David J. Teece

Bio: David J. Teece is an academic researcher from University of California, Berkeley. The author has contributed to research in topics: Dynamic capabilities & Multinational corporation. The author has an hindex of 89, co-authored 312 publications receiving 93195 citations. Previous affiliations of David J. Teece include Yale University & University of Michigan.

Standards Setting and Antitrust

Abstract: The following sections are included:TYPES OF STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS DIFFERENTIATEDDIFFERENT TYPES OF STANDARDSFormal Standards Versus De Facto StandardsStandards Versus RegulationsA CASE STUDY: REFORMULATED GASOLINEII. ANTITRUST ISSUES IN STANDARDS SETTINGSTANDARDS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND MARKETSSTANDARDS SETTING AND DIVERGENT ROLESPATENTED STANDARDS AND SOCIAL EFFICIENCYPOLICY IMPLICATIONSCHOOSING STANDARDSTHE CHOICE OF STANDARDS: DIVERGENT ROLES AND DIVERGENT BELIEFSTHE CHOICE OF STANDARDS: Ex ANTE VERSUS Ex POST ASSESSMENTSTANDARDIZATION, LOCK-IN, AND OPPORTUNISMLIMITATIONS OF THE “HOLD-UP” CONCERN“MANIPULATION” OF STANDARDS: ACTIVE AND PASSIVE CONDUCTSSO IP RULES: MAKING THE CASE FOR CLARITYSSOS AND IP RULES: EFFECT ON PARTICIPATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTSRules Constraining the SSO ItselfRules Affecting ParticipantsParticipation ConstraintsSEARCH AND DISCLOSURE RULES: REPRESENTATION AND BURDENSearchDisclosureLICENSING POLICIESThe “One Patent, One Standard” Problem“Royalty-Free” and “Reasonable Terms““Reasonable Terms“: When Announced?“Reasonable” Terms: How Determined?Antitrust Remedies“Non-Discriminatory” TermsPENDING PATENT APPLICATIONSNon-Disclosure Does Not Equal Lack of KnowledgePublic Policy Regarding Disclosure of Pending Patent ApplicationsTHE NEED FOR CLARITYSANCTIONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCECAPTURING THE BENEFITS OF STANDARDIZATION THROUGH SSO-RULE CLARITYTHE BENEFITS OF STANDARDIZATION AND THE NEED FOR SPEEDThe Social Costs of DelayConsortia, Organizational Structure, and EfficiencyEFFORTS To BLOCK OR DELAY THE ADOPTION OF A STANDARDRESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATIONADOPTION OF IMPLICATED STANDARDSANTITRUST INTERVENTION AND CLARITYPROBLEMS WITH “ONE SIZE FITS ALL” POLICIESCONCLUSIONAPPENDIXON THE PRIVATE AND SOCIAL EFFICIENCY OF STANDARDS INVOLVING PATENTS

Japan's Growing Capabilities in Industrial Technology: Implications for U.S. Managers and Policymakers

Abstract: This article surveys the transformation in Japanese technological capabilities since 1960 and assesses the implications of this transformation for the business strategies of U.S. and foreign firms and for U.S. public policy. Much of the R&D activity by foreign firms in Japan appears to aim at modifying products and processes for the Japanese market, rather than tapping into the science and technology infrastructure to create new products and processes for the global market. Japanese electronic companies, on the other hand, appear to be active investors in R&D in the United States, and active alliance partners as well. In some industries, many U.S. firms are responding to the opportunity to access the Japanese research system. However, important public policy issues remain over questions of structure, access, and contributions of Japanese and American firms to global scientific and technogical resarch.

Dynamic capabilities and strategic management

Abstract: The dynamic capabilities framework analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change. The competitive advantage of firms is seen as resting on distinctive processes (ways of coordinating and combining), shaped by the firm's (specific) asset positions (such as the firm's portfolio of difftcult-to- trade knowledge assets and complementary assets), and the evolution path(s) it has aflopted or inherited. The importance of path dependencies is amplified where conditions of increasing retums exist. Whether and how a firm's competitive advantage is eroded depends on the stability of market demand, and the ease of replicability (expanding intemally) and imitatability (replication by competitors). If correct, the framework suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technological change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm. In short, identifying new opportunities and organizing effectively and efficiently to embrace them are generally more fundamental to private wealth creation than is strategizing, if by strategizing one means engaging in business conduct that keeps competitors off balance, raises rival's costs, and excludes new entrants. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dynamic capabilities, what are they?

Abstract: This paper focuses on dynamic capabilities and, more generally, the resource-based view of the firm. We argue that dynamic capabilities are a set of specific and identifiable processes such as product development, strategic decision making, and alliancing. They are neither vague nor tautological. Although dynamic capabilities are idiosyncratic in their details and path dependent in their emergence, they have significant commonalities across firms (popularly termed ‘best practice’). This suggests that they are more homogeneous, fungible, equifinal, and substitutable than is usually assumed. In moderately dynamic markets, dynamic capabilities resemble the traditional conception of routines. They are detailed, analytic, stable processes with predictable outcomes. In contrast, in high-velocity markets, they are simple, highly experiential and fragile processes with unpredictable outcomes. Finally, well-known learning mechanisms guide the evolution of dynamic capabilities. In moderately dynamic markets, the evolutionary emphasis is on variation. In high-velocity markets, it is on selection. At the level of RBV, we conclude that traditional RBV misidentifies the locus of long-term competitive advantage in dynamic markets, overemphasizes the strategic logic of leverage, and reaches a boundary condition in high-velocity markets. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing

Abstract: Marketing inherited a model of exchange from economics, which had a dominant logic based on the exchange of “goods,” which usually are manufactured output The dominant logic focused on tangible resources, embedded value, and transactions Over the past several decades, new perspectives have emerged that have a revised logic focused on intangible resources, the cocreation of value, and relationships The authors believe that the new perspectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for marketing, one in which service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange The authors explore this evolving logic and the corresponding shift in perspective for marketing scholars, marketing practitioners, and marketing educators

Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm

Abstract: Given assumptions about the characteristics of knowledge and the knowledge requirements of production, the firm is conceptualized as an institution for integrating knowledge. The primary contribution of the paper is in exploring the coordination mechanisms through which firms integrate the specialist knowledge of their members. In contrast to earlier literature, knowledge is viewed as residing within the individual, and the primary role of the organization is knowledge application rather than knowledge creation. The resulting theory has implications for the basis of organizational capability, the principles of organization design (in particular, the analysis of hierarchy and the distribution of decision-making authority), and the determinants of the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the firm. More generally, the knowledge-based approach sheds new light upon current organizational innovations and trends and has far-reaching implications for management practice.

The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage

Abstract: In this article we offer a view that suggests that a firm's critical resources may span firm boundaries and may be embedded in interfirm resources and routines. We argue that an increasingly important unit of analysis for understanding competitive advantage is the relationship between firms and identify four potential sources of interorganizational competitive advantage: (1) relation-specific assets, (2) knowledge-sharing routines, (3) complementary resources/capabilities, and (4) effective governance. We examine each of these potential sources of rent in detail, identifying key subprocesses, and also discuss the isolating mechanisms that serve to preserve relational rents. Finally, we discuss how the relational view may offer normative prescriptions for firm-level strategies that contradict the prescriptions offered by those with a resource-based view or industry structure view.