DOCSLIB.ORG

Audit Report to the Readers of University of Canterbury and Group’S Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 December 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Audit Report to the Readers of University of Canterbury and Group’S Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 December 2007 Audit Report To the readers of University of Canterbury and Group’s financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2007 The Auditor-General is the auditor of the misstatements that were not corrected, we Independence University of Canterbury (the University) and would have referred to them in our opinion. When carrying out the audit we followed the group. The Auditor-General has appointed The audit involved performing procedures independence requirements of the Auditor- me, Julian Tan, using the staff and resources to test the information presented in the General, which incorporate the independence of Audit New Zealand to carry out the audit financial statements and statement of service requirements of the Institute of Chartered of the financial statements and statement performance. We assessed the results of those Accountants of New Zealand. of service performance of the University and procedures in forming our opinion. In addition to the annual audit of the group, on his behalf, for the year ended 31 Audit procedures generally include: University and its subsidiaries, we perform December 2007. • determining whether significant financial an annual audit of the Vice-Chancellor’s and management controls are working and declaration on the performance-based Unqualified opinion can be relied on to produce complete and research fund external research income In our opinion: accurate data; and other audit-related assignments. These • the financial statements of the University assignments are compatible with those • verifying samples of transactions and independence requirements. and group on pages 49 to 79: account balances; – comply with generally accepted Other than the audit and these assignments, • performing analyses to identify anomalies in we have no relationship with or interests in accounting practice in New Zealand; the reported data; and the University or any of its subsidiaries. • reviewing significant estimates and – fairly reflect: judgements made by the Council; • the university and group’s financial • confirming year-end balances; position as at 31 December 2007; and • determining whether accounting policies are appropriate and consistently Julian Tan • the results of operations and applied; and Audit New Zealand cash flows for the year ended on On behalf of the Auditor-General that date. • determining whether all financial statement Christchurch, New Zealand disclosures are adequate. • the performance information of the University and group on pages 13 to 47 We did not examine every transaction, nor fairly reflects its service performance do we guarantee complete accuracy of the achievements measured against the financial statements and statement of service performance targets adopted for the year performance. ended on that date. We evaluated the overall adequacy of the The audit was completed on 26 March 2008, presentation of information in the financial statements and statement of service Matters relating to the electronic presentation and is the date at which our opinion is of the audited financial statements and expressed. performance. We obtained all the information statement of service performance and explanations we required to support our The basis of our opinion is explained below. This audit report relates to the financial statements opinion above. and statement of service performance of the University In addition, we outline the responsibilities of of Canterbury and Group for the year ended 31 December the Council and the Auditor, and explain our Responsibilities of the council and the auditor 2007 included on the University of Canterbury’s web site. independence. The Council is responsible for preparing The University of Canterbury’s Council is responsible for the maintenance and integrity of the web site. We financial statements in accordance with have not been engaged to report on the integrity of the Basis of opinion generally accepted accounting practice in New web site. Zealand. Those financial statements must fairly We carried out the audit in accordance with We accept no responsibility for any changes that may reflect the financial position of the University have occurred to the financial statements and statement the Auditor-General’s Auditing Standards, and group as at 31 December 2007. They must of service performance since they were initially presented which incorporate the New Zealand Auditing on the web site. also fairly reflect the results of operations and Standards. The audit report refers only to the financial statements cash flows for the year ended on that date. and statement of service performance named above. We planned and performed the audit to The Council is also responsible for preparing It does not provide an opinion on any other information obtain all the information and explanations performance information that fairly reflects which may have been hyperlinked to/from these financial we considered necessary in order to statements and statement of service performance. the service performance achievements for the If readers of this report are concerned with the inherent obtain reasonable assurance that the year ended 31 December 2007. The Council’s risks arising from electronic data communication they financial statements and statement of responsibilities arise from the Education Act should refer to the published hard copy of the audited service performance did not have material 1989 and the Crown Entities Act 2004. financial statements, statement of service performance misstatements whether caused by fraud and related audit report dated 28 March 2007 to confirm We are responsible for expressing an the information included in the audited financial or error. independent opinion on the financial statements and statement of service performance Material misstatements are differences or statements and statement of service presented on this web site. omissions of amounts and disclosures that performance and reporting that opinion to you. Legislation in New Zealand governing the preparation and dissemination of financial statements and would affect a reader’s overall understanding This responsibility arises from section 15 of the statements of service performance may differ from of the financial statements and statement of Public Audit Act 2001 and the Crown Entities legislation in other jurisdictions. service performance. If we had found material Act 2004. 2 University of Canterbury 2007 at a Glance 2004 2005 2006 2007 1 Students enrolled (Headcount) 2 13 430 13 555 13 908 17 966 Equivalent Full-time Students (EFTS) 3 12 731 12 654 12 090 14 646 Full-time Equivalent Academic Staff (FTE) 656 680 681 778 Staff : student ratio 1 : 19.4 1 : 18.6 1 : 17.8 1 : 18.8 EFTStudents Undergraduate – sub-degree 558 495 376 642 Undergraduate – degree 10 272 10 304 10 083 12 215 Total undergraduate 10 830 10 799 10 459 12 857 Postgraduate – taught 917 868 863 955 Postgraduate – research 984 987 768 834 Total postgraduate 1 901 1 855 1 630 1 789 Total returned to Ministry of Education 12 731 12 654 12 090 14 646 Plus contract teaching and unfunded PhDs +219 +222 +239 +82 Total Taught EFTS 12 950 12 876 12 329 14 728 International students enrolled in degree courses (EFTStudent) 1 947 2 006 1 660 1 667 PBRF funding received $1.9m $4.7m $13.6m $22.0m Completed PhD theses 91 64 83 99 Completed Masters theses 187 188 166 207 Operating (All amounts net of GST) 4 In $ 000 In $ 000 In $ 000 In $ 000 Government grant $81 482 $82 716 $79 744 $105 730 Tuition fees $68 346 $71 017 $69 300 $76 001 Research funding 5 $10 462 $19 153 $31 305 $42 315 Cost per EFTStudent $13.9 $14.9 $16.4 $16.7 Capital expenditure (as per cashflow) $19 550 $17 998 $19 334 $30 071 Financial position Fixed assets $420 950 $553 601 $554 779 $700 978 Net current assets (liabilities) ($3 567) $6 072 $18 565 $25 742 1 2007 increases reflect the impact of the merger of the Christchurch College of Education with the University from 1 January, 2007. 2 Excludes UC Opportunity students. 3 EFTStudents Returned to the Ministry of Education. 4 In the “Operating” and “Financial position” sub-sections of this table 2004 and 2005 figures are not comparable with 2006 and 2007 since figures for these latter two years have been prepared in accordance with NZ IFRS (New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards). 5 All figures include PBRF funding received. Annual Report 07 3 “It is with satisfaction that I present the 2007 annual report, and commend it to you as a record of a demanding year in which the University performed admirably and moved ahead in terms of size, quality and reputation.” 44 UniversityUniversity ofof CanterburyCanterbury Chancellor’s Welcome Welcome to the 2007 Annual Report of the phases of the construction project will see Wellington and in October Superintendent University of Canterbury. the progressive refurbishment of the Plant Sandra Manderson left after four years on 2007 was a momentous year as the University and Microbial Sciences building, the Zoology Council to take up a police liaison role in grew in size some 20% following the merger building and the Geological Sciences building. Washington. At the end of the year Ms Bundy with the Christchurch College of Education, A major development during the year was finished her term on Council, and Professor Hempenstall retired from the University and and embarked on a capital development the purchase of the Blue Gene IBM Super the Council. programme after five years of relative Computer, the largest research computer in austerity. Australasia. Council debated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum Vitae DAVID J. TEECE Thomas W. Tusher Professor in Global Business Faculty Director, Tusher Center for The Management of Intellectual Capital Haas Business and Public Policy Group Direct: 510.285.3221 [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D. (Economics) University of Pennsylvania, 1975 M.A. University of Pennsylvania, 1973 M.Comm. (Honors I) University of Canterbury, 1971 B.A. University of Canterbury, 1970 PRESENT POSITIONS Professor of Business Administration, Walter A. Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley, 1982–present; Holder, Thomas W. Tusher Chair in Global Business, 2007–present. Faculty advisor to the Vice Chancellor for Research, full semester, 2016. Faculty Director, Tusher Center for the Management of Intellectual Capital, 2015 – present Chairman & Principal Executive Officer, Berkeley Research Group, 2010-present Honorary Professor, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, 2011–present Honorary Professor of Economics/Business, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, 2011– present Board of Directors, Independent Institute, Oakland, CA, 2013-present Chairman, Board of Trustees, University of Canterbury Foundation, USA, 2014-present Member, Academic Advisory Counsel, European Business School, Weisbaden, Germany, 2016-present Member, International Advisory Committee, Research Center for Technological Innovation of Tsinghua University, 2017-present Member, EXPEC AR International Advisory Council, 2017-Present PREVIOUS POSITIONS Director, Institute for Business Innovation, University of California, Berkeley, 1984–2014 Honorable Professor, China Zhongnan University of Law and Economics, China, 2007– 2014 Holder, Mitsubishi Bank Chair in International Business and Finance, 1989–2007 Director, Institute of Management, Innovation and Organization (IMIO), University of California, Berkeley, 1994–2008 Director, Cnter for Research in Management (CRM), University of California, Berkeley, 1983–1994 Visiting Fellow, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Photo by Chris Crisman
    50PHOTO MAR | APRBY 2008CHRIS THE PENNSYLVANIA CRISMAN GAZETTE ALL BUSINESS David Teece describes himself as a “practicing business intellectual.” That’s not an oxymoron. By Samuel Hughes a sense, it all began with a note from In the late Ed Mansfield. At the time, David Teece G’73 Gr’75 was a graduate student at Penn, having come to Philadelphia from New Zealand to study international economics and industrial organization. That turned out to be the bailiwick of Mansfield, the economics pro- fessor who was internationally recognized for his systematic studies of industry. He had gotten his hands on a paper Teece had written on foreign direct investments, and apparently liked what he saw. “I got this note in my box, saying would I have lunch with Ed Mansfield,” recalls Teece, sitting in the lounge off the Faculty Club during a recent visit to campus. “No other faculty member had ever asked me to have lunch. He said that he was interested in my undergrad thesis and was interested in being my advisor.” Mansfield, Teece recalls, was something of a loner in the economics department, which was then dominated by such legends as Dr. Lawrence Klein Hon’06, now emeritus pro- fessor of economics, who would soon win a Nobel Prize for his work in developing the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Model. As Mansfield saw it, some of the theories that then held sway among economists didn’t always hold water in the fast-changing field of industrial research. “Ed openly displayed almost a disdain for modern economic theory because of the field’s infatuation with static analysis, and its abject failure to embrace the study of technology and technological change,” wrote THE PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE MAR | APR 2008 51 ALL Teece in a 2005 article in the Journal of mer economics professor at Yale.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA the Wharton School Mgmt 925 Dr
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA The Wharton School Mgmt 925 Dr. Harbir Singh Spring, 2018 3456 SHDH 898-6752 [email protected] Seminar on Corporate Strategy _________________________________________________________________________ Course Description This course explores current research on corporate strategy. Over the past two decades, research in the area of corporate strategy has evolved considerably. The fundamental focus of the field has been on sources of competitive advantage at the level of the firm, and the process of building and maintaining competitive advantage. In this class, we explore current research articles that best represent the development of rent-generating resources at the level of the firm. Topics addressed include the concept of strategy, research on the evolution of firm capabilities, competitive interaction, top management teams and strategy formation, and changes in firm scope through acquisitions, divestitures and alliances. Pedagogy and Evaluation This course is taught through a set of readings. A wide range of issues relating to effective research in corporate strategy are discussed. The readings are a mix of theoretical and empirical articles. The intent is to provide multiple theoretical lenses on the topics we address in the course. Using the half-semester format, sessions 1 through 6 of the syllabus below will constitute 1 the course. I have added optional readings after session 6 as indications of topics on corporate scope that could be explored further. Many of these, and higher level readings, will be covered in Mgmt 926 which is offered every other year. You will be required to write a three-page critique of a selected article from the readings assigned for each day.
    [Show full text]
  • What Role for Strategic Management Expertise?
    PANEL II: TOPICS IN ANTITRUST TO WHICH PROFESSOR BRODLEY CONTRIBUTED ANTITRUST – WHAT ROLE FOR STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT EXPERTISE? FELIX OBERHOLZER-GEE & DENNIS A. YAO∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1457 I. WHAT IS STRATEGY? ........................................................................ 1458 II. HOW DOES STRATEGY DIFFER FROM ECONOMICS? .......................... 1461 III. ANTITRUST LAW AND ECONOMICS (AND STRATEGY) ....................... 1464 IV. THE (NON) INFLUENCE OF STRATEGY SCHOLARSHIP ON ANTITRUST LAW – A ROUGH CUT .................................................... 1469 V. WHY HAS STRATEGY HAD LITTLE INFLUENCE IN THE AREA OF ANTITRUST? ...................................................................................... 1475 INTRODUCTION The purpose of antitrust law is to promote competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices. Enforcing antitrust rules thus requires an understanding of what constitutes an anticompetitive business practice; an understanding influenced by both legal precedent and broader knowledge of markets, companies, and competition. This Essay traces the influence of two academic fields – economics and strategic management – on antitrust law. Both fields are natural candidates to influence courts, government competition authorities, and legal scholars, but, as we will document, strategic management appears to have had little influence to date. We begin with a brief description of strategic management
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling a Paradigm Shift: from Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation
    Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation Carliss Baldwin* and Eric von Hippel** November 2009, Revised August 2010 MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper # 4764-09 Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper No. 10-038 SSRN download url: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1502864 *Harvard Business School ([email protected]) **MIT Sloan School of Management ([email protected]) ABSTRACT In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that both innovation by individual users and open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with and may displace producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We explain why this represents a paradigm shift with respect to innovation research, policymaking, and practice. We discuss important implications and offer suggestions for further research. 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1502864 Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation 1. Introduction and Overview Ever since Schumpeter (1934) promulgated his theory of innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic development, economists, policymakers, and business managers have assumed that the dominant mode of innovation is a “producers’ model.” That is, it has been assumed that most important designs for innovations would originate from producers and be supplied to consumers via goods and services that were for sale. This view seemed reasonable on the face of it – producer-innovators generally profit from many users, each purchasing and using a single, producer-developed design.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. David J. Teece
    MEDIA CONTACT: Suzanna Mannion [email protected] (707) 849-4234 Dr. David J. Teece Mt. Beautiful Founder David Teece is the quintessential Kiwi: curious, adventuresome and utterly devoted to his home country. His family arrived in New Zealand in the 1860s from Shropshire, England, eager to seize fresh opportunities in a country undergoing a massive gold rush. They landed in Lower Moutere, an area known for hops, sheep and dairy at the time, but which has since become regarded as an excellent region for viticulture. Being raised by generations of farmers shaped David's work ethic, resourcefulness and business acumen from an early age; being a New Zealand boy through and through instilled in him a deep love of the outdoors, along with the desire to experience everything this rugged, expansive landscape offered. “It’s almost impossible not to be outdoorsy when you are in New Zealand,” David declares, recalling times spent boating, fishing, hiking and the occasional hair-raising river crossing by what he describes as “hanging on for grim death” to a set of wires. That rough-and-tumble New Zealand boy grew up to be one of the world's most highly cited scholars in business and economics. In addition to founding Mt. Beautiful Wines and Teece Family Vineyards & Farms, David J. Teece is the Tusher Professor in Global Business at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. He is also the director of Tusher Center for Intellectual Capital. David has authored over 30 books and 200 scholarly papers, and he is co-editor of the Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas H. Brush
    Curriculum Vita Thomas H. Brush Personal: Krannert School of Management 2510 Nottingham Place Office 418, Krannert Building West Lafayette, IN 47906 403 W. State Street (765) 463-7784 West Lafayette, IN 47907-2056 Phone: (765) 494-4441 Fax: (765) 494-9658 e-mail: [email protected] Home Page: http://www.krannert.purdue.edu/faculty/brusht Krannert home page: http://www.krannert.purdue.edu/ Employment History: 2017- Professor, Management, Strategic Management Area Head, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University 2013-17 Professor, Management, Strategic Management Area Senior Associate Dean, Head, Management Department Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University 2012-13 Professor, Management, Strategic Management Area Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University 2000-2011 Associate Professor, Management, Strategic Management Area Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University 2001 Visiting Research Scholar, T. J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corporation, Yorktown Heights, NY. 1992-1999 Assistant Professor, Management, Strategic Management Area Purdue University, Krannert Graduate School of Management 1990-1992 Assistant Professor, Management, Strategic Management Area University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management 1982-1983 Research Assistant for Professor William Lazonick of Harvard University, Department of Economics, on a grant from Svenskahandelsbanken and American Museum of Textile History for research on endogenous technical change in U.S. Textile industry. 1979-1982 Research Assistant for Professors William Lazonick and Stephen Marglin of Harvard University, Department of Economics, on a grant from National Science Foundation for research on international, comparative, and historical studies of the determinants of technical change in the coal, textile, steel and shipbuilding industries. 1 Academic Background: 1986-1990 University of Michigan Economics and Business Administration, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation Berkeley
    Open Innovation at the Garwood Center for Corporate Innovation Innovation @ Berkeley SPRING 2018 ISSUE What is a Moonshot? Professor Chesbrough’s new MBA course explores Organizational Moonshots Henry Chesbrough’s new moonshot course looks at organizations who intentionally set extremely ambitious innovation objectives, where incremental innovation cannot get the job done. This process of creating and executing a non-incremental, radical project is called an “organizational moonshot”. The process is examined against a backdrop of how society transforms new science into new progress, and how it looks at organizations in private, public and non-profit contexts. The course looks at both successful and unsuccessful cases, and discusses the internal organization of each initiatives, as well as their external objectives. Instead of looking at how firms can unlock incremental or radical innovation, the class aims to understand how and why firms pursue and implement moonshots. Berkeley Innovation Forum, Fall 2017 Challenges In Transitioning To New Business Models In the rapidly changing landscape, companies require a new way of thinking–– in Newsletter Content today’s digital world, it is almost impossible to hold on to the old business model. The driver for these changes is understanding customer behavior. At the Berkeley What is a Moonshot? 1 Innovation Forum, mangers of leading companies shared their challenges in WOIC 2017 Industry Challenges 2 transitioning to new business models. Companies like Fujitsu, Wipro, Standard Chartered Bank, IBM and Renault-Nissan talked about the lessons learned and Henry’s Corner - Open Innovation Research 3 the biases to overcoming barriers for innovation. Corporate executives expressed Open Innovation, Global Impact 4 the importance of Open Innovation, and how the open innovation ecosystem helps Garwood Highlights 6 facilitate innovation and business model breakthrough.
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Technologies and the Role of Private Firms: a Machine Learning Matching Analysis
    This article was downloaded by: [171.66.160.64] On: 10 December 2020, At: 08:38 Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA Strategy Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://pubsonline.informs.org Enabling Technologies and the Role of Private Firms: A Machine Learning Matching Analysis Jason M. Rathje, Riitta Katila To cite this article: Jason M. Rathje, Riitta Katila (2020) Enabling Technologies and the Role of Private Firms: A Machine Learning Matching Analysis. Strategy Science Published online in Articles in Advance 07 Dec 2020 . https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2020.0112 Full terms and conditions of use: https://pubsonline.informs.org/Publications/Librarians-Portal/PubsOnLine-Terms-and- Conditions This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact [email protected]. The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or support of claims made of that product, publication, or service. Copyright © 2020, INFORMS Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages With 12,500 members from nearly 90 countries, INFORMS is the largest international association of operations research (O.R.) and analytics professionals and students. INFORMS provides unique networking and learning opportunities for individual professionals, and organizations of all types and sizes, to better understand and use O.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Christina Fang
    Christina Fang Department of Management and Organization Phone: 212-998-0241 New York University Fax: 212-995-4234 44 West 4th Street, Suite 7-62 Email: [email protected] New York, NY 10012-1126 http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~cfang/ EDUCATION PhD Strategic Management (August 2003) MA Management Science & Applied Economics (August 2001) The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania BA Accountancy & Business (May 1997) Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ACADEMIC POSITIONS Assistant Professor Department of Management, New York University 2003 - 2009 Associate Professor Department of Management, New York University (Untenured) 2010 - 2012 Associate Professor Department of Management, New York University (Tenured) 2012 (January) – RESEARCH INTERESTS Organizational Learning, Strategic and Behavioral Decision Making, Strategic Management. PUBLICATIONS Journal Publications 1. Jerker Denrell, Christina Fang, and Chengwei Liu. 2019. In Search of Behavioral Opportunities from Misattribution of Luck. Academy of Management Review. 44(4). 896– 915. 2. Christina Fang and Jason Kim. 2018. The Power and Limits of Modularity: A Replication and Reconciliation. Strategic Management Journal. 39. 2547-2565. 3. Chengwei Liu, Ivo Vlaev, Christina Fang, Jerker Denrell and Nick Chater. 2017. Strategizing with Biases: Makinf Better Decisions using the Mindspace Approach. California Management Review (special issue on Behavioral Strategy and Management Practice). 59(3). 135-161. [WoS 1; Google 12] Page 1 of 3 4. Jerker Denrell, Christina Fang, and Chengwei Liu. 2015. Chance Explanations in Management Sciences. Organization Science. 26(3). 923-940. (Perspective Article). [WoS 15; Google 49] 5. Melissa Schilling and Christina Fang. 2014. When Hubs Forget, Lie and Play Favorites: Interpersonal Network Structure, Information Distortion and Organizational Learning.
    [Show full text]
  • DAVID J. TEECE David Teece Is the Tusher Professor in Global
    DAVID J. TEECE David Teece is the Tusher Professor in Global Business and the Director of the Tusher Center on Intellectual Capital at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also Founder and Chairman of Berkeley Research Group, LLC (‘BRG’), for which he also consults. Berkeley Research Group is the second professional services company Dr. Teece has founded. The first, LECG, went public first on the NYSE and subsequently on the NASDAQ. David Teece is the lead author of the most cited paper in the scientific journals, economics and business combined, 1995-2005. Teece is ranked number 10 in citations worldwide in economics and business by Science Watch (Thomson Reuters). Other publications include two volumes of published papers by Edward Elgar (London) in “Economists of the Twentieth Century” titled, Economic Performance and the Theory of the Firm and Strategy and Technology and Public Policy . He is also the co-author of over 200 articles and books on topics in innovation strategy, intellectual property, and antitrust policy. Highly cited papers include ones on intellectual property, licensing, cross licensing, and business strategy, including intellectual property strategy. Outside of academia, David Teece has served as an expert witness in numerous courts, administrative bodies and tribunals in the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. He has testified on matters implicating antitrust, competition policy, FRAND, and intellectual property damages. His Ph. D in economics was granted by the University of Pennsylvania in 1975. He has also been recognized with 4 honorary doctorates, the Accenture list of the Top 50 Living Business Intellectuals, the 2002 Viipuri International Prize in Strategic (Technology) Management and Business Economics, and the 2003 Strategic Management Journal Best Paper Award, the Eminent Scholar Award from the Academy of International Business 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • How History Shaped the Innovator's Dilemma
    How History Shaped the Innovator’s Dilemma Tom Nicholas Working Paper 21-014 How History Shaped the Innovator’s Dilemma Tom Nicholas Harvard Business School Working Paper 21-014 Copyright © 2020 by Tom Nicholas. Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Funding for this research was provided in part by Harvard Business School. 1 How History Shaped the Innovator’s Dilemma Tom Nicholas Harvard Business School July 2020 Abstract In 1993, four years prior to the publication of Clayton Christensen’s highly influential book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, the Business History Review (BHR) published an article by Christensen titled “The Rigid Disk Drive Industry: A History of Commercial and Technological Turbulence.” The BHR piece relates the theory of disruptive innovation to Alfred D. Chandler’s work on large vertically integrated enterprises. It was published during a pivotal era of scholarship on innovation, management practice and industry evolution, much of which used the history of firms, industries and technologies to build theory. I survey the impact and critiques of Christensen’s research agenda highlighting how it illustrates where the boundaries associated with the “lessons of history” should be drawn. 1 I thank Walter Friedman, Geoff Jones, Josh Lerner, Rory McDonald, Richard Tedlow, Mary Tripsas, Mike Tushman, Derek Van Bever and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and constructive criticisms. Funding was provided by the Division of Research and Faculty Development at Harvard Business School.
    [Show full text]