摘要
許多研究致力於探討創新者如何從創新中獲利。Teece 為了解釋、探討此一現象，於是在『從創新中獲利』一文中提出了三個基本構成要素：撥用性制度、互補性資產、與主宰設計典範。Teece 不只將此三基本要素帶入策略權變理論中，他也為科技管理開啟了新的領域。在此之後，Tripsas 認為有三個要素分別影響了在位者與新進者之間的績效：投資行為、技術能力、與透過互補性資產撥用創新利潤的能力。本研究針對此兩種架構做出探討與比較，來呈獻它們之間的異同。忽略兩架構之一，可能會導致嚴重的後果。最後本研究以標準競爭的文獻來豐富Teece 架構中的主宰設計典範。
並列摘要
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.”
參考文獻
延伸閱讀
- 高博銓（2001）。反省思考與教學革新。師友月刊，(403)，40-43。https://doi.org/10.6437/EM.200101.0040
- 王英明（1997）。運用創造思考與問題解決模式對科技教育的啓示。中學工藝教育，30(8)，2-8。https://doi.org/10.6232/IAD.1997.30(8).2
- 吳浚碩（2006）。藍海策略對學校創新經營的省思。台灣教育，(642)，48-50。https://doi.org/10.6395/TER.200612.0048
- 曾莕雅（2021）。A Critical Study of Intellectual Property Securitization〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202100925
- 傅麒瑞（2021）。Breakthrough Innovation, Incremental Innovation, and Foreign Direct Investment〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202101661