Journal of Entrepreneurial Strategies in Agriculture

Extended Abstract
Background: The agricultural sector, facing crises such as water scarcity, climate change, and inefficient farming technologies, requires innovative approaches to ensure food security and sustainable development. Agricultural universities play a pivotal role by bridging academic research and practical application through the capabilities of university technology incubators. These centers facilitate technology production and the dissemination of innovations, yet their effectiveness is often hindered by administrative inefficiencies, budget constraints, decentralized governance, and external pressures. Institutional regulatory support, financial assistance, and participatory governance models have been identified as key enabling factors that, through the mediating role of knowledge management, can enhance the efficiency of these incubation centers. Therefore, this study investigates how these factors influence the performance of technology incubators, with a focus on the unique socioeconomic context of Iran, thereby addressing a significant gap in the existing literature. This approach provides a comprehensive assessment of how institutional and financial support, mediated by knowledge management, affect incubator efficiency, offering valuable insights for policy-making and managerial interventions within innovation ecosystems.
Methods: This quantitative, applied study employed a descriptive strategy to examine the mediating role of knowledge management in the relationship between government support, financial support, incubator governance, and the efficiency of technology incubators. The target population consisted of managers from 200 active technology units at the early and incubation stages within three Iranian agricultural universities (Khuzestan, Sari, and Gorgan). A sample of 127 participants was selected using stratified random sampling with proportional allocation, determined via the Krejcie and Morgan table. Data were collected through an online, researcher-developed questionnaire. Content validity was confirmed by experts in agricultural extension and education. Results from the measurement model analysis indicated that all indicator loadings exceeded 0.60. Construct reliability and validity were established using Cronbach’s alpha (0.814–0.890), composite reliability (0.877–0.923), and average variance extracted (AVE = 0.502–0.638). Discriminant validity was assessed using both the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT < 0.85), confirming adequate levels. For structural model analysis, the bootstrapping technique with 5,000 resamples was used to enhance result robustness. Descriptive analyses were performed using SPSS, while partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was conducted in Smart PLS.
Results: Descriptive results revealed that the majority of respondents were male (72.4%) and held postgraduate degrees (Master’s or Ph.D.) (over 82%), indicating high participation of university graduates. The distribution across universities was Sari (41%), Gorgan (34.6%), and Khuzestan (24.4%). Age distribution highlighted peak professional activity among individuals aged 36–45 years (mean = 38.16 years), with significant youth participation. Approximately half of the units were in the early phase and half in the incubation phase, indicating a balanced developmental profile. Inferential findings showed that financial support (β = 0.456, p = 0.000) and incubator governance (β = 0.371, p = 0.000) had a positive and significant effect on knowledge management, whereas government support did not show a significant impact (β = 0.023, p = 0.853). This suggests that, while legal and institutional frameworks are necessary, tangible financial support and effective governance structures play a more critical role in facilitating knowledge flow. Furthermore, knowledge management had a strong positive effect on incubator efficiency (β = 0.654, p = 0.000). The coefficient of determination (R²) was 0.613 for knowledge management and 0.428 for incubator efficiency, indicating a substantial explanatory power of the model. These results underscore that knowledge management acts not only as a mediator but also as a key independent factor in enhancing incubator performance. In other words, incubators that effectively manage knowledge sharing, storage, and utilization demonstrate greater capacity for value creation, innovation facilitation, and nurturing successful startups.
Conclusion: The findings confirm the vital role of knowledge management within the innovation ecosystem and emphasize the importance of policymakers and incubator managers focusing on strengthening financial support and improving governance structures. However, government support cannot be considered a strong predictor of knowledge management in university incubators. Therefore, institutional policies must be properly designed and aligned with the real needs of these centers. Incubators are recommended to enhance knowledge-based educational and advisory programs, expand knowledge-driven networks, and utilize expert mentors and consultants. Additionally, creating platforms for knowledge exchange among students, faculty, and startups should be prioritized as a key strategy to improve incubator efficiency. Digital platforms and scientific conferences can accelerate innovation by facilitating knowledge sharing and interdisciplinary dialogue. Overcoming the challenge of knowledge hoarding in Iran requires incentives, such as promotion criteria rewarding collaboration and funding for joint projects. Additionally, startups can grow faster and evolve into knowledge-based companies by connecting with other ecosystems and receiving expert mentoring from incubation centers. By providing an explanatory framework for the factors influencing incubator performance, this study enriches the literature on innovation and university entrepreneurship management and paves the way for developing effective policies in the knowledge-based economy, particularly within the agricultural and natural resources sectors