COMMERCIALIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATIONS IN

KENYAN UNIVERSITIES: THE CASE OF JOMO KENYATTA

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND BUSIA

COUNTY

BY

ELIJAH MIINDA ATEKA

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY - AFRICA

SUMMER 2021

COMMERCIALIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATIONS IN

KENYAN UNIVERSITIES: THE CASE OF JOMO KENYATTA

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND BUSIA

COUNTY

BY

ELIJAH MIINDA ATEKA

A Project Research Report Submitted to the Chandaria School of Business in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of

Science in Management and Organizational Development (MOD)

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY - AFRICA

SUMMER, 2021

ii

STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declares that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any

other institution other than the United States International University-Africa for academic

credit.

Signed: Date:

Elijah Miinda Ateka (ID 647885)

This research project has been presented for examination with my approval as the supervisor.

Signed: _______________________________ Date: _____________________

Dr. Zachary Mosoti

Signed: _____________________________ Date: ____________________

Dean, Chandaria School of Business

iii

COPYRIGHT

All rights reserved. No part of this research project report may be photocopied or reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any electronic or mechanical means without prior

permission of USIU-A office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs or the author.

Elijah Miinda Ateka © 2021

iv

ABSTRACT

Innovation is the implementation of a new or a significantly improved product (good or service),

a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practices. A number of

innovations have been developed in Kenyan universities but very few are protected or

commercialized. Moreover, much less are commercialized probably due to various constraints.

Worse still, low adoption compromises commercialization. This study was designed to identify

the challenges facing technology commercialization in Kenya within the agricultural

innovation system. The specific objectives of the study were (i) to identify and characterize

the various agricultural innovations developed at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture

and Technology (JKUAT), (ii) to examine the determinants of commercialization of

agricultural innovations in Kenya, and (iii) to assess the determinants of adoption of

agricultural innovations among smallholder farmers in Kenya.

This study was based on a descriptive research design using both qualitative and quantitative

approaches. It involved a survey to obtain information on the commercialization of agricultural

innovations and the factors that hinder and/or support adoption and commercialization of

innovations developed at (College of agriculture and Natural resources (COANRE), JKUAT

conducted between March and April 2020. Key informant interviews at some instances were

used to clarify issues where data analysis could not give outright determinants for

commercialization or adoption of innovations. Thirty (30) researchers and 40 small-scale

cassava farmers from Busia County were interviewed using questionnaires. The questionnaires

consisted of both closed and open-ended questions. Data from closed questions were collected

using binary responses, three point and five point Likert scales. The questionnaire targeting

researchers contained sections on mapping and characterization of agricultural innovations,

factors that support and constrain commercialization of agricultural innovations while the

questionnaire targeting farmers contained a section on determinants of uptake of agricultural

innovations. Face to face administration of the questionnaire was used for both questionnaires

after they were pre-tested for validity and reliability. To ensure more responses among the

researchers, the questionnaire was also sent via email to respondents. Data entry was done in

Excel software followed by data cleaning. Data was then analyzed through inferential and

v

descriptive statistics. The inferential statistics employed included logit regression analysis.

Data was presented in terms of tables and figures.

The first objective sought to map and characterize the various agricultural innovations

developed at JKUAT. Results from the study revealed that 37 different innovations had been

developed over the past three years. These included a new food product, a new method, a new

device, a new technique, a new crop variety and a disease diagnostic method among others.

The second objective was to examine the determinants for commercialization of agricultural

innovations in JKUAT. Results indicated that a total of 8 innovations developed by the

interviewed scientists had been commercialized. The factors for low commercialization of

innovations developed at JKUAT were identified as poor or weak university – industry

collaboration, low incubation capacity, absence of a commercialization strategy and low

funding for commercialization.

The third objective was to assess the determinants of uptake of agricultural innovations among

smallholder farmers. From the study, only 14 (out of 44) of the interviewed farmers had

adopted the use of clean and virus tested cassava seed. A logit regression model was used to

determine the key factors that determine uptake of clean (virus-free) planting material (a

technology from JKUAT). Only 3 factors were significant (P<0.10) namely level of education

(P=0.086), household size (P=0.064) and number of livestock enterprises (P=0.096).

The study revealed a very low level of innovation per scientist and even a much lower level of

commercialization. The reasons for low commercialization are the poor university–industry

collaboration, low incubation capacity, absence of a commercialization strategy, poor

entrepreneurship skills among scientists and inadequate funds for commercialization. It is

likely that the innovations do not get commercialized due to low levels of adoption. The low

uptake could be explained by the lack of a commercialization strategy and/or policy.

It was recommended that the innovation capacity of universities be improved through enhanced

budgets, improved human resource capacity, improved university-industry linkages and

formulation of supportive policies to spur innovation and innovation commercialization. Future

research should analyze the extent to which existing strategies and policies in the country

influence innovations and their commercialization.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to sincerely thank my supervisor Dr. Zachary Mosoti for his support and guidance in the

preparation of this research project report. I would also like to thank the respondents that

willfully participated in responding to the questionnaires. Engineer B.K. Kariuki of Directorate

of Intellectual Property Management and University-Industry Liaison Office at JKUAT is

gratefully acknowledged for participating in the key informant interviews. My family deserves

special mention for the great support and patience. Above all, I thank the Almighty God for

the great things He has done.

vii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this project dissertation to my late parents Mr. and Mrs. A. Ateka. I wish you were

here to witness this milestone.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDENT’S DECLARATION ............................................................................................. ii

COPYRIGHT ......................................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... vi

DEDICATION....................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ xi

CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background to the Study .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 5

1.3 General Objective ............................................................................................................ 7

1.4 Specific Objectives .......................................................................................................... 7

1.5 Justification of the Study ................................................................................................. 7

1.6 Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................... 9

1.7 Definition of Terms.......................................................................................................... 9

1.8 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................... 12

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 12

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Agricultural Innovations ................................................................................................ 12

2.3 Determinants for Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations ................................ 18

2.4 Determinants of Uptake of Agricultural Innovations .................................................... 23

2.5 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 29

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 29

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 29

3.2 Research Design............................................................................................................. 29

3.3 Population and Sampling Design ................................................................................... 30

ix

3.4 Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................... 31

3.5 Research Procedures ...................................................................................................... 32

3.6 Data Analysis Methods .................................................................................................. 33

3.7 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................. 34

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 34

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 34

4.2 Background Information ................................................................................................ 34

4.3 Characterization the Various Agricultural Innovations in JKUAT ............................... 38

4.4 Factors that Support or Constrain the Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations at JKUAT ......................................................................................................................... 42

4.5 Determinants of Uptake of Agricultural Innovations Among Smallholder Farmers in Kenya ........................................................................................................................... 46

4.6 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................... 52

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 52

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 52

5.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 52

5.3 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 54

5.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 62

5.5 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 63

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 65

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 74

Appendix I: Consent Form................................................................................................... 75

Appendix II: Debrief Form .................................................................................................. 76

Appendix III: Questionnaire 1 ............................................................................................. 77

Appendix IV: Questionnaire 2 ............................................................................................. 81

Appendix V: Research Approval ......................................................................................... 83

Appendix VI: Research License .......................................................................................... 84

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Population Distribution ........................................................................................... 30

Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution ........................................................................................ 31

Table 4.1: Response Rate ......................................................................................................... 34

Table 4.2: Gender of Interviewed Farmers in Busia County ................................................... 37

Table 4.3: Description of innovations developed in COANRE at JKUAT ............................. 39

Table 4.4: Knowledge on and Challenges to Commercialization of Innovations Among

COANRE Staff ........................................................................................................................ 43

Table 4.5: Determinants of Commercialization of Innovations among COANRE Scientists . 45

Table 4.6: Adoption of Clean Cassava Seed among Farmers of Busia County, Kenya .......... 46

Table 4.7: Adoption of clean cassava seed by interviewed cassava farmers of Busia County 47

Table 4.8: Awareness of the clean cassava seed technology and its benefits among farmers in

Busia County, Kenya ............................................................................................................... 49

Table 4.9: Determinants of adoption of clean cassava seed among farmers in Busia County 50

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Gender of Scientists Interviewed at COANRE ..................................................... 35

Figure 4.2: Highest level of Education among Scientists Interviewed at COANRE ............... 36

Figure 4.3: Professional Characteristics of the Respondents ................................................... 36

Figure 4.4: Highest Education Level and Proportion (%) of Interviewed Farmers in Busia

County ...................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 4.5 Number and diversity of innovations developed by researchers in COANRE (Total

number of innovations reported was 37). ................................................................................ 38

Figure 4.6: Main sources of research funding for researchers at COANRE ........................... 41

Figure 4.7: Level of Intellectual Protection by Researchers at COANRE .............................. 41

Figure 4.8: Level of Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations at JKUAT .................... 42

Figure 4.9: Purpose of the Cassava Enterprise among farmers in Busia County .................... 48

Figure 4.10: Influence of Purpose of the Cassava Enterprise and Technology Adoption ....... 48

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMNS

COANRE College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

COETECH College of Engineering and Technology

COHES College of Health Sciences

COHRED College of Human Resource Development

COPAS College of Pure and Applied sciences

COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease -19

FAO Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations

GMO Genetically Modified Organisms

ICT Information Communication Technology

JKUAT Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

KALRO Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization

KIPI Kenya industrial property institute

NACOSTI National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

NARS National Agricultural Research Systems

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists

USAID United States Aid for International Development

USIU-A United States International University-Africa

1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service),

a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practices, workplace

organization or external relations. It encompasses science and technology (S&T), research and

development (R&D) as well as the adoption of scientific research results such as new

production techniques or improved farming techniques (Chernova et al., 2019).

The importance of agriculture in the Kenyan economy and development cannot be

overemphasized. Agricultural innovations such as new crop varieties, nutrient management

practices, livestock breeds, as well as modern biotechnology, precision agriculture, and

informational innovations that rely mainly on information technologies have contributed

significantly to the transformation of world agriculture over the last 60 years, enabling greater

productivity as well as demonstrating significant potential to contribute to sustainability

globally (Sunding & Zilberman, 2000).

Knowledge is a key driver for economic growth and it involves high investment in education,

training, research and development (R&D), as well as interrelationships between governments,

academia, and industry (Lowe, 2005). To realize the benefits of knowledge and to receive

returns from such investments, the resulting inventions and/or innovations must be

commercialized (Meyers, 2009). Commercialization greatly contributes to economic growth

as it avails technology to the users (Tahvanainen & Nikulainen, 2010).

The ownership of intellectual property rights is an important incentive to developing a product

and is often a source of economic returns to the innovator. Intellectual property rights may

include copyrights, plant breeders’ rights, industrial designs, trade secrets and patents (Bellman

et al., 2003). Among intellectual properties, copyrights, patents and trademarks accrue the

highest economic benefits to the inventors. Evaluation of innovations is done through

determining the number of patents, and trademarks resulting from such innovations

(Ehrenberger et al., 2015). Profitability from innovation requires protection of the discoveries.

2

This can be achieved through application for protection in form of patents and other forms of

protection of the inventions.

To obtain exclusive right of patent usage, innovators are expected to disclose adequate

information in form of new knowledge hence balancing between the interests of the public and

those of inventors. However, there are criteria for determining whether an idea is patentable or

not. This is because there are subjects that cannot be patented such as science theories, methods

in mathematics, crop varieties and medical treatment methods. Secondly, to be patented,

innovations must involve a step that is not obvious, and the innovation must also have

capability for industrial utilization (Natsheh et al., 2015).

The first step in innovation is the development of a concept followed by the development stage,

then scaling up and commercialization. The first stage occurs through the emergence of an idea

together with the results that support it. The development stage is on the other hand

characterized by tests in the actual set up before scaling up. When an innovation is to be

patented, a step of registration is involved prior to commercialization (Husted et al., 2016).

Commercialization is critical for a country to industrialize. In general, intellectual property

protection of inventions allows for commercial exploitation for a period approximately 20

years especially in the case of patents. Access of innovations to local and international markets

is enhanced by patenting (Husted et al., 2016). Patents act as incentives to innovators as they

recognize their creativity and provide an important opportunity for return on investment.

Innovation is important in any progressive society although to be beneficial, the innovation

must be taken up and be utilized by society (Bechdol, 2012). Frequently, innovations are

produced through collaborative efforts between different stakeholders such as research

institutions, universities and the private sector (Markman et al., 2005). Therefore, for

innovation to be enhanced, a network of organizations and individuals must work together

(Hayter, 2016; Moutinho et al., 2014).

One of the most significant innovations in the agricultural sector in the 20th century was the

development and use of hybrid seed as well as the use of herbicides especially in the USA

before their adoption in South America and China (Jaruzelski et al., 2015). Other emerging

innovations include the use of drones for optimizing irrigation, pesticide application,

3

development of soil maps, monitoring crop health and precision-based fertilizer application in

crops (Sunding & Zilberman, 2000).

Universities have a critical role in the development of agricultural inventions that can be

converted into commercial products. Presently, there is little documentation on the level of

innovations and commercialization of technology particularly in Kenya although there is

consensus that universities and research institutions can be tools for economic growth, through

the commercialization of inventions (Phan & Siegel, 2006). In addition to basic research,

universities are embracing technology transfer in addition to basic research (Markman et al.,

2005). This is to ensure the outputs emerging from research are commercialized thereby

directly contributing to development. Accordingly, universities are expected to transform

themselves from ‘ivory towers’ to entrepreneurial organizations (Etzkowitz, 2003; Etzokowitz

& Leydesdorff, 2000).

To translate academic research to products, scientists must ensure that their research is relevant

to the private sector (Powers & McDougall, 2005; Pavitt, 1988). Universities therefore

contribute to society via commercialization of their research that could lead to spin-offs that

boost economic activity, create jobs and generate income (Dietz & Bozeman, 2005; Agrawal

& Henderson, 2002; Perez & Sanchez, 2003). Academic spin-offs are important for university

research commercialization (Landry et al., 2006) as this allows basic research to benefit

industry (Perkmann & Walsh, 2007).

Innovation and technologies originate from research where ideas are tested both in the

laboratory and in the field and finally through pilots. Examples of innovations in agriculture

include biotechnology, use of drones, crop breeding, agronomic practices as well as irrigation

technologies (McClelland, 2013). There are also smart farming applications that that are ICT-

based to help farmers get weather information and price information instantly (McClelland,

2013).

Etzkowitz (1998) considers university researchers as agents of innovations through knowledge

transfer and entrepreneurial activities. Additionally, by generating spin-offs, universities work

collaboratively with industry to improve their innovation potential and try to minimize research

and development costs (Etzkowitz, 2004). These collaborations enable universities to access

research funding from the private sector (Arza, 2010) and thus play a critical role in the

4

innovation process (Perkannan &Walsh, 2007; Roshan et al., 2015). University-industry

linkages facilitate a better understanding of the market and the development of relevant

business models (Looy et al., 2011). This leads to beneficial impacts upon academic

researchers and provides a bridge between academia and the market (Landry et al., 2006;

Landry et al., 2007).

In developed economies, it is well established that university-industry collaborations increase

the reach of academic knowledge and its transformation into innovations while improving

universities’ entrepreneurial capabilities (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013). Etzkowitz (2004) argues

that the triple helix approach comprising close connections between universities, industry and

governments to be the only way of improving the conditions for innovation. Some workers

have laid much emphasis on entrepreneurial support networks that offer complementary

resources and information on business dynamics (Kenney & Patton, 2005). Literature on

academic spin-offs provides supporting evidence to the notion that business networks matter

for successful academic entrepreneurship (Hayter, 2016; Moutinho et al., 2014).

Successful commercialization of research products and processes globally is hindered by

several factors. Reaping financial returns from such innovations is a challenge even in the

developing countries that produce many patents (Carl et al., 1987; Xavier, 2017). In Kenya,

the Kenya industrial property institute (KIPI) is concerned with patent administration as well

as dissemination of innovations and technology. The list of patents available at KIPI falls far

below the investments in research and innovation. Moreover, majority of the patented

innovations are seldom commercialized. This study set out to determine the reasons that are

responsible for the low commercialization of research outputs.

The Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) is a public university

in Kenya located in Juja, about 40 km North East of Nairobi, along Nairobi-Thika highway.

The University is composed of five colleges namely College of Agriculture and Natural

Resources (COANRE), College of Health Sciences (COHES), College of Engineering and

Technology (COETECH), College of Pure and Applied sciences (COPAS) and College of

Human Resource Development (COHRED). COANRE conducts research leading to

innovations in the field of Agriculture. The research products are disseminated through

publications, conferences, exhibitions and through commercialization of innovations. Such

5

innovations are often disseminated and adopted by farmers and farming communities across

the counties of Kenya.

The current study provided an overview of the development, commercialization and adoption

of agricultural research innovations at COANRE, JKUAT. Specifically, the study sought to

identify the factors that hinder commercialization of agriculture-based innovations and

determined how universities can maintain and develop innovation capabilities. The research

sought to determine the factors that are critical in creating a conducive environment for

researchers to commercialize their innovations and also those factors that influence adoption

of the same innovations.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Although concerted efforts have been directed at improving African agriculture, these

interventions constitute “islands of success” as these are not scalable (Haggblade & Hazel,

2010). The success cases remain in the laboratory and research institutions because they have

not been demanded; while others have suffered low adoption by users leading to low

commercialization and hence low returns on investments (Aguru et al., 2008).

There has been a rapid rise in innovations in Kenya especially in the area of information

technology particularly in the realm of mobile applications, and development of websites.

Several innovations have been developed in Kenya, but very few are protected. Moreover,

much less/fewer/very few are commercialized due to several constraints. For instance, in the

agricultural sector, new products from projects on genetic engineering of transgenic maize and

cotton have been developed but their commercialization has not been realized. This has

restricted the commercialization of such products.

The interest of Industry in scientific research world over is well documented. However, very

few studies have delved into the commercialization of agriculture-based inventions. This is

more the case in Africa and Eastern Africa in particular. Most research and commercialization

activities have largely focused on universities based in the developed countries (Klein &

Goldberg, 2010). The potential of agriculture innovations/inventions in supporting the food

industry in Kenya has not been realized.

6

In Kenyan universities, technology transfer offices have been established to better handle

innovations emanating out of the many research efforts. However, the patents filed at the KIPI

fall far below the investments in the research and innovation system. Moreover, majority of

the patented innovations are rarely commercialized with records of commercialization of

technologies being scanty if not totally unavailable. The agricultural, engineering and medical

sciences have great potential for intellectual property arising from research hence the need for

proper protection and commercialization. Plant breeders’ rights (PBRs) have been obtained by

some public and private institutions. However, there have been challenges in obtaining the

PBRs citing high costs. This study determined the factors responsible for the low

commercialization of research outputs.

Commercialization is never a straightforward process; it is fraught with numerous challenges

that must be overcome. Pellikka et al. (2011) identifies the main difficulties of

commercialization as marketing, resources, the business environment, and the planning and

management of the commercialization process. The marketing challenges relate to a failure to

obtain relevant market information, a failure to use it properly, insufficient knowledge about

how the international market works and the inability to establish local and international

distributions channels.

Kenney & Patton (2005) on the other hand highlight common challenges as being related to

financing, production, distribution and marketing. They explain further that many innovators

face additional difficulties in their commercialization such as delays caused by the inventor’s

attempts to “perfect” their products thereby allowing other competitive products to enter the

market, to the detriment of the inventor. There is also the fact that distribution channels take

time and expertise to establish. Parker & Mainelli (2001) identified common mistakes made

during technology commercialization. These include; i) assumption that new features will

improve sales, ii) top-down market analysis, iii) insufficient evaluation of the technology, iv)

failure to assign a specific team to oversee the commercialization, and v) inability to value the

new technology fully. Al Natsheh et al. (2015) adds that insufficient funds for

commercialization and lack of skillful people to sell and promote the innovation as key

obstacles facing technology commercialization.

While there are many innovations being developed in academic institutions, commercialization

has been limited. Barr et al. (2009) used the analogy of the “valley of death” to describe a

7

missing link in the translation of an existing or emerging technology to creation of a compelling

new market-driven business. It is therefore important to understand the factors that make

innovations to fall into the “valley of death”. The few studies conducted on this topic have

mostly been in the developed world, which therefore makes it important to understand the

circumstances within the Kenyan context. This study sought to determine the level of

development of agricultural innovations and established the determinants of commercialization

in Kenyan universities and particularly at JKUAT. The study also assessed the determinants of

adoption of agricultural innovations.

1.3 General Objective

The general objective of the study was to determine the level and factors that influence the

commercialization and uptake of agricultural innovations in Kenyan Universities using the case

of JKUAT and Busia County.

1.4 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this study were;

1.4.1 To map and characterize the various agricultural innovations developed in JKUAT

1.4.2 To examine the factors that support or constrain the commercialization of

agricultural innovations in JKUAT

1.4.3 To assess the determinants of uptake of agricultural innovations among smallholder

farmers in Kenya

1.5 Justification of the Study

Innovation and the development of new techniques and technologies has been the main driver

for agriculture in the last several decades. Licensing, which is the right granted by an inventor

of an intellectual asset to another to use that asset while still owning asset is one important way

of commercialization. In the agricultural innovation system, public research institutions have

the mandate and responsibility to develop and commercialize innovations. However, the

innovations by the public organizations that have been commercialized is meagre. This study

would benefit a number of players within the agricultural innovation system. These include the

researchers and academicians, the county government of Busia as well as academicians and

researchers including innovation practitioners in the country.

8

1.5.1 Academicians at COANRE

Previous studies have outlined the challenges facing commercialization of agricultural

technology but no authoritative information specific to Kenya has been documented. This study

provided information and knowledge on the state of agricultural innovations and determined

the specific challenges facing commercialization at COANRE, JKUAT. The study is critical

as identification of the solutions to the attendant challenges would encourage innovation, and

commercialization of agricultural innovations.

1.5.2 County Government of Busia

The county government of Busia and particularly its Department of Agriculture is particularly

the one to benefit directly from the study. The department provides the rural people with access

to knowledge and information they need to increase productivity and sustainability of their

production systems in order to improve their quality of life and livelihoods. Understanding the

factors that influence adoption of technologies in Busia County within the farmer’s context

would ensure tailor-made messages leading to increased adoption of technologies.

Consequently, this would lead to a multiplier effect associated with increased productivity,

food security and improved livelihoods among residents of the county.

1.5.3 Cassava Farmers in Busia and Regionally

While recognizing that commercialization of innovations my face turbulence from the user’s

(farmers’) side, the study also sought to understand the factors that affect uptake or adoption

of innovations utilizing an innovation developed at JKUAT that has been partially

commercialized. Innovation adoption by cassava farmers would lead to improved yields which

in turn lead to improved returns on investments as well as food and nutrition security.

1.5.4 Researchers and Academicians

The study will act as a reference point for future researchers and those who may want to

conduct further research on the subject of innovation. This group may include academia

nationally and even worldwide who are keen to understand the whole topic of innovation

commercialization and diffusion of technology.

9

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study confined itself to innovations developed by research scientists at the College of

Agriculture and Natural Resources (COANRE) of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture

and Technology (JKUAT) and small-scale cassava farmers in Busia County. COANRE has a

total of 77 researchers each holding a MSC Science degree and above whereas Busia County

has 100 small scale cassava farmers with at least 1 acre under cassava. The study was conducted

between April and May 2020. Data collection from the researchers was hindered by restrictions

due to COVID-19,

1.7 Definition of Terms

1.7.1 Copyright

The exclusive and assignable legal right, given to the originator for a fixed number of years, to

print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material (Ganguli, 2000;

Cornish, 2001).

1.7.2 Innovation

This is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), a new

marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practices, workplace

organization or external relations. Innovation encompasses science and technology (S&T),

research and development (R&D) as well as the adoption of scientific research outputs such as

new production techniques or improved farming practices (Chernova et al., 2019).

1.7.3 Invention

New scientific or technical idea, and the means of its embodiment or accomplishment. To be

patentable, an invention must be novel, have utility, and be non-obvious. To be called an

innovation, it must also be replicable at an economical cost, and must satisfy a specific need.

Only a few inventions lead to innovations because not all of them are economically feasible

(Ganguli, 2000).

1.7.4 Innovation System

10

This is a framework to understand the process of innovation; emphasizing how the interaction

and relationships between multiple actors determine the overall performance, impact and scope

of innovation processes (Galli & Teubal, 1997).

1.7.5 Intellectual Property

A category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect. Intellectual

property encompasses two types of rights: industrial property rights (trademarks, patents,

designations of origin, industrial designs and models) and copyright (Ganguli, 2000).

1.7.6 Plant Breeders Rights

Plant Breeders rights (PBR) are rights granted to a new variety developer (breeder) for

exclusive control over the propagating material as well as the harvested material (such as cut

flower, fruit, foliage) for a number of years (Munyi et al., 2018).

1.7.7 Innovation Commercialization

This encompasses the creation of intellectual property coupled with academic entrepreneurship.

Commercialization begins conception of an idea all the way to production and sale of goods

and services to end users (Perkmann et al., 2013).

1.7.8 Small Holder Farmers

A smallholder farmer is a person involved in farming on a small piece of land (less than 5

acres), cultivating food crops (Thorpe & Muriuki 2001; Swai et al., 2014), or practicing mixed

crop-livestock farming, whereby the number of large ruminants kept is around 3-5 (Swai et al.,

2014). Operations in such farms are often managed by family labor to support family needs.

1.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter introduces the study by providing a background, statement of the problem,

objectives and justification of the study as well as the scope and definition of terms used in the

study. Chapter two covers the literature review and particularly the background information

of agricultural innovations, commercialization of these innovations and determinants of

innovation commercialization. Chapter three covers the research design used, population and

sampling design, data collection methods and data analysis. The fourth chapter consists of

11

results and findings of the study and finally chapter five provides an analysis of the results the

conclusions as well as the policy recommendations.

12

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Agriculture, like all industries requires innovations to thrive in an environment that has

increasing stiff competition. Enterprises in agriculture would greatly succeed through efficient

and modern methods of production. In the last 100 years or so, agriculture has seen great

technological transformation (Schultz, 1964). Advances in science such as the green revolution

that increased production in crops especially cereals were witnessed. This chapter discusses

the theoretical and empirical literature that relates to the types and characteristics of agricultural

innovations, factors that support and constrain commercialization of agricultural innovations

and determinants of adoption or uptake of agricultural innovations.

2.2 Agricultural Innovations

Innovation is defined differently by various workers. The World Bank considers innovation to

be the system in which organizations and individuals develop the design and production of new

goods and services (World Bank, 2012). Invention refers to new products, concepts and

processes, whereas innovation is the actual utilization and commercialization of the inventions.

The innovations may be in the form of products and/or services (Hall et al., 2005). An

innovation is therefore a new method, new custom, or new device for performing tasks more

efficiently. Innovation characteristics include new goods and services, or improved quality of

goods and services compared to the existing ones. Conventionally, revolutionary innovations

are thought to result from research whereas evolutionary ones emerge out of normal practice

(Hall et al., 2005).

Innovation is a vital component of productivity and long-term growth of organizations. Firms

must continually innovate to stay vibrant in their industries. With such an environment,

immaterial or intangible resources such as innovations and reputation have increasingly

become very important. Innovation is promoted as a tool for employee satisfaction, better

market placement, efficient operations and reputable company profile. It is evident therefore

13

that innovation is one of the main mechanisms defining the future of organizations (Silva et al.,

2014).

2.2.1 Classification of Agricultural Innovations

There are different classes of innovations. For instance, there are innovations that are embodied

(such as equipment, pesticides, and seed) and those that are disembodied (such as pest

management practice). Private sector would require appropriate protection of intellectual

property for embodied innovations (Silva et al., 2014). Consequently, private entities are

unlikely to invest in generating disembodied innovations as it is difficult to market the final

products.

The categorization of innovations according to form is useful for understanding the forces

behind the generation and adoption of innovations. Categories in this classification include

mechanical innovations (such as equipment), biological innovations (new animal breeds),

chemical innovations (new herbicides), new farming techniques, and innovations that are based

on computer technologies or applications. Another categorization of innovation according to

form distinguishes between process innovations and product innovations (e.g. a new pesticide).

Innovations can also be distinguished on the basis of the impacts they have on the outputs. For

instance, an innovation may be yield-increasing, quality-enhancing, risk-reducing, cost-

reducing, and shelf-life enhancing. Most innovations fall into several of these categories. For

example, a new pesticide may increase yield, reduce environmental degradation and reduce

economic risk.

The classes of innovations that have been known to accelerate agricultural production include

innovations in agricultural mechanization in form of tractors and machinery that have reduced

significantly the use of manual labor in cultivation of crops; biotechnological innovations

including genetic modification and the breeding of new crop varieties. Other innovations that

have revolutionized agriculture include those that reduce the production cost, increase yields,

enhance the shelf-life of commodities and reduce environmental pollution.

2.2.2 Development and Evolution of Agricultural Innovations

Some researchers hold the notion that new innovations come out sheer inspiration that

randomly occurs without a strong link to physical reality. Hayami & Ruttan (1985) on the

14

other hand empirically proved the theory of induced innovations by linking the emergence of

innovations with prevailing economic conditions. They argued that the development of new

innovations is an economic activity that is greatly affected by prevailing economic conditions.

According to them, new innovations are more likely to emerge in response to scarcity and

economic opportunities. For instance, labor shortages induce labor-saving technologies.

Environment-friendly techniques are likely to be linked to the imposition of strict

environmental regulations. Irrigation technologies and water-harvesting technologies are often

developed in locations where water constraints are binding. Similarly, food shortages and high

prices of agricultural commodities will most likely lead to the development and introduction

of high-yielding varieties. Changes in consumer preferences may provide the basis for

development of new innovations that may modify product quality.

The works of Boserup (1965) and Binswanger & McIntire (1987) on the evolution of

agricultural systems give credence to the induced-innovation hypothesis. Early human groups,

comprising a relatively a small number of members roamed large areas as hunters and gatherers.

An increase in population led to the evolution towards improvement of agricultural practices.

In tropical regions where population density was still relatively small, farmers relied on shifting

cultivation. The transition to systems of intensive farming that used crop rotation and use of

yield enhancing inputs occurred as population density increased. The need to overcome

diseases and improve yields led to innovations in pest control and the evolution of the

agricultural systems.

In India, because their economy is predominantly agricultural, they have turned into

agribusiness that is technology-driven to increase productivity (World Bank, 2014). In this way,

they created several agribusiness incubators situated mostly in agricultural research institutes

and manned by experienced business managers with agricultural experience. This in turn has

led to commercialization of more than 100 technologies within 5 years (World Bank, 2014).

Incubation has been a proven strategy that has been utilized to promote growth and

commercialization of technology (Bergek & Norman, 2008). Through incubation,

entrepreneurs to be are provided with support services during the initial stages of technology

marketing such as labs for research, softwares and network pools considered critical for the

success of their initiatives (World Bank, 2014).

15

Innovation and technologies originate from research from where ideas are tested both in the

laboratory and in the field and finally through pilots. Examples of innovations in agriculture

include biotechnology, technologies in global positioning systems such as drones, crop

breeding, agronomic practices and irrigation technologies (McClelland, 2013). There are also

smart farming apps that originate from ICT to help farmers get weather information and price

information (McClelland, 2013).

The quantity and quality of innovations is measured through patents, licenses, certificates and

copyrights given as acknowledgement for creative input (Ehrenberger et al., 2015). It has been

suggested that research turns money into knowledge, whereas innovation turns knowledge into

money (Bennett, 2008). The conversion of knowledge to products is a complex one involving

interactive scientific technology, demand, policy relations to mechanisms of feedback.

Therefore, the responsibility of the organization regarding innovation does not end at

production rather it transcends the whole path through dissemination, adoption and utilization

of the innovations (Chema et al. 2001).

Innovations emerge through a number of steps that include emergence of concept in a process

called discovery. This is then followed by movement of the innovation to field stage from the

laboratory in a stage referred to as development. The final stage is the scaling up and final

commercialization of the innovation. However, in instances where innovations have potential

to be patented, they are registered before they are commercialized. If the innovation is

embodied, once it is developed, it must be produced for the market. For embodied innovations,

the marketing stage consists of education, demonstration, and sales. Majority of innovations

occur as a result of need such as those developed in Israel and California that provide solutions

to water shortages and the introduction of high-yielding plant varieties (Hayami & Ruttan,

1985).

2.2.3 Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations

Development of innovations by itself not sufficient, but the commercial exploitation of the

innovations to benefit society (Bechdol, 2012). Through commercialization, employment is

created, and efficiency is gained by farmers as a result of proper utilization of production

factors (Gurel, 1998). Therefore, innovation exploitation is the act of creating intellectual

property coupled with academic entrepreneurship (Perkmann et al., 2013). The process of

16

commercialization begins at idea conception leading to production of goods and services as

well as the sale of those services and goods. To commercialize innovations, the value of the

innovation must be captured through protection. Commercialization of innovation represents

creation of measurable and quantifiable acceptance of creative output (Markmann et al., 2008).

The role of commercialization is to bring innovations to the market hence benefiting the greater

society (Pellikka & Malinden, 2011). Access to both international and domestic markets can

be enhanced by patents and copyrights (Husted et al., 2016). Strategies that have been used to

enhance possibility of patent commercialization include collaborations between research

institutes and academia with private sector (Markman et al., 2008). One proven way of

increasing chances of successful commercialization of a product or service is by maintaining

useful networks (Chandler, 2005).

Similarly, successful product commercialization should be market-driven from the initial

stages (Valiauga, 2013). Commercialization should be well planned and executed with the goal

of improving product performance to remain competitive. For successful commercialization, a

number of steps should be followed namely; differentiating business from the science,

understanding the rights of innovators and the company, having multiple commercialization

channels, recognizing the differences between private and public business, setting up realistic

goals, making the innovation easily understood and the realizing that customers are the ultimate

reviewers of the innovation (Fletcher & Bourne, 2012).

Innovation is the lifeline of organizations with the true value of innovation being measured in

outcomes such as commercialized products (Schendel & Hill, 2007). An organizations ability

to commercialize innovations can spur it to conquer current markets as well a win newer to the

extent of gaining industry leadership (Wallsten, 2000; Salamenkaita & Salo, 2002). However,

past estimates indicate that, for every 3,000 innovation ideas, about only one is successfully

commercialized into a product (Stevens & Burley, 1997). Meaning therefore that the idea

generation is not adequate to commercialization of an innovation. Nevertheless, the need to

translate an innovation idea into a successful product is critical.

In a previous survey (Chiesa & Frattini, 2011), it was estimated that 39 percent of executives

considered their firms to be good at commercializing new products. However, one-third of

them identified innovation commercialization as one of the most challenging decisions. An

17

even higher (43%) proportion of executives considered choosing the innovations to move

forward more challenging. Unfortunately, there is no clear understanding of how

commercialization decisions influence the market failure of new products (Chiesa & Frattini,

2011). This highlights the need to better understand the process of innovation-

commercialization.

The commercialization of research results is still new in Kenya. Some universities such as the

University of Nairobi, JKUAT, Moi universities have technology transfer offices which are

mandated to coordinate technology transfer activities from research and development, filing of

patent applications and offering support to academic startups. Despite the presence of these

offices on campus, very minimal commercialization of research outputs is available. In other

parts of the world, however, universities have established spin-off firms or companies as an

avenue for commercializing research (Markman et al., 2005; Rasmussen, 2008) and are

providing budgets to support the start-ups (Owen-smith & Powell, 2001).

In the United States of America for instance, commercialization of research results started

when the federal government drastically reduced the funding budget during the cold war. This

gave rise to the Bayh Dole Act 1980 that was also called the University and Small Business

Patent Procedures Act that removed the barriers of intellectual property ownership hence

allowing universities to claim rights to their inventions (Rasmussen, 2008). The Dole Act is

considered essential to the growth of University-Industry relations in the United States

(Guerrero, 2008). There is documentary evidence that interaction between scientists and

industry is essential for successful transfer of research outputs (Mansfield, 1995; Jaffe, 2000;

Mowery et al., 2004).

In addition to the University-Industry relations, it is also imperative that universities have a

proper incentive and reward system (Gomez-Majia, 1992; Makriel et al., 2006). It has been

proposed that loyalties granted to faculty who innovate have a direct and positive effect on the

number of licenses, whereas grants given to the innovator’s departments is negatively

correlated (Yaakub et al., 2011). In Malaysia, for instance, Yakuub et al. (2011) reported that

in faculty rarely collaborate with industry practitioners because they lean towards publications

despite the fact that they are aware of commercialization.

18

2.3 Determinants for Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations

Technology commercialization is defined as an activity or a process to profit from

technological innovation, it encompasses a broad range of potential income-producing value

added, manufactured, displayed or utilized products (Jolly 1997). In developing countries,

there is a paradigm shift that universities and research institutions must develop products

(inventions) that are demand driven. Accordingly, universities must increasingly shift focus to

the society around them (Clark, 1998; Shane, 2004). In this regard, universities are now

involved in teaching, research and socio-economic development through innovation. To

deliver on this enlarged mandate, the institutions have had to transform themselves into

entrepreneurship universities in order to conduct relevant research that benefits society

(Yakuub et al., 2011). Technology commercialization is now considered a key competitive

factor for technology-based firms. A major management challenge for universities is how to

transform promising technologies into economic returns. Understanding how scientific

knowledge is transformed into commercial products in the market and how to profit from

technological innovation are important issues for universities (Gans & Stern, 2003; Fiedler &

Welpe, 2010).

2.3.1 The Commercialization Process

Commercialization is a process by which products, technologies and services are introduced to

the marketplace for sale. From a developmental point of view, this pathway provides

smallholder farmers with access to transformational technologies (innovations). This is

especially the case for publicly funded agricultural research that benefits such farmers in the

same way as the commercialization of a product in the market (Yaakub et al., 2011). Research

institutions as well as universities in Kenya have the mandate and duty to develop agricultural

inventions that have market appeal and can therefore compete in the market (Yaakub et al.,

2011).

Commercialization is a process that takes long to achieve often requiring investment before

realizing returns. The initial investment is normally filing for intellectual property protection

(Cohen et al., 1998) which is usually a money spending activity. This is followed by expenses

in licensing and marketing of the inventions while bearing in mind the fact that not all licenses

generate revenue through loyalties. Thus, IP protection does not necessarily lead to a business

19

breakthrough in the absence of a well thought commercialization strategy (Yakuub et al., 2011)

although an intellectual property policy is key to successful commercialization of research

outputs (Rasmussen, 2008).

Intensive global competition and fast technological development (Santoro & Gopalakrishnan,

2000) have created new challenges for organizations and they are often faced with a lack of

resources and time to keep a leading edge (Sherwood & Covin, 2008). This compels them to

go beyond their boundaries and seek external sources of knowledge (Arvanitis & Woerter,

2009). This new technological setting has given rise to new linkages between industry and

public organizations, such as research institutions including universities (Sherwood & Covin,

2008; Lai, 2011). Universities have become aware of the commercial value of their research

and they are now focused on the ‘capitalization of knowledge’ (Etzkowitz, 1998). Likewise,

industry has recognized the positive impact of knowledge produced in universities (Laroche &

Amara, 2011) on their innovation and economic performance (Arvanitis & Woerter, 2009).

The initial stage in the pathway of commercialization is research which is conducted in the

institution (together with its collaborators) eventually leading to a product, a service or a

technology. Often the intention of the research may or may not be to commercialize the

research outputs (USAID, 2017). This hugely depends on the scientist, donor or even the

research institution. Between the first and second stage is the proof of concept stage where a

product is designed, and a prototype is made. Depending on the nature of the research, this may

also take the form of field testing (also known as pilot trials).

The second stage is the product development process involving market research (to establish

demand and supply), designing process and facilities to produce the product, building a supply

chain, determining the distribution channels & logistics and fully designing and implementing

a marketing strategy (USAID, 2017). The third stage is commercial distribution following

product development to make it available in the marketplace.

2.3.2 Factors Enabling Commercialization

Although agricultural production is expected to grow at the same pace as the population in

order to meet the global food demands, this has not been the case. This is largely due to a range

of factors, such as climate change, pressure on natural resources, underinvestment in

20

agriculture and gaps in technology (FAO, 2017). Rapid technological development and

innovation can offer the prospect of meeting future food needs in a sustainable way.

Generation of agricultural innovations is often conducted by collaborating actors managing the

available limited resources for the benefit of many. The actors are involved in the facilitation

or brokerage of innovations (Klerk et al., 2009). The different actors in the innovation process

have roles of creation, funding, performing, implementing and disseminating research

innovations. They include government agencies that have a role in regulating and conducting

agricultural research activities, providing extension services specifically to enhance adoption

and integration of technologies, creation of innovation enhancing policies and organization of

partnerships that often spur innovations. The private sector is another integral actor in the

innovation process as it provides funding and conducts research to create innovations.

Universities provide technical knowledge often from research geared towards innovation

(Klerk et al., 2009).

The extension agents are another important innovation driver with the role of transferring of

scientific innovations to the public and users (who are also referred to as consumers). Extension

agents perform their task through other intermediaries such as input manufacturers, consultants

and agronomists. Another critical player in the success of commercialization is the consumer.

Therefore, getting to understand consumer behavior has an impact to successful

commercialization of any product or innovation. In this case farms (and farmers) play a

significant role in the acceptance of innovations and their subsequent commercialization. For

example, in biotechnology, there has been a raging debate on GMOs which has an influence

on consumer acceptance.

In developed countries university-industry collaborations improve outreach of knowledge and

its influence on innovations while increasing the entrepreneurial abilities of universities (Abreu

& Grinevich, 2013). The triple helix approach comprising close networks between universities,

industry and governments improves innovation capabilities (Etzkowitz, 2004). Emphasis

should be laid on entrepreneurial support networks that offer complementary resources and

information on business dynamics (Kenney & Patton, 2005). Academic spin-offs provide

supporting evidence to the notion that business networks matter for successful academic

entrepreneurship (Hayter, 2016; Moutinho et al., 2014).

21

2.3.3 Constraints to Technology Commercialization

Challenges to commercialization of innovations are expected to arise from the business

environment, marketing, inadequate resources, a poor commercialization planning process and

policies that are not supportive (Pellikka et al., 2011). Marketing limitations arise from

inadequate information about the market coupled with failure to create proper sales links. Most

innovations face commercialization challenges in the initial stages as the products are not

standardized and are new to the consumers (Al Natesh et al., 2015). A huge number of patents

are usually not utilized due to the large amount of capital investment needed to enhance

exploitation (Klette & Griliches, 1997). The costs of research, development and upscaling,

followed by patent application/filing as well as registration and the cost of marketing are very

high therefore discouraging small firms from commercialization of innovations.

During the process of innovation, a product with a much lower quality may be brought into the

market and this may affect its entry. Similarly, product distribution channels take longer to

establish and therefore hinder product take off. Additionally, sub-leasing the product to a

company with proper expertise may lead to loss of control by the inventor (Epting et al., 2011).

Other commercialization challenges include low acceptance of the innovation by consumers.

This has been the case especially with issues of GMOs in the biotechnology sector often leading

to controversy with so many vested interests leading to their slow adoption and subsequent

commercialization. Moreover, innovations in agriculture struggle with derivation of value and

therefore failure to capture the precise value of the innovation to the end user has been one of

the pitfalls of commercializing of innovations (Epting et al., 2011).

The identification of obstacles and challenges to commercialization of university research

could have a considerable effect on the development of academic enterprises and the

entrepreneurial businesses of university researchers. These may include nature of relationships,

the hierarchical structures, intense focus on rules and processes, time constraints lack of

entrepreneurial skills among researchers and inappropriate incentive methods and systems

among others. In addition to these barriers and constraints, many university researchers believe

that being an entrepreneur practically prevents them from their main mission as researchers,

which is to continue learning and teaching (Zahra & Garvis, 2000).

22

Structural barriers such as inadequate resources being allocated to technology transfer in

universities (O’Shea et al., 2005), inefficient processes and procedures (Siegel et al., 2003),

inefficient processes for patent transfer (Debackere & Veugelers, 2005, Decter et al., 2007),

poor incentive structures and lack of a practical perspective to innovation and business

(Kirihata, 2007) have also been identified to hinder innovation commercialization. This is

followed closely by environmental barriers, which include the lack of communication and

networks among investors, industry actors and academics (Decter et al., 2007, Abutalib, 2007),

the slow speed of knowledge transfer negotiations (Decter et al., 2007, O’Shea et al., 2005)

and the inability of products to compete in the market (Abutalib, 2007).

University technology commercialization is of high interest for scientists and policymakers.

Funding issues are the main subject of research in all countries for science technology and

innovation (STI) policies. For instance, financial support for university-industry cooperation

channels are more important than financing the research itself, since research funding without

support of university- industry cooperation does not lead to a greater likelihood of successful

innovation and commercialization (Wu et al., 2015).

The other set of barriers include the legal and cultural barriers. The legal barriers include poor

regulations regarding the protection of intellectual property on the national level (Abutalib,

2007) as well as regulations and policies related to commercialization of research (Shane,

2004). Cultural differences between academic institutions and enterprises can also present a

very critical barrier to innovation commercialization. Some firms suppose that the scientific

community cannot cooperate with industry due to differences in cultures (Gilsing et al, 2011).

Lack of entrepreneurship is a critical obstacle for academia to make connections between

universities and industry (Ken et al, 2009). In addition, some studies suggest that university

researchers and practitioners may not have a mutual understanding of expectations and working

approaches. (Muscio & Vallanti, 2014). Although some firms seek to collaborate with

universities, they may find that collaborating with research institutes and managing joint

research projects can entail large costs, especially in terms of time and money and sometimes

researchers may lack entrepreneurship spirit (Salamzadeh et al., 2011) and/or a participatory

culture in universities (Gilsing et al., 2011

The regulations imposed by universities and funding agencies are also significant barriers to

commercialization of innovations (Hsu & Wu, 2012). The bureaucracy and inflexibility of

23

universities is another barrier to the transfer of technologies. Styhre & Lind (2010) showed

that the university system is organized in a bureaucratic way, characterized by a functional

organization into schools, departments and research groups, and a hierarchical order in the

structure of the university (Shen, 2017). The lack of financial resources to attract experienced

technology transfer officers to the university is another critical barrier for universities.

Meanwhile, for universities, hiring professionals with sufficient marketing skills, technical

skills, and bargaining requires more funds. Some studies have shown that the lack of venture

capital is a critical barrier to technology transfer, especially since venture capitalists can assess

the commercial potential of research and development results and ensure the development of

university spin-off companies (Belkhodja & Landry, 2007). Furthermore, research scientists

who are mainly engaged in basic research, require additional funding to proof the concept of

their inventions (Sá, & Faubert, 2011).

Another barrier to innovation commercialization is the lack of skilled human resources

(Kirihata, 2007, Abutalib, 2007) with the knowledge and experienced in fields of commercial

activities and launching businesses among university researchers (Wright et al., 2007, Lockett

& Wright, 2005). This is worsened by the enormous motivation for publishing among

university researchers which is considered as a huge hindrance to innovation

commercialization (Ndonzuau, 2002).

2.4 Determinants of Uptake of Agricultural Innovations

Innovation is at the center of efforts to help smallholders and the agricultural sector generally

to improve productivity (Ergano et al., 2010). Traditionally, the ‘linear model of technology

transfer’ has been the research paradigm governing the process agricultural innovation research

and research (Hounkonnou et al., 2012). In the traditional model, scientists are considered the

primary sources of innovation, whereas the extension system regarded as the transfer

mechanism through which technologies (innovations) are transferred to farmers (Hounkonnou

et al., 2012). In Kenya, like most African countries, agricultural research is spearheaded by the

National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS). The NARS constitute the public research

organizations such as the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO),

universities engaged in agricultural research and technical departments within the Ministry of

Agriculture both at the national and county governments.

24

2.4.1 Technology Transfer and Adoption in Agriculture

Successful uptake and commercialization depend on the prevailing innovation system that

enables an understanding of optimum utilization of new knowledge by a country in designing

novel research interventions (Cirera & Maloney, 2017). This entails the enabling policies and

investments in order to exploit the existing opportunities for increasing food productivity and

security (FAO, 2017). The main elements of an innovation system include; individuals and

organizations involved in generation, diffusion, adoption and utilization of new knowledge;

processes of learning and development the organizations go through that result into innovations

and new products and the norms, rules and guidelines governing the interaction and processes

(North, 1995).

Different regions have different agricultural innovation regimes. In Ghana, systems have been

created to commercialize agricultural innovations through legislations that govern intellectual

property rights. The laws include the Copyright Act 2005, the Trademarks Act, the Patent Act

and the Industrial Designs Act. In addition, the Ghanaian government has put in place measures

to commercialize hybrid seeds through enactment of legislation such as the Plants and Fertilizer

Act 2010 (Tripp & Mensah-Bonsu, 2013). Kenya and indeed a number of African countries

have similar laws governing intellectual property.

2.4.2 Factors Influencing Adoption

Studies on the determinants of adoption for agricultural technology have previously

emphasized risk and uncertainty (Simtowe et al., 2006). These include institutional factors,

asymmetry of information, human capital, access to inputs as well as infrastructural factors

(Foster & Rosenzweig, 1996; Obayelu et al., 2017). Obayelu et al. (2017) conducted a

comparative study on adoption of high yielding crop varieties in India and reported that rapid

adoption was due to affordability and accessibility to the technology and its complementary

inputs by farmers.

Adoption may also be influenced by farmers’ social networks. For instance, only a few farmers

may adopt a technology on smaller experimental scales initially. As the best results or yields

are realized and become obvious, more farmers will start to belief in the technology which

would consequently increase rates of adoption subsequently. Besley & Case (1993) reported

that the probability of adopting a technology increases as farmers discover its profitability.

25

Foster & Rosenzweig (1995) studied adoption of high yielding varieties while Conley & Udry

(2002) researched on the application of fertilizer and reported that initial adoption may be low

due to imperfect information on management and profitability of the new technology. Adoption

is however, scaled up once they have more experience. A similar finding was reported by

Bandiera & Rasul (2006) who reported the link between social networks and technology

diffusion in Mozambique.

In Kenya, Gerhart (1975) conducted research on the adoption of hybrid maize and identified

risk and uncertainty as the main constraint to adoption of technology. The study identified

factors such as farmer’s level of education, availability of extension services and credit as key

influencers of adoption. For instance, farmers who adopted hybrid maize were more likely to

adopt other yield-enhancing practices such as application of fertilizers, planting in rows,

thinning and use of pesticides.

Griliches (1957) opined that economic factors such as return to investments influenced

adoption of hybrid maize in the US. The study reported that the rate of adoption across

geographical environments depended on the suppliers of the seed and adaptability of the

hybrids to local conditions. Other factors that influence rate of adoption and use of new

agricultural technologies include credit, farm size, risk aversion, quality and quantity of farm

equipment, land tenure system, quality of human capital as well as the availability and cost of

complementary inputs (Feder et al., 1985).

About two decades ago, Makokha et al. (2001) studies the adoption of fertilizer and manure in

Kiambu County, Kenya. They reported high cost of labor and other inputs as well as availability

of demanded packages and untimely delivery to be major constraints to adoption. In a different

location, Ouma et al. (2002) found that agro-climate, gender of the farmer, cost of labor and

access to extension services to be key determinants of technology adoption.

The land tenure system also influences the adoption of inorganic fertilizers and hybrid maize

varieties. For example, farming households with a more secure land tenure system (such as

fully owned land) had four per cent higher likelihood of adopting improved maize and three

per cent higher chance of adopting combined inorganic fertilizer and improved maize variety

than their counterparts with an insecure land tenure regime, such as leased land.

26

According to Ogada et al. (2014), the distance to input markets negatively influenced the

adoption of inorganic fertilizer and maize hybrids most likely due to easier access. For example

households located far away from markets would incur higher costs of adoption as a result of

higher transport charges. Similarly, Wekesa et al. (2003) reported that field or farm size

positively influenced adoption of fertilizer and hybrid maize. The level of education of the

household head, access to credit and the expected yields of the variety being examined were

also reported to influence adoption of maize hybrids (Ogada et al., 2014).

Technology adoption has transformed over the years to the extent that it now includes the

analysis of adoption determinants. This analysis provides a basis for understanding what causes

differences in adoption rates among technologies and what constraints face adoption of

innovations. Whereas early adoption studies focused mainly on technological innovations that

increased crop and animal productivity, the focus has now shifted towards studies on the

adoption of environment sustaining technologies. A lot of literature exists on analysing

technology adoption behaviour in agriculture, particularly on the factors that influence it

(Sharma et al., 2011). Adoption of innovations by farmers occurs at different paces depending

on cost of technology, socio-economic attributes, influence of peers, attitudes towards the

individual technology as well as the potential risks posed by the technology. All these among

others influence farmers’ adoption behaviour (Toma et al., 2016).

2.4.3 Innovation and Business Development in Agriculture

Agricultural development enables agriculture to adapt rapidly whenever challenges occur and

to respond readily when opportunities arise. This is because of agriculture’s physical, social,

and economic environment is continually changing. If farmers, agribusinesses, and even

nations are to cope, compete, and thrive amid changes of this magnitude, then continuous

innovation is necessary. Development in the agricultural sector requires innovation which is a

major primer of increased productivity, competitiveness, and economic development

particularly in the emerging economies.

Investments in public research and development (R&D), extension, education, and their

linkages with one another have triggered high returns and growth (World Bank, 2007).

Unfortunately, these investments on their own cannot elicit innovation at the pace or at the

required scale to deal with the challenges confronting agriculture. Apart from research and

27

development, other components of effective agricultural innovation are the sharing of

knowledge among actors, the incentives and resources to form partnerships and develop

businesses, as well as enabling conditions that make it possible for actors to innovate.

Successful agricultural innovation arises from a dynamic interaction by the actors involved in

the production, processing, packaging, distribution, and consumption of agricultural products.

Research, education, and extension are usually necessary but on their own are insufficient to

bring knowledge, technologies, and services to farmers and entrepreneurs to continue

innovating (Rajalahti et al., 2008). Innovation requires a much more interactive, dynamic, and

ultimately flexible process in which the actors engage simultaneously with many conditions

and complementary activities that go beyond the traditional realms of research, development

and dissemination. Innovation and business development by different stakeholders occur due

to complementary investments to create an enabling environment. Typically, enabling

conditions depend on the policy environment, innovation management, the regulatory regime

and other investments with synergistic effects (Carter et al., 2011).

The public services that are responsible for extension are plagued with myriad of problems:

limited funding, weak links to research, poorly trained staff, insufficient technology to promote

and limited farmer participation (World Bank, 2005). As a result, extension approaches have

been ineffective and are therefore moving away from centralized systems and making attempts

at strengthening the links between research and farmers (World Bank, 2007).

For most of the agricultural research innovations, it is the small-scale farmer who is the target

or the end user of the products. When working with the small-scale farmers, researchers

generally focus on assessing the innovation and address a given development challenge with

farmers in a process similar to prove of concept (Rajalahti et al., 2008). For the product to sell,

the innovator must understand the farmer needs and wants; the product must address those

preferences than all available alternatives. Research institutions that work directly with farmers

are required to establish for instance the number of farmers growing a certain crop and can

therefore segment farmers into their own unique contexts (Rogers, 2003).

To market to small scale-farmers, companies use hands-on marketing strategies with greater

interpersonal contact, demonstration plots and training to demonstrate the value of the product.

This makes marketing to farmers unique, more expensive and with longer time horizons.

28

During the product development process, continuous feedback gathering from different

customers is very necessary and is done for different segments of the farmers (Carter et al.,

2011).

2.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter reviews previous work done on commercialization of agricultural innovations.

The section specifically discusses characterization of innovations and takes a keen look at

agricultural innovations, commercialization of agricultural innovations and determinants of

adoption of agricultural innovations. The chapter includes an in-depth review of the

development and evolution of agricultural innovations, technology transfer and adoption in

agriculture, the factors enabling commercialization as well as the constraints to technology

commercialization. A limited review on innovation and business development in agriculture

is also included. This chapter is followed by chapter three which deals with research

methodology. The specific aspects of the section include research design, population and

sampling, data collection and data analysis approaches used in the study.

29

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the research methods that were employed. Specifically, the chapter delves

into the research design used, the target population, sampling and sampling techniques,

research procedures, data collection methods and data analysis. In general, this study was

conducted in a public university involved in agricultural research and innovation namely Jomo

Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT). The study also involved a

survey of cassava farmers to determine factors that influence adoption of a selected technology

developed at JKUAT.

3.2 Research Design

This study was based on a descriptive research design and had both qualitative and quantitative

aspects. It also involved a survey and a desktop study to obtain information on the

commercialization levels of agricultural innovations and the factors that hinder and/or support

adoption and commercialization of innovations developed in this institution. More information

was obtained from existing literature (such as conference reports, institutional reports). Key

informant interviews at some instances were used to clarify issues where data analysis could

not give outright determinants for commercialization or adoption of innovations.

To assess determinants of commercialization, engagement in commercialization of innovations

was the dependent variable while gender, education level, administrative responsibility in the

university, membership to a professional body and receiving training on commercialization

were used as the independent variables. Additionally, the dependent variable used in order to

assess determinants of adoption of agricultural innovations was adoption of clean cassava

planting material while independent variables were age, gender, education level, household

size, number of crop enterprises, number of livestock enterprises, nuber of seasons, land size

under cassava cultivation, awareness of clean seed, farmers group membership, distance to the

market, distance to the tarmac, distance to the source of seed and years of experience as a

cassava farmer.

30

3.3 Population and Sampling Design

3.3.1 Population

The population comprised 77 researchers and scientists in the College of Agriculture and

Natural resources at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT)

(JKUAT, 2021). The population of the study also consisted of 100 cassava farmers from Busia

County, Western Kenya who were the potential adopters of the virus-free planting material

technology. The list of researchers was obtained from COANRE while the list of cassava

farmers was obtained from the agricultural officer in the area.

Table 3.1: Population Distribution

Category Population

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) 77

Cassava Farmers in Busia County 100

TOTAL 177

Source: JKUAT 2020, Busia County, 2020

3.3.2 Sampling Design

3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame

A sampling frame is defined as a list of elements from which the sample of a study is drawn

from and that is closely related to the population (Gill & Johnson, 2010). The sampling frame

of this study consisted of a list of researchers in the College of Agriculture and Natural

resources from JKUAT and a list of cassava farmers in Busia County, Kenya. The list of

researchers was provided by the Dean in charge of the college while the list of cassava farmers

was obtained from the agricultural officer in the area.

3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique

The study employed the simple random sampling technique to select researchers and farmers

to be interviewed. This method was selected since each member of staff in the college of

agriculture and each cassava farmer had an equal chance of being interviewed hence increased

sample’s statistical efficiency (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). This ensured a representative

31

sample was used and that the findings from the study of the sample could be confidently

generalized to the population.

3.3.2.3 Sample Size

According to Mugenda & Mugenda (2003), while conducting a descriptive research, a sample

size of 10% to 50% of the population is acceptable. In this study, a sample size of 40 percent

of the total population was used. From JKUAT’s College of agriculture and Natural Resources,

30 respondents were interviewed from an estimated population of about 77 researchers. The

respondents were individual scientists who hold a Master of Science degree qualification and

above, with the responsibility of conducting research and innovation. Additionally, 40 small-

scale cassava farmers were interviewed to identify the determinants of uptake of a selected

innovation which/with the clean (virus-tested) cassava cuttings.

Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution

University Population (N) Sample size (40% of N)

JKUAT 77 30

Cassava farmers 100 40

3.4 Data Collection Methods

Depending on the nature and attributes of various research variables, various data collection

method were employed. To determine the level and factors that influence the

commercialization and uptake of agricultural innovations in Kenyan Universities using the case

of JKUAT and Busia County, primary data was collected through administration of semi-

structured questionnaires to researchers and research and innovation administrators as well as

smallholder farmers. The questionnaires were used as they allow specific information to be

obtained from the respondents that enable to answer the study objectives. The questionnaires

consisted of both closed and open-ended questions. Closed questions were collected using

binary responses, three-point and five point Likert scales. The questionnaire targeting

researchers contained sections on mapping and characterization of agricultural innovations,

32

factors that support and constrain commercialization of agricultural innovations while the

questionnaire targeting farmers contained a section on determinants of uptake of agricultural

innovations.

3.5 Research Procedures

Upon approval of the research proposal (including the research instrument -questionnaire) by

the university, letters of request were sent to the target institutions, seeking permission to

conduct the proposed research. Permission to conduct research was obtained from the National

Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). This was followed by a

pilot test study. This was valuable to identify unclear or ambiguous items in the questionnaire.

According to Mugenda & Mugenda (2003), a pilot study can be carried out with 10 to 15% of

the sample size. From the sample size, each questionnaire was therefore pre-tested among 5

respondents under the two categories of respondents. Before administering the questionnaires,

they were pre-tested for validity and reliability and adjusted accordingly.

Validity is the degree by which the sample of test items represents the content the test is

designed to measure (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The validity test checks the questionnaires

content, structure, sequence, meaning and ambiguity of questions. Content validity was

determined by expert judgment and therefore the supervisor helped assess that the

questionnaires were fit for the study. Amendments were then made on the questionnaire to help

improve on the weaknesses.

To ensure consistency of result from data collection the researcher used the pretested

questionnaire to determine reliability. In particular, an internal consistency measure of

Cronbach coefficient was used. Usually a coefficient range between 0-1 with a 0.7 and above

show that the tools are reliable. The Cronbach’s alpha from the test was 0.74 indicating the

tools were adequately reliable for the study. The pilot data was not included in the actual

study’s data.

Face to face administration of the questionnaire was used for both questionnaires. However, in

order to ensure more responses among the researchers, the survey was also sent via email.

Respondents were assured of confidentiality of any information given to increase the response

rate. In addition to this, reminder emails to respond to the survey were sent to the researchers.

33

3.6 Data Analysis Methods

The research process was followed by data entry and data cleaning. Data was then analyzed

through inferential and descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics included frequency and

percentage distributions, measures of central tendency (mean, medium or mode) and measures

of dispersion (standard deviation, range or variance). Excel and SPSS were used as the data

analysis tools. The inferential statistics employed included logit regression analysis. Data was

presented in terms of tables and figures.

Data on mapping and characterization of agricultural innovations was analyzed using

descriptive statistics. Characterization of agricultural innovations was done around a category

of innovations, target market of innovations, funding of innovations, acquisition of patents,

knowledge of policy environment and perceived challenges facing commercialization of

innovations. A logit regression model was used to assess the determinants of adoption of

agricultural innovations. The model used was presented as:

Pr(𝑈ᵢ = 1) = 𝑋ᵢ𝛽ᵢ + 𝜀ᵢ ……………………………………………………………(1)

Where 𝑋 is a vector of independent variables, βᵢ is a vector of parameters to be estimated while

𝜀ᵢ is the statistical random term.

3.7 Chapter Summary

The study used a descriptive research design which had both qualitative and quantitative

information. The sample size consisted of 30 researchers and 44 small scale farmers. A

questionnaire was the main tool used for data collection from respondents. Data entry was done

in Excel software and followed by data cleaning. Data was analyzed through inferential,

descriptive statistics and logit regression models. This chapter precedes Chapter 4 which

consists of empirical findings of the research. Chapter four specifically covers descriptive

statistics of the interviewed respondents, characterization of agricultural innovations, factors

that support or constrain agricultural innovations and determinants of uptake of agricultural

innovations.

34

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results and findings of the study which include the demographic data

of the respondents, types and characteristics of agricultural innovations resulting from the

research at the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the factors that support and

constrain commercialization of agricultural innovations and also the determinants of adoption

or uptake of a selected agricultural innovation at JKUAT. The chapter provides information on

the funding sources for research, intellectual property protection, commercialization of

innovations as well as awareness and adoption of a selected technology.

4.2 Background Information

Two questionnaires were administered in this study. One to research scientists at COANRE,

JKUAT and another to cassava farmers in Busia County and who are users of one of the

innovations.

4.2.1 Response Rate at COANRE

The researcher distributed questionnaires to 30 researchers in COANRE and 44 farmers in

Busia County. In both cases the response rate was 100% (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Response Rate

No. of questionnaires distributed to group

No of questionnaires responded to Percentage (%)

Researchers 30 100

Farmers 44 100

35

4.2.2 Age and Gender of the COANRE Scientists

Thirty (30) researchers at the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (COANRE) at

JKUAT responded to the questionnaire. The respondents had a mean age of 42.8 years. Of

these respondents, 19 (63.3%) were male, whereas 11 (36.7) were female (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Gender of Scientists Interviewed at COANRE

4.2.3 Highest Education Level of the Respondents at COANRE

Majority 26 (66.7%) of the respondents hold PhD level qualifications, whereas 6 (20.0%) of

these, hold a post doctorate level qualification. A paltry 13.3% of the respondents hold a Master

of Science degree as their highest level of qualification (Figure 4.2).

In your list of figures this 4.1 is on page 47 but this is page 50 meaning, I do not have to look

at the rest. Please work seriously on your work before submitting to me not a reviewer.

63.3

36.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Male

Female

Proportion (%)

Gen

der o

f res

pond

ents

36

Figure 4.2: Highest level of Education among Scientists Interviewed at COANRE

4.2.4 Professional Characteristics of the Respondents at COANRE

A vast majority (27) of the 30 respondents subscribe to a professional body or organization,

whereas the balance 3 (10%) do not belong to any such professional organization. The

respondents had a mean research experience of 11.03 years and a mean publication portfolio

of 19.6 papers in peer refereed journals. It was observed that 18 (60%) of the respondents serve

in administrative positions at the university, while the rest 12 (40.0%) do not serve in any

administrative position (Figure4.3).

Figure 4.3: Professional Characteristics of the Respondents

13.3

66.7

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MSc PHD Post-doctorate

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

60

40

90

10

0102030405060708090

100

Yes No Yes No

Administrative responsibility Professional membership

PRO

PORT

ION

(%)

37

4.2.5 Gender of Farmers Interviewed in Busia County

Forty-four (44) cassava growers from Busia county were interviewed to determine the factors

that influence the adoption of new technologies. Of consideration was the adoption of clean

planting materials which is one of the innovations being promoted by researchers at JKUAT.

Of the 44 respondents, 22 were male, whereas a similar number was female (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Gender of Interviewed Farmers in Busia County

Gender Number Proportion (%)

Male 22 50.0

Female 22 50.0

4.2.6 Highest level of Education for Farmers

Of the respondents interviewed, 30 (68.2%) had attained primary school level of education, 10

(22.7%) had no formal education and only 4 (9.1%) had attained secondary school level of

education. None of the interviewed farmers had tertiary level of education. (Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.4: Highest Education Level and Proportion (%) of Interviewed Farmers in Busia County

22.7

68.2

9.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Informal

Primary school

Secondary school

Proportion (%)

38

4.3 Characterization the Various Agricultural Innovations in JKUAT

4.3.1 Number and Diversity of Innovations Developed

A total of 37 innovations were reported to have been developed by the research scientists

interviewed at JKUAT. The most common innovation was the development of new food

products. Seven (19%) new food products were reported, which was closely followed by a

better-quality method (16%). The third place was taken by a new device and new technique

and a new feed product which were represented by 11% of the 37 innovations. A new crop

variety and a better quality service were reported by 8% of the respondents each. The least

proportion was represented by inventions in mobile applications, a new method and diagnostic

methods with each accounting for 5 % of the total innovations reported (Figure 4.5).

4.3.1 Description of Innovations Developed at JKUAT

The reported innovations included new varieties of pawpaw (papaya) developed for dwarfism

(shortness) to ease operations and facilitate harvesting. Similarly, new cassava varieties

19

16

11

11

11

8

8

5

5

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Food product

Better quality method

New animal feed

Device

Technique

Better quality service

Crop variety

ICT

Diagnostic test

New method

Proportion (%)

Inno

vatio

n ty

pe

Figure 4.5 Number and diversity of innovations developed by researchers in COANRE

(Total number of innovations reported was 37).

39

tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses were among the innovations developed at COANRE. A

number of food products were developed and including a bean-based confectionary, a

complementary food for children and the geriatrics as well as two milk products namely a

yoghurt enriched with fruit and another yoghurt product enriched with probiotic bacteria

popular for their health benefits (Table 4.3).

The developed innovations also included three animal feed products that included an insect-

based feed, one feed formulated from cassava flour and a third feed formulation for feeding

rabbits to promote faster growth.

Table 4.3: Description of innovations developed in COANRE at JKUAT

Innovation Description

1 New variety Papaya varieties bred for dwarf characteristics

2 New varieties Cassava varieties tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses

3 New food product A new bean-based confectionary

4 A new food product A bio snail food product

5 Food product A complementary food product for children and geriatrics

6 A milk product A yoghurt with high fruit content

7 Probiotic yoghurt A yogurt enriched with useful microbes

8 Animal feed A feed for rapid growth of rabbits

9 Animal feed A livestock feed formulated from cassava

10 A new feed product A new insect-based feed product for animals

11 Planting design A new design for planting

12 A new method Selection method of adaptable cowpea

13 Smallholder daily typologies A new approach of categorizing smallholder farmers

14 Diagnostic method A diagnostic test for the detection of cassava infecting viruses

15 Pathogen detection test kit A kit for the detection of bacterial wilt in potato and tomato

16 A lure- pheromone A biological insect control method

17 Filter bag for biofumigants A filter system for use in fumigation

18 Economic model A post-harvest handling model for rice millers

19 A governance approach A responsive forest governance system

40

20 Mobile app A mobile application for creating a virtual market place for sweet potato planting material

21 Mobile Application A mobile phone-based application for marketing farm produce

22 An irrigation system A capillary wick irrigation system for vegetables

Other innovations included two pathogen detection methods for cassava infecting viruses and

another for the bacterial wilt causing bacterium in potato. Additionally, there was a new method

for planting design, and a new approach for categorizing small holder farmers. A laboratory-

based approach for identifying adaptable cowpea varieties based on molecular or DNA-based

methods was also reported to have been developed at COANRE.

Two mobile-based applications were developed one for creating a virtual hub for information

exchange and another for marketing farm produce. One researcher also developed a capillary

wick irrigation system for vegetable growing as well as a biological control system for the

management of insect pests based on a lure pheromone (Table 4.3).

4.3.2 Sources of Research Funding

According to the interviewed scientists, research and innovation funds are obtained from five

(5) main sources. International donors accounted for 55.6%, followed closely by internal funds

from the university at 27.8% (Figure 4.6). Local donors including Government of Kenya was

the third most frequent category source of funding accounting for 5.6%. No scientist reported

to receive any funding from industry. Twenty (54.1%) of the respondents consider that research

funds available for research are not adequate, whereas 17 (45.9%) consider the research funds

to be adequate.

41

Figure 4.6: Main sources of research funding for researchers at COANRE

4.3.3 Level of innovations and Intellectual Property Protection at JKUAT

Applications for patents had only been made for only 9 (24.3%) of the 37-innovation produced

at COANRE, whereas the rest 28 (75.7%) had neither a patent nor had not filed for any form

of intellectual property protection (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7: Level of Intellectual Protection by Researchers at COANRE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Internationaldonors

University Own funds GOK Local donors

55.56

27.78

5.56 5.56 5.56

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

Sources of research funds

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Applied for Patent

Not Applied for Patent

Proportion (%)

42

4.4 Factors that Support or Constrain the Commercialization of Agricultural

Innovations at JKUAT

4.4.1 Level of Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations at JKUAT

A total of 8 innovations developed by the interviewed scientists were reported to have been

commercialized in the last three years. Of these, one researcher had commercialized 5

innovations, while one other researcher had commercialized two innovations. Further, three

researchers had separately commercialized one innovation each. A large proportion 85.5% of

the researchers had not commercialized any innovation (Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.8: Level of Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations at JKUAT

4.4.2 Knowledge on and Challenges to Commercialization

An estimated 15 (50%) of the respondents considered that laws/regulations in Kenya do not

allow for easy entry into the market of new products and services. Only 6 (20%) of the

respondents considered the existing laws and regulations to adequately allow for easy entry of

innovations into the marketplace. Indeed, this was confirmed by a majority 19 (63.3%) of the

respondents who think that the procedures (steps) that must be followed before introduction of

a product in the market are discouraging (Table 4.4). A considerable proportion (66.7%) of the

respondents reported that the cost involved to position a product in the market is prohibitive.

Fifty percent of the respondents considered that the financial gains from innovations are much

85.5

14.5

Commercialized

Not commerciialized

43

lower than costs incurred in product development, and this may influence their motivation to

not only innovate but also to commercialize the innovations.

Table 4.4: Knowledge on and Challenges to Commercialization of Innovations Among

COANRE Staff

Statement True Neutral False

Publishing articles on my research means I have commercialized it

3 (10.0%) 5 (16.7%) 22 (73.3%)

An innovation can be commercialized without acquiring a patent

15 (50.0%) 6 (20.0%) 9 (30.0%)

An innovation has to be funded by a donor

0 (0.0%) 2 (6.7%) 28 (93.3%)

Innovations take a long time to be commercialized

10 (33.3%) 12 (40.0%) 8 (26.7%)

Laws and regulations in Kenya allow for easy market entry

6 (20.0%) 9 (30.0%) 15 (50.0%)

Procedures required before introduction of a product in the market discourage commercialization

19 (63.3%) 7 (23.3%) 4 (13.3%)

Costs involved before product launch are too high for researchers

20 (66.7%) 5 (16.7%) 5 (16.7%)

Financial gains from innovations are much lower than costs incurred in product development

10 (33.3%) 15 (50.0%) 5 (16.7%)

Researchers lack sufficient market information

0 (0%) 10 (33.3%) 20 (66.7%)

4.4.5 Determinants of Innovation Commercialization

Only 5 among the 30 scientists who responded to the questionnaire had commercialized their

innovations. The five were all male; one (20%) holds a Master of Science level qualification

whereas 2 (40%) and 2 (40%) hold PhD and post-doctorate qualifications, respectively (Table

44

4.6). Of the PhD holders (total 20), only two had commercialized an innovation. Similarly,

only 2 of the six post-doctorate level scientists had commercialized their inventions (Table 4.5).

All the five scientists who have commercialized their inventions belong to a professional body.

Of these only one (20%) has attended a formal training on commercialization of inventions.

Age and experience appeared to influence commercialization albeit slightly. For instance, the

average age for those researchers who had commercialized innovations was 45.8 years which

is higher than the mean age of those who had not commercialized (42.2 years). Similarly,

scientists who had commercialized their innovations had a slightly higher research experience

of 16 years compared to the 10.04 years computed for researchers that had not commercialized

their innovations. The same case obtained when considering the number of publications

whereby those who had commercialized innovations have a higher mean of 29 articles in peer

refereed journals against 17.7 articles for those who had not commercialized any innovation

(Table 4.5).

From the key informant interviews, it was reported that many scientists in universities lack

understanding (awareness) on the importance of patents (or intellectual property protection)

and how knowledge is packaged. They also explained that few scientists patent their

innovations because it requires funds to apply and maintain the patents prior to

commercialization. The key informants reported that the links between industry and academics

are largely non-existent or very weak where they existed.

It was observed that the process of innovation incubation is necessary but is almost non-existent

at the university due to lack of funds to actualize it. As a result, there are no spin-off companies

set up as a means of commercialization or engagement with industry. The key informants also

reported that scientists do not have a very clear understanding of the process to follow in

innovation commercialization. They added that scientists most of the time lack touch with what

society requires and usually have the individualistic thinking due to organizational culture. This

makes them to develop innovations which are not demanded by the society in general.

Although JKUAT has a directorate of Intellectual Property and Industry Liaison that also

serves as an IP office, it was highlighted that most universities and research organizations lack

IP offices, and where the offices exist, they are staffed with inadequate and sometimes

incompetent personnel. For this reason, awareness of IP commercialization is very low among

45

university researchers/scientists. In addition to this, the key informants indicated that due to

weak IP systems in the universities, knowledge from research, and innovation is not packaged

in a format that ensures it can be utilized by industry (entrepreneurs).

The key informants identified the lack of a commercialization policy in Kenya generally and

in the institutions in particular to be one of the challenges that hinders the commercialization

of IP at the universities and research organizations. The IP policies in the universities or

research organizations where they exist do not have any clauses on commercialization.

Table 4.5: Determinants of Commercialization of Innovations among COANRE

Scientists

Categorical Variable Commercialized (n=5)

Not commercialized (n=25)

n % n %

Gender Male 5 100 14 56

female 0 0 11 44

Education level

Masters 1 20 3 12

PhD 2 40 18 72

Post-doc 2 40 4 16

University administrative responsibility

Yes 5 100 0 0

No 13 52 12 48

Professional body membership Yes 5 100 0 0

No 22 88 3 12

Attended commercialization training

Yes 1 20 4 80

No 4 80 16 64

46

4.5 Determinants of Uptake of Agricultural Innovations among Smallholder Farmers in

Kenya

4.5.1 Adoption of Clean Cassava Seed in Busia County

Forty-four (44) cassava growers from Busia county were interviewed to determine the factors

that influence the adoption of new technologies. Of consideration was the adoption of clean

planting materials one of the innovations being popularized by JKUAT researchers. A vast

majority 38 (86.4%) of the respondents belong to membership organizations whereas the rest

6 (13.6%) do not belong to any group (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6: Adoption of Clean Cassava Seed among Farmers of Busia County, Kenya

Category Frequency Proportion (%)

Adopter 14 31.82

Non-adopter 30 68.18

Total 44 100

4.5.2 Farmer Attributes and Adoption

The main attributes of farmers in Busia County that influenced adoption are depicted in Table

4.7. Of the 14 respondents who adopted the technology, 7 were male, while the rest were female.

Of the 14 adopters, 21.4% had no formal education, 71.4% had primary level education and

7.14% had secondary school education as their highest level of education. Conversely, of the

non-adopters, majority (66.6%) had attained primary school level of education, whereas those

with informal and secondary level of education were 23.3 and 10.0%, respectively.

47

Table 4.7: Adoption of clean cassava seed by interviewed cassava farmers of Busia

County

4.5.3 Main Purpose of the Cassava Enterprise in Busia County

Data on the main purpose of having the cassava enterprise in the farm was collected. According

to the farmers (respondents), only three reasons were given namely commercial purposes,

subsistence (home consumption) or a combination of both commercial and subsistence (also

known as dual purposes) (Figure 4.8).

Majority (79.5%) of the farmers in Busia county farmed cassava for subsistence (Table 4.9)

whereas only 51.9% and 4.5% grow cassava for dual purposes and for commercial purposes,

respectively.

Categorical Variable Total sample

(n=44) Adopters

(n=14) Non-adopters

(n=30)

No % No % No %

Gender Male 22 50 7 50 15 50

Female 22 50 7 50 15 50

Level of education

Informal 10 22.73 3 21.43 7 23.33

Primary 30 68.18 10 71.43 20 66.6

Secondary 4 9.09 1 7.14 3 10.0

Farmers group membership

Member 38 86.36 2 14.29 4 13.33

Non-member

6 13.64 12 85.71 26 86.67

48

Figure 4.9: Purpose of the Cassava Enterprise among farmers in Busia County

4.5.4 Purpose of the Cassava Enterprise and Adoption

Of all the 14 adopters, 10 (71.4%) grow cassava for home consumption, 3 (21.3%) for dual

reasons whereas only 1 (7.1%) grow cassava for commercial purposes (Figure 4.10).

Figure 4.10: Influence of Purpose of the Cassava Enterprise and Technology Adoption

4.55

79.55

15.91

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Commercial Subsistence Commercial & Subsistence

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

Main purpose for growing cassava

7.14

71.43

21.43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Commercial Subsistence Commercial & Subsistence

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

Purpose of growing cassava

49

4.5.5 Awareness of Technology and Adoption

Table 4.10 Depicts the awareness of the clean and virus tested cassava planting seed among

farmers in Busia county. Twenty-one (21) out of the 44 interviewed farmers were aware of the

benefits of using clean planting material whereas 23 (52.3%) were not aware. Of the 21 that

were aware, only 14 adopted the technology while 7 did not despite the awareness (Table 4.10).

As expected, none of the unaware farmers adopted the technology of using virus tested clean

planting seed (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8: Awareness of the clean cassava seed technology and its benefits among

farmers in Busia County, Kenya

Awareness of Technology

Total sample (n=44)

No %

Adopters (n=14)

No %

Non-adopters (n=30)

No %

Aware 21 47.73 14 100 7 23.33

Not aware 23 52.27 0 0 23 76.67

4.5.6 Regression

A logit regression model was used to determine the key factors that determine uptake of

agricultural technologies such as the clean (virus-free) planting material. The model was

chosen as uptake of clean seed is modelled as a choice between two alternatives that is to adopt

or not adopt clean planting material.

The binary random variable Ui therefore takes the value of 1 if the household adopts and zero

if otherwise.

𝑈ᵢ =1 𝑖𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑠 0 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

The probability that a household adopts clean seed is therefore estimated empirically as:

Pr(𝑈ᵢ = 1) = 𝑋ᵢ𝛽ᵢ + 𝜀ᵢ ……………………………………………………………(1)

50

Where 𝑋 is a vector of variables such as age, gender, education level, household size, number

of crop enterprises, number of livestock enterprises, nuber of seasons, land size under cassava

cultivation, awareness of clean seed, farmers group membership, distance to the market,

distance to the tarmac, distance to the source of seed and years of experience as a cassava

farmer; βᵢ is a vector of parameters to be estimated while 𝜀ᵢ is the statistical random term.

Of the factors considered, only 3 were significant (P<0.10) namely level of education

(P=0.086) (at secondary school level), household size (P=0.064) and number of livestock

enterprises (P=0.096). All other factors such as gender, land size, household size, years of

farming experience, distance to the technology, awareness of the technology and age of

respondents did not seem to significantly influence technology diffusion (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9: Determinants of adoption of clean cassava seed among farmers in Busia County

Variable Coefficient Std. error z p>z

Age 0.0522786 0.0946759 0.55 0.581

Education primary 0.9327911 1.892152 0.49 0.622

Education secondary 4.659866* 2.716453 1.72 0.086

Household size 0.6723162* 0.3605175 1.86 0.062

Number of crop enterprises -0.6945187 0.8581163 -0.81 0.418

Number of livestock enterprises

1.95758* 1.176799 1.66 0.096

Number of seasons 2.455149 1.977481 1.24 0.214

Cassava land size 1.832865 2.380786 0.77 0.441

Clean seed awareness 0.4413492 0.3109578 1.42 0.156 Farmers group membership -0.0084716 0.0655926 -0.13 0.897 Distance market 1.181793 1.048383 1.13 0.26

Distance to tarmac 0.2690591 0.3351263 0.8 0.422

Awareness of clean seed source

-0.0122478 0.0310221 -0.39 0.693

Gender -1.369266 1.667971 -0.82 0.412

Years of experience -0.0719209 0.1203178 -0.6 0.55

Distance to source of seed -0.0067623 0.0125227 -0.54 0.589

Constant -11.48895 5.415025 -2.12 0.034

51

Other factors such as number of crop and animal enterprises, household size, land desiccated

to cassava, membership to a farmers group, distance to market, distance to tarmacked road,

gender of the farmer, years of experience and distance to seed source did not influence the

farmers’ adoption of the technology.

4.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the main results and findings of the study. It specifically covered the

descriptive statistics of the interviewed respondents, characterization of various agricultural

innovations that were developed in COANRE within the last three years, the factors that

support or constrain commercialization of agricultural innovations and the determinants for

uptake of agricultural innovations among cassava farmers in Busia County. The data was

mainly presented in tables and graphs. This chapter precedes chapter five which consists of the

discussion, conclusions and recommendations from the research results and findings.

52

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

Innovation has been defined as the implementation of a new or significantly enhanced product,

a new marketing method, or a new organizational approach in business practices, workplace

organization or external relations. It involves science and technology, research and

development as well as the adoption of scientific research results such as new production

techniques or improved farming practice (Chernova et al., 2019). Innovation is therefore

critical to the agricultural sector and the Kenyan economy. Agricultural innovations such as

development of new crop varieties, nutrient management practices, new livestock breeds as

well as modern biotechnology contribute significantly to economic development as they enable

greater productivity and sustainability.

5.2 Summary

The general objective of the study was to determine the level and factors that influence the

commercialization and uptake of agricultural innovations in Kenyan Universities using the case

of JKUAT and Busia County. Specifically, the study mapped and characterized the various

agricultural innovations developed in JKUAT, examined the factors that support or constrain

the commercialization of agricultural innovations in JKUAT and finally assessed the

determinants of uptake of agricultural innovations among smallholder cassava farmers in Busia

county of Kenya.

This study was based on a descriptive research design using both qualitative and quantitative

approaches. It involved a survey to obtain information on the commercialization of agricultural

innovations and the factors that hinder and/or support adoption and commercialization of

innovations developed at COANRE, JKUAT. Key informant interviews at some instances were

used to clarify issues where data analysis could not give outright determinants for

commercialization or adoption of innovations. Thirty (30) researchers and 40 small-scale

cassava farmers from Busia County were interviewed using questionnaires. The questionnaires

53

consisted of both closed and open-ended questions. Data from closed questions were collected

using binary responses, three point and five point Likert scales. The questionnaire targeting

researchers contained sections on mapping and characterization of agricultural innovations,

factors that support and constrain commercialization of agricultural innovations while the

questionnaire targeting farmers contained a section on determinants of uptake of agricultural

innovations. Face to face administration of the questionnaire was used for both questionnaires

after they were pre-tested for validity and reliability. To ensure more responses among the

researchers, the questionnaire was also sent via email to respondents. Data entry was done in

Excel software followed by data cleaning. Data was then analyzed through inferential and

descriptive statistics. The inferential statistics employed included logit regression analysis.

Data was presented in terms of tables and figures.

A total of 37 innovations were reported to have been developed by the research scientists

interviewed at JKUAT. The reported innovations included food products, crop varieties that

were high yielding and tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses. Other innovations included three

animal feed products a bacterium detection and a laboratory-based approach for identifying

adaptable cowpea varieties a well as two mobile-based applications were developed one for

creating a virtual hub for information exchange and another for marketing farm produce. One

researcher developed a capillary wick irrigation system for vegetable growing and a biological

control system for the management of insect pests based on a lure pheromone. Of these 37

innovations, patent applications had only been made for only 9 (24.3%).

The study identified key challenges to commercialization of the innovations as poor university–

industry collaboration, low incubation capacity, absence of a commercialization strategy

including spin-off companies, lack of entrepreneurship skills among scientists and lack or

inadequate funds for commercialization. The situation is exacerbated by low adoption of the

innovations. The factors influencing adoption of innovations among farmers are also discussed.

A logit regression model was used to determine the key factors that determine uptake of

agricultural technologies such as the clean (virus-free) planting material. Only three factors

(level of education, household size and number of livestock enterprises) were significant. All

other factors such as gender, land size, household size, years of farming experience, distance

to the technology, awareness of the technology and age of respondents did not seem to

significantly influence technology diffusion.

54

5.3 Discussion

5.3.1 Characterization of Agricultural Innovations produced at JKUAT

Innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service),

a new marketing method, or a new organizational approach in an organization (Chernova et al.,

2019). In a survey of innovations at the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

(COANRE) at JKUAT, 30 randomly selected researchers were interviewed. They reported to

have developed 37 innovations over the past three years. These included a new food product,

a better method, a new device, a new technique and a new crop variety. The scientists also

reported to have developed a better-quality service, an invention in ICT, as well as a disease

diagnostic method.

It has been suggested that research converts money into knowledge, whereas innovation

converts knowledge into money (Bennett, 2008). The innovations described by scientists at

COANRE conformed to the current definitions of innovations available in the literature. In

order to realize the benefits of research, the resulting innovations must be commercialized

(Meyers, 2009). In the current study, 8 out of the 37 innovations were reported to be at various

stages of commercialization. These innovations were developed by a small proportion of the

interviewed researchers and none was fully commercialized. Equally surprising was the fact

that of the interviewed scientists, 74.7% had not /never applied for a patent therefore meaning

that most of the innovations had not been protected yet patenting is at the heart of successful

technology commercialization.

Innovations emerge through a number of steps that include concept emergence in a process

called discovery. This is then followed by advancing of the innovation to field trial stage from

the laboratory in a stage known as development. The final stage is the scaling up and final

commercialization of the technology. The innovations reported from COANRE were all

products of research which was funded both internally and externally. That most off the

researchers had not applied for patents for their various products indicated that there could be

challenges to commercialization.

The quantity and quality of innovations has previously been measured through patents,

certificates, copyrights and licenses given as acknowledgement for creativity (Ehrenberger et

55

al., 2015). Patents act as an incentive to innovators by recognizing their creativity and

providing a return on investment. In the current study, the quantity of applications for patents

was very low indicating that patenting is not motivation enough perhaps because the process

is costly, or the knowledge or belief among inventors that patenting is no guarantee for

commercialization of the developed innovations.

Agricultural technologies have the power to derive economic development globally (FARA,

2018). The JKUAT researchers (respondents) hold technical qualifications at the highest

academic levels majority of them holding vast research experience and expertise that enables

them to continually invent, innovate and develop products. Low commercialization of

innovations in Kenya is low despite resourceful manpower suggesting that there could be

barriers to knowledge flow or there are flaws in the commercialization strategy. It is imperative

that universities have a proper reward and incentive system (Gomez-Majia, 1992; Makriel et

al., 2006; Yaakub. 2008).

Successful agricultural innovation arises from the interaction between actors involved. These

actors represent a variety of perspectives and skills. For innovation to occur, interactions

among these diverse stakeholders need to be open while utilizing the most appropriate

knowledge available. In addition to a strong capacity in research and development, the other

components of effective agricultural innovation are skills, incentives and resources as well as

partnerships for creating conditions that make it possible to innovate. To do this, the institutions

must turn themselves into entrepreneurship universities in order to conduct relevant research

that benefits society (Yakuub et al., 2011). From the current research, key informants were of

the view that researchers are out of touch of what industry and society in general needs.

The research funding landscape was identified as a key factor that is likely to affect

development of innovations. Most researchers considered that funding for research and

innovation to be inadequate. Often, there is some influence by donors that provide research

funding (Friedman, 2003). In the case of African countries, donors influence if not dictate the

research agenda thereby influencing the research and innovation outputs. Such outputs and

products may not be driven by the market or societal needs, which partly explains why there is

a disconnect between universities and society as well as very little collaboration between

research and industry.

56

5.3.2 Determinants of Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations

Development of innovations is not by itself sufficient, but the commercialization of the

innovations for the benefit of society (Bechdol, 2012). Commercialization seeks to bringing

innovations to the market thereby benefiting the society (Pellikka & Malinden, 2011). In the

current study, efforts were directed at identifying the determinants of commercialization of

agricultural innovations in Kenya and particularly those developed in the universities. However,

since the rate of commercialization was very low, none of the factors that were considered and

analyzed were significant and as such, descriptive statistics were used. This was also backed

up with key informant interviews with key players at the college and the university.

Successful commercialization of research products and processes is hindered by several factors.

During the discussions with key informants, it was noted that one of the reasons for the low

commercialization of innovations is the fact that scientists do not ensure that the research they

conduct is relevant to the private sector (market) to effectively transfer their findings (Powers

& McDougall, 2005; Pavitt, 1988). In the study of COANRE, there was no evidence for strong

linkages between academia and industry. Strong links between academia and industry allow

basic research to benefit industry (Perkmann & Walsh, 2007).

University-industry links play an important role in the innovation process (Perkannan & Walsh,

2007; Roshani et al., 2015). Such linkages are important in facilitating the generation of

academic spin-offs through a better understanding of the market potential and development of

relevant business models (Looy et al., 2011), leading to beneficial impacts. Such linkages

provide a connection or bridge between academia and market (Landry et al., 2006; Landry et

al., 2007). In the study, it was apparent from the key informant interviews that no academic

spin-offs were in place to try to commercialize the innovations developed at COANRE.

University-industry collaboration has been identified as a very suitable conduit for

commercialization (Landry et al., 2006). In the current study, it was observed there is very low

collaboration between industry and the universities and could be hindering entrepreneurship.

Universities must therefore collaborate and cooperate with industry partners (Etzkowitz, 2004)

in order for firms to increase their innovation potential and reduce their research and

development costs (Agrawal, 2001) while universities would access research funds and for

57

spin-off generation (Arza, 2010; D’Este et al., 2010). Arvanitis et al. (2008) opines that access

to industrial knowledge and funds are key drivers of entrepreneurship.

The commercialization of research products is still new in Kenya. Some universities such as

JKUAT, University of Nairobi and Moi university have technology transfer offices which are

mandated to coordinate technology transfer activities from research and filing of patent

applications as well as to establishment of academic startups. Despite the presence of these

offices on campus, very minimal commercialization of research outputs is available to show.

In other parts of the world, universities have started spin-off firms or companies as a tool for

commercializing research (Markman et al., 2005; Rasmussen, 2008) and are providing funds

to support the spin-off companies (Owen-smith & Powell, 2001). This has so far not been the

case in the Kenyan institutions.

Although incubation has been a useful approach utilized to promote growth of technology

(Bergek & Norman, 2008), there wasn’t much evidence that the researchers had benefited. This

is perhaps because incubation is in its infancy in the country. It is expected that through

incubation, entrepreneurs to be are provided with key support at the initial stages of technology

marketing. The support that may be in form of labs, softwares and networks critical for the

success were non-extent which may explain the low levels of commercialization of the

products from COANRE.

Kenney & Patton (2005) highlighted the common challenges of commercialization of

innovations as being financing, production, distribution and marketing. In the Kenyan

experience, the issue of funding could be key. Most of the scientists have research funding

which is hardly enough for the research itself. It therefore follows that no resources are left to

production, distribution, and marketing of the products. According to majority of researchers

interviewed in the current research, funding is in more than 50% of the cases obtained from

foreign donors with a similar proportion reporting the research funding to be inadequate. Al

Natsheh et al. (2015) consider that insufficient funds for commercialization and lack of skill in

marketing of the products to be key obstacles to technology commercialization. In the

COANRE study, the researchers had no skill nor support of marketing personnel to

commercialize their products and clearly lacked the skill to do so themselves.

58

The commercialization process takes a long time to actualize as it requires investment before

realizing returns. The investment is especially needed for intellectual property protection,

licensing and marketing (Cohen et al., 1998). However, it is well known that

commercialization does not necessarily lead to a successful business breakthrough in the

absence of a well-planned commercialization strategy (Yakuub et al., 2011). Barr et al. (2009)

used the analogy of the valley of death to describe a missing link from an emerging technology

to creation of a compelling new market-driven business. He called that gap between the

creation of technology and commercialization of these technologies the “valley of death”.

Scientists must understand the decisive role of the market forces in commercialization of

technology namely the market push (supply) and pull (demand). One way of increasing chances

of successful commercialization of a product is through having a market driven product from

the initial stages (Valiauga, 2013).

The analogy of the ‘valley of death’ perfectly depicts the kind of fate that befalls the

innovations developed at COANRE. The lack of a well thought out commercialization strategy

will plague the commercialization innovations developed anywhere in the world (Pellikka et

al., 2011). This coupled with lack of commercialization planning may largely explain the low

levels of commercialization in Kenya. Thus, exposing the academic entrepreneur to strategic

thinking is an imperative ingredient for designing a commercialization approach. Moreover,

the scientists interviewed did not have the necessary and partnerships to support

commercialization of the products. Further, most innovations face commercialization

challenges as they are not standardized and are also new to the users (Al Natesh et al., 2015).

It has been argued that training and development of staff involved in innovation and scaling up

is one of the determinants of success in innovation. Training is particularly useful for

procedural and technical expertise as well as organizational values (Binswanger & Nguyen,

2005). Of the innovators who had commercialized their innovations, only one reported to have

attended a training relevant to commercialization. Chiesa & Frattini (2011) argue that many

innovation products fail due lack of understanding of the process of commercialization. An

academic wishing to be an entrepreneur is therefore expected to possess key skills for

exploiting opportunities. Only this way will the developed products meet customer

expectations.

59

Successful commercialization will depend on the entrepreneurial infrastructure set up by the

university. In the case of JKUAT, there exists an intellectual property transfer office, but it is

not clear if all the other enablers are present to spur commercialization. JKUAT has a research

and intellectual property policies but lacks a commercialization strategy and policy.

Development of these two policies at national and institutional levels could greatly enhance

the entrepreneurial infrastructure and thereby greatly boost the commercialization of

innovations.

5.3.3 Determinants of Uptake of Agricultural Innovations

Innovation continues to be at the center of efforts to help small scale farmers and the entire

agricultural sector to improve its productivity (Ergano et al., 2010). Accordingly, the

commercialization of innovations provides farmers with access to transformational

technologies. This is especially the case for publicly funded agricultural research that benefits

smallholder farmers in the same way as the commercialization of a product to a mass market

(Yaakub et al., 2011). Research institutions including universities in Kenya have the mandate

to develop agricultural solutions that have a market appeal (Yaakub et al., 2011). In the current

research, attempts were made at determining the factors that influence the adoption of

innovations using a technology developed at COANRE namely the clean and virus-tested

cassava seed.

In the current study, only 14 (out of 44) interviewed farmers had adopted the technology of

using clean and virus tested cassava seed. Clean seed is expected to reduce yield loss due to

reduced disease effects resulting from virus infection. The study determined the factors

responsible for adoption and non-adoption of the technology. Regression analysis of the

collected data revealed that only three factors significantly influenced the adoption of the

selected technology namely level of education, household size and number of livestock

enterprises in the households.

The level of education of the household head in the current study seemed to influence adoption

of the technology. A similar observation was previously made by Ogada et al. (2014) while

studying the adoption of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize in Kenya. However, in the

current study, all other factors such as gender, land size, household size, years of farming

experience, awareness of the technology and age of respondents did not influence technology

60

diffusion. It was particularly unexpected that awareness of the technology and farming

experience by the growers had no influence on the adoption of the technology.

Gerhart (1975) examined adoption of hybrid maize between late 1964 and 1973 in western

Kenya and identified factors such as farmer’s education, access to credit, and access to

extension services to influence adoption. Farmers who adopted hybrid maize were found more

likely to adopt other yield-enhancing practices such as use of inorganic and organic fertilizers,

and modern management practices such as planting in rows, weeding more than once, thinning

and using insecticides. In the preset study, adoption of clean seed was significant among

farmers with more livestock enterprises, perhaps because of their socio-economic

circumstances.

Griliches (1957) reported factors such as expected profits to influence adoption of hybrid corn

in the mid-western United States. Other factors identified to possibly explain the rate of

adoption and level of use of new agricultural technology included credit constraints, risk

aversion, the farmer’s landholding size, land tenure system, human capital endowment, quality

and quantity of farm equipment, and supply of complementary inputs (Feder et al. 1985).

Although most of these factors were not analyzed, the cassava is a unique enterprise perhaps

because it is largely cultivated for subsistence since for majority of farmers the crop is for home

consumption and not for market as indicated by the proportion of farmers that cultivate cassava

for sale.

At the beginning of technology diffusion or adoption, only a few farmers may adopt a

technology on smaller experimental scale. As the first harvest is realized, more farmers start to

belief in the technology which in turn may increase the rate of adoption in subsequent years.

Besley & Case (1993) found that the probability of adopting an agricultural technology

increases as farmers realize the profitability of the new technology. In the case of clean cassava

seed, the awareness of the technology was low (23 out of 44 growers) and this could explain

the low adoption even though awareness of the technology was not significant. The low

awareness of the technology would mean that the extension service is plagued with widespread

challenges such as limited funding, poorly trained staff, weak links to research, and limited

farmer participation (World Bank, 2005).

61

From the analysis of data, the distance from the farming community to source of input (clean

seed) was not significant in the current study. This was contrary to observations made by Ogada

et al. (2014) who reported that distance to input market was negatively correlated with joint

adoption of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize variety. The clean seed was available at

JKUAT which is a considerable distance from Busia County and is consistent with the study

by Ogada et al. (2014). A way of producing the seed near the cassava production areas

therefore needs to be found.

For most of the agricultural innovations, it is the small-scale farmer who is the target customer

or the end user of the product. While working with the small-scale farmers, researchers

generally focus on assessing the innovation and address a given development challenge with

farmers in a process like prove of concept. For the product to sell, the seller needs to understand

the farmers’ needs and wants; the product must address those needs and wants than any

available alternative. Indeed, in the case of clean and virus-tested cassava seed, the developers

did not have enough seed should the farmers have elected to fully adopt the technology and it

is likely that there are other cheaper alternative sources of seed also marketed as clean.

It is not given that once technologies have been developed, they will diffuse (scale-out

naturally). Even good technologies require the support and commitment of individuals.

Specifically, they require strategies for scaling out that are tailored to their circumstances. This

may explain why agricultural innovators or researchers are faced with challenges of moving

beyond research outputs (Harrington et al., 2001). In the case of the clean seed, the introduction

of the technology may have lacked the support and strategy required for it to reach farmers.

Again, this could be explained by the lack of a commercialization policy and/or strategy at the

research institutions.

Many relevant technologies do not achieve their full impact due to low levels of adoption. It is

likely that reduced financial allocation to agricultural research and development is responsible

for the low level of commercialization. Lack of a scaling up strategy in universities could also

be responsible for the low levels of commercialization leading to low adoption. Innovations

that are market driven are expected to quickly diffuse because of existing demand. Frantic

efforts have been made at improving African agriculture although the interventions constitute

“islands of success” as these are not scalable (Haggblade & Hazel, 2010). The successes remain

in the research institutions because they have not been demanded; while others have suffered

62

low adoption by the users leading to low returns on research investments (Aguru et al., 2008).

Such innovations would require advocacy, careful logistical planning and a clean definition of

roles for those involved.

5.4 Conclusions

5.4.1 Characterization the Various Agricultural Innovations at COANRE

A survey of innovations at the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (COANRE) of

JKUAT, revealed 37 diverse innovations that have been developed in the past three years.

These included a new food product, a new method, a new device, a new technique, a new crop

variety and new disease diagnostic methods. However, this was characterized by a very low

level of innovation per scientist and even a much lower level of protection of those innovations

as shown by the level of filing for patents and even a lower level of commercialization. This

was explained by a very low level of investment on research and development.

5.4.2 Factors that Support or Constrain the Commercialization of Agricultural

Innovations at COANRE

The study identified the key determinants for commercialization of innovations developed at

JKUAT. The key reasons for low commercialization are the poor university–industry

collaboration, low incubation capacity, absence of a commercialization strategy, poor

entrepreneurship skills among scientists and inadequate funds for commercialization. It is

possible that the innovations do not get commercialized because of low levels of adoption and

demand due to lack of a scaling up strategy in universities.

5.4.3 Determinants of Uptake of Agricultural Innovations Among Smallholder Farmers

in Kenya

The study reported that only 14 (out of 44) of the interviewed farmers had adopted the use of

clean and virus tested cassava seed. The key factors influencing technology adoption were

significant namely level of education, household size and number of livestock enterprises. The

other factors such as awareness, distance to the source of the technology and competing sources

of similar inputs could influence adoption of a technology, which in turn affect the

63

commercialization of innovations. The low uptake could be explained by the lack of a

commercialization policy and/or strategy.

5.5 Recommendations

5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement

5.5.1.1 Characterization the Various Agricultural Innovations

To improve the innovation capacity of scientists in the universities, it is necessary that budgets

be enhanced by seeking new sources of funding for academic research and innovation at the

universities. It is also critical that incentives for the human capital devoted to research and

development be reformulated and enhanced, while according support to young scientists. A

new system needs to be developed for evaluating university research projects to determine the

potential of these projects to produce viable products thereby improving the possibilities of

having high returns from research investments.

5.5.1.2 Factors that Support or Constrain the Commercialization of Agricultural

Innovations

Policies at national and institutional levels should be developed aimed at increasing the

economic returns of publicly funded research; by stimulating university-industry linkages; and

funding of academic spin-off firms that are fully dedicated to commercialization of university

research results. The universities should in turn develop commercialization and

entrepreneurship strategies and policies to help focus on the real needs of the industry and

market. Additionally, the universities should consider including commercialization and

entrepreneurship in their graduate curricula to ensure that future scientists are well grounded

on the tenets of entrepreneurship.

5.5.1.3 Determinants of Uptake of Agricultural Innovations Among Smallholder

Farmers in Kenya

For successful uptake of innovation products, the innovator needs to understand the user needs

and wants; the product must address those needs and wants than any available alternative.

Strategies for scaling out that are tailored to the farmers’ circumstances are required. In the

64

case of the clean seed, the introduction of the technology may have lacked the support and

strategy required for it to reach farmers. Future strategies would involve advocacy, careful

logistical planning and a clean definition of roles for those involved to ensure considerable

levels of adoption thereby ensuring good returns to research investment.

5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

Further research should be done to characterize agricultural innovation system in Kenya as

well as expand the study on a wider scale focusing on more institutions. The studies should

analyze the extent to which existing strategies and policies in the country influence innovation,

adoption and commercialization of innovations.

65

REFERENCES

Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2): 408-422.

Abutalib, N. (2007). Commercialization and its discontents [PhD Thesis], University of Stirling. PhD. STORRE: Stirling Online Research Repository. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/390#.X2Me5ItRXIU

Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4): 285-302.

Agrawal, A. & R. Henderson, (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48: 44-57.

Aguru, A.E., Dimelu, M.U. & Madukwe, M.C. (2008). Innovation system approach to agricultural development: Policy implications for agricultural extension delivery in Nigeria. Africa Journal of Biotechnology, 7(11): 1604-1611.

Al Natsheh, A., Gbadegeshin, S. A., Rimpiläinen, A., Imamovic-Tokalic I., & Zambrano, A. (2015). Identifying the challenges in commercializing high technology: A case study of quantum key distribution technology. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(1): 26–36.

Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10): 1865-1883.

Arza, V. (2010). Channels, benefits and risks of public-private interactions for knowledge transfer: conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Science and Public Policy, 37(7): 473-484.

Bandiera, O. & Rasul, I. (2006) Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. Economic Journal, 116 (1): 869–902

Barr, S. H., Baker, T., Markham, S. K. & Kingon, A. I. (2009). New Developments in Technology Management Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 8(1): 370-388.

Bechdol, A.E. (2012). Food and Agriculture Innovation; 21st Century Opportunities for Indiana. BioCrossroads. Available at https://ilagrifood.org/indiana-food-agricultural-innovation-21st-century-opportunities-indiana/

Belkhodja, O., & Landry, R. (2007). The triple-helix collaboration: Why do researchers

collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors that influence the perceived barriers? Scientometrics, 70(2), 301–332.

Bellman, C, Dutfield, G. & Melendez-Oritiz, R. (2003). Trading in Knowledge: Development Perspectives on TRIPS, Trade and Sustainability. Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis.

66

Bennett, A. (2008). Up-scaling Knowledge and Innovation for Development. Addis Ababa. ET: Paper presented at the International Food Policy Research Institute Conference, Advancing Agriculture in Developing Countries through Knowledge and Innovation, April 7th.

Bergek, A. & Norrman, C. (2008). Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28(1):

20-28. Besley, T. & Case, A. (1993). Modelling technology adoption in developing countries.

American Economic Review, 83(2): 396–402.

Chamberlain, G. (1984). Panel Data. In: Griliches, Z. & Intriligator, M.D. (Eds.). Handbook of Econometrics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.

Binswanger, H.P. & McIntire, J. (1987). Behavioral and material determinants of production relations in land abundant tropical agriculture. Journal of Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36(1): 73–100.

Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agricultural change under population pressure. London, UK: Allen and Unwin.

Carl, D. J., Ross-Larson, B. & Westphal, L.E. (1987). Managing technological development: lessons from the newly industrializing countries. World Development, 15 (6): 759–75.

Carter, S., Alsos, G., Ljunggren, E. & Welter, F., 2011. Handbook of Research on

Entrepreneurship in Agriculture and Rural Development. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chandler, A. D. (2005). Commercializing high-technology industries. Business History Review, 79(3): 595–604.

Chang, S. C., Chi-Nien, M. & Ishtiaq, M. P. (2006). When and how does business group

affiliation promote firm innovation? A tale of two emerging economies. Organization Science, 17(1): 637-656.

Chema, S., Gilbert, E. & Roseboom, J. (2003). A review of the key issues and recent experiences in reforming agricultural research in Africa. Hague, NL: ISNAR Research Report No 24.

Chernova V, Kocherbaeva, A. & Savin, A. (2019). Commercialization of innovations and

leadership in agricultural industry. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 318(1): 204-209.

Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Commercializing technological innovation: learning from

failures in high-tech markets. Product Development & Management Association, 28(4): 437–454.

Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (1998). Transforming rather than transferring scientific and

technological knowledge – the contribution of academic 'spin out' companies: the Italian way. In R. Oakey & W. During (Eds). New technology-based firms in the 1990s [Volume 5], London, UK: Paul Chapman.

67

Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of

transformation. New York, NY: Pergamon.

Cohen, W.M., Florida, R. Randazzese, L. & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In: Noll, R.G. (Ed.), Challenge to the Research University. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution.

Conley, T.G. & Udry, R.C. (2010). Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. American Economic Review, 100(1): 35-69.

Cornish, W.R. (2001). Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights. New Delhi, IN: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The Role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3): 321–342.

Decter, M., Bennett, D., & Leseure, M. (2007). University to business technology transfer: UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27(3): 145-155.

D’Este, P., Mahdi, S., & Neely, A. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship: What are the factors shaping the capacity of academic researchers to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. Copenhagen, DK: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics Working Paper No. 10, 5.

Dietz, J.S. & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(1): 349-367.

Ehrenberger, M., Koudelkova, P., & Strielkowski, W. (2015) Factors influencing innovation in small and medium enterprises in the Czech Republic. Social and Management Sciences, 23(2):73-83.

Epting, T., Gatling, K. & Zimmer, J. (2011). What are the most common obstacles to the

successful commercialization of research? SML Perspectives, 2(1): 9-12. Ergano, K., Duncan, A., Adie, A., Tedla, A., Woldewahid, G., Ayele, Z., & Alemayehu, N.

(2010). Multi-stakeholder platforms strengthening selection and use of fodder options in Ethiopia. Montpellier, FR: Lessons and challenges. Cirad-Inra-SupAgro.

Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of

Technology and Globalisation, 1(1): 64-77.

Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29:109-123.

Etzkowitz, H., (2003). Research groups as ‘Quasi- Firms’: The invention of the Entrepreneurial University. Research Policy, 32(1): 109-121.

Feder, G., Just, R.E. & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2):255–98.

68

Fiedler, M., & Welpe, I.M. (2010),‘Antecedents of cooperative commercialization strategies of nanotechnology firms’, Research Policy, 39(3), 400–410.

Fletcher, A. C. & Bourne, P. E. (2012). Ten simple rules to commercialize scientific research. PLoS Computational Biology, 8(9): e1002712. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002712

Food and Agriculture Organization (2017). The Future of Food and Agriculture – Trends and

Challenges. Rome, IT: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Foster, A.D. & Rosenzweig, M.R. (1996). Technical change and human-capital returns and

investments: Evidence from the green revolution. The American Economic Review, 86(4):931–53.

Friedman, J. & J. Silberman, (2003). University technology transfer: do incentives, management and location matter. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1): 81-85.

Galli, R. & Teubal M. (1997). Paradigmatic Shifts in National Innovation Systems. London, UK. In: Pinter Publishers.

Gans, J.S., and Stern, S. (2003), ‘The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs’, Research Policy, 32(2), 333–350.

Ganguli, P. (2000). Intellectual Property Rights. Imperatives for the knowledge industry. World Patent Information, 22:167‐175.

Gerhart, J.D. (1975). The Diffusion of Hybrid Maize in Western Kenya. PhD Dissertation, Princeton University.Princeton, NJ.

Gomez-Mejia, L.R. & Balkin, D.B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: an agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 921-955.

Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25(4): 501-522.

Guerrero, M., (2008). The creation and development of entrepreneurial universities in Spain: An institutional approach. Barcelona, ES: PhD Dissertation, Autonomous University of Barcelona.

Gurel, A. (1998). A Study on the Factors Affecting the Behaviours of Sunflower Producers to Technology Innovations in Malkara District. Tekirdag, TR: Publication No. 262, Research. No. 90. Trakya University.

Haggblade, S. & Hazel, P.B.R. (2010). Success in African Agriculture: Lessons for the future. Baltimore, MD. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hall, K.J. & Martin, J.C.M. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: a framework for evaluating radical technology development. Research and Development Management, 35 (3): 273-284.

Hayami, Y. & Ruttan. V. (1985). Agricultural development: An international perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

69

Hayter, C. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45(2): 475-490.

Harrington, L., White, J., Grace, P., Hodson, D., Hartkamp, A.D., Vaughan, C. & Meisber, C. (2001). Delivering the goods. Scaling out results of natural resource. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 4-16.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K. Bernués, A. 2014. “Exploring future changes in smallholder

farming systems by linking socio-economic scenarios with regional and household

models,” Global Environmental Change, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 165–182, 2014.

Hounkonnou, D., Kossou, D., Kuyper, T. W., Leeuwis, C., Nederlof, E. S., Röling, N., Owuraku S. D. Mamoudou, T. & van Huis, A. (2012). An innovation systems approach to institutional change: smallholder development in West Africa. Agricultural systems, 108(1): 74-83.

Hsu, S. L., & Wu, C. T. (2012). Impacts of “Science and Technology Basic Act” on national universities in Taiwan. Technology Law Review, 9 (1), 151–204.

Husted, B.W., Montiel, I., & Christmann, P. (2016). Effects of local legitimacy on certification decisions to global and national CSR standards by multinational subsidiaries and domestic firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3): 382-397.

Institute of Economic Affairs (2011). The Status of Patenting in Kenya and its Implication for Development. Nairobi, KE: Media Notes. Issue 7 January 2011.

Jaffe, A.B. (2000). The US patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy, 29(1): 531-558.

Jaruzelski, B., Staack, V. & A. Shinozaki. (2016). Software as a Catalyst. New York, NY: Strategy business. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Issue 85. https://www.pwc.com/gr/en/publications/assets/2016-global-innovation-1000.pdf

Jolly, V.K. (1997), Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market, Harvard Business School Press.

Ken, Y., Chang, Y. H., Chen, Y. S., & Weng, S. Y. (2009). The overall investigation of the development of academic institutions’ technology transfers in Taiwan. Commerce & Management Quarterly, 10, 625–646.

Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial geographies: support networks in three high- technology industries. Economic Geography, 81(2), 201-228.

Kirihata, T. (2007). Critical success factors in the commercialization process of intellectual property by new technology-based firms in Japan. The Kyoto Economic Review, 76 (2): 241-249.

Klein, R., Uzi, H. & Goldberg, A. (2010). Overcoming obstacles encountered on the way to commercialize university IP. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1): 671-679.

Klerk, L., Hall, A.& Leeuwis, C. (2009). Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation Brokers the Answer? Maastricht, NL: UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series 019.

70

Klette, T. J., & Griliches, Z. (1997). Empirical Patterns of Firm Growth and R&D Investment: A Quality Ladder Model Interpretation. Economic Journal, 110(463): 363-387.

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Research transfer in natural science and engineering: Evidence from Canadian universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6): 561-592.

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10): 1599- 1615.

Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4): 553-564.

Lockett, A. & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7): 1043-1057.

Lowe, C. R. (2005). Commercialization and Spin-Out Activities of the Institute of Biotechnology. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 11(4): 206–317.

Makokha, S., Kimani, S., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H. & Musembi, F. (2001). Determinants of Fertilizer and Manure Use for Maize Production in Kiambu District, Kenya. Mexico, MX. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).

Makriel, M., Lane, P.J. & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (2006). CEO incentives, innovation and performance in technology-intensive firms: a reconciliation of outcome and behaviour-based incentive schemes. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1): 1057-1080.

Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1): 55-65.

Markman, G.P. Gianiodis, P.H. P. & Balkin, D.B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(1): 1058-1075.

Markmann, G., Siegel. D. & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1): 1401-1423.

McClelland, J. (2013). Technology grows fields of hope. Raconteur, FR: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. March 25. https://www.raconteur.net/sustainability/technology-grows-fields-of-new-hope.

Meyers, A. D. (2009). Book Review: Commercialization of Innovative Technologies: Bringing Good Ideas to the Marketplace. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 15(4): 374–375.

Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A. & Manso, J. (2014). Determinants of knowledge- based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1): 171-197.

Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B.N. & Ziedonis, A.A. (2004). Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-industry Technology Transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

71

Munyi, P., De Jonge, B. & Louwaars, N. (2018). Plant Breeders' Rights Licensing in Smallholder Farming: Observations from Kenya. Journal of Politics and Law, 11(2): 45-60.

Muscio, A., & Pozzali, A. (2012). The effects of cultural distance in university-industry collaborations: Some evidence from Italian universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 486-508.

North, D. (1995). The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development. Routledge, NY: In Harris, J., Hunter, J. & Lewis, C. (Eds.). The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development. Taylor and Francis.

Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22(1): 281–289.

Obayelu, A., Ajayi, O., Oluwalana, E. & Ogunmola, O. (2017). What does literature say about the determinants of adoption of agricultural technologies by smallholder farmers? Agricultural Research & Technology, 6(1): 555-676.

Ogada, M.J., Mwabu, G. & Muchai, D. (2014). Farm technology adoption in Kenya: A simultaneous estimation of inorganic fertilizer and improved maize variety adoption decisions. Agricultural and Food Economics, 2(12):1-18.

Ouma, J., Murithi, F., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Gethi, M. & De Groote, H. (2002). Adoption of Maize Seed and Fertilizer Technologies in Embu District, Kenya. Mexico, MX: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).

O’Shea, R.P, Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(1): 994–1009.

Owen-smith, J. & Powell, W.W. (2001). To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1): 1-2.

Parker, K., & Mainelli, M. (2001). Great mistakes in technology commercialization. Strategic Change, 10(7): 383–390.

Pavitt, K. (1988). Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In V. Rann (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.

Pellikka, J., & Malinen, P. (2011). Developing Commercialization of Innovation in High Technology Industries – Regional Perspective. Stockholm, SE: Paper presented at the 56th International Council for Small Business, June, 2011.

Perez Perez, M. & A.M. Sanchez, (2003). The development of university spin-offs: early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23(1): 823-831.

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4): 259-280.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., Mckelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A.,

72

& Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(1):423-442.

Phan, P.H. & Siegel, D.S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: lessons learned from qualitative and quantitative research in the US and UK. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(1): 66-144.

Powers, J. & McDougall, P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1): 291-311.

Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(1): 506-517.

World Bank (2014). Republic of India: Accelerating agricultural product growth. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

Riikka Rajalahti & Willem Janssen Eija Pehu (2008). Agricultural Innovation Systems: From

Diagnostics toward Operational Practices. The World Bank, NW Washington, DC

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Roshani, M., Lehoux, N., & Frayret, J. (2015). University-industry collaborations and open innovations: an integrated methodology for mutually beneficial relationships. Montreal, CA: Working Paper 2015-22. Interuniversity Research Centre on Enterprise Networks, Logistics and Transportation.

Sá, C. M., Li, S. X., & Faubert, B. (2011). Faculties of education and institutional strategies for knowledge mobilization: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 61(5), 501–512.

Salter, A. J., & Martin, B.R. (2001). The Economic Benefits of Publicly Funded Basic Research: A Critical Review. Research Policy, 30(1): 509-532.

Salamenkaita, J.P. & Salo, P. (2002). Rationales for government interventions in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2): 183-200.

Salamzadeh, A., Salamzadeh, Y., & Daraei, M. (2011). Toward a systematic framework for an Entrepreneurial University: A study in Iranian context with IPOO Model. Global Business and Management Research, 3(1): 31-37.

Shane, S.A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Shen, Y.-C. (2017). Identifying the key barriers and their interrelationships impeding the university technology transfer in Taiwan: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Quality & Quantity, 51(6), 2865–2884.

Schendel, D. & Hill, M. A. (2007). Comments from editors: introduction to volume 1. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1): 1-7.

Schultz, W. (1988). Transforming traditional agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70 (1): 198-200.

73

Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.

Silva, D. O., Bagno, R. B., & Salerno, M. S. (2014). Models for innovation management: review and analysis of the literature. Production, 24(2): 477-490.

Simtowe, F.J., Mduma, A.P., Alban, T. & Zeller, M. (2006). Can risk-aversion towards fertilizer explain part of the non-adoption puzzle for hybrid maize? Empirical evidence from Malawi. Journal of Applied Sciences, 6(7): 1490–1498.

Stevens, G, A. & Burley. J. (1997). 3,000 raw ideas = l commercial success. Research Technology Management, 40(3): 16-27.

Styhre, A., & Lind, F. (2010). The softening bureaucracy: accommodating new research opportunities in the entrepreneurial university. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 107–120.

Sunding, D. & Zilberman, D. (2000). The Agricultural Innovation Process: Research and Technology Adoption in a Changing Agricultural Sector. Berkeley, CA: Handbook of Agricultural Economics. University of California, Berkeley.

Swai, E. S., Mollel, P. & Malima, A. 2014. “Some factors associated with poor reproductive

performance in smallholder dairy cows: the case of Hai and Meru districts, Northern

Tanzania,” Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 26, no. 6, 2014.

Tahvanainen, A., & Nikulainen, T. (2010). Commercialisation at Finnish Universities: Researchers’ Perspectives on the Motives and Challenges of Turning Science into Business. Helsinki, FI: Discussion Paper 1234. The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.

Thorpe, H. G. & Muriuki, W. 2001. “Smallholder dairy production and marketing in Eastern

and Southern Africa: regional synthesis,” in Smallholder Dairy Production and

Marketing—Opportunities and Constraints, W. Rangnekar and D. Thorpe, Eds., pp.

185–198, 2001.

Toma, L., Sutherland, L.A., Thomson, S., Burnett, F. & Mathews, K. (2016). Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1): 864–881.

Tripp, R., & Mensah-Bonsu, A. (2013). Ghana’s Commercial Seed Sector: New Incentives or Continued Complacency? Washington, DC: Working Paper 32. Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). April 2013.

USAID (2017). Success factors for commercializing Agricultural research. Washington, DC: Lessons from Feed the Future Partnering for Innovation. United States Aid for International Development (USAID).

74

Valiauga, P. (2013). Commercialization of High-tech Radical Innovations: Case Studies of X-ray Imaging Technologies. Espoo, FI: Paper presented at the Aalto University School of Science, May 2013.

Wallsten, S. J. (2000). The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the small business innovation research program. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1): 82-100.

Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P. & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Wekesa, E., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Danda, V.K. & De Groote, H. (2003). Adoption of Maize Technologies in the Coastal Lowlands of Kenya. Mexico, MX: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT).

World Bank (2007). Agriculture for Development [World Development Report 2007]. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (2012). Agricultural Innovation Systems [An Investment Sourcebook]. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (2005). Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Recent Economic Research. Washington, DC. World Bank.

Wright, B. D., & Pardey, P.G. (2006). The evolving rights to intellectual property protection in the agricultural biosciences. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 2 (1): 12-29.

Xavier, C. (2017). Management Practices as an Input for Innovation and Productivity in Developing Countries [Unpublished report]. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Xavier, C. & Maloney, F. (2017). Developing country capabilities and the unrealized promises of Technological catch up. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Yaakub, N. I, Hirwani, W.M., Nizam, W. H.M., Wan Hussain, Rahman, M.A.Z., Mujani, W.K., Jamsari, E.A., Sulaiman, A. & Jusoff, K. (2011). Challenges for Commercialization of University Research for Agriculture Based Inventions. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(1): 132-138.

Zahra, S., & Garvis, S. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and company performance: the moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business, 15(5): 469-492.

Wu, W. (2007). Cultivating research universities and industrial linkages in China: The case of Shanghai. World Development, 35(6), 1075–1093

APPENDICES

75

Appendix I: Consent Form

Study Title: Determinants of Commercialization of Agricultural Innovations from Jomo

Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

My name is Elijah Miinda Ateka, Cellphone number 0723072458 and I am a graduate student

pursuing a Master of Science Management and Organizational Development at the United

States International University (USIU-Africa). As part of my degree requirements, I have to

conduct research and write a dissertation. My supervisor is Dr. Zachary Mosoti of the

Chandaria School of Business and can be reached on email: Zmosoti@usiu.ac.ke. The study

aims to determine the level of innovation development and the determinants of

commercialization of the innovations developed at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture

and Technology (JKUAT). Your participation will be highly appreciated. Your identity and

information will be kept confidential. You are free to decline to participate or withdraw at any

point where you feel uncomfortable. The information may help in improving the innovation

and commercialization capabilities at universities and especially at JKUAT. Upon your written

consent, to participate in this research, the researcher will give you a questionnaire that will

take about 30 minutes of your time to complete. The research will give you a debrief form at

the end of the exercise. Thank you for your participation

By signing this form, I am attesting that I have read and understand the information above and

I freely give my consent to participate. I am aware that I can withdraw at any time during the

study without any consequence.

Date Reviewed & Signed: ____________________________

Name of Research Subject: ________________

Signature: ___________________________Date

Elijah Miinda Ateka Participant Number

MOD Student -USIU-Africa

76

Appendix II: Debrief Form

Thank you for taking time to participate in this research study. The study aims to determine the

level of innovation development and the determinants of commercialization of the innovations

developed at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT).

Furthermore, the information may help in improving the innovation and commercialization

capabilities at universities and especially at JKUAT.

Once again thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,

Elijah Miinda Ateka

MOD student,

Researcher,

USIU-Africa

77

Appendix III: Questionnaire 1

QUESTIONNAIRE ON COMMERCIALIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATIONS IN KENYA

I am a student at the United States International University, undertaking a study that seeks to understand the commercialization of agricultural innovations in Kenya. As part of the study, I am conducting a survey among researchers in Kenyan universities and you have been identified as one of the respondents. Your participation is entirely voluntary and the information you give will be treated confidentially. You can choose to answer or not answer any question. The information you give will be reported together with that of others and you will not be specifically identified in the report. In case you decline, your lack of participation will not have any adverse consequences on you. You are free to withdraw from the research any time you feel uncomfortable. The questionnaire will take 20-30minutes to complete. By answering the questionnaire, you are acknowledging that you understand the terms of participation and that you consent to those terms. A01) Consent given Yes=1 (___) No= 0 (___) (If yes, proceed to the next question; If no, find out reason why and terminate interview) PART A: Identification A02) Day/Month/Year of interview _____ /______ / 2019 A03) Interview start time (hh.mm): ____________________ A04) Interview end time (hh.mm): ____________________ A05) Time taken :______________________

Enumerator ID A08) Name __________________

Institution of Affiliation A06) University ____________________ Department _________________________ 1=Horticulture/crop science 2=food science 3=Agricultural engineering 4=Animal science 5=Other (please state)

78

Demographic Characteristics

Gender (B01) Age (B02)

Education Level (B03)

Grade/Position (B04)

Years of experience as a researcher (B05)

Number of research publications(B06)

Administrative responsibility in university in the last 5 years

If yes, state which responsibility

1=M ale 0= Female

(state age)

1= Undergraduate 2=Masters 3=PHD 4=Post Doctoral

1=Yes 0=No

.

Objective 1.4.1: To Map and characterization of agricultural innovations PART B: Professional factors 1) Are you a member of any professional body(s) __________________________ 1=Yes 0=No If yes, which one (s) 1)_____________________________________________________________________ 2)_____________________________________________________________________ 3)_____________________________________________________________________ 4)_____________________________________________________________________ Training 2) Have you attended a training on Intellectual Property (IP) protection? ______________ 1= Yes 0=No If yes, which year was the latest training? __________________ 3) Have you attended any training on commercialization of innovations? _______________ 1=Yes 0=No If yes, which year was the latest training? __________________

79

Objective 1.4.2: To examine factors that support or constrain commercialization of agricultural innovations PART C: Policy environment 1)a) Is there a research policy in the university? 1=Yes 2=No 3=Not sure

b) If yes to 1a), is it implemented? c) If yes, to 1b), what is the level of implementation? 1=High level 2=Medium level 3=Low level

2) a) Is there an innovation policy in the university? 1=Yes 2=No 3=Not sure

b) If yes to 2a), is it implemented? c) If yes, to 2b), what is the level of implementation? 1=High level 2=Medium level 3=Low level

3) Does the university have an intellectual property policy 4) a) Does the university have an intellectual property office? 4) b) If yes to 4) a), doe the office have an intellectual property manager?

5) What incentives/benefits are spelt in the university policies for researchers?

Category 1=Variety 2=Food product 3=ICT 4=device 5=technique 6=Pesticide 7=Diagnostic test 8=New method 9= Better quality method 10= Better quality service

Specific Research/ Product

Time taken to develop product (yrs)

People involved in idea devt. 1=Personal innovation 2=Partnership with another researcher 3=Partnership with an organization

What size was the working group? (indicate no)

Source of funding 1=Own funds 2=University 3= GOK 4= International donors 5= Local donors 6=Credit/Borrowed

Were the funds adequate 1=Yes 0=No

Have you applied for protection a patent / license / copyright / certificate 1=Yes 0=No

Did you need to acquire freedom to operate or use the innovation? 1=Yes 0=No

80

Commercialization of innovations

7. Of the new products or innovations, which ones were commercialized? Category Product Year of

launch (State year)

Do you have an established distribution channel 1=yes 0=no

Which product distribution channel do you use 1= direct sales 2=retailer- consumer 3=Wholesaler-consumer 4= wholesaler-retailer-consumer

Main marketing strategy employed 1=Extension 2=Shows and exhibitions 3=Radio 3=TV 4=Print media 5=Word of mouth 6=Social media marketing

Rating of success of product 1=very unsuccessful 2=unsuccessful 3=Neutral 4=Successful 5=Very successful

Reason for success or failure

8. Have you ever been approached by the government/private sector to solve a societal problem with any of your innovations

1=Yes 0=No

Challenges in commercialization of agricultural innovations 1=Strongly disagree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 10.Laws and regulations in Kenya allow for easy market entry 11.Procedures/ processes required before introduction of a product in the market discourage commercialization

12. Costs involved before product launch are too high for researchers 13. Financial gains from innovations are much lower than costs incurred in product development

14. Researchers lack sufficient market information (Information asymmetry)

81

Appendix IV: Questionnaire 2

Questionnaire on determinants of uptake of clean (virus-tested) cassava seed in Kenya

I am a student from United States International University, undertaking a study that seeks to understand determinants of uptake of clean cassava seed in Kenya. As part of the study, I am conducting a survey among cassava producing households in Kenya and you have been identified as one of the respondents. Your participation is entirely voluntary and the information you give will be treated confidentially. You can choose to answer or not answer any question. The information you give will be reported together with that of others and you will not be specifically identified in the report. In case you decline, your lack of participation will not have any adverse consequences on you. You are free to withdraw from the research any time you feel uncomfortable. The questionnaire will take 20-30 minutes to complete. By answering the questionnaire, you are acknowledging that you understand the terms of participation and that you consent to those terms.

A01) Consent given Yes=1 (___) No= 0 (___) (If yes, proceed to the next question; If no, find out reason why and terminate interview) Identification A02) Day/Month/Year of interview _____ /______ / 2019 A03) Interview start time (hh.mm): ____________________ A04) Interview end time (hh.mm): ____________________

Enumerator ID A11) Name _________________

Interview area A06) County ____________________ A07) Sub-County _________________________ A08) Ward_________________________

GPS coordinates of interview location A13) Latitude: ________________________ A14) Longitude: _______________________

Respondent A09) Name _________________________ A10) Gender _________________________ 1=male 0=female

Household Schedule

Gender of HH (B01)

Age of HH (B02)

Education Level of HH (BO3)

Household Size (B05)

1=M ale 0= Female

Indicate age (Can also ask year born and calculate age)

1 =Informal 2= Primary 3=Vocational 4 =Secondary 5=Tertiary

82

Objective 1.4.3 : Determinants of uptake of agricultural innovations PART D: Cassava production systems C01) What is your total size of land Ownership type Size of land (In acres)

Owned land Family land Rented/Leased land

Total size

C02) Number of crop production enterprises household engaged in in the last one year

Indicate no.

C03) Number of animal production enterprises household engaged in in the last one year

Indicate no.

C04) In the last one year have you engaged in cassava production?

1=Yes 0=No

C05) What is your main reason for cassava production?

1=Sale of tubers 2=Consumption of tubers 3=Both sale and consumption 4=Livestock feed

C06) Experience in cassava farming in years Number of years

C07) In every 12 months, how many times do you plant cassava? (No of seasons)

1= one 2= two 3=three 4=four

C08) In the last 12 months, what size of land was allocated to cassava production?

Season Size of land Time when planted

Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Total size

C09) Are you aware of Certified/clean cassava cuttings or variety (free from disease and pests, high yielding,) (If yes, continue to D08)

1=Yes 0=No

C10) What was your source of information? 1=Government extension 2=Private extension 3=Fellow farmers 4=TV 5=Radio 6=Newspaper 7=KALRO/ Universities 8=Internet 9=NGO’s 10=Cooperative/farmer association

C11) Are you aware of where you can get certified cassava seed

1=Yes 0=No

C12) What is the distance from your homestead to the place of acquisition

distance in KM

C13) Have you ever used the certified cassava seed?

1=Yes 0=No

C14) Are you still using certified seed? 1=Yes 0=No

83

Appendix V: Research Approval

84

Appendix VI: Research License