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.

Reconceptualizing the Corporation and Competition

Abstract: Two somewhat independent shifts are causing academics, businessmen, and policy makers to rethink fundamental ideas about the corporation and competition. The first is the increased level of international competition, particularly from the Japanese and other developmental states which have relentlessly been challenging American and European corporations in the global marketplace. These competitive pressures are leading, at least in some circles, to a re-evaluation of American institutions and policies. The second and more subtle shift is occurring within economics and is driven by a dissatisfaction with orthodox theory. Textbook views of the corporation as a black box, or production function, are giving way to views of the corporation as an institution for economizing on transaction costs, for housing organizational learning, and for capturing value from technological innovation. In addition, some fundamental rethinking is occurring with respect to how corporations ought to cooperate and compete. This latter issue has not gone very far to date, but it will probably become an increasingly important consideration in the years ahead.

Roundtable discussion Nathan Rosenberg Memorial Issue

Abstract: Author(s): Teece, DJ | Abstract: During an Industrial and Corporate Change conference at the University of California, Berkeley in December 2016, a roundtable discussion on "The Legacy of Nathan Rosenberg and the Importance of Economic History" was held on December 12th, 2016. The discussion was chaired by Professor David J. Teece and included Professors David C. Mowery whose introductory comments form the basis of the present Introduction to this Nathan Rosenberg Memorial Issue. It also included roundtable interventions by Professors Kenneth Arrow, Giovanni Dosi, Uve Granstrand, Richard R. Nelson, and Gavin Wright. The following text constitutes a revised version of the contributions by each participant.

Assessing the competition faced by oil pipelines

Abstract: This paper assesses the competition faced by oil pipelines. It also uses a new procedure and new data to test whether oil pipeline markets are competitive or monopolistic, under standard definitions. The key innovation of the paper is a new approach to the definition of the relevant market(s) in which oil pipelines operate. While recognizing that pipeline monopsony also could be a problem under certain conditions, the paper argues that these conditions are unlikely to arise and that if they do, it is unclear whether pipeline owners would be in a position to exploit them. The study offers new evidence to fuel the 80-year-old debate over pipeline rates and regulation.

A Public Policy Evaluation of RAND Decisions in the U.S. Courts

Abstract: Standards-setting organizations (SSOs) typically ask holders of patents that are believed to be “essential” to the manufacture of standards-compliant products (sometimes termed standard-essential patents or “SEPs”) to commit to making licenses available to an “unlimited” number of potential standard users on terms that are “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (RAND), also known as “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND).1 Many commentators have lamented that such SSOs provide little or no guidance on what they mean by RAND royalties or licensing terms. Consequently, disputes over whether particular licensing terms are RAND may occur. Competition authorities in particular have expressed concerns that without clear guidance as to what RAND means, patent holders who have “essential” patents may have some degree of market power over implementers wanting to make standards-compliant products in the relevant technology markets, given the difficulty of collectively changing standards once they have been adopted, and given the desire of implementers to make standards-compliant products. (In some markets, non-compliant products are not commercially viable.) A number of commentators have proposed various criteria that they say reflect what RAND should mean so as to attain some (often not clearly specified) goals or desiderata. As of August 2016, some SSOs have contemplated amending their intellectual property rights (IPR) policies to provide

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.