How does secrecy emerge and evolve during an organisation’s innovation process?
Secrecy has always been part of how organisations protect new ideas, yet it is often seen as something that happens only after a breakthrough is complete. New research from UCL School of Management Assistant Professor Rohin Borpujari challenges this view by presenting secrecy as a far more dynamic and adaptive state in the research and development journey of an organisation.
His recent study, published in Organization Science, examines the Manhattan Project as an extreme case which reveals how secrecy shifts and adapts during the innovation process itself.
The making of the atomic bomb in the 1940s provides a vivid lens through which to understand how knowledge is guarded and shared under intense pressure. Borpujari’s work argues that secrecy is not a single decision but a living process that changes as a project evolves.
He describes this process as “adaptive secrecy”, a continuous balancing act between protecting knowledge and enabling collaboration. Too little information slows progress, while too much information threatens security. The result is a layered structure of in-groups, out-groups and those in between.
The early years of nuclear research show how secrecy can begin as a bottom-up choice rather than a top-down requirement. Before any government intervention, scientists such as Leo Szilard and Enrico Fermi recognised the danger of their discoveries and quietly stopped publishing their work. They warned trusted colleagues, but avoided revealing technical details. It was secrecy built on conscience and perceived strategic threat in a community that relied on open exchange.
Everything shifted once the United States entered the war. As the project expanded across multiple sites, thousands of workers found themselves operating under strict rules about who could know what. Compartmentalisation became essential, yet leaders still needed to keep people motivated. They offered reassurance and nationalist motivation without revealing the science, giving staff enough context to feel part of something that mattered.
The most intense phase arrived when sites like Los Alamos (primary research and development location) and Oak Ridge (uranium enrichment centre) grew to an industrial scale. Workers grew frustrated by the limits placed on them and morale became a risk.
The response was to share selective information, offering fragments of technical context or hints about the wider stakes: Borpujari’s concept of “meta-disclosures” during adaptive secrecy.
The echoes of this history can be seen in today’s race to develop advanced technologies. Organisations working on artificial intelligence, biotechnology and quantum systems face difficult decisions about what to reveal and what to protect.
Yet secrecy carries real costs. The Manhattan Project, while an impressive organisational feat, led to immense human suffering. The atomic bombs caused more than 200,000 deaths and left survivors facing radiation, illness and trauma across generations.
Some workers later felt conflicted about their roles and might have made different choices had they known more at the time.
This research invites modern organisations to consider not only how to manage secrecy but when transparency may be the wiser path.
Speaking about the paper Borpujari said:
“This paper reveals the hidden mechanics behind one of history’s most significant and most secretive R&D projects. As we enter a new era of technological competition between nations and companies, understanding how to balance knowledge sharing and protection could determine who leads in the most important innovations of our time.
“Effective secretive innovation requires the strategic use of meta-disclosures, sharing knowledge about secrets to enable concealment of secrets.
“As society pushes towards breakthroughs in artificial general intelligence, fusion energy and quantum computing, the way we handle knowledge during research and development will shape our shared future. This raises important questions about responsibility and accountability.”
Adaptive Secrecy in the Making of the Atomic Bomb: Toward a Process View of Secretive Innovation in Organization Science
