| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中央大學 === 企業管理研究所 === 95 === There are considerable researchers devoted to reveal a phenomenon: “what innovators should do in order to profit from a given innovation?” Two decades ago, an effort was made in “Profit from innovation” (Teece, 1986). He presented three basic building blocks: appropriability regime, complementary assets, and dominant design paradigm to illustrate the phenomenon. Teece not only brought those above concepts into strategic contingency theory, but also opened up a broad scene of technology management. A decade later, Tripsas (1997) argued that the ultimate commercial
performance of incumbents vs. new entrants was driven by the balance and interaction of three factors: “investment, technical capabilities and appropriability through complementary assets.” I present a comparison of these two frameworks and discuss the discrepancies and similarities of them. These two frameworks are initiated from different focus: “project level and firm level”, however, no matter which one you ignore, it may lead to a failure. At the final, I bring the notion of “standard competition” into Teece’s framework in order to enrich the analysis of “dominant design paradigm.”
|
|---|
