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.

Knowledge, Entrepreneurship, and Capabilities: Revisingthe Theory of the MNE

Abstract: Resumen en: The paper begins by briefly presenting the "eclectic" perspective on the multinational enterprise (MNE), then shows how the addition of the concepts of e...

Remarks on Pisano: “toward a prescriptive theory of dynamic capabilities”

Abstract: Author(s): Linden, G; Teece, DJ | Abstract: Pisano's recent ICC article offers some clarity around the pursuit and development of new capabilities, but it overreaches by equating this with dynamic capabilities as a whole. The capabilities that he discusses are, for the most part, simply technologies that can be thought of as "ordinary capabilities". Moreover, his approach isolates capability selection from strategy. Opportunities must be sensed and calibrated and a strategy developed before capability gaps can be identified. Pisano also treats general-purpose capabilities as an option without acknowledging their dependence on the stage of the industry lifecycle. In mature industries, general-purpose technologies are less likely to be relevant. While there is much of value in Pisano's article about technology selection and risk, this is overshadowed by the claims he makes for the magnitude of the article's contribution to dynamic capabilities research.

On the 'Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Unit' Doctrine: An Economic and Public Policy Analysis

Abstract: We discuss the recently developed court-originated legal doctrine that patent infringement damages should use as the damages base the selling price of the “smallest saleable patent practicing unit” (SSPPU). The doctrine appears to have been motivated by concerns that using a broader damages base risks overcompensating patent holders by basing damages on product features the patent holder did not invent. We note that very few real-world licenses use the SSPPU as the royalty base. We discuss a number of conceptual and pragmatic problems with the SSPPU doctrine, including concerns about the fact that the SSPPU may be a component that accounts for only a small fraction of the value of the overall infringing product. In a recent controversial change to its IP policy, the IEEE-SA recently endorsed basing royalties for standards-essential patents on the “smallest saleable compliant Implementation” of the relevant IEEE-SA standard. The most recent appellate court decision on the subject has rejected a categorical rule requiring the use of the SSPPU.

Untangling the Patent Thicket Literature

Abstract: At least 164 papers have defined a ‘patent thicket’ since the first mention of the term in 1988. There is no canonical definition. Instead authors use the term to refer to various combinations of seven different underlying economic issues. An average paper in 2001 used a definition based on 1.2 of these issues, and the complexity of definitions grew by 35% over the following decade. This increase in definitional complexity is partly a response to a growing sophistication in the broader literature on the economics of patents. However, repeat authors are frequently inconsistent in their definitions, and overall there is evidence of a growing confusion concerning patent thickets. Our analysis largely resolves this confusion. It also suggests that ill-advised policy reform efforts, and not patent thickets themselves, threaten the health of the innovation

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.