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。

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.”

1. Arrow, K., “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions”,
In Nelson, T. (ed.), The rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and
Social Factors, pp. 609-625, 1962.
2. Arrow, K., “The Limits of Organization”, Norton, New York, 1974.
3. Arthur, W. B., “Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by
historical events”, Economic Journal, 99, pp. 116-131, 1989.
4. Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M., “The Management of Innovation”, Free Press, New
York, 1996.
5. Christensen, C. and Bower, J., “Customer Power, Strategic Investment, and the
Failure of leading Firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.
197-218, 1996.
6. Galbraith, J., “Designing Complex Organizations”, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA, 1973.
7. Gatignon, H., Tushman, M. L., Smith, W., Anderson P., “A Structural Approach
to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type,
and Characteristics”, Management Science, Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 1103-1122,
2002.
8. Grindley, P., “Standards, strategy, and policy: Cases and stories”, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1995.
9. Henderson, R. M. and Clark, K. B., “Architectural innovation: The
reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established
firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 9-30, 1990.
10. Leonard-Barton, D., “Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in
25
managing new product development”, Strategic Management Journal,
Summer Special Issue, 13, pp. 111-125, 1992.
11. Nelson, R. and Winter, S., “An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change”,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
12. Rosenbloom, R. and Christensen, C., “Technological discontinuities,
organizational capabilities and strategic commitments”, Industrial and
Corporate Change, 3(3), pp. 655-686, 1994.
13. Shurmer, M., “An investigation into sources of network externalities in the
packages PC software market”, Information Economics and Policy, 5, pp.
231-251, 1993.
14. Teece, D. J., “Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for
integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy”, Research Policy, 15
(6), pp. 285-305, 1986.
15. Teece, D. J., “Reflections on “Profiting from innovation” ,” Research Policy, vol.
35(8), pages 1131-1146 , 2006.
16. Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management”, Strategic Management Journal, forthcoming, 1997.
17. Tripsas, M., 1997, “Unraveling the process of creative destruction:
Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 (Summer Special Issue), pp. 119-142,
1997.
18. Tushman, L. M. and Anderson, P., “Technological discontinuities and
organizational environments”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, pp.
439-465, 1986.