Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

121

Factors Affecting Commercialization of AgriculturalInnovation in Kermanshah Science and TechnologyPark, Iran

Nasibeh Pourfateh 1, Nader Naderi 2 and Farahnaz Rostami 3*

Keywords: agricultural innovation;commercialization; scienceand technology parks; Struc-tural Equation Modeling

Received: 18 January 2015,Accepted: 04 September 2015 Science and technology parks have been a major driver of

both the commercialization of agricultural innovation andthe financial success of many farm and agribusiness firms.Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to explain thefactors affecting commercialization of agricultural innovationin Kermanshah Science and Technology Park. The experts ofthis center were sampled by the census method (N=110).Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data.Research findings indicated that factors affecting commercial-ization of agricultural innovation in Kermanshah Science andTechnology Park included support of small and mediumenterprise firms, relationship of parks with universities and re-search centers, and consequence of commercialization for agri-cultural sectors and research centers.

Abstract

International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD)Available online on: www.ijamad.iaurasht.ac.irISSN: 2159-5852 (Print)ISSN:2159-5860 (Online)

1 M.Sc., Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran2 Assistant Professor, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran3 Assistant Professor, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran * Corresponding author’s email: fr304@yahoo.com

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

122

INTRODUCTIONProviding a context of science leads to economic

and technological growth for society and alsoeconomic value for organizations. The com-mercialization of innovation is so importantthat many research institutes have recognizedthe commercialization of their innovations usingcollaboration in research projects and consultation.Studies have shown that science and technologyparks are still at the beginning of their activitiesand they have not been fully matured in structuraland institutional (Arasteh & Jahed, 2010). Theweak relationship of knowledge production cen-ters such as universities and research centerswith industry is the one of the barriers to thecommercialization of science. Because of theimportance of these problems, this study is in-tended to explain the factors affecting commer-cialization of innovations which output the agri-cultural faculties and agricultural research centersand its consequences to help managers andpolicy makers to leave old pattern and it is themost important feature for organization devel-opment (Arasteh & Jahed, 2010). Jimenez andCegarra (2008) relate it to the fact that organi-zations that have the capacity for innovationwill be able to respond to environmental chal-lenges faster and better than non-innovative or-ganizations and this in turn increase performances.The commercialization process of innovation isclosely related to transfer of innovation and onthe other hand it innovation transfer processfrom research centers to industry. Commercial-ization starts with the development of an idea,takes shape with the production of goods andthe development-based services, and completeswith the sale of goods and services to the endusers. Commercialization is also considered asan innovation transfer from a person to anotheror from a group to another group. Aghajani andTalebnejad (2011) proposed a framework withfour dimensions of personnel management, in-frastructures, service, and output to evaluategrowth centers in Iran. Infrastructure includeslocation, physical features required for growthcenter, management includes managers who cancoach and founder of the new company and fa-miliar with business, service includes office

and business support services and administration,and outputs are products and services generatedby the technological growth center. They con-cluded that the role of the growth center of theprocess and acts is more than its effect on thegained results by companies. The mentionedfactors are divided into seven categories includingstructural factors, political factors, funding,high-risk, intellectual property systems, humanfactors, and cognitive and attitudinal factors.Arasteh and Jahed (2010) noted six roles forscience and technology park in commercializa-tion: generating and remaining competitive,supporting small companies, improving mutualrelations with the government, academia, andsociety, technology entrepreneurship, creatingopportunity for knowledge workers and em-ployers, and working on risk reduction projectsin science and technology. Sanni et al. (2010)stated that critical success factors for parks arephysical facilities, low-cost incubator space,enough funding, strong regional universities of-fering graduate programs in management andengineering. Vila and Pages (2008) believe thatcritical factors influencing the success of parksare open standards and official activities, strongconnection with the university and full-timeprofessional management. Law (2005) has pro-vided a framework for the assessment of tech-nology incubators in the science and technologypark, namely the sharing of resources, resourceintegration, consulting services, geographic prox-imity, and budget subsidies. Fukugawa (2006)showed that the science park in Japan based onnew technology has more willingness to partic-ipate in collaborative research with institutions.Sohn and Moon (2004) provided a model toidentify structures influencing the commercial-ization of the technology and assess the successof technology commercialization. They dividedthese factors into four categories: methods oftechnology transfer, technology transfer, tech-nology receptors, and environmental conditions.Siegel and Westhead (2003) have stated thatthe main barriers to effective technology transferfrom university to industry are cultural gap be-tween industry and academia, lack of flexibility,bureaucracy, poor reward systems and other

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

123

management non-effective technology transferoffices. Shinn and Lamy (2006) believe that theway for commercialization of knowledge is thatthe boundaries between universities, researchcenters, and enterprises should be removed orwiped out. Arasteh and Jahed (2010) dividedthe general role of science and technology parksin commercialization into six stages. We presentthem with a little change here in five stages.These steps include: supporting small and mediumfirms, improving the relationship between gov-ernment, society and universities, technology en-trepreneurship, reducing risk science and tech-nology projects, and creating opportunities forknowledge workers (Figure 1). So the main pur-pose of this study was to explain the factors af-fecting commercialization of agricultural innovationin Kermanshah Science and Technology Park.

MATERIALS AND METHODSThe study was designed as a descriptive-correlation

survey to determine components of the agriculturalinnovation and commercialization model andachievements of commercialization in the Centerof Agricultural Science and Technology Park inKermanshah Province by using a confirmatoryfactor analysis. The method tests specific hypothesesabout the structure of factor loadings and their in-ternal consistency (Statsoft, 2009; Pallant, 2010).A total of 110 expert members of Science andTechnology Park in Kermanshah Province wereselected by the census method as a statisticalpopulation because of its small size. Structuralequation modeling and multivariate analysis of

variance were used to analyze the data. For thepurpose of this study, a four-part questionnairewas developed. Part 1 was the cover letter ex-plaining the objective of the study for respondents.Part 2 included questions about personal char-acteristics such as age, level of education, orga-nizational position, career history, and field ofstudy. Part 3 explained factors affecting com-mercialization of agricultural innovation, in-cluding supporting small and medium-size firmsor SMEs (Y1), improving relations among gov-ernment, universities and society (Y2), technologycreation (Y3), risk reduction of Science andTechnology Projects (Y4), and an opportunityfor researchers and employers (Y5). Part 4 in-cluded results and consequence of commercial-ization in this sectors: agriculture (Z1), Scienceand Technology Park (Z2), university (Z3) andindustry (Z4). In these two parts, the respondentswere asked to quantify the items on a five-point Lickert scale. The mean scores were cal-culated and responses to importance were ranked.A panel of experts validated the instrument forface and content validity. Mean Cronbach'salpha for part 3 (α=0.84) and part 4 (α=0.88)was found to be 0.86, which made the Lickertscale sufficiently reliable (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe results of personal features showed that

professional experts had an average age of 30years, and also around 4.4 years’ experience.The study of organizational position of respon-dents indicated that 57 percent of staff experts

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Research

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

124

and are the rest of the post was directing man-agers. Educational status of the respondents in-dicated that 60% of participants had a bachelor'sdegree, 85 percent had studied in the field ofagriculture (Agriculture Extension, Animal Sci-ence, Machinery, Water engineering, Soil science,and Plant pathology), and 15 percent were inthe industry and the economic fields (Table 1).

Importance and priority of agricultural in-novation, commercialization process

As can be seen in Table 2, in cooperation ofthe Park with the private sector, has the mostimportant, in support of small and medium en-terprises and also attract credit from various in-stitutions (private and public) has been the leastimportant. Overall, the average rating for thesupport of small and medium enterprises isequal to 4.11 from 5. Also in the park relationshipswith universities and research centers, the results

suggest that effective communication betweenpark management and local executive authoritieshas the highest importance and communicationbetween the park with the research, educationand extension service has the lowest importance.In general, the average rating of factors associatedwith universities and research centers is equalto 4.01 out of 5. From the studied experts’ pointof view, the availability of scientific and highquality skills has the highest importance andthe creation of a platform for cooperationbetween inventors and investors has the lowestimportance. Generally, average ratings of theimportance of technological entrepreneurship,commercialization of agricultural innovationsis equal to 3.97 out of 5. In risk reduction stageof science and technology projects, specializedtraining and awareness courses, short-term andlong-term feasibility of entrepreneurship andstartup companies, has the highest importance

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Item Frequency Percent Cumulativepercentage Mean SD Mode

Age (years)

Level of education

Organizationalposition

Years of experience

Field ofStudy

≤2627-3334-4041-47≥48

DiplomaBachelorMasterPh.D.

Directing ManagerExpert

1-3 years4-9 years

10-16 yearsMore than 17

AgronomyAgricultural Extension

Animal ScienceAgricultural Machinery

Water EngineeringSoil Science

Plant PathologyIndustry and other

fields

12741761

1066322

53

57524882

251814

105

31030

10.967.315.55.9.4

9.160

29.11.8

48.2

51.547.343.67.31.8

22.7216.3612.72

9.094.54

2.729.9

27.27

10.978.293.799.61009.1

69.198.210048.2

10047.390.998.2100

22.7239.0851.80

60.8965.43

68.1578.05100

30.8

4.4

5.25

3.47

28

BachelorExpert

5

Industry

Table 1Personal Characteristics of Respondents

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

125

and availability of evaluating the regularity ofmeasure effectiveness of implementing projectshas the lowest importance. In addition, the average

rating for reducing the risk factors related toscience and technology projects is equal to 3.84out of 5. In the field of opportunity for knowledge

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Item Mean SD Rank

Small and medium enterprise supportProviding appropriate physical facilities for each project, including laboratory equipmentAttracting different credit agencies (private and public)Specialized educational services provided by the parkAvailability of widespread electronic communication related industries based on agri-cultural productionScience and Technology Park in collaboration with the private sectorOrganizing seminars, expert meetings and educational courses develop the scienceand technology by the parkAvailability of clear mechanisms and structures for the management of intellectual prop-erty through patents and protect its research findingsGranting funds in accordance with the needs of new companies at every stage of theirdevelopmentAvailability of financial and legal incentives and support companyParks relationships with universities and research centersEffective communication between park management and local executive authorities,provinces, universities and research centersProximity of the park to the universities and research centersCommunication and information exchange network and services between companiesand universities in parkRelationship between the park with the Research, Education and Extension ServiceOptimal use of existing capacities of universities, research institutes, manufacturing andservice organizations.Park relationship associated with academic professionals and faculty membersJoint research projects between universities and IT companiesTech EntrepreneursConsulting services - commercial and business education and marketing of science andtechnology parkAssistance in the utilization of capital and preparation for commercialization and mar-keting of new ideas, commercialization of R&D and innovative activitiesProvision of field research projects related to technologies, processes, methods and new ideasThe availability of scientific expertise and high quality business skillsCreating cooperation between inventors and investorsAvailability of positive interactions between firmsThe use of services, resources and facilities shared by academic institutions and indus-try in the production technologyScience and technology risk reduction projectsHaving plans to support companies in the first phase of new product sales (such assupport for the exhibition)Having a team of market professionalsAvailability of a combination of the functional and risk teams in organizing new productsAbility to predict long-term regular basis to make investment decisionsThe infrastructure necessary to develop technologies such as workshopsAvailability of assessment system for the effectiveness of implementing projectsSpecialized training and briefings and short term and long term courses in entrepre-neurship and emerging enterprisesOpportunity for knowledge workers and employersAvailability of marketing plans groupsAttracting and retaining staff, researchers and managers do high-quality Agricultural SciencesThe use of information technology to diagnose Park Mall, process, creation of new methodsfor identifying customer needs and meeting customer requirements, client needs and serviceBeing close to the areas and towns, industrial parks and major transportation centerssuch as international airports

4.104.004.183.95

4.254.03

4.04

4.18

4.22

4.12

3.883.98

4.014.08

4.014.00

4.04

4.01

3.943.964.033.883.91

3.993.95

3.843.803.803.553.96

3.803.753.94

3.37

1.051.050.870.77

0.691.00

0.83

0.9

0.97

0.88

0.920.95

1.040.93

0.920.95

0.83

0.87

0.820.771.010.960.88

0.980.98

0.890.991.001.050.89

1.020.980.95

1.05

8942

17

3

5

6

1

56

72

34

2

4

31765

34

25671

321

4

Table 2The Prioritization of Factors Affecting the Commercialization of Agricultural Innovation and Its Items

Scale: (1=very low, 2=low, 3=average, 4= high, 5= very high)

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

126

workers and their employers, Park usage of in-formation technology to identify markets, creatingnew methods and process, and identifying customerneeds and satisfying customer needs and servicehas the highest importance and also park proximityto industrial area and major transportation centerssuch as international airports has the lowest im-portance. Overall, the average rank of factors af-fecting opportunity for knowledge workers andemployers is equal to 3.79 out of 5.

In addition to explaining each of the componentsof the five-fold in the commercialization of agri-cultural innovation factor, we have used analyticalverification factor. For this purpose, the structuralloadings of each indicator on the commercializationof innovation in Agricultural Science and Tech-nology Park are estimated by t-value to evaluatetheir significance. At this stage, first-order factorand structural equation model were used to assessthe role of indicators used for the formation ofthe Science and Technology Park in the commer-

cialization of agricultural innovation analysis.Regarding Table 3, it is indicated that all indicators

of structural performance in commercialization ofScience and Technology Innovation Park have t-value of greater than 1.96. Therefore, the hypothesisof being 0 which means it is not significant isrejected and significant relation based on the con-formation analytical factor is confirmed. The resultsshow that all selective indicators for assessingstructural role in the commercialization of innovationsin Agricultural Science and Technology Park areenough prices and also their validity and reliabilityare confirmed. According to the parameters givenin Table 4, it can be seen that the Science andTechnology Park Performance measurement modelstructures in agricultural innovation to commer-cialization have acceptable fitting index indicatorsfor each construct is valid and acceptable. Externalmodel in AMOS software showed, evaluated fittedmodel for commercialization of agricultural inno-vation with variable affected (Figure 2).

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Structure Indicator Evaluated Parameter t-value SE AVE CR α

Science and technology park performance in

agriculture productcommercialization

Y5Y4Y3Y2Y1

0.7010.8000.7800.7040.824

---7.5347.3696.7127.795

---0.1440.1290.1440.122

0.51 0.81 0.94

Table 3Factor Loading Model

Fitting index Acceptabilityindex

Reported value

Chi-square with degrees of freedomNFI, Soft indicators fitnessAdaptive fitness index, CFIIndicators of Compliance, GFIThe mean squared residue, RMRThe square root of the estimated variance of the error of approximation, RMSEA

≤30.90 ≤0.90 ≤0.90 ≤≤ 0.05≤ 0.08

1.920.960.980.960.010.09

Table 4Fitting Index Model

Figure 2. Evaluated Fitted Model for Commercialization of Agricultural Innovation

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

127

Importance and priority of outcomes andconsequences of commercialization of agriculturalinnovations

As shown in Table 5, the results and outcomes

of commercialization in agriculture, “the pro-motion of entrepreneurship and business devel-opment innovation in agriculture” is the mostimportant factor, and the “protection of natural

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

α Items Mean SD Rank

0.91

AgriculturePromotion of entrepreneurship and business development of innovative technologies inagriculturePromotion of science and technology, agriculture, reducing gaps in knowledge and tech-nology sectorShaping and implementation of innovation networks in agriculture through improved in-teraction and collaboration among science and technology universities, manufacturers,markets and other systemsDevelopment of the market and increase in the value-added chain of production andwealth creation in agricultureEnhancement of the quality of agricultural productionIncreasing rural incomes and farmersLonger life cycle in agricultural technology (using supplementary technology)Increasing prosperity in the rural small businesses affiliated with minor processing industriesIncreased innovation in agricultural production and expanding consumer marketsGDP growth in local areaIncreasing concentration of capital in the manufacturing sector by reducing importedtechnologiesProtection of natural resources through greater compliance with environmental technologyScience and Technology ParkPromoting a culture of innovation and constructive competition among companies andinstitutions based in the science parkPartnership and collaboration with professionals as a resource for teaching and appliedresearch and economic developmentAchieving technology-driven economic developmentMinimizing duplication of research and development through frequent contact and ex-change of ideas among researchers, institutionsFacilitating the process of technology transfer to industryEconomic development zoneMore cooperation between the universities and research institutes and industry parkPromoting economic development and increasing the value of investments in the fieldof technologyCompatible favorable environment to attract academics and scientists, companies andentrepreneurs who want to start new investmentCreating innovations in science and technologyInvestments in science, research, technology development and training opportunitiesUniversities and research centersDevelopment of infrastructure and capacity for research and technology in universitiesand research centersDevelopment and evolution of organizational structure and management of universitiesand research centers in cooperation with another resourcePromoting investment and intellectual property at universities and research centers withrespect to the ideas and technologyEvolution and synergies towards achieving the university's mission of university entrepreneursIncreasing the efficiency and effectiveness of academic research findings in the field ofagriculture through improved resultsImproving the social status of universities and research centersIncreasing agriculture students transfer and employment using with the developmentof technology-based businessesDirecting and making more real of universities, research programs and research centersEarning funds for universities and research centers (reducing dependence on public funding)Increasing the social value of urban agriculture disciplinesIndustryIndustry support and enhance the ability to export engineering services abroadEnhancing export competitiveness in domestic and gain higher share in world tradeRaising the level of design and construction of the domestic productsPromotion of new technologies and production using advanced technologiesCreation of new jobs and new field of activity for professional work forcesThe development of related industries, both upstream and downstreamCreating confidence in the applied research and development

4.24

4.50

4.01

4.18

4.074.093.954.074.084.004.08

3.81

4.02

3.98

3.923.98

3.854.033.953.90

3.923.80

4.11

4.03

3.94

4.013.96

3.933.91

3.983.793.86

4.34

3.983.973.883.874.003.793.90

0.76

0.84

0.75

0.79

0.820.860.850.910.920.940.97

1.00

0.85

0.87

0.860.89

0.870.920.940.98

1.011.12

1.95

0.80

0.84

0.860.85

0.880.93

0.980.991.12

0.79

0.950.990.990.991.040.991.16

1

2

3

4

567891011

12

1

2

34

5678

910

11

1

2

34

56

789

10

1234567

Table 5Prioritize Agricultural Innovation, Commercialization Achievements and Outcomes

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

128

resources through greater compliance with en-vironmental technology” is the least importantfactor. Overall, the average rank of the achieve-ments and outcomes of commercialization ofagriculture is equal to 4.06 out of 5. Also in thepart of the Science and Technology Park, ac-cording to the results of "upgrade/agriculture,culture of innovation and constructive competitionamong the companies in the park and on the in-stitution of science and learning" has the mostimportance and “investments in science, research,technology development and training opportu-nities” has the lowest importance. Overall, theaverage rank of commercialization outcomesof the Science and Technology Park is equal to3.95 out of 5. In terms of achievement in thecommercialization of universities and researchcenters, developing infrastructure and capacityof universities and research and technology as aresult of the acquisition of new resources andjoint ventures has the highest importance andincreasing social value fields and urban agriculturehas the lowest importance. Overall, the averagerating of the importance of outcomes related tocommercialization of universities and researchcenters is equal to 3.98 out of 5. Achievementsin the commercialization of the industry, aswell as “industry support and enhance the abilityto export engineering services to the highestimportant factor and to create confidence in the

applied research and development” is the leastimportant factor. Overall, the average rank ofthe commercialization for industry achievementis equal to 3.91 out of 5.

In order to assess the achievements and impact ofthe used indicators on shaping the agricultural inno-vation, commercialization, the first order analyticalfactor was used, whose results are shown in Table 6.

Regarding Table 6, it can be stated that all in-dicators of structural achievements and outcomesof commercialization of agricultural innovationshave t-value of greater than 1.96. Thus, the as-sumption of being zero of indicator, meaningabsence of significant structural role in the for-mation indicator is rejected and significant re-lationship on the basis of confirmatory factoranalysis is confirmed. The results show that allselective indicators for assessing structural out-comes and consequences of the commercializationof agricultural innovations are prices enoughand also validity and reliability are confirmed.

According to the indicators of fitness as seenin Table 7, it can be said that achievements meas-urement and impact model of the constructs incommercialization of agricultural innovations tofit the relationship between structure and indicatorsfor each construct is valid and acceptable. So itcan be said that the research findings are basedon a model with the used indicator for assessingthe factor structure have acceptable fitting.

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Structure Indicator Evaluated Parameter t-value SE AVE CR α

Achievementsand outcomes

Z4 (Industry)Z3 (University)

Z2 (Science andTechnology Park)Z1 (Agriculture)

0.8700.7330.915

0.748

---8.968

12.272

9.235

---0.760.66

0.69

0.55 0.82 0.94

Table 6Factor Loading of Indicator and Structures and Commercialization Outcomes Measurement Mododel

Fitting index Acceptabilityindex

Reported value

Chi-square with degrees of freedomNFI, Soft indicators fitnessAdaptive fitness index, CFIIndicators of Compliance, GFIThe mean squared residue, RMRThe square root of the estimated variance of the error of approximation, RMSEA

≤30.90 ≤0.90 ≤0.90 ≤≤ 0.05≤ 0.08

3.2590.970.980.970.010.14

Table 7Fitting Index Model

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

129

Results showed that in evaluating the performanceof Science and Technology Park in commercial-ization of innovations in agriculture in support ofsmall and medium sized enterprises, Science andTechnology Park in collaboration with the privatesector is the most important and absorbing accountof the various organs (private and public) is theleast important factors. It seems that a park part-nership with the private sector can produce betterand easier-to-market innovations. As a result,they can expand the market for innovations gen-erated in the park. These are similar to results re-ported by Davoodi and Kalantari (2011) andKalantari (2010). About park relationships withuniversities and research centers, the utmost im-portance is effective communication between parkmanagement and local executive authorities, whilethe relationship between the park and the Research,Education and Extension system is the least important.It can be concluded that the parks are facing the fi-nancial difficulties due to limited demand for atten-dance at the park. Limited budget in researchimpacts park performance because these centersdepend on government budgets. So the park isgoing to be able to use the resources available inthe relationship with the executive authorities ofthe city and in this way, more features can beprovided for companies in the park. These aresimilar to Salami et al. (2010) and Siegel andWesthead (2003). Based on research findings,the experts in the field of science and technologyparks in the commercialization of agricultural in-novations in the field of entrepreneurship believethat the availability of scientific expertise withhigh quality and skill have the highest importanceand creating cooperation between inventors andinvestors have the lowest importance. Thus, itcan be argued that park in the field of businessconsulting for startup companies puts special ad-visers, to strengthen Company's competitivenesson the track as well as the transfer of skills andbusiness experience which enhances knowledgeenterprises on market principles, so one of thebenefits of the presence of the knowledge-basedenterprises in the science and technology parksis the use of synergy for business skills. Thesefindings are in agreement with Gordfaramarzi(2011), Arasteh and Jahed (2010) and Aghajani

and Talebnejad (2011). Based on research find-ings about the reduction of project risks, spe-cialized training and briefings and short termand long term courses in entrepreneurship andemerging enterprises are the most importantfactors and the least important is the assesssystem to evaluate the effectiveness of imple-menting projects. Risk of investing in agriculturesector is higher than in industry and servicessectors. Also, the market has very high risks inagricultural production because of the low in-vestment in agricultural innovation supportmechanisms and the fact that the market foragricultural technology is also very limited.Therefore, entrepreneurship education programsto young companies can reduce project risk andcost of the loss of a large percentage of providinghuman, financial and material, and increasingthe risk-taking by entrepreneurs, researchersand companies. Davoodi and Kalantari (2011)and Arasteh and Jahed (2010) reported similarresults. Based on research findings, it was shownthat the performance in commercialization ofinnovations in agricultural sector by scienceand technology park, in the field of opportunityfor knowledge workers and employers, use ofinformation technology to diagnose market, cre-ating new processes and procedures and identi-fying customers’ requirements and meeting cus-tomer needs and service are the most importantand being close to the towns and industrialareas and major transportation centers such asinternational airports are the least important. Itwas concluded that information technology is acritical tool for organizations to achieve com-petitive advantage and organizational innovation.Thus, science and technology parks through in-formation technology as the communication in-frastructure within the enterprise can make aproper way to supply their products to customers.Using the powerful tools of information tech-nology can help the marketing of products, andthus arises the concept of Internet Marketing.Internet marketing is the process of creatingand maintaining relationships with clients inthe areas of Internet to facilitate the exchangeof ideas, goods and services in such a way thataims to satisfy two sides. These results are

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

130

aligned with the results reported by Manianand Saremi (2009) and Luftman et al. (2005).Based on the results observed in the outcomeand consequences of agricultural innovation,commercialization, the promotion of entrepre-neurship and innovative business developmentin the agricultural sector is the most importantdata, and the protection of natural resourcesthrough greater technology compliance is con-sidered the least important. Thus, it can be con-cluded that the commercialization of agriculturalinnovations can increase its role in economicgrowth, job creation and the economic devel-opment of the society. On the other hand, itmakes a massive employment of unemployedstudents in agricultural fields as well as privatecompanies are presented in the agriculturalsector that will allow the creation of new services.These findings are consistent with the findingsof Nasaj Hoseini and Meraji (2005). Experts inthe field of the achievements and outcomes ofcommercialization of agricultural innovations forthe Science and Technology Park, promoting aculture of innovation and constructive competitionamong companies and institutions based on thescience and knowledge are the most importantdrive, but investments in science, research, tech-nology development and training opportunitiesare least important. Science and technology parksand incubators have comprehensive informationabout producers and consumers of science due tothe nature of the tasks they are doing and at thesame time have taken part in production processes,and weaknesses in any of the processes will leadto the reduced production and conveyance ofknowledge, credibility and endangerment of theirsurvival. So, they are trying to improve theircompetitive ability and their enterprises’ and in-stitutions’ competitive ability to help their survivaland growth. Improving competitiveness meansimproving quality, quantity, customer satisfaction,knowledge, intellectual and social capital, andthese factors may increase the rate of commer-cialization of research findings. These are consistentwith Arasteh and Jahed (2010). The results showedthat in terms of achievements and outcomes ofuniversity research centers, innovation and thecommercialization, businesses and joint venturesare the most important resources and increased

social value of urban agriculture field drive forurban communities is the least important. This isbecause universities and research centers can pickup new ideas by contacting the park to enhancethe information in relation to the market and thelatest creates a specialized activity, as well asjoint ventures between the park and the university.Based on research findings, studied the outcomeand consequences of innovation to industrial com-mercialization, raising the potential for export ofengineering services is the most important andconfidence towards applied research and devel-opment is the least important. This is because ofthe fact that parks help technological units toincrease industrial production in the countryand this makes the industrial companies able toexport their products to overseas, resulting ineconomic growth of the country that is by itselfassociated with an increase in the welfare of thepeople. Economic development can be followedover time. The results are consistent with Gord-faramrzi (2011). Confirmatory factor analysisresults show that all the variables used to measurethe performance in commercialization of agri-cultural innovations in Science and TechnologyPark were selected properly and their validity isconfirmed. Therefore, the measurement modelof measuring performance in Science and Tech-nology Park for commercialization of agriculturalinnovations with respect to all variables is ap-propriate, acceptable and significant on the basisof the theory of conformity assessment. The re-sults of Shinn and Lamy (2006), Mohammadiand Bigdelli (2012) and Manian and Saremi(2009) that considered the relationship betweenthe park and universities take Park performancein supporting of the firm's effectiveness. Cocks(1985), Kalantari (2010) and Aghajani andTalebNejad (2011) mention supporting infra-structure such as location and business skillstraining as the functions of park. According toMalekzadeh and Kazemi (2010), Soleimani(2011), Lofsten and Lindalof (2001), Law (2005)and Salami et al. (2010), critical success factorsof science and technology parks in the com-mercialization process and expedite the processof transforming ideas into product developmentand innovation include spatial factors, includingproximity to the university and research centers,

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

131

proximity and easy access to convenient trans-portation facilities, proximity to markets andsuppliers, critical factors include consultingservices, marketing, training business by parkresources and specialized equipment in parks,public services, management factors includingdirectors dominating the debate on the Scienceand Technology Park, the local effective com-munication between park managers and execu-tives of provinces, universities and researchcenter and social and cultural factors, includingthe adoption of intellectual property, the spiritof entrepreneurship and innovation in society,to make a healthy competition. Arasteh andJahed (2010), Rezaei et al. (2009), Fukugawa(2006), and Minshal (1983) also confirm theseresults. Confirmatory factor analysis resultsshow that all variables used to measure theachievements and outcomes of commercializationof agricultural innovations were properly selectedand their validity is confirmed. Therefore, themeasurement model for measuring achievementsand outcomes of commercialization of agriculturalinnovations with respect to all variables is ap-propriate and acceptable on the basis of thetheory of conformity assessment. The results ofGordfaramarzi (2011) showed that the achieve-ments of the park for the industrial sector includeincreasing technology in the country, creatingconfidence and development, raising the level ofdesign and construction.

CONCLUSIONSAccording to the results, there is a need to

focus on improvement of the relationship betweenagricultural faculties and science and technologyparks. Therefore, it is recommended to locateScience and Technology Park near the universityor research centers. In addition, because of fi-nancial shortage, it is necessary to meet thephysical facilities managers who rank low shoulddo innovative solutions like other incubators toprovide flexible space, the allocation of sharedspace and facilities and rental rates up allowedto renew the lease with regard to optimize theexploitation of their resources. Incubators cancommunicate with institutions such as universities,and research institutes and the private sectorprovide access to some manufacturing facilities

such as workshops, laboratories and research,and development for entrepreneurs. This rela-tionship requires a mutual benefit for both parties.According to research findings, since access tothe skills and expertise is a priority to improvequality of business, the establishment of a networkof information and transfer of experience and anetwork of business sponsors can increase thesuccess rate of knowledge-based enterprise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe authors are grateful to the staff and experts

of the Science and Technology Park in Ker-manshah County for their sincere cooperationwith researchers.

REFERENCESAghajani, H., & Talebnejad, A. (2011). Comparison

Assessment of selected growth center performance in Iran. Development and Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 13.

Arasteh, H., Jahed, H. (2010). Science and technology parks and research center role in innovation commercialization. Industry and University magazine, 3(9-10), 35-43.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.

Cocks, R.N. (1985). Lessons from 30 Years of Science Parks in the USA. Science Parks and Innovation Centres: Their Economic and Social Impact, 4, 32-35.

Davoodi, H. & Kalantari, Kh. (2011). Studying of problems in development of science and technology Tehran University Park. Policy, Science and Technique Magazine, 4(2), 18-22.

Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), 381-400.

Gordfaramarzi, H. (2011). Commercialization as affecting factor on knowledge-based firms and national economy development. Park Policy, Science and Technique Magazine, 8, 29-33.

Jimenez, J. D., & Cegarra, N. J. (2008). Fostering innovation: the role of market orientation and organizational learning. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(3), 389-412.

Kalantari, Kh. (2010). Structural equation modeling

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 7(

1):1

21-1

32, M

arch

201

7.

132

in social-economic researches (1st ed.), Tehran: Farhang Saba.

Law, John. (2005). Practising Nature and Culture: an Essay for Ted Benton, in Sandra Moog and Rob Shields (eds), Nature, Social Relations and Human Needs: Essays in Honour of Ted Benton. London: Palgrave.

Lofsten, H., & Lindalof, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden Industrial renewal and development. R&D Management, 31(3), 18-23.

Luftman, J., Kempaiah, R., & Nash, E. (2005). Key issues for it executives. MIS Quarterly Executive, 5(2), 81-99.

Malekzadeh, Gh. & Kazemi, M. (2010). Studying of influencing factors on small company performance in the beginning of growth stage. Excavations of Business Administration, 2(3), 24-31.

Manian, A., & Saremi, M. (2009). A conceptual model to assessment readiness of organizations for strategic IT cooperation and business. Management of Information Technology, 1(1), 44-57.

Minshall, C. W. (1983). An overview of trends in science and high technology parks. Economic and Policy Analysis, 37, 9-25.

Mohammadi, A., & Bigdelli, N. (2012). Studying of support tools for knowledge-based companies in science and Technology Park in the Middle East. Approach Magazine, 50(1), 67-71.

Nasaj Hoseini, S., & Meraji, A. (2005). Agriculture growth center for improvement agriculture status and job opportunity, paper presented at: the second conference of parks and growth center of science and technology in Iran, Tehran International Exhibition.

Pallant, J.(2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed). Berkshire, UK: Mc Graw-Hill

Rezaei, B., & Karimizadeh, M. (2009). A literature review of the effect of science and technology parks on firm performance: A new model of value creation. 5(30), 11999–12007.

Salami, S., Behgozin, S., & Shafiei, M. (2010). Assessment and introduction of affecting factor on science and technology park success from experts point of view. Park Policy, Science and Technique Magazine, 8 (29), 84-93.

Sanni, M., Egbetokun, A.A., & Siyanbola, w.o., (2010). A model for the Design and Development of a Science and Technology Park in Developing Countries. International Journal and Enterprise Development, 8 (1), 62-81.

Senowbar, N., Salmani, B., & Tajvidi, M. (2011). The effect of innovation on innovation capacity of knowledge-based companies. Policy, Science and Technique Magazine, 4 (2), 91-107.

Shinn, T., & Lamy, E. (2006). Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university–enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Research Policy, 35(10), 1465-1476.

Siegel, D., & Westhead, P. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technology based firms: A review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economic, 20(2), 57-71.

Sohn, S.Y., & Moon, T.H. (2004). Decision tree based on data envelopment analysis for effective technology commercialization. Expert Systems with Applications, 26 (2), 279–284.

Soleimani, M. (2011). Report of the Science and Technology Parks, weekly news (431), President Deputy Strategic Planning And Control. (In Persian), Tehran, Science and Technology Parks press.

Statsoft (2009). Electronic statistics textbook. Retrieved on November 19, 2009, from http://www.Statosft.com/textbook/structural- equation- modeling.

Vila, P.C., & Pages, J.L. (2008). Science and Technology Parks: Creating new environments favorable to innovation. Paradigmes. Retrived from:www.gencat.cat/diue/doc/doc_ 25819940 x_3.pdf.

Factors Affecting Commercialization ... / Pourfateh et al.

How to cite this article:Pourfateh, N., Naderi, N., & Rostami, F. (2017). Study of the factors affecting commercialization ofagricultural innovation in Kermanshah science and technology park, Iran. International Journal ofAgricultural Management and Development, 7(1), 121-132.URL: http://ijamad.iaurasht.ac.ir/article_527213_20faa886b07b971a1e77d26f85340eef.pdf