從創新中獲利的省思

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：11

、訪客IP：3.141.40.192

姓名

鄧道宏(Dau-Hung Deng) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

從創新中獲利的省思
(Contemplations of Teece’s “Profiting from Innovation”)

相關論文

★ 以第四方物流經營模式分析博連資訊科技股份有限公司	★ 探討虛擬環境下隱性協調在新產品導入之作用--以電子組裝業為例
★ 動態能力機會擷取機制之研究－以A公司為例	★ 探討以價值驅動之商業模式創新－以D公司為例
★ 物聯網行動支付之探討-以Apple Pay與支付寶錢包為例	★ 企業資訊方案行銷歷程之探討-以MES為例
★ B2C網路黏著度之探討-以博客來為例	★ 組織機制與吸收能力關係之研究－以新產品開發專案為例
★ Revisit the Concept of Exploration and Exploitation	★ 臺灣遠距醫療照護系統之發展及營運模式探討
★ 資訊系統與人力資訊科技資源對供應鏈績效影響之研究-買方依賴性的干擾效果	★ 資訊科技對知識創造影響之研究-探討社會鑲嵌的中介效果
★ 資訊科技對公司吸收能力影響之研究－以新產品開發專案為例	★ 探討買賣雙方鑲嵌關係影響交易績效之機制 ─新產品開發專案為例
★ 資訊技術運用與協調能力和即興能力對新產品開發績效之影響	★ 團隊組成多元性影響任務衝突機制之研究─ 以新產品開發專案團隊為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

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。

摘要(英)

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.”

關鍵字(中)

★ 互補性資產
★ 主宰設計
★ 標準
★ 撥用性

關鍵字(英)

★ Complementary assets
★ Dominant design
★ Standard
★ Appropriability

論文目次

摘要 …………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅰ
誌謝 …………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅲ
目錄 …………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅳ
圖目錄 ………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅵ
表目錄 ………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅶ
0. Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………………1
1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………2
2. Teece’s framework ……………………………………………………………………………4
2.1 Appropriability regime ……………………………………………………………4
2.2 Complementary assets ……………………………………………………………5
2.3 The dominant design paradigm ………………………………………………6
2.4 Teece’s analysis ………………………………………………………………………6
3. Tripsas’ framework …………………………………………………………………………9
3.1 Investment in developing the new technology …………………………9
3.2 Technical capabilities ……………………………………………………………10
3.3 The ability to appropriate the benefits of technological innovation
through specialized complementary assets ……………………………11
4. Comparisons between these two frameworks …………………………………12
4.1 Discrepancies of these two frameworks ………………………………13
4.2 Similarities of these two frameworks: supply-side
analysis ………………………………………………………………………………14
5. Demand-side analysis: Standard Competition …………………………………16
5.1 Dynamics of standardization ………………………………………………17
5.2 Positioning strategies …………………………………………………………18
5.3 Deciding the degree of openness …………………………………………21
6. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………23
References …………………………………………………………………………………………24

參考文獻

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.

指導教授

陳炫碩(Shiuan-shuo Chen)

審核日期

2007-7-23

推文