1-Hassanali Aghajani 2- Zahra sorori eshliki*

Prioritization Effective Factors on Commercialization of Products using fuzzy AHP approach (Empirical Evidence: Knowledge-Based Business of Incubators Centers of Iran North Region) 1-Hassanali Aghajani 2- Zahra sorori eshliki* 1- Associate Prof., industrial Management, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Mazandaran University, babolsar, Iran 2- Master student of industrial Management, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Mazandaran University, Babolsar, Iran *Corresponding author: zahra.sorori92@gmail.com Abstract In today s globalized economy, companies are facing ever increasing competitive pressures. A commonly adopted strategy for remaining competitive is to commercialize Products. Commercialization activities play an important role in bringing to market new t Products is the knowledge based companies. The aim of this research is priorities effective factors on commercialization of products by the use of FAHP techniques. Research population consisted of all Knowledge-Based Business of incubators centers of Iran north Regions those Opinions of twelve mangier of companies as an expert, are utilized. In this regard, the use of library study of factors affecting the commercialization of established products were detected and using localization questionnaires and Knowledge-Based Business of the surrounding environment and analyzes these factors, and was Indigenous. The research result demonstrates, technology factors with timely innovative technology sub-factors, marketing factors with customers' needs sub-factors, management factors with proficiency of management sub-factors, environmental factors with governments' supporting sub-factors, as important factors are in commercializations' products and they have high priority. Taking into account these factors provides Knowledge-Based Business managers with ability to pave the way for products commercialization. Keyword: Commercialization, Knowledge-Based Business, prioritization, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process 1. Introduction According to studies Asia-pacific economic cooperation Knowledge-Based Economies is the most stable economies in the world. In the economics based on knowledge, the knowledge based Business have important role in the economic growth (fakhari et al, 2013). Also 1746

Knowledge-based businesses are vital to the economic development and revitalization of many regions, especially regions that have experienced a decline in traditional industries (Gorman and McCarthy, 2006). Knowledge-based companies and knowledge-based institutions are private institution or cooperative in order to synergy of science and wealth, development of knowledge based economy, realizing scientific and economic goals and commercialization of research and development in the areas of superior technologies, The abundant added value especially in producing software(fakhari et al,2013). Commercialization means marketing an innovation with the aim of converting it into a profit-making position in the marketplace; it entails both marketing strategy planning and subsequent implementation (e.g., Chiesa & Frattini, 2011). In the other words, commercialization refers to the development of the product concept, its successful launch, and interaction with potential buyers (Stenroos and Sandberg, 2012). During commercialization, institutions develop a marketing plan, determine how the product will be supplied to the market, and predict barriers to its success (Saji and Mishra, 2013). As successful new product commercialization is associated with growth in market share, greater learning from customers, and improved performance and profitability (Mu and Benedetto, 2011). Commercialization activities play an important role in bringing new technology the market place, particularly high-technology firms (Lo et al, 2011). Gans et al. (2002) show that new product introduced to the market is becoming increasingly important for the maintenance of competitive advantage. Indeed Successful new product commercialization is crucial for the survival of firms in light of quick changes in the business environment (chen, 2009). Successful commercialization allows the company to satisfy its customers needs in terms of the cost, speed, quality (Zahra and. Nielsen, 2002). Commercialization ensures that the technology in question meets not only the performance but also the consumers demands. In the Context of an interdependent global economy, new technology Commercialization is important for domestic Production, competitive market advantages, opportunities for trade, and growing standards of living (Chen et al, 2011). The objective of the study is: To determine the factors that effect on Commercialization of Knowledge- Based Business Products priorities of the effective factors in Commercialization of Knowledge-Based Business Products The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, Research objective is stated. The section3 is included the literature review, Followed by section4 which presents 1747

research methodology. Section5 describes finding analysis. Eventually, in Section6, Conclusion and presentation of some recommendations are presented. 3. Literature review 3.1. New product commercialization New product commercialization can be considered as the top of the NPD process where in the product is launch to the target market(s). During commercialization, business develops a marketing plan, determines how the product will be supplied to the market, and estimate barriers to its success. It encompass several important activities such as deciding the timeliness of the new product introduction, the locations where the new product should be introduced, the market segments to be targeted, promotional strategies for the new product introduction, and the budget preparation. New product commercialization demands significant amount of Business's resources and top management commitment for its success. Companies that can commercialize new products and technology at the early stages of technology life cycle reap higher financial benefits; while launching distinctive new products do provide the company the capability of expanding to new markets or penetrating in existing market. The outcome of such commercialization will make possible new streams of revenue or market power, which would lead to superior company performance. Indeed, increasing new product commercialization could help the business to meet its strategic objectives, which in turn could improve the company performance. Existing technologies often fall short of fulfilling desired product design need to get highly competitive new hightech products. The extant literature attributes this to dynamic customer needs and intense competition, which always make the company follow upward trajectory on performance parameters (Saji and Mishra, 2013). 3.2. Effective Factors on New product commercialization In order to implement FAHP effective factors on new product commercialization framework, we need to derive some decision criteria used for the priorities process. Thus, we attempt to extract the effective factors on new product commercialization framework and convert them into four factor criteria for evaluation. 3.2.1. Management Factors In today s competitive and dynamic business world, entrepreneurial ability and management skills are needed if innovation is to be successful in the market place (Zhao, 2004).The ability to manage a multi-functional team is vital to get a successful new technology 1748

commercialization (Amadi Echendu and Rasetlola, 2011). The recent increase in studies exploring the corporate level is perhaps reflective of the growing awareness of the importance of top management in new product development. Top managers can be useful in the future growth of their business by providing valuable input to guide the assessment and improve of their business capabilities (Marsh and Stock, 2003). They also play a important role in the strategic planning process of their company, determining the new products their company will introduce, the types and levels of investments, and the company s research and development (R&D) agenda (Halman et al, 2003). Management commitment is one of the important factors for technology-oriented SMEs business successes or failures (kang, 2012). Finally In case of new technological entrepreneurs; their lack of management skill can be a barrier to growth of business (Jones-Evans, 1997). Poolton and Barclay (1998) identified critical success factors for new product development that included: top management support for innovation, long-term strategy with innovation focus, long-term commitment to major projects, flexibility and responsiveness to change, top management acceptance of risk and support for an entrepreneurial culture. 3.2.2 Technology Factors Technology is the essential know-how that together serves a functional need to the new product development setting (Das and Van De Ven, 2000). A strong emphasis on new technology mobilizes a company s entry into new market niches, renovates its presence in existing ones, and fosters its capability to answer to customers preferences in an efficient way. It has been assumed that consumers select technologically superior products and services. As well as, a company s technical skills, R&D resources, and technological base appear to be central in bringing innovative, better designed products into the market (mu and Benedetto, 2011). Capabilities in R&D refer to firm's systemic activities whereby they use the knowledge they already have to innovate or to utilize knowledge improved by an internal independent agency or external agency. Studies show that the impact of R&D capabilities grows with the success of business innovation. It has been studied stated that the increase of R&D investment has a positive effect on sales revenue, profit, productivity and research, as well as on how R&D capabilities influence new technology and new products are developed(kang,2012). Kang (2012) his study found that technology factor are included: market-oriented technology; timely innovative technology; technology innovation capability; patents. 3.2.3. Marketing Factors 1747

The managers of a new product development project need to adequate information regarding how the market will grow and change in the business environment (Cho and. Lee, 2013). Launching a new product and technology to market requires new activities and resources related to the creation of demand, markets, and delivery channels, creating critical new challenges for innovating company. The company requires concentrate on marketing activities such as demonstrations of the product, advertising, brand development, promotional events, and organizing distribution (Stenroos, B. Sandberg, 2012). Narver et al. (2004) claimed that management needs to take market demands into consideration instead of simply focusing on product specification.the commercialization activities of a company show that concentrate on customers, which is strategically important to a company s commercialization activities. It is necessary to study commercialization activities because company scan successfully bring new technologies into the market place and see customer demands. Indeed, the ability of commercialization to generate profits for a firm depends on whether consumers find the new technology to be valuable. As customers play an important role in the process of new product development and new technology commercialization (Chih-cheng Lo et al, 2012). 3.2.4. Environmental Factors The business s external environment includes a variety of influences, such as global competition, government policy, and economic uncertainty ( Madrid-Guijarro et al, 2009), The Korpp & Zolin (2005) based on Dess and Lumpkin (1996) study, have claimed that environmental factors are one of the effective factors on commercialization. The study results show that government role is the critical factors. Caerteling et al (2008), their study has shown that government s behavior as a regulator and sponsor conflicts with its preferences as a buyer and user. Kimura (2010) his study stated several factors resulting in the success or failure of commercialization/diffusion are identified, such as long-term R&D support by the government, a marketing strategy to respond to and influence market demand, and combination of R&D and deployment policy. Chung-jen &Chin-Chen (2004) have done a study with the purpose of assessing Taiwan's government policy in economic growth. According to their study, the market potential is the most important factor and then technology level and government policy are placed in second and third positions respectively. O Brien, Blauand Rose (2004) point out barriers to commercialization and deployment of IGCC technology and classified these into legal/regulatory, environmental, financial, economic, cultural, and technological factors. 1748

3.3. Knowledge based businesses There is no commonly accepted definition of a knowledge-based industry (KBI) or a knowledge-based business(kbbs), although there does be revealed to be agreement that knowledge-based firms have a high proportion of intangible assets and rely heavily on innovation as a important source of competitive advantage. The problem, as showed that by Howitt (1996; 10), is that we have no generally accepted empirical measures of such key theoretical concepts as the stock of technical knowledge, human capital, the resource cost of knowledge acquisition, the rate of innovation or the rate of obsolescence of old knowledge. Industry Canada concentrates on the scientific research and use of information or other new technology to define knowledge-based segment (Gorman and McCarthy, 2006). Bank of England (2001) in the UK explains technology-based innovative SMEs as companies heavily dependent on scientific and technology-based products or as companies providing services which adopt new technology or existing technology in an innovative way, or as companies generating competitiveness significantly from technological activities.(e.g., kang,2012). According to Gorman and McCarthy (2006) most banks and government agencies agreed that KBBs possess some, if not all, of the following attributes: highly skilled/highly educated workforce, high level of research and development, strong export orientation, high percentage of intangible assets, and products/services with short life expectancies and high gross margins. In addition, KBBs were considered more likely to use and/or develop advanced technologies and to be innovative in their products, services or processes. New technology-based institutions have some different attributes (Bollinger et al, 1983). Their innovation is less systematize and organizational and depends more on CEO s ingenuity and skill (Peterson, 1988). They adapt more to technical change than market change (Meyer and Roberts, 1986). 4. Research methodology For collecting data in this study, two methods were used; library method and field method, for writing the research literature the library method, scientific journals, and various scientific data base were used. The main data of this study was collected with field method via distributing questionnaires and interviewing with people. In this study two type of questionnaire were used that after designing the preliminary questionnaire and receiving expert's opinions, during some stages and final revising, the final questionnaire personally was handed out to them. The first questionnaire was distributed by reason of domesticating the research framework in knowledge -based Business among connoisseurs, for accomplishing this goal at first connoisseurs were asked to determine the importance degree 1749

of effective factors on commercialization of knowledge -based Business products according to scale 1 (insignificant) to scale 10 (critical). Then it was asked from connoisseurs that what useful factors and indices were absent from the presented framework. Then they must determine their importance degree from scale 1 (insignificant) to scale 10 (critical) then at last all indices selected which their importance degree was more than 7.the second questionnaire was included in questions related to importance degree of effective factors on commercialization of knowledge -based Business products in the mentioned framework, distributed among connoisseurs. This questionnaire is composed of three sections; the first section is included in carrying out the pair comparative to determine effective factors on commercialization of knowledge -based Business products rather to each other. Moreover by presenting a guideline sheet for filling out the questionnaire, the way of filling out the questionnaire was trained to members of statistical population and during filling out process, the researcher himself was present to efface any possible ambiguity. In general 12 questionnaires were distributed and collected that the analysis of existing study results were done based on the collected questionnaires. 4.1. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) Fuzzy analytical hierarchical process was first proposed by Saaty(1980), it is a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions based on paired comparisons of both projects and criteria. The strength of the AHP method lies in its ability to structure complex, multi-person, multi-attribute, and multi-period problem hierarchically. Thus, it has been discussed in a wide variety of decision situations in fields such as business planning, resource allocation, priority setting, and selection among alternatives (Chin et al., 2008). This AHP method can give reasonable approximation when the Decision maker s judgments are consistent. However, the judgments of conventional AHP method usually have ambiguity problem because the verbal attitudes of decision maker s evaluation process contain vague and multiplicity of meaning (Lee, 2010). Thus, in order to overcome the verbal ambiguity of linguistic variables, fuzzy set theory has applied to the judgment as an extension of AHP method. Fuzzy set theory was first introduced by Zadeh (1976). Let O = {o1, o2,...,on} be an object set, and U = {g1,g2,...,gm} be a goal set. According to the Chang's extent analysis, each object is considered one by one, and for each object, the analysis is carried out for each of the possible goals, gi. Therefore, m extent analysis values for each object are obtained and shown as follows: ~ 1 ~ 2 m M gi M, gi M ~. gi 1750

M ~ Where j gi are all triangular fuzzy numbers the membership function of the ~ triangular fuzzy number is denoted by M ( x ).The definitions of the triangular fuzzy number and the fuzzy algebraic operations for fuzzy triangular numbers are given in fallow: ~ The membership function M ( x ) of the triangular fuzzy number defined on R is equal to: { Where, are respectively lower and bound values of the support of. According to Zadeh's extension principle given two triangular fuzzy numbers : ~ 1 1 M The steps of the Chan s extent analysis can be summarized as follows: Step 1: The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to its object is defined as: j M ~ gi [ j M ~ gi ] (1) Where obtain denotes the extended multiplication of two fuzzy numbers. In order to j M ~ gi, we perform the addition of extent analysis values for a particular matrix such that, 1751

~ 1 1 M ( ) (2) And to obtain[ j M ~ gi ], we perform the fuzzy addition operation j M ~ gi values such that, ( ) (3) Then, the inverse of the vector is computed as, [ j M ~ gi] [ ] (4) Where Finally, to obtain the in Eq. (1) we perform the following multiplication [ ] = ( ) (5) Step 2: The degree of possibility of is defined as Fig1. The degree of possibility of 1752

( ) ( ( ) (6) This can be equivalently expressed as, { ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (7) Where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between in Fig1. The values of ( ) and of ( ) are both required to compare. Step3: The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex fuzzy numbers e is defined as ( ) ( ) (8) Assume that { } (9) Then, the weight vector is given by (10) Step4: The normalized weight vectors are derived as w i w i (11) Where is a non-fuzzy number. 5- FINDINGS ANALYSIS 5-1- Data conversion The statistical sample answerer's opinions regards to the effective factors on products commercialization based on clock 11 sectional scale can be transformed to triangular Fuzzy digits by various methods. Colloquial scale to determine four weight effective factors and the indices presented in below table1: 1753

Government legislation Legal/regulatory Government support Customer need Advertising Pricing Policy Competition Strategy R&D capabilities Timely innovative Market-oriented Management skill Management Management acceptance Survey Methodology table1: The linguistic scale and corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers (Erensal et al, 2006) Linguistic scale Explanation Corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over Very importance Demonstrated importance strong another An activity is favored very strongly over another; its dominance demonstrated in practice The evidence favoring one activity over another is highest possible order of affirmation The inverse of the corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3, 5) (1/5, 1/3, 1) (3, 5, 7) (1/7, 1/5, 1/3) (5, 7, 9) (1/9, 1/7, 1/5) (7, 9, 11) (1/11, 1/9, 1/7) 5-2-The design of research hierarchical pattern After distributing the first stage questionnaire and applying appropriate changes or in other word its domesticating of conceptual framework eventually the formation of utilized hierarchical for ranking effective Factors and the indices are according to the following fig: Effective factors on products commercialization Environmental Factors Marketing Factors Technology Factors Management Factors Fig2. Analytic hierarchy process model Effective factors on products commercialization 1754

5-3- Answering to the research questions As mentioned in the previous sections Effective factors on products commercialization and their indices are based on panel FAHP that this method is done by Chang method (Chang, 1996).with regards to this matter, from the graphic average of 12 questionnaires obtained by triangular Fuzzy digit pair comparative matrix, the collective matrix form expert's ideas is according to table 2. Table2: Pairwise comparison matrix for criteria Management Factors Technological Factors Marketing Factors Environmental Factors Management Factors (0.33,.51,0.77) (0.63,0.94,1.26) (1.63,2.3,3.1) Technology Factors (1.28,1.9,2.9) (.5,.8,1.07) (1.87,2.8,3.8) Marketing Factors (0.8,1.05,1.57) (0.93,1.25,1.73) (1.37,2.11,3.07) Environmental Factors (0.31,0.42,0.61) (0.27,0.35,0.53) (0.33,0.48,0.75) Moreover we calculated the amount of fuzzy compound package from every main criterion. [ ] After obtaining to the amount of Fuzzy compound package, the possibility degree for every possible binary state is calculated according to table3. And then we calculated the minimum amount of possibility degree of every aspect rather than other aspects up to get to the weight diagram of four factors according to table4. 1755

Table 3: the possibility degree for every binary state Table 4: the final weight of main- criteria Management Factors Technology Factors Marketing Factors Environmental Factors Minimum degree of feasibility 0.72 1 0.85 0.06 The final weight 0.28 0.38 0.32 0.02 rank 3 1 2 4 According to the answers by the decision making group presented in Table 4; we conclude that technology factors are more important than other factors. As a consequence, this result shows that Technology Factors have play important role on the products commercialization. The decision making group now compares the sub- criteria With respect to main- criteria. First, they compare the sub- criteria of management factors. Table 5 gives the fuzzy comparison data of the sub- criteria of Management Factors: Table5: Pairwise comparison matrix for sub-criteria of management factors 1756

We calculate: [ ] Table 6: the possibility degree for every binary state Table 7: the final weight for sub-criteria of management factors Based on results of table7, we can deduce that the most important criteria for management factors, is Management skill. Second, they compare the sub- criteria of technological factors. Table 8 gives the fuzzy comparison data of the sub- criteria of technological factors: 1757

Table8: Pairwise comparison matrix for sub-criteria of technological factors Market-oriented technology Timely innovative technology R&D capabilities Market-oriented technology (1.56, 2.33, 3.15) (1.042, 1.62, 2.33) Timely innovative technology (0.32, 0.43, 0.64) (2.47, 3.99, 5.5 ) R&D capabilities (0.43, 0.62, 0.96) (0.18, 0.24, 0.37) We compute: [ ] Table 9: the possibility degree for every binary state 1758

Table10: the final weight for sub-criteria of technological factors Market-oriented technology Timely innovative technology R&D capabilities Minimum degree of feasibility 0/94 1 0/07 The final weight 0/47 0/50 0/03 rank 2 1 3 As a consequence, the result of table10 shows that Timely innovative technology has rank first in technological factors. Third, they compare the sub- criteria of marketing factors. Table 11 gives the fuzzy comparison data of the sub- criteria of marketing factors: Table11: Pairwise comparison matrix for sub-criteria of marketing factors Competition Strategy Pricing Policy Advertising Customer need Competition Strategy (2.84, 4.56, 6.16) (1.09, 1.73, 2.55) (0.21, 0.32, 1.8) Pricing Policy (0.16, 0.22, 0.35) (0.35, 0.5, 0.79) (0.19, 0.27, 0.53) Advertising (0.39, 0.58, 0.92) (1.27, 1.98, 2.82) (0.28, 0.44, 0.89) Customer need (1.47, 3.9, 4.72) (2.07, 4.27, 6.34) (1.12, 2.30, 3.51) 1759

We compute: [ ] Table 12: the possibility degree for every binary state Table13: the final weight for sub-criteria of marketing factors Competition Strategy Pricing Policy Advertising Customer need Minimum degree of feasibility 0.8 0.02 0.42 1 The final weight 0.36 0.01 0.19 0.44 rank 2 4 3 1 Table13 shows customer need is the most important factor in the marketing criterion for on products commercialization. Fourth, they compare the sub- criteria of environmental factors. Table 14 gives the fuzzy comparison data of the sub- criteria of environmental factors: 1760

Table14: Pairwise comparison matrix for sub-criteria of environmental factors Government support Legal/regulatory Government legislation Government support (1.76, 2.54, 3.56) (1.11, 1.65, 2.47) Legal/regulatory (0.28, 0.39, 0.57) (0.57, 0.72, 0.98) Government legislation (0.41, 0.9, 0.9) (1.02, 2.08, 1.75) [ ] Table 15: the possibility degree for every binary state Table16: the final weight for sub-criteria of environmental factors Government support Legal/regulatory Government legislation Minimum degree of feasibility 1 0.07 0.59 The final weight 0.60 0.04 0.36 rank 1 3 2 1761

ISSN 0714-0045 / Vol, 5 (2) In table16 we can observe that for the Government support play a much more important role than other sub-criteria. 6- Conclusion and presentation of some recommendations The existing research was in the track of comparative evaluation or in other word prioritizing effective factors on Commercialization. but here a vital point arises which is that in research process, most of the variables are mentioned in the form of nominal, quality and verbal variables and their evaluation by decisive methods and digital mathematics numbers seems to be impossible. The outstanding matter about this research is its innovation in use of AHP in the fuzzy environment for eradicating this problem. In fact researchers with usage of fuzzy conceptual applied verbal phrases as phrases with natural and colloquial language for evaluating the factors and also for more appropriate and precise analysis they applied some changes on them. The obtained result from FAHP method implementation indicates that technological factors are predominant criterion for the commercialization of products. In particular, Timely innovative technology and market-oriented technology factors seem to have distinctively higher importance, indicating that they are the key factors for commercializing for new products. This result provides evidence that information about technology can reinforce the importance and potential advantages of becoming more innovative. We further adopted several management factors for evaluating and found that management skill is significant in commercializing knowledge-based 1746

ISSN 0714-0045 / Vol, 5 (2) product. The results may also provide insights for managers who are attempting to increase their management skill about business. The obtained results indicated costumer's need is important factor in Commercialization. With regard to the high significance of costumer's need indices, the recommendations of applying and designing management systems of relationship with costumer in firm. Also government support effective on commercialization, therefore Government supports that encourage innovation among knowledgebased business, can help countries remain competitive in a global market. REFERENCES Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Sandberg, B. (2012). From new-product development to commercialization through networks. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 198-206. Bollinger, L., Hope, K., & Utterback, J. M. (1983). A review of literature and hypotheses on new technology-based firms. Research Policy, 12(1), 1-14. Caerteling, J. S., Halman, J. I., & Dorée, A. G. (2008). Technology commercialization in road infrastructure: how government affects the variation and appropriability of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(2), 143-161. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 95(3), 649-655. 1747

ISSN 0714-0045 / Vol, 5 (2) Chen, C. J. (2009). Technology commercialization, incubator and venture capital, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 93-103. Chen, C. J., Chang, C. C., & Hung, S. W. (2011). Influences of technological attributes and environmental factors on technology commercialization. Journal of business ethics, 104(4), 525-535. Chin, K. S., Xu, D. L., Yang, J. B., & Ping-Kit Lam, J. (2008). Groupbased ER AHP system for product project screening. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(4), 1909-1929. Chen, C. J., & Huang, C. C. (2004). A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech industries for the science-based industrial park in Taiwan. Information & Management, 41(7), 839-851. Das, S. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2000). Competing with new product technologies: a process model of strategy. Management Science, 46(10), 1300-1316. Erensal, Y. C., Öncan, T., & Demircan, M. L. (2006). Determining key capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A case study of Turkey. Information Sciences, 176(18), 2755-2770. Fakhari, H., Salmani, D., & Daraeei. (2013), the impact of economic sanctions on the knowledge-based companies. Journal of science & technologhy policy. 5(3):1-17. (In Persian) Gans, J. S., Hsu, D. H., & Stern, S. (2000). When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? (No. w7851). National bureau of economic research. 1748

ISSN 0714-0045 / Vol, 5 (2) Gorman, G. G., & McCarthy, S. (2006). Business development support and knowledge-based businesses. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 131-143. Halman, J. I., Hofer, A. P., & Van Vuuren, W. (2003). Platform Driven Development of Product Families: Linking Theory with Practice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 149-162. Howitt, P. (1996). The implications of knowledge-based growth for micro-economic policies (Vol. 6). Univ of Calgary Pr. Jones-Evans, D. (1997). Technical entrepreneurship, experience and the management of small technology based firms exploratory evidence from the UK. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 9(1), 65-90. Kang, S. W. (2012). An Identification of Unsuccessful, Failure Factors of Technology Innovation and Development in SMEs: A Case Study of Components and Material Industry. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(19), 16-30. Kimura, O. (2010). Public R&D and commercialization of energyefficient technology: A case study of Japanese projects. Energy Policy, 38(11), 7358-7369. Kropp, F., & Zolin, R. (2005). Technological entrepreneurship and small business innovation research programs. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2005(7). Lee, S. H. (2010). Using fuzzy AHP to develop intellectual capital evaluation model for assessing their performance contribution in a university. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4941-4947. 1749

ISSN 0714-0045 / Vol, 5 (2) Lo, C. C., Wang, C. H., Chien, P. Y., & Hung, C. W. (2012). An empirical study of commercialization performance on nanoproducts. Technovation, 32(3), 168-178. Madrid Guijarro, A., Garcia, D., & Van Auken, H. (2009). Barriers to innovation among Spanish manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 465-488. Marsh, S. J., & Stock, G. N. (2003). Building dynamic capabilities in new product development through intertemporal integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 136-148. Meyer, M. H., & Roberts, E. B. (1986). New product strategy in small technology-based firms: A pilot study. Management Science, 32(7), 806-821. Mu, J., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2011). Strategic orientations and new product commercialization: mediator, moderator, and interplay. R&D Management, 41(4), 337-359. Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and Proactive Market Orientation and New Product Success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), 334-347. O Brien, J. N., Blau, J., & Rose, M. (2004). An analysis of the institutional challenges to commercialization and deployment of IGCC technology in the US Electric industry, prepared for US Department of Energy and National Association Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Peterson, R. T. (1988). An analysis of new product ideas in small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(2), 25. 1750

ISSN 0714-0045 / Vol, 5 (2) Poolton, J., & Barclay, I. (1998). New product development from past research to future applications. Industrial Marketing Management, 27(3), 197-212. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9-26. Saji, K. B., & Mishra, S. S. (2013). Investigating the role of firm resources and environmental variables in new product commercialization. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(1), 18-29. Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Commercializing Technological Innovation: Learning from Failures in High Tech Markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(4), 437-454. Zadeh, L. A. (1976). A fuzzy-algorithmic approach to the definition of complex or imprecise concepts (pp. 202-282). Birkhäuser Basel. Zahra, S. A., & Nielsen, A. P. (2002). Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 377-398. Zhao, F. (2004). Commercialization of research: a case study of Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 223-236. 1751