Integrating Real Option and Dynamic Capability Theories of Firm Boundaries 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984). These include assets such as specialized equipment, human skills, technical knowledge, and organi- zational abilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Dynamic capabilities are regarded as higher-level resources in that they address how firms manage in turbulent environments through reconfiguration or transformation to achieve greater effectiveness (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Zollo & Winter, 2002). This is an alternative view of why firms make the governance choices they do, but it fails to specifically address what resources are best for future competitiveness. Success depends on the firm having superior knowledge about the future value of a resource or making a fortuitous buy (Barney, 1991; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Some have argued that this lack of clarity on resource identification until after the fact makes the RBV/ DC tautological (Priem & Butler, 2001). For these reasons, we believe that early acquisition can be such as acquisition experience, are important in managing integration of acquired firms. If the acquiring firm succeeds with the option play, effective and efficient integration improves the likelihood of a win in the market. Theories of governance or firm boundaries involve what activities the firm will conduct internally and what activities will be conducted outside through market or alliance. As Leiblein (2003) observes, such theories are often treated as independent explanations, whereas integration of relevant theories would enable the development of a more robust theory of governance. Our article represents a step toward that objective, as we argue that neither real options nor the resource based/ dynamic capabilities view is sufficient to explain acquisition patterns in the ICT industry, but that as complements, they can. Though this article is not intended to be an empirical analysis, it does develop a basis for testing the extent to which these