Technology commercialization (TC) is an important driver of a firm's success (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Li et al., 2008; Zahra and Nielsen, 2002). Many capabilities are needed to achieve the successful commercialization of technology (Zahra et al., 2007), such as excellent embedded technological capabilities and design capabilities that can attract customers through product appearance, effective functions, and high quality. From a capability-based view, regardless of whether an enterprise possesses technological capabilities or design capabilities, both will have positive effects on TC results. Over the past 20 years, Taiwan's ICT firms have continuously developed and improved their technological capabilities in line with an OEM business model, and have successfully obtained TC and established a competitive advantage. But as technology advances at a breakneck pace and global markets become the norm, the OBM business model demands that managers opt for synchronized development of technological capabilities and product design capabilities.
Because the development of technological and design capabilities require different resources, abilities, and procedures, the basic logics of the two types of capabilities are different and somewhat distinct (Christensen, 1995; Rindova and Petkova, 2007). As a consequence, a firm's choice of developing either technological and design capabilities, or engaging in the synchronized development of both, will also affect the firm's allocation of organizational resources and investment strategies. The concurrent development of two types of capabilities will cause the two capabilities to compete for the organization's scare resources. This will cause tension and force the organization to choose between the two types of strategy. In addition, due to organizational inertia, a manager tends to develop a certain existing capability in which the firm already possesses expertise, which in the long-term causes the firm to neglect, and to lack the ability, to develop another capability (March, 1991; Levinthal and March, 1993). These accounts suggest that there is a trade-off relationship between the development of technological and design capabilities, and that it is extremely difficult for organizations to manage the development of these two types of capabilities at the same time.
But as technology has continued to advance and competition has become ever more intense, the successful TC results no longer rely solely on either one type of capability. Good design and good technology are similarly important in the successful achievement of TC, and design capabilities can be used to promote the expression of basic technology (Roy and Riedel, 1997).
Email
For instance, Lojacono and Zaccai (2004) and Ravasi and Lojacono (2005) suggested that product design can improve the process of technology search and innovation, as in the case of updating strategies, and design can consequently be used to encourage technological innovation and provide new developmental directions (Rindova and Petkova, 2007). The empirical findings of Nobel (1995), Jayaram and Narasimhan (2007), and Jang et al. (2009) support this view. The concurrent development of both types of capabilities is often viewed as an ambidextrous strategy.