In 2018, in the Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion section of MOR 14.3, an interesting series of articles was published in the ‘Forum on Tesla and the Global Automotive Industry’, where researchers discussed the future dynamics of the global automotive sector. In their work, Perkins and Murmann (2018) contended that, based on Tesla's success, a well-funded company could develop a new electric vehicle (EV) from scratch and move it into production within three to five years if it would invest one to two billion USD in design, development, and manufacturing. Expressing a contrasting view, MacDuffie (2018) questioned this possibility, arguing that EV product architecture is unlikely to become substantially more modular and any new entrant would therefore have to develop the ordinary capabilities that current automotive original equipment manufacturers possess, and there is no guarantee that a firm can develop such capabilities. Teece (2018) joined the debate by proposing a capability-based framework within which to analyze four paradigm shifts that have marked progress in the global automotive industry: EVs, autonomous vehicles, connected cars, and personal mobility services. He argues that these paradigm shifts have created opportunities for new entrants while posing challenges to incumbent firms. To navigate through the uncertainty associated with these paradigm shifts, incumbent firms need to enhance and refine their dynamic capabilities and leverage their integration skills. Jiang and Lu (2018) based their contribution to this debate on the development of the Chinese EV market. In MOR 15.1, published in 2019, Teece (2019) further elaborated his framework to facilitate analysis of the prospects for Chinese firms seeking a stronger foothold in the global automobile market. All these articles have been well received by MOR readers and were ranked among the top 20 articles in full-text view times between June 2021 and June 2022.

This essay argues that to assess the likelihood that incumbent firms will successfully make the required transformations to their strategy and operations in the face of technological transformations, it is not sufficient to investigate their dynamic capabilities. Whether an incumbent is likely to succeed in its effort to change itself via dynamic capabilities depends also on how quickly start-ups or diversifying entrants can build ordinary capabilities to offer the new technology at scale. We offer a framework to assess dynamic competition that integrates both ordinary and dynamic capabilities into the analysis by systematically comparing incumbents, start-ups, and diversifying entrants. We illustrate the framework with a case study of electric vehicles and aim to show how crucial such comparative analyses are for making well-founded predictions about the likelihood that incumbents will be able to maintain their leadership positions in the future.

This is a follow-up discussion about the Chinese electric vehicle (EV) sector, in particular the relative prospects of traditional automotive manufacturers and new ‘species’, four years after our last conversation on this topic (Jiang & Lu, 2018). It is also a response to Murmann and Vogt's (2022) latest article, which goes beyond Teece's (2019) focus on dynamic capabilities and constructs a systematic framework of firm capabilities to understand the competitive dynamics during a transformational shift of products.

Murmann and Vogt's (2022) analysis of the automobile industry using a capabilities framework that integrates both dynamic and ordinary capabilities supports an informative table which sets out the major relevant capabilities that incumbents, start-ups, and diversifying entrants would need to develop or access via contract or other arrangement (see Murmann and Vogt, 2022, Table 3). Jiang and Lu (2022) have further discussed new industry paradigms which they suggest will greatly challenge – and perhaps overwhelm – automotive industry incumbents. We believe that their insights can be taken a step further by focusing on two areas: first, the greatly increased availability of outsourced manufacturing driven by the shift to electric vehicle (‘EV’) powertrains; and second, the ongoing transformation of the driver and passenger experience that is driven by software–user experience software integrated with networked consumer service ecosystems.

Chinese firms are grappling with the four paradigm shifts around electric, connected, shared, and autonomous vehicles that are roiling the rest of the global auto industry. This article, which follows my earlier MOR article about the auto industry (Teece, 2018a), looks briefly at the development of capabilities in these fields by Chinese firms. It then analyzes the prospects for Chinese firms to use them to gain a stronger foothold in the global market, and for multinationals to continue to prosper in China. The paradigm shifts are creating new entry points for Chinese firms to capture value in the industry, and some potential global contenders have demonstrated solid dynamic capabilities in electric vehicles (Geely), shared vehicles (Didi Chuxing), and autonomous vehicles (Baidu). However, multinationals are also moving forward in the same fields and have strong complementary assets such as respected brands and well-honed dynamic capabilities.

China, the world's largest market for electric vehicles (EV), has put in play a state industrial policy that is seeking to upend global automakers (see Financial Times, October 12, 2017 and May 20, 2018). Exemptions from taxes and subsidy programs have favored the purchasing of an EV, which are also exempt from driving restrictions in large cities such as Beijing and Shanghai. Policies that target manufacturers include meeting production targets for EVs (the so-called dual-credit policy by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology). China may be on the verge of becoming a global disruptor in an industry that has home market advantages of scale, lower fossil fuel imports, and significant reduction of air pollution in cities while exploiting related technologies such as lithium batteries where China has world class industrial competence. It is in China's national interest to be a game changer in the global automotive industry from fossil fuel to electricity. And building infrastructure – supercharging stations included – fits the government-directed approach that aspires to establish the country as an undisputable global leader in a high-tech sector of global significance.

After reading Jacobides, MacDuffie, and Tae (2016), the success of Tesla in launching a new automobile company in a crowded sector puzzled us. Jacobides, MacDuffie, and Tae (2016) had convinced us that developing the capabilities to become the manufacturer of a complete, safe automobile system would be quite difficult. Since the establishment of the dominant design for the auto in the 1920s, the industry has operated on the premise of massive economies of scale. Original equipment manufacturers’ (OEMs) role in taking responsibility for the legal liability of the whole automobile, combined with their extensive supply and marketing chains, has ensured they remained dominant in the sector despite some missteps with modularisation and outsourcing efforts (Jacobides, MacDuffie, & Tae, 2016; Schulze, MacDuffie, & Taube, 2015). No major component supplier has succeeded in forward integrating into becoming an OEM and no new entrants have challenged the dominance of the incumbent OEMs since the earliest days of the auto industry (Jacobides & MacDuffie, 2013).

Perkins and Murmann (2018) advance a provocative thesis, based on Tesla Motors, that ‘a well-funded company could develop a new electric vehicle (EV) from scratch and move it into production within 3 to 5 years. . . .’ This thesis of feasibility – indeed likelihood – of more new entrant EV automakers is at odds with my recent work (e.g., Jacobides, MacDuffie, & Tae, 2016; MacDuffie, 2013) which argues that automotive OEMs have been able to prevent extensive value migration to suppliers and new entrants due to their structural role as system integrators with the capabilities to manage a primarily integral product and organizational architecture. This role is bolstered by societal demands for OEMs to meet regulatory requirements for safety and handle legal liability claims. These structural features have helped automotive OEMs avoid the fate of IBM, which saw massive value migration, after introducing the modular PC, to Intel and Microsoft (suppliers of key components). These same features, I argue, will position these OEMs for continued centrality, forestalling a wave of successful new entrants despite many new, disruptive changes in technology and business models.

This interview contributes to the conversation around the automobile industry by focusing on the Chinese electric vehicle (EV) sector. Both of the discussants’ research interests encompass China's industrial competitiveness, innovation, science and technology policy, and the evolution of Chinese manufacturing industries. Professor Feng Lu, the interviewee, has conducted continuous and substantial fieldwork tracing the development of the Chinese automobile industry. He was one of the first experts to urge the Chinese government to help local automobile manufacturers develop innovation capabilities and proprietary products. Further, his 2005 book, The Policy Choice to Develop China's Automobile Industry with Independent Intellectual Property Rights, profoundly influenced the national policy transition toward emphasizing in-house innovation.

I've been asked to comment on this collection of three papers, each of which offers deep insights into the forces affecting the auto industry, particularly as concerns the relative positions of incumbent auto firms with respect to new electric vehicle entrants. Taken as a whole, the papers open a lens on the changes roiling the automotive sector. In this essay, I'll attempt to widen the aperture and provide a framework for a more systemic analysis of the forces reshaping the industry and the prospects for new entrants.