions: Evidence from Automobile Product Development , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[6]  K. Weick.  Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[7]  Ron Adner,et al.  What Firms Make vs. What They Know: How Firms' Production and Knowledge Boundaries Affect Competitive Advantage in the Face of Technological Change , 2009 .

[8]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions , 2016 .

[9]  David J. Teece,et al.  Economic Analysis and Strategic Management , 1984 .

[10]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Explaining organizational behavior , 1982 .

[11]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[12]  Jack A. Nickerson,et al.  A Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm - A Problem-solving Perspective , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[13]  K. Irwin.  An application of electrothermal feedback for high resolution cryogenic particle detection , 1995 .

[14]  R. Garud,et al.  Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution , 1997 .

[15]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[16]  A. Pettigrew.  The Character and Significance of Strategy Process Research , 1992 .

[17]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory , 1967 .

[18]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[19]  S. Presser,et al.  Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. , 1988 .

[20]  D. Teece.  Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation☆ , 1996 .

[21]  James R. Wertz,et al.  Space mission engineering : the new SMAD , 2011 .

[22]  A. Langley.  Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data , 1999 .

[23]  James Mahoney,et al.  Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research , 2003 .

[24]  Sylvie K. Chetty,et al.  The Case Study Method for Research in Small-and Medium-Sized Firms , 1996 .

[25]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Option Value of Modularity in Design: An Example From Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[26]  Andrea Prencipe,et al.  Technological competencies and product's evolutionary dynamics a case study from the aero-engine industry , 1997 .

[27]  E. H. Bowman,et al.  Redesigning the firm , 1995 .

[28]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .