Effectiveness of Kerala agricultural university in technology facilitation for entrepreneurship

Abstract

Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) has in the past been adjudged the best in the nation in academics’ performance. Undoubtedly KAU has a pool of very good teachers, but how did this translate into technology facilitation for entrepreneurship? How oriented were KAU teachers in converting research output into entrepreneur usable technology? Were teachers keeping the technology to themselves for fear that once released they would never get due credit for the effort they had put in? Were intellectual property rights at stake? Was innovation duly rewarded? Where did KAU stand on ease-of-doing business parameters? What were the issues that needed to be addressed to make KAU gain the status of being an entrepreneur friendly destination? Could technology transfer procedures be simplified? Was there a mechanism for aspiring entrepreneurs to redress their grievances? These were the questions that this study sought to address. The study attempted to decipher the level of entrepreneurship orientation among KAU teachers. The study documented the experiences of aspiring/practicing agri-entrepreneurs in relation to KAU with respect to transfer of technology. The study provided insight on how KAU can reinvent itself to remain relevant in the changing agribusiness scenario and made suggestions for improving the entrepreneur interface of Kerala Agricultural University. The random sample included 90 teachers and 30 aspiring/practicing agri-entrepreneurs who had contacted the KAU Technology Hub. The study documented the profile characteristics of the teacher respondents with respect to designation, place of work, age, gender, qualification, service details, faculty improvement, publications, research involvement, recognitions received and extension activity. Entrepreneurship Orientation of KAU teachers: While teachers had a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship, 44.4 per cent believed that KAU would never give them due recognition for trying to promote entrepreneurship and 36.7 per cent believed that KAU will never give them credit for technology transferred. Entrepreneurship Interface of KAU as perceived by the teacher respondents: 26.7 per cent opined that there were sometimes many barriers to effective transfer of technology in KAU and that administrative barriers often prevented effective and timely transfer of technology in KAU. Entrepreneurship Interface of KAU as perceived by aspiring/practicing entrepreneurs: 90 per cent expressed that response at first point of contact was always quick but 56.7 per cent stated that protection of entrepreneur interest in the MoU was not really ensured. Based on mean score index the Entrepreneurship Orientation of KAU teachers and the Entrepreneurship Interface of KAU as perceived by the teachers was found to be at a medium level while the Entrepreneurship Interface of KAU as perceived by aspiring/practicing entrepreneurs was found to be at a low level. Years of service as head of office/institution in KAU, number of popular articles and research notes published had a positive and significant relationship with Entrepreneurship Orientation. Total number of research projects as Principal Investigator had a positive and significant relationship with the perception of KAUs’ Entrepreneurship Interface as perceived by the teachers. Five technologies, viz., Veggie Wash, Red Banana Cool, Njavara based health drink, Osmo-dehydrated Products and induction of flowering and improvement of yield in adult mango trees were randomly selected for case study. Each case study brought to light a different aspect of KAU technology transfer process that required focused and immediate attention of the highest authorities in KAU. Suggestions have been put forth to foster a better entrepreneur interface for the Kerala Agricultural University and four areas were delineated for future research.