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: Barnett, Jonathan; Baye, Michael R; Cooper, James C; Crane, Daniel A; Elzinga, Kenneth G; Epstein, Richard; Garza, Deborah; Hazlett, Thomas W; Hurwitz, Justin Gus; Klein, Benjamin; Klick,Jonathan; Lambert, Thomas A; Lipsky, Tad; Manne, Geoffrey A; Masten, Scott E; Ohlhausen, Maureen; Rill, James; Rybnicek, Jan; Smith, Vernon L; Teece, David; Wright, Joshua D; Yun
Abstract: Author(s): Barnett, Jonathan; Baye, Michael R; Cooper, James C; Crane, Daniel A; Elzinga, Kenneth G; Epstein, Richard; Garza, Deborah; Hazlett, Thomas W; Hurwitz, Justin Gus; Klein, Benjamin; Klick, Jonathan; Lambert, Thomas A; Lipsky, Tad; Manne, Geoffrey A; Masten, Scott E; Ohlhausen, Maureen; Rill, James; Rybnicek, Jan; Smith, Vernon L; Teece, David; Willig, Robert; Wright, Joshua D; Yun, John M

4 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: In this paper, a revision of the previous edition article by R. Lowe and D.J. Teece is presented, which is based on the previous version of this article.
Abstract: This article is a revision of the previous edition article by R.A. Lowe and D.J. Teece, volume 6, pp. 3574–3578, © 2001, Elsevier Ltd.

4 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The guest editors to the special issue on dynamic capabilities are Asta Pundziene, Asta and David J Teece, David J.
Abstract: Author(s): Pundziene, Asta; Teece, David J | Abstract: An introduction by the guest editors to the special issue on dynamic capabilities.

4 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, 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)

4 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine various conceptual issues raised by the patent wars and conclude that patent wars are the natural consequence of the multi-invention nature and massive growth of the industry and the probabilistic and non-self-enforcing nature of patents with the resulting uncertainty about patent validity and infringement.
Abstract: We examine various conceptual issues raised by the “patent wars” that have occurred in recent years in telecommunications. We conclude that “patent wars” are the natural consequence of the multi-invention nature and massive growth of the industry and the probabilistic and non-self-enforcing nature of patents with the resulting uncertainty about patent validity and infringement, and that concerns about patents have not precluded the successful development and deployment of telecommunications standards or the massive commercial success of new telecommunications technology.

4 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