Author
David J. Teece
Other affiliations: Yale University, University of Michigan, University of California ...read more
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 published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors defined technology transfer and the production of knowledge, and the sample definition of technology transfer costs and the level of transfer costs, as well as the characteristics of the technology/transferor characteristics.
Abstract: The following sections are included:IntroductionTechnology Transfer and the Production of KnowledgeThe SampleDefinition of Technology Transfer CostsTransfer Costs: Data and HypothesesThe Level of Transfer CostsTechnology/Transferor CharacteristicsTransferee and Host Country CharacteristicsDeterminants of the Cost of International Technology Transfer: Tests and ResultsThe ModelStatistical Tests: Phase IStatistical Tests: Phase IIDefferences between International and Domestic Technology TransferConclusionReferences
1,068 citations
TL;DR: There is a need for future empirical work to flesh out the details of the relationships between business models, dynamic capabilities, and strategy, and studies that provide a better understanding of business model innovation, implementation, and change are needed.
1,038 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that strong dynamic capabilities are necessary for fostering the organizational agility necessary to address deep uncertainty, such as that generated by innovation and the associated dynamic competition, and explore the mechanisms by which managers may calibrate the required level of organizational agility, deliver it cost effectively, and relate it to strategy.
Abstract: “Organizational agility” is often treated as an immutable quality, implying that firms need to be in a constant state of transformation. However, this ignores that such transformations, while often essential, come at a cost. They are not always necessary, and may not even be possible. This article explores agility at a more fundamental level and relates it more specifically to dynamic capabilities. It demonstrates that it is first essential to understand deep uncertainty, which is ubiquitous in the innovation economy. Uncertainty is very different from risk, which can be managed using traditional tools and approaches. Strong dynamic capabilities are necessary for fostering the organizational agility necessary to address deep uncertainty, such as that generated by innovation and the associated dynamic competition. This article explores the mechanisms by which managers may calibrate the required level of organizational agility, deliver it cost effectively, and relate it to strategy.
964 citations
TL;DR: The dynamic capabilities framework has had a significant impact on strategic management theory and practice, but the sizable literature on the topic has not always been unified as discussed by the authors, highlighting key elements that have been omitted or poorly integrated into the dynamic capabilities literature: the role of individual action by entrepreneurial managers, role of resources, strategy, and distinction between ordinary and dynamic capabilities.
Abstract: The dynamic capabilities framework has had a significant impact on strategic management theory and practice, but the sizable literature on the topic has not always been unified. This paper begins with a restatement of the framework encompassing clarifications and extensions that have occurred since it was introduced. The paper highlights key elements that have been omitted or poorly integrated into the dynamic capabilities literature: the role of individual action by entrepreneurial managers, the role of resources, strategy, and the distinction between ordinary and dynamic capabilities. Dynamic capabilities is advanced as a multidisciplinary framework to explain long-run enterprise performance. Ambidexterity and other related frameworks are tailored versions of dynamic capabilities. Linkages between (strategic) management theory and (Austrian) economic theory are explored. The concepts of x-inefficiency and d-ineffectiveness are compared.
962 citations
TL;DR: The authors examines the relationship between strategic management and economics and provides a guide to the eight papers contained in the special issue, and offers the guest editors viewpoints on the contributions of each discipline to the other.
Abstract: This essay examines the relationship between strategic management and economics It introduces the special issue on this same topic by providing a guide to the eight papers contained in the special issue, and it offers the guest editors viewpoints on the contributions of each discipline to the other The essay notes the major contribution from economics has been primarily from the industrial organization literature, with promises of important gains to be made from the ‘new’ economics as it breaks away from the neoclassical theory of the firm Contributions from strategic management to economics are noted Areas for further research utilizing the relationship between strategic management and economics are also indicated
949 citations
Cited by
More filters
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
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
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
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
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