Boeing outsources most of the 737. SpaceX builds most of Falcon 9 in-house. The Navy owns submarine operations but not manufacturing. Each organization chose a different 'shape' of industrialization—and there's a reason why.
This is an exceptionally insightful framework for analyzing aerospace industrial strategy. Your "shape" concept elegantly captures what's often discussed but rarely visualized so clearly. The contrast between SpaceX's vertical integration driven by specific founding conditions versus Boeing's distributed model is particularly illuminating - too many founders pattern-match without considering the unique factors (capital access, first-mover dynamics, Elon's leadership) that enable SpaceX's shape to work. I appreciate how you've highlighted the trade-offs rather than prescribing one superior approach. The point about capital requirements increasing upfront but generating better long-term margins for verticalized models is critical and often overlooked by startups chasing SpaceX-style integration without adequate funding runway. The Omega case study brilliantly demonstrates that even highly focused operational shapes can suceed in aerospace. Your discussion of how different risk types (engineering, build, team, capital) transfer versus consolidate based on shape is probably the most nuanced treatment of aerospace supply chain risk I've encountered. Excellent piece - looking forward to more from As Built!
Thank you for the kind words! I’m so glad to hear it was helpful. It’s sparked some great discussion and I may try to build out some other case studies like Omega.
There are many niche businesses that often get overlooked, but are core to the overall industrialized landscape. More to come!
This is an exceptionally insightful framework for analyzing aerospace industrial strategy. Your "shape" concept elegantly captures what's often discussed but rarely visualized so clearly. The contrast between SpaceX's vertical integration driven by specific founding conditions versus Boeing's distributed model is particularly illuminating - too many founders pattern-match without considering the unique factors (capital access, first-mover dynamics, Elon's leadership) that enable SpaceX's shape to work. I appreciate how you've highlighted the trade-offs rather than prescribing one superior approach. The point about capital requirements increasing upfront but generating better long-term margins for verticalized models is critical and often overlooked by startups chasing SpaceX-style integration without adequate funding runway. The Omega case study brilliantly demonstrates that even highly focused operational shapes can suceed in aerospace. Your discussion of how different risk types (engineering, build, team, capital) transfer versus consolidate based on shape is probably the most nuanced treatment of aerospace supply chain risk I've encountered. Excellent piece - looking forward to more from As Built!
Thank you for the kind words! I’m so glad to hear it was helpful. It’s sparked some great discussion and I may try to build out some other case studies like Omega.
There are many niche businesses that often get overlooked, but are core to the overall industrialized landscape. More to come!