scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the dynamic capabilities framework with indications for how it applies in the university context and how a university's leaders can improve their own effectiveness and their school's readiness to respond to challenges and achieve its goals.
Abstract: The growing complexity of the university and of its competitive, technological, and operating environment means that the status quo in management is no longer adequate. New mental models are required. An approach that has been developed through a lengthy study of strategic management in the private sector is the dynamic capabilities framework. This essay presents the dynamic capabilities framework with indications for how it applies in the university context. By thinking in terms of sensing shifts, seizing opportunities, and transforming the university, a university’s leaders can improve their own effectiveness and their school’s readiness to respond to challenges and achieve its goals.

24 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2017
TL;DR: In this article, the dynamic capabilities framework, a multidisciplinary approach to analyzing the characteristics of individual firms and the sources of firm-level competitive advantage, is presented and a case study is presented that shows how the exploration division of a large multinational oil firm introduced capability awareness into the management of its global staff of geophysicists.
Abstract: Contemporary theories of the MNE have made limited progress in explaining interfirm heterogeneity. A fuller explanation should account for the uncertainties that firms face about market demand and about the costs of competing organizational alternatives. One approach is to allow a role for entrepreneurial managers who assess uncertainties on an ongoing basis and make non-routine decisions that create unique paths for the organizations they lead. This paper presents the dynamic capabilities framework, a multidisciplinary approach to analyzing the characteristics of individual firms and the sources of firm-level competitive advantage. Dynamic capabilities encompass the non-routine actions of entrepreneurial managers and the creative output of a firm’s expert talent. These capabilities are also embedded in “signature” organizational routines and processes rooted in an organization’s unique history. A dynamic capabilities approach supports a richer understanding of the distinctive characteristics of MNEs. A case study is presented that shows how the exploration division of a large multinational oil firm introduced capability awareness into the management of its global staff of geophysicists.

24 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the Episodic nature of competitive disruption and the phenomenon of increasing returns and network externalities in high-technology industries, and discuss the consequences of separating information flows from the flow of goods and services.
Abstract: The following sections are included:IntroductionCharacteristics of Industries Experiencing Rapid Technological ChangeThe Episodic Nature of Competitive DisruptionThe phenomenaImplication for antitrustIncreasing Returns and Network ExternalitiesThe phenomenon of increasing returnsImplications for antitrustNetwork EffectsThe phenomenonImplications for antitrustDecoupling of Information Flows from the Flow of Goods and ServicesThe phenomenaImplications for antitrustScarcity Rents, Schumpeterian Rents, and Monopoly RentsGeneralRicardian (Scarcity) RentsSchumpeterian (Entrepreneurial) RentsMonopoly (Porterian) RentsThe Hallmarks of Monopoly Power in High TechnologyIntroductionMarket PowerMarket DefinitionGeneralA note on switching costsA Note on Barriers to EntryMarket ShareGeneralIndustrial dynamics and concentration levelsImplications for Conduct AnalysisGeneralThe Importance of InnovationPredatory PricingTying and BundlingIntegration of Function"Vaporware" and the Premature Announcement of New ProductsLuck, Incentives, and IgnoranceConclusionAppendix A Examples of Performance CompetitionDiagnostic ImagingMicroprocessorsAppendix B A Multi-Attribute Small but Significant and Nontransitory Increase in Price (SSNIPP)

24 citations

Posted Content
01 Jan 2010
TL;DR: In this article, the theory of the firm needs to be augmented to account for opportunity as well as opportunism, coordination beyond the boundaries of a firm and within it, variations in the level of capability across firms, and the frequent superiority of the firms over markets for the creation, transfer, and protection of intangible assets.
Abstract: The firm is the central actor for the effectuation of innovation and technological change. The large industrial laboratories of the previous century have given way to more organizationally and geographically diffuse sources of technology, placing even greater emphasis on the coordination skills of managers. Dynamic capabilities are the skills, procedures, organizational structures, and decision rules that firms utilize to create and capture value. Managers must be able to sense opportunities, craft a business model to capitalize on them, and reconfigure their organizations, and sometimes their industries, as the business environment and technology shift. The key employees in this regard are experts (literati and numerati), whose management requires limited hierarchy, flexible teams, and performance-based incentives. To encompass these realities, the theory of the firm needs to be augmented to account for opportunity as well as opportunism, coordination beyond the boundaries of the firm as well as within it, variations in the level of capability across firms, and the frequent superiority of the firm over markets for the creation, transfer, and protection of intangible assets. Complementarities and cospecialization are advanced as two emerging concepts of particular relevance to a theory of the innovating enterprise earning above-normal returns.

24 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors show that none of these three theories of harm is plausible and that none justifies the proposed across-the-board ban on optional business-to-business QoS transactions between ISPs and content providers.
Abstract: In October 2009, the Federal Communications Commission proposed “net neutrality” regulations, including a new rule that would have the effect of banning optional business-to-business transactions between broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) and content providers for enhanced delivery of packets over the Internet. The proposed “nondiscrimination” rule would have the ironic effect of actively discriminating against any kind of content or application that is differentiated by its need for greater assurance of higher quality transmission across the Internet (known as quality of service, or QoS) than undifferentiated best-effort delivery can offer. This result not only would reduce static efficiency by encouraging higher consumer prices, but also would reduce dynamic efficiency by retarding innovation. The proposed rule manifests an inverse relationship between means and ends, for it would actively thwart the Commission's stated purpose of promoting innovation both in and at the edges of the network. These economic considerations set the bar very high for those who claim that the new regulation is needed to prevent theoretical harms that have not materialized in more than a decade of real-world experience. By now, the economic arguments in favor of network neutrality regulation have coalesced around three principal theories. The first is the theory that, if permitted to charge suppliers of content or applications for optional higher quality delivery, network operators will ignore positive spillover effects and set charges at higher than socially optimal levels. The second is the theory that vertically integrated network operators will foreclose independent providers of Internet content and applications. A third and less clearly articulated theory is that the broadband ISP will degrade the quality of best-effort delivery of Internet packets—reducing the quality of best-effort delivery to that of a “dirt road”—as a means of coercing suppliers of content or applications into purchasing superior QoS. We show that none of these three theories of harm is plausible. Certainly, none justifies the proposed across-the-board ban on optional business-to-business QoS transactions between ISPs and content providers—transactions that could prove particularly valuable to smaller content providers looking to differentiate their offerings from and compete with larger content rivals that have the scale and resources to meet their QoS needs with third-party or self-deployed content delivery networks.

22 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The dynamic capabilities framework as mentioned in this paper analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change, and suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technology change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm.
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.

27,902 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Seeks to present a better understanding of dynamic capabilities and the resource-based view of the firm to help managers build using these dynamic capabilities.
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.

13,128 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange and argue that the new perspectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for marketing, one in which service provision is fundamental for economic exchange.
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

12,760 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the coordination mechanisms through which firms integrate the specialist knowledge of their members, which has implications for the basis of organizational capability, the principles of organization design, and the determinants of the horizontal and vertical boundaries 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.

11,779 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors 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: relation-specific assets, knowledge-sharing routines, complementary resources/capabilities, and effective governance.
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.

11,355 citations