Entrepreneurial Sustainability of Micro Small and

Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in The Municipality of Infanta Pangasinan

Leo H. Calingasan, Narciso A. Martin Jr., Randy Joy M. Ventayen,

Ian D. Evangelista, Rofer-Jay S. Ferrer, and Rennie D. Martinez

Pangasinan State University Infanta Campus

Bamban, Infanta, Pangasinan

Abstract

The study surveyed the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises’ (MSMEs) operations in
the concerned Municipality. This study supported the concepts of emerging and existing local
entrepreneurs. It assessed business success, business challenges, business performance
(BusPerf), Entrepreneurial Competencies (ECs), and Entrepreneurial Orientations (EOs) to
determine business potentials and opportunities in the locality. It also identified business-ready
Barangays based on local profile. The study used a mixed method approach using descriptive
survey-correlational methodologies and a Focus Group Discussion. Results were interpreted
using weighted mean, Pearson r, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Single Factor, and Post Hoc
Test.
Data revealed that the target market was dominated by sari-sari stores (46 or 28.40%)
and variety stores (57 or 35.19%), where most business owners usually invested with a capital
ranging from 15,001-50,000 (49 or 30.00%) and 50,001-100,000 (30 or 19.00%) with 3-4 store
employees (73% or 45.00%) out of the 162 business registrants. In addition, data confirmed
that there were 70 or 43.00% more owners whose business performance ranged from 15,001-
50,000 in town. Further, there was a significant relationship between ECs and EOs at 0.01 level
of significance. However, ECs and EOs were not strongly influenced by the business
challenges encountered. Likewise, the study attested that business success and challenges were
both stand-alone research constructs, and business success was not strongly influenced by ECs
and EOs. Lastly, the study confirmed some leading indicators for business success, ECs, and
EOs contributing for sustainable MSME operation in town.
Based on the findings, the study recommended a strong MSMEs’ support system while
considering the inclusion criteria in the proposed business model, inferring the significance of
business indicators, such as BusPerf, ECs and EOs, government effort, and business
opportunities from partnerships and potential investors into the business operations.

Keywords: business success, business challenges, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial

competencies, entrepreneurial orientation, LGU, MSMEs

1
Introduction
The Pangasinan State University Infanta Campus is mandated to provide quality
education with responsive higher-level degree programs beneficial to its stakeholders and the
whole community it resembles in terms of product delivery through instruction, research,
extension, and production. In the same unison, the entirety of the University is on a mission to
extend products and services to stakeholders through the perpetual offering of non-board
courses in the future (Campus Admin, 2022). One identified non-board program to be opened
was the BSBA Major in Financial Management (FM), which will pave the way to many
opportunities for our college-bounded students who opt to help their communities from the
knowledge, experiences, and flexibilities acquired from the perspectives of Business,
Entrepreneurship, Finances, Management, Administration, Accounting, and Economics. Status
quo, the Municipality of Infanta is gearing toward gradual urbanization and business
commercialization by identifying potential tourism sites and expecting an increase in the
number of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises’ (SMEs) players in the town.
With the aid of legislation, the Republic Act 9501 or Magna Carta for MSMEs
confirmed the description of local businesses according to scales and indicators. For instance,
a micro enterprise is one with an asset size of up to 3,000,000 pesos with an employment size
of 9 employees; a small enterprise with an asset size of 3,000,001-15,000,000 pesos and an
employment size from 10-99 employees; and a medium enterprise with an asset of 15,000,001-
100,000,000 and an employment size of 100-199 employees (Robles, n.d.).
In the general picture, local businesses could benefit local communities through product
and service provision, increased employment opportunities, and maintaining a continuous flow
of resources for a steady business trade.
By prioritizing these material business activities and aligning synergy and resources,
the business positions itself as a ‘responsive corporate unit’ in helping and providing solutions
to the community. (Abor et al., 2014)
The town of Infanta has a total land area of 25,429 hectares. It is near coastal lines and
beaches where farming, fishing, and salt production are the primary observed living sources
among Infantanians. According to the 2023 census, the town belongs to a 3rd class
Municipality with 13 Barangays with 24,584 total population. (LGU Infanta, 2000)
For small towns like the Municipality of Infanta, categorized as 3rd class, with an
anticipated application to be recognized as 2nd class, local businesses can also be considered
the primordial backbone of its economy. They provide Infantanians with immediate access to
necessities, like food, clothing, and household goods. Additionally, they attract tourists and
guests who visit the area for its natural attractions while providing opportunities for local
entrepreneurs who thrive.
As per the record of the Municipal Business Permit and Licensing Division Office (M-
BPLDO), 659 local businesses were operating in the locality as of January 2023 (Department
of Trade and Industry, 2020). From the total list of registered local businesses, there were 30
agricultural business products, 5 amusement centers, 9 apartments and space rental, 10 bakeries
and bakeshops, 4 cooperatives, 9 corporate businesses, 7 drugstores and beauty products, 29
dry goods, 16 eatery, canteens, and restaurants, 24 food stalls, stands, and kiosks, 2 furniture
and fixtures, 5 gasoline stations, 79 general merchandise, 1 government subsidiary, 16 meat
shops, 16 motorcycle parts and accessories, 16 quasi-banking functions, 45 retailing, 266 sari-
sari stores, 28 trading enterprises, and 42 variety stores. (Please refer to Appendix B)
Cognizant of the significance of MSMEs as partners toward community progress and
development in multi-faceted business disciplines, the researchers felt the relevance of
pursuing the objectives of this research with the end goal to reach out to concerned authorities,
government leaders, and cooperating agencies to design sincere plans and programs to propel
business operation for future benchmarking (bench learning) and peer emulation across key

2
towns and Municipalities for continuous business successful stories and survival.

Research Objectives
This study supported the concepts of emerging and existing local entrepreneurs,
business success, business challenges, business performance (BusPerf), Entrepreneurial
Competencies (ECs), and Entrepreneurial Orientations (EOs) to determine business potentials
and opportunities in the locality. It also identified business-ready Barangays based on local
profile in the Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan.
Further, this study provided business data for the government leaders and Business
Administration Faculty Members and educators alike to identify the thriving needs of the
MSMEs’ community and the local market alongside compelling business mechanisms and
requirements and to include it in their Research and Extension (R&E) programs in the future
to propel business operations.
The study’s expected output was in the form of a proposed MSMEs’ business model to
steer business operational efficiency in the locale of the study for peer emulation.
Specifically, the study sought answers to the following objectives;
1. What is the current profile of local businesses in the Municipality of Infanta,
Pangasinan in terms of;
1.1 business line;
1.2 startup years;
1.3 initial capital;
1.4 employment generation; and
1.5 business performance?
2. How do the entrepreneurial competencies describe by the local entrepreneurs?
3. How do the business challenges encountered by local entrepreneurs and MSMEs relate
to;
3.1 entrepreneurial competencies; and
3.2 entrepreneurial orientations?
4. How do entrepreneurial orientations relate to entrepreneurial competencies?
5. How do the MSMEs relate their business success through;
5.1 business challenges;
5.2 entrepreneurial competencies;
5.3 entrepreneurial orientations; and
5.4 business performance?
6. How do entrepreneurship sustain MSMEs’ operations in the town along with the
following units;
6.1 Municipal Planning and Development Office;
6.2 Local Department of Trade and Industry;
6.3 Cooperating Agencies;
6.4 Academic Community;
6.5 Barangay Business Ready; and
6.6 Local Support Group and Business Association?
7. What is the implication of sustainable MSMEs in Entrepreneurship?

Research Design
The study used a mixed method approach. The study utilized descriptive-survey-
correlational methodologies. The respondents were identified based on the criteria set by the
expert panel. There were representatives from local entrepreneurs, existing MSMEs, and
3
customers.
The study employed a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with the thirteen (13) Barangays
for zonal consultations and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). The sampling design employed
complete enumeration.

Table 1. The Barangays in the Municipality of Infanta Pangasinan*

N=13
Barangays Barangays Non- Key
Business Ready Business Ready Informant
1 Batang 7 Babuyan
2 Bayambang 8 Bamban
3 Cato 9 Doliman
4 Maya 10 Nangalisan Brgy Captains
5 Patima 11 Nayom
6 Poblacion 12 Pita
13 Potol
*Please see complete listing of cadastral survey

Instrumentation
The study structured one set of questionnaires.
Part I asked for the local business profile according to its business line, operation, initial
capital, employment generation, and business performance.
Part II described the Entrepreneurial Competencies (ECs) of the local entrepreneurs with fifty
(50) benchmark statements adopted from a study presented (Kyguolienė & Švipas, 2019). The 50
statements comprised ten (10) entrepreneurial competencies; Opportunity Seeking (#1-5),
Persistence (#6-11), Commitment to Work (#12-17), Risk Taking (#18-23), Demand for
Efficiency and Quality (#24-29), Goal Seeking (#30-33), Information Seeking (#34-38),
Systematic Planning and Monitoring (#39-41), Persuasion and Networking (#42-44), and Self-
Confidence (#45-50).
Part III described the Entrepreneurial Orientations (EOs) of the local entrepreneurs with
fifteen (15) benchmark statements adopted from a study presented (Soriano, n.d.). The 15
statements were administered in five (5) entrepreneurial orientations; Innovativeness (#1-3),
Proactiveness (#4-6), Risk Taking (#7-9), Competitive Aggressiveness (#10-11), and
Autonomy (#12-15).
Part IV revealed the business challenges encountered by local entrepreneurs and
MSMEs through enumeration validated by a Focus Group Discussion.
Part V revealed the determinants of business success in the area by the local
entrepreneurs with seventeen (17) benchmark statements adopted from a study presented (Gok
et al., 2021). The 17 statements were distributed in four (4) determinants; Entrepreneur (#1-7),
Enterprise (#8-12), Network (#13-14), and Business Environment (#15-17).
The instrument with eighty-two (82) questions underwent a reliability test and used the
Cronbach’s alpha value below (Konting et al., 2009).

4
 Cronbach's Alpha Value Interpretation
0.91 - 1.00 Excellent
0.81 - 0.90 Good
0.71 - 0.80 Good and Acceptable
0.61 - 0.70 Acceptable
0.01 - 0.60 Non-acceptable

Data Gathering and Procedures

The researchers sent communication letters to the Municipal Planning and
Development Office (MPDO) to request existing plans and programs aligned in business and
entrepreneurship (LGU Infanta, 2000).
The study requested a current report from the Office of the Local Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) concerning business data analytics (Department of Trade and Industry,
2020).
The researchers coordinated the questionnaire distribution with the Local Support
Group and Business Association.
A pilot test was conducted where the computed Cronbach’s alpha of the survey
questionnaire was 0.959, which meant excellent and reliable instrument to utilize. (Please refer
to Appendix C)
The retrieval ran for May and June 2022.

Statistical Tools
For statements of the problem no. 1, the statistical treatment used were frequency count
and percentage.
For statement of the problem no. 2, the formula weighted mean, average weighted
mean, and ranking were used to reveal the Entrepreneurial Competencies (ECs).
For statement of the problem no. 3, the formula Pearson r was used in revealing the
relationship between and among business challenges, Entrepreneurial Competencies (ECs),
and Entrepreneurial Orientations (EOs).
For statement of the problem no. 4, the formula Pearson r was used to reveal the
relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientations (EOs) and Entrepreneurial Competencies
(ECs).
For statement of the problem no. 5, the formula Pearson r, ANOVA Single Factor, and
Post Hoc Test were used in revealing the relationship between and among variables, such as
business success, Entrepreneurial Competencies (ECs), Entrepreneurial Orientations (EOs),
and business performance (BusPerf).
Further, the sample size was determined using the Lynch formula (Lynch et al., 1972,
and cited by Ardoles, 1992).
n=NZ2 x p (1-p)
Where;
n= sample size Nd2 + Z2 p (1-p)
N= population
Z= the value of the normal variables (1.96) for a reliability level of 0.95
p= the largest possible proportion (0.50)

Further, the total sampling was 162 based on the computed Lynch, as shown below.
n=NZ2 x p (1-p)
n= 278 (3.84) x 0.25 / 278 (0.0025) + 0.96
n= 1,067.52 x 0.25 / 0.695 + 0.96

5
 n= 266.88 / 1.655
n= 161.2568 or 162

Analysis of Data
In the analysis and interpretation of data, the following standard ISO with adjectival
description were used.
For the Entrepreneurial Competencies (ECs), the following rating was used.
Entrepreneurial Competencies Average Rating and Description
Entrepreneurial 5 4 3 2 1
Competencies Average
Rating 5.00 - 4.21 4.20 - 3.41 3.40 - 2.61 2.60 - 1.81 1.80 - 1.00
Description Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never

For the Entrepreneurial Orientations (EOs), the following rating was used.
Entrepreneurial Orientation Average Rating and Description
Entrepreneurial 5 4 3 2 1
Orientation Average
Rating 5.00 - 4.21 4.20 - 3.41 3.40 - 2.61 2.60 - 1.81 1.80 - 1.00
Description Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

For the Business Success, the following rating was used.

Business Success Average Rating and Description
Business Success 5 4 3 2 1
Average Rating
5.00 - 4.21 4.20 - 3.41 3.40 - 2.61 2.60 - 1.81 1.80 - 1.00
Extremely Very Mildly Not Very Not
Description
Important Important Important Important Important

For the Degree of Correlation, the following rating was used.

Degree of Correlation and Description
Degree of Correlation 1.000-0.80 0.799-0.60 0.599-0.40 0.399-0.20 0.199-0.00

Description Very Strong Strong Medium Weak Negligible

Results and Discussions

This part discussed the findings of the study based on the presented sequence of the
Statements of the Problem.

SOP No. 1 - Business Profile

The following tables revealed the local business profile in the Municipality of Infanta,
Pangasinan, according to the following indicators.

1.1 Business Line

Table 2 revealed the line of business operations in the town.

6
 Table 2
Summary of Business Line

Business Line N %
Agricultural Product 6 3.70
Bakery 5 3.09
Cellphone Repair Shop 6 3.70
Construction 6 3.70
Flower Shop
Food Stalls 7 4.32
General Merchandise 4 2.47
Motorcycle Parts and Accessories 14 8.64
School Supplies 7 4.32
Retail Goods 4 2.47
Sari-Sari Store 46 28.40
Variety store 57 35.19
Total 162 100

There were 6 or 3.70% agricultural type of local businesses, 5 or 3.09% bakery type of
local businesses, 6 or 3.70% cellphone repair shop type of local businesses, 6 or 3.70%
construction type of local businesses, 7 or 4.32% food stalls type of local businesses, 4 or
2.47% general merchandise type of local businesses, 14 or 8.64% motorcycle parts and
accessories type of local businesses, 7 or 4.32% school supplies type of local businesses, 4 or
2.47% retail goods type of local businesses, 46 or 28.40% sari-sari store type of local
businesses, and 57 or 35.19% variety store type of local businesses.
Further, data confirmed that businesses in town were dominated by 57 or 35.19%
variety stores out of 162 with no flower shops in the area.

1.2 Startup Years

Table 3 revealed the years of local business operations in the town.

Table 3
Summary of Startup Years

Startup Years N %
Less than 1 year 8 4.94
1- 10 years 56 34.57
10 years or more 98 60.49
Total 162 100

There were 8 or 4.94% operating businesses with less than a year, 56 or 34.57%
operating businesses with 1-10 years, and 98 or 60.49% operating businesses with 10 years or
more.
Further, data confirmed that operating businesses in town was dominated by 98 or

7
60.49% with 10 years or more out of 162 registrants.

1.3 Initial Capital

Table 4 revealed the initial capital of local businesses in the town.

Table 4
Summary Initial Capital

Initial Capital N %
5,000&below 8 5.00
5,001-15,000 20 12.00
15,001-50,000 49 30.00
50,001-100,000 30 19.00
100,001-300,000 29 18.00
300,001-500,000 8 5.00
500,001-1,000,000 8 5.00
1,000,001-3,000,000 6 4.00
3,000,001-10,000,000 2 1.00
10,000,001 or more 2 1.00
Total 162 100

There were 8 or 5.00% business owners’ initial capital ranged from 5,000&below, 20
or 12.00% business owners’ initial capital ranged from 5,001-15,000, 49 or 30.00% business
owners’ initial capital ranged from 15,001-50,000, 30 or 19.00% business owners’ initial
capital ranged from 50,001-100,000, 29 or 18.00% business owners’ initial capital ranged from
100,001-300,000, 8 or 5.00% business owners’ initial capital ranged from 300,001-500,000, 8
or 5.00% business owners’ initial capital ranged from 500,001-1,000,000, 6 or 4.00% business
owners’ initial capital ranged from 1,000,001-3,000,000, 2 or 1.00% business owners’ initial
capital ranged from 3,000,001-10,000,000, and 2 or 1.00% business owners’ initial capital
ranged from 10,000,001 or more.
Further, data confirmed that 49 or 30.00% business owner’s initial capital ranged from
15,001-50,000 while only 2 or 1.00% ranged from 3,000,001-10,000,001 and 10,000,001 or
more.
It could be inferred that local businesses prefer to invest in minimum capital
requirements applicable to small-time business players.

1.4 Employment Generation

Table 5 revealed the employment generation of local businesses in the town.

8
 Table 5
Summary Employment Generation

Employment Generation N %

1-2 employees 65 40.00

3-4 employees 73 45.00
5 or more employees 24 15.00
Total 162 100

There were 65 or 40.00% businesses with 1-2 employees, 73 or 45.00% businesses with
3-4 employees, and 24 or 15.00% of 5 or more employees.
Further, data confirmed that 73 or 45.00% of businesses in town employed 3-4
employees in their stores.

1.5 Business Performance

Table 6 revealed the local business performance (i.e., Y2022 and Y2023) in the town.

Table 6
Summary Business Performance

Business Performance N %

5,000&below 23 14.00
5,001-15,000 42 26.00
15,001-50,000 70 43.00
50,001-100,000 17 10.00
100,001-300,000 10 7.00
Total 162 100

There were 23 or 14.00% business owners whose business performance ranged from
5,000&below, 42 or 26.00% ranged from 5,001-15,000, 70 or 43.00% ranged from 15,001-
50,000, 17 or 10.00% ranged from 50,001-100,000, and 10 or 7.00% ranged from 100,001-
300,000.
Further, data confirmed that there were 70 or 43.00% more owners whose business
performance ranged from 15,001-50,000 in town, while there were 10 or 7.00% lesser business
owners ranged from 100,001-300,000.

SOP No. 2 - Description of Entrepreneurial Competencies

Table 7 described entrepreneurial competencies among local businesses in the
Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan.

9
 Table 7
Entrepreneurial Competencies
N=162
Weighted
Entrepreneurial Competencies Description Rank
Mean
Commitment to Work 4.31 Always 1
Demand for Efficiency and Quality 4.18 Often 2
Persistence 4.09 Often 3
Goal Seeking 3.98 Often 4
Information Seeking 3.88 Often 5.5
Opportunity Seeking 3.88 Often 5.5
Persuasion and Networking 3.67 Often 7
Self-Confidence 3.66 Often 8
Systematic Planning and Monitoring 3.63 Often 9
Risk Taking 3.00 Sometimes 10
Grand Mean 3.83 Often

Data revealed that ranked 1 was ‘Commitment to Work’ had 4.31 average weighted
mean and with a description of Always, ranked 2 was ‘Demand for Efficiency and Quality’
had 4.18 average weighted mean and with a description of Often, ranked 3 was ‘Persistence’
had 4.09 average weighted mean and with a description of Often, ranked 4 was ‘Goal Seeking’
had 3.98 average weighted mean and with a description of Often, ranked 5.5 were ‘Information
Seeking’ and ‘Opportunity Seeking’ had 3.88 average weighted mean and with descriptions of
Often, ranked 7 was ‘Persuasion and Networking’ had 3.67 average weighted mean and with a
description of Often, ranked 8 was ‘Self-Confidence’ had 3.66 average weighted mean and
with a description of Often, ranked 9 was ‘Systematic Planning and Monitoring’ had 3.63
average weighted mean and with a description of Often, and ranked 10 was ‘Risk Taking’ had
3.00 and with a description of Sometimes.
The overall weighted mean for personal entrepreneurial competencies was 3.83 with a
description of Often.
It could be gleaned that local entrepreneurs were committed when managing business
operation but not risk takers.

SOP No. 3 - Business Challenges

The following tables revealed the business challenges of local businesses in the
Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan.

3.1 Business Challenges as Related to Entrepreneurial Competencies

Table 8 revealed the relationship of business challenges and Entrepreneurial
Competencies of local businesses in the Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan.

10
 Table 8
Business Challenges as Related to Entrepreneurial Competencies

Entrepreneurial Business
Competencies Challenges
Entrepreneurial Competencies 1
Business Challenges 0.300315365 1

Data revealed that the computed r=0.30 between business challenges and ECs was
interpreted as having a weak correlation.
This meant that the ECs were not strongly influenced by the challenges encountered by
the local entrepreneurs when managing their business operations.

3.2 Business Challenges as Related to Entrepreneurial Orientations

Table 9 revealed the relationship between business challenges and Entrepreneurial
Orientations for local businesses in the Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan.

Table 9
Business Challenges as Related to Entrepreneurial Orientations

Entrepreneurial Business
Orientations Challenges
Entrepreneurial Orientations 1
Business Challenges 0.121687256 1

Data revealed that the computed r=0.12 between business challenges and EOs was
interpreted as a negligible correlation.
This meant that the EOs were not strongly influenced by the challenges encountered by
the local entrepreneurs when managing their business operations.

SOP No. 4 - Entrepreneurial Orientations and Entrepreneurial Competencies

Table 10 revealed the entrepreneurial orientations as related to entrepreneurial
competencies of local businesses in the Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan.

Table 10
Entrepreneurial Orientations As Related to Entrepreneurial Competencies

Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial
Competencies Orientations
Entrepreneurial Competencies 1
Entrepreneurial Orientations 0.334290491 1

Data revealed that the computed r=0.33 between EOs and ECs was interpreted as
having a weak relationship.
It could be inferred that the entrepreneurial orientations did not strongly influence the
expected entrepreneurial competencies among local businesses in town.
It could possibly be resolved by inserting business orientations, seminars, training, and
workshops to recalibrate local entrepreneurs’ competencies in managing their business
operations.
11
 In achieving the aim of EOs and ECs, the Business Permit and Licensing Division
Office may solicit the assistance and support of business experts and professionals to spearhead
the program design for local entrepreneurs.

Table 11
Correlations Between Entrepreneurial Orientations and Entrepreneurial Competencies
Correlations

Entrepreneurial_C Entrepreneurial_O
ompetencies rientations

Entrepreneurial_Competencies Pearson Correlation 1 .334**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 162 162

Entrepreneurial_Orientations Pearson Correlation .334** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 162 162
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The computed Pearson r was 0.334 and the p-value was .000 which was less than alpha
0.05 (2-tailed). This meant that there was a significant relationship between Entrepreneurial
Competencies and Entrepreneurial Orientations at 0.01 level of significance.
This meant that ECs and EOs were in the same way influenced by the other, and thus,
both variables were dependent on each other.

SOP No. 5 - MSME Success

The following tables revealed the local businesses’ success in the Municipality of
Infanta, Pangasinan, along with the following indicators.

5.1 Business Success as Related to Business Challenges

Table 12 revealed the business success as related to business challenges in the town.

Table 12
Business Success as Related to Business Challenges

Business
Challenges Business Success
Business Challenges 1
Business Success 0.011771673 1

Data revealed that the computed r=0.01 between business success and business
challenges was interpreted as having a negligible correlation.
This meant that business success and business challenges were both stand-alone
research constructs.

5.2 Business Success as Related to Entrepreneurial Competencies

Table 13 revealed the business success as related to entrepreneurial competencies in the
town.

12
 Table 13
Business Success as Related to Entrepreneurial Competencies

Entrepreneurial
Competencies Business Success
Entrepreneurial Competencies 1
Business Success 0.491953338 1

Data revealed that the computed r=0.49 between business success and entrepreneurial
competencies was interpreted as having a weak correlation.
This meant that business success was not strongly influenced by the entrepreneurial
competencies of the local entrepreneurs.

5.3 Business Success as Related to Entrepreneurial Orientations

Table 14 revealed the business success as related to entrepreneurial orientations in the
town.

Table 14
Business Success as Related to Entrepreneurial Orientations

Entrepreneurial Business
Orientations Success
Entrepreneurial Orientations 1
Business Success 0.139969306 1

Data revealed that the computed r=0.13 between business success and entrepreneurial
orientations was interpreted as having a negligible correlation.
This meant that business success was not strongly influenced by the entrepreneurial
orientations of the local entrepreneurs.
5.4 Business Success as Related to Business Performance
Table 15 revealed the business success as related to the business performance (Y2022
and Y2023) of the town.

Table 15
Business Success as Related to Business Performance
Business Performance Business Success
Business Performance 1
Business Success 0.022272355 1

Data revealed that the computed r=0.22 between business success and business
performance was interpreted as having a negligible correlation.
This meant that business success was not strongly influenced by the business
performance of the local entrepreneurs.

Significant Difference Among Entrepreneurial Competencies Indicators

(Opportunity Seeking, Persistence, Commitment to Work, Risk Taking, Demand for Efficiency
and Quality, Goal Seeking, Information Seeking, Systematic Planning and Monitoring,
Persuasion and Networking, Self Confidence)

13
 The following table revealed the significant difference among Entrepreneurial
Competencies’ indicators.

Table 16
ECs’ Post Hoc Test
Multiple Comparisons
Entrepreneurial_Competencies
Tukey HSD
(I) Indicatorss (J) Indicatorss Mean Std. Sig. p-
Difference Error value
(I-J)
Opportunity Seeking Persistence -0.21315 0.095303 0.43195 0.432
Commitment_Work -0.42642 0.095303 0.000349 0.000
Risk_Taking 0.884691 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality -0.2987 0.095303 0.055307 0.055
Goal Seeking -0.10123 0.095303 0.98809 0.988
Information Seeking 0.006173 0.095303 1 1.000
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring 0.246296 0.095303 0.225788 0.226
Persuasion_Networking 0.213395 0.095303 0.430183 0.430
Self_Confidence 0.222037 0.095303 0.37008 0.370
Persistence Opportunity Seeking 0.213148 0.095303 0.43195 0.432
Commitment_Work -0.21327 0.095303 0.431067 0.431
Risk_Taking 1.09784 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality -0.08556 0.095303 0.996557 0.997
Goal Seeking 0.111914 0.095303 0.976156 0.976
Information Seeking 0.219321 0.095303 0.388573 0.389
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring 0.459444 0.095303 6.82E-05 0.000
Persuasion_Networking 0.426543 0.095303 0.000347 0.000
Self_Confidence 0.435185 0.095303 0.000229 0.000
Commitment_Work Opportunity Seeking 0.42642 0.095303 0.000349 0.000
Persistence 0.213272 0.095303 0.431067 0.431
Risk_Taking 1.311111 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality 0.127716 0.095303 0.944215 0.944
Goal Seeking 0.325185 0.095303 0.023125 0.023
Information Seeking 0.432593 0.095303 0.00026 0.000
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring 0.672716 0.095303 1.13E-10 0.000
Persuasion_Networking 0.639815 0.095303 1.18E-09 0.000
Self_Confidence 0.648457 0.095303 6.43E-10 0.000
Risk_Taking Opportunity Seeking -0.88469 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Persistence -1.09784 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Commitment_Work -1.31111 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality -1.1834 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Goal Seeking -0.98593 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Information Seeking -0.87852 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring -0.6384 0.095303 1.3E-09 0.000
Persuasion_Networking -0.6713 0.095303 1.25E-10 0.000
Self_Confidence -0.66265 0.095303 2.33E-10 0.000

14
Demand_Efficiency_Quality Opportunity Seeking 0.298704 0.095303 0.055307 0.055
Persistence 0.085556 0.095303 0.996557 0.997
Commitment_Work -0.12772 0.095303 0.944215 0.944
Risk_Taking 1.183395 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Goal Seeking 0.197469 0.095303 0.547714 0.548
Information Seeking 0.304877 0.095303 0.04555 0.046
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring 0.545 0.095303 5.71E-07 0.000
Persuasion_Networking 0.512099 0.095303 3.94E-06 0.000
Self_Confidence 0.520741 0.095303 2.4E-06 0.000
Goal Seeking Opportunity Seeking 0.101235 0.095303 0.98809 0.988
Persistence -0.11191 0.095303 0.976156 0.976
Commitment_Work -0.32519 0.095303 0.023125 0.023
Risk_Taking 0.985926 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality -0.19747 0.095303 0.547714 0.548
Information Seeking 0.107407 0.095303 0.981976 0.982
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring 0.347531 0.095303 0.01026 0.010
Persuasion_Networking 0.31463 0.095303 0.033138 0.033
Self_Confidence 0.323272 0.095303 0.024713 0.025
Information Seeking Opportunity Seeking -0.00617 0.095303 1 1.000
Persistence -0.21932 0.095303 0.388573 0.389
Commitment_Work -0.43259 0.095303 0.00026 0.000
Risk_Taking 0.878519 0.095303 5.73E-13 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality -0.30488 0.095303 0.04555 0.046
Goal Seeking -0.10741 0.095303 0.981976 0.982
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring 0.240123 0.095303 0.258578 0.259
Persuasion_Networking 0.207222 0.095303 0.475018 0.475
Self_Confidence 0.215864 0.095303 0.412651 0.413
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring Opportunity Seeking -0.2463 0.095303 0.225788 0.226
Persistence -0.45944 0.095303 6.82E-05 0.000
Commitment_Work -0.67272 0.095303 1.13E-10 0.000
Risk_Taking 0.638395 0.095303 1.3E-09 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality -0.545 0.095303 5.71E-07 0.000
Goal Seeking -0.34753 0.095303 0.01026 0.010
Information Seeking -0.24012 0.095303 0.258578 0.259
Persuasion_Networking -0.0329 0.095303 0.999999 1.000
Self_Confidence -0.02426 0.095303 1 1.000
Persuasion_Networking Opportunity Seeking -0.2134 0.095303 0.430183 0.430
Persistence -0.42654 0.095303 0.000347 0.000
Commitment_Work -0.63981 0.095303 1.18E-09 0.000
Risk_Taking 0.671296 0.095303 1.25E-10 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality -0.5121 0.095303 3.94E-06 0.000
Goal Seeking -0.31463 0.095303 0.033138 0.033
Information Seeking -0.20722 0.095303 0.475018 0.475
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring 0.032901 0.095303 0.999999 1.000
Self_Confidence 0.008642 0.095303 1 1.000
Self_Confidence Opportunity Seeking -0.22204 0.095303 0.37008 0.370

15
 Persistence -0.43519 0.095303 0.000229 0.000
Commitment_Work -0.64846 0.095303 6.43E-10 0.000
Risk_Taking 0.662654 0.095303 2.33E-10 0.000
Demand_Efficiency_Quality -0.52074 0.095303 2.4E-06 0.000
Goal Seeking -0.32327 0.095303 0.024713 0.025
Information Seeking -0.21586 0.095303 0.412651 0.413
Systematic-Planning-Monitoring 0.024259 0.095303 1 1.000
Persuasion_Networking -0.00864 0.095303 1 1.000
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Data revealed that Opportunity Seeking had a lower Entrepreneurial Competencies than
Commitment to Work (0.42642 with a p-value of 0.000), Opportunity Seeking had higher
Entrepreneurial Competencies than Risk Taking (0.884691 with a p-value of 0.000),
Persistence had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Risk Taking (1.09784 with a p-
value of 0.000), Persistence had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Systematic
Planning and Monitoring (0.459444 with a p-value of 0.000), Persistence had higher
Entrepreneurial Competencies than Persuasion and Networking (0.426543 with a p-value of
0.000), Persistence had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Self-Confidence (0.435185
with a p-value of 0.000), Commitment to Work had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than
Risk Taking (1.311111 with a p-value of 0.000), Commitment to Work had higher
Entrepreneurial Competencies than Goal Seeking (0.325185 with a p-value of 0.023),
Commitment to Work had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Information Seeking
(0.432593 with a p-value of 0.000), Commitment to Work had higher Entrepreneurial
Competencies than Systematic Planning and Monitoring (0.672716 with a p-value of 0.000),
Commitment to Work had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Persuasion and
Networking (0.639815 with a p-value of 0.000), Commitment to Work had higher
Entrepreneurial Competencies than Self-Confidence (0.648457 with a p-value of 0.000), Risk
Taking had lower Entrepreneurial Competencies than Demand for Efficiency and Quality
(1.1834 with a p-value of 0.000), Risk Taking had lower Entrepreneurial Competencies than
Goal Seeking (0.98593 with a p-value of 0.000), Risk Taking had lower Entrepreneurial
Competencies than Information Seeking (0.87852 with a p-value of 0.000), Risk Taking had
lower Entrepreneurial Competencies than Systematic Planning and Monitoring (0.6384 with a
p-value of 0.000), Risk Taking had lower Entrepreneurial Competencies than Persuasion and
Networking (0.6713 with a p-value of 0.000), Risk Taking had lower Entrepreneurial
Competencies than Self-Confidence (0.66265 with a p-value of 0.000), Demand of Efficiency
and Quality had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Information Seeking (0.304877
with a p-value of 0.046), Demand of Efficiency and Quality had higher Entrepreneurial
Competencies than Systematic Planning and Monitoring (0.545 with a p-value of 0.000),
Demand of Efficiency and Quality had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Persuasion
and Networking (0.512099 with a p-value of 0.000), Demand of Efficiency and Quality had
higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Self-Confidence (0.520741 with a p-value of 0.000),
Goal Seeking had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Systematic Planning and
Monitoring (0.347531 with a p-value of 0.010), Goal Seeking had higher Entrepreneurial
Competencies than Persuasion and Networking (0.31463 with a p-value of 0.033), Goal
Seeking had higher Entrepreneurial Competencies than Self-Confidence (0.323272 with a p-
value of 0.025), and Information Seeking had lower Entrepreneurial Competencies than
Demand for Efficiency and Quality (0.30488 with a p-value of 0.046).

Significant Difference Among Entrepreneurial Orientations Indicators

(Innovativeness, Proactiveness, Risk Taking, Competitive Aggressiveness, Autonomy)

16
 The following table revealed the significant difference among Entrepreneurial
Orientations’ indicators.

Table 17
EOs’ Post Hoc Test
Multiple Comparisons
Entrepreneurial_Orientations
Tukey HSD
(I) Indicators (J) Indicators Mean Std. Error Sig. p-value
Difference
(I-J)
Innovativeness Proactiveness 0.036914 0.099854 0.99602 0.996
Risk Taking 0.070123 0.099854 0.955978 0.996
Comp Aggressive 0.139691 0.099854 0.628513 0.629
Autonomy -0.40352 0.099854 0.000557 0.001
Proactiveness Innovativeness -0.03691 0.099854 0.99602 0.996
Risk Taking 0.03321 0.099854 0.997361 0.997
Comp Aggressive 0.102778 0.099854 0.841812 0.842
Autonomy -0.44043 0.099854 0.000114 0.000
Risk Taking Innovativeness -0.07012 0.099854 0.955978 0.956
Proactiveness -0.03321 0.099854 0.997361 0.997
Comp Aggressive 0.069568 0.099854 0.957207 0.957
Autonomy -0.47364 0.099854 2.45E-05 0.000
Comp Aggressive Innovativeness -0.13969 0.099854 0.628513 0.629
Proactiveness -0.10278 0.099854 0.841812 0.842
Risk Taking -0.06957 0.099854 0.957207 0.957
Autonomy -0.54321 0.099854 7.04E-07 0.000
Autonomy Innovativeness 0.403519 0.099854 0.000557 0.001
Proactiveness 0.440432 0.099854 0.000114 0.000
Risk Taking 0.473642 0.099854 2.45E-05 0.000
Comp Aggressive 0.54321 0.099854 7.04E-07 0.000
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Data revealed that Autonomy had higher Entrepreneurial Orientations than

Innovativeness (0.403519 with a p-value of 0.001), Autonomy had higher Entrepreneurial
Orientations than Proactiveness (0.440432 with a p-value of 0.000), Autonomy had higher
Entrepreneurial Orientations than Risk Taking (0.473642 with a p-value of 0.000), and
Autonomy had higher Entrepreneurial Orientations than Competitive Aggressiveness (0.54321
with a p-value of 0.000).

Significant Difference Among Business Success Indicators

(Entrepreneur, Enterprise, Network, Business Environment)
The following table revealed the significant difference among business success
indicators.

17
 Table 18
ECs Post Hoc Test
Multiple Comparisons
Business_Success
Tukey HSD
(I) Indicator (J) Indicator Mean Difference Std. Sig. p-value
(I-J) Error
Entrepreneur Enterprise 0.066235 0.085481 0.865831593 0.866
Network 0.423025 0.085481 5.68403E-06 0.000
Business Environment 0.669691 0.085481 5.10021E-13 0.000
Enterprise Entrepreneur -0.06623 0.085481 0.865831593 0.866
Network 0.35679 0.085481 0.000199135 0.000
Business Environment 0.603457 0.085481 2.64004E-11 0.000
Network Entrepreneur -0.42302 0.085481 5.68403E-06 0.000
Enterprise -0.35679 0.085481 0.000199135 0.000
Business Environment 0.246667 0.085481 0.020992626 0.021
Business Environment Entrepreneur -0.66969 0.085481 5.10021E-13 0.000
Enterprise -0.60346 0.085481 2.64004E-11 0.000
Network -0.24667 0.085481 0.020992626 0.021
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Data revealed that Entrepreneur had higher business success than Network (0.42302
with a p-value of 0.000), Entrepreneur had higher business success than Business Environment
(0.66969 with a p-value of 0.000), Enterprise had higher business success than Network
(0.35679 with a p-value of 0.000), Enterprise had higher business success than Business
Environment (0.60346 with a p-value of 0.000), and Network had higher business success than
Business Environment (0.24667 with a p-value of 0.021).

SOP No. 6 - MSME Support Systems

This part discussed the essentials of business support, networks, and mechanisms to
objectively evaluate the success of sustainable MSME’s in the Municipality of Infanta,
Pangasinan.

6.1 Municipal Planning and Development Office

The result of this study may be considered when crafting the 3-5year Municipal
Development Plan, narrating future projects, infrastructures, and activities that will prioritize
the essential needs of the business community. It shall directly identify the tourism sites
awaiting to be rediscovered in the concerned Municipality that need careful planning and
government funding commencing from budget requests from the national level and the
subsequent implementation in terms of construction, improvement, and maintenance. The
MPDO may spearhead the brigade for tourism promotions of the area, tapping other units or
groups of interest to magnify the business potential.

6.2 Local Department of Trade and Industry

The result of this study will reach out to DTI personnel to suggest contemporary
business mechanisms and strategies that will steer entrepreneurial competencies, orientations,
and activities. Aside from the traditional paper-printed promotions, technology will be explored
to reach out and attract the target market, city escapers, and tourists, perpetually. The Local
DTI may regularly conduct lectures and orientations, tapping the Business Experts, Faculty

18
Members, and Business Chambers. The Provincial and Local DTI Officials may reinforce the
Concerned LGU Tourism Officials to complement ‘win-win’ strategies.

6.3 Cooperating Agencies

The Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) and the Municipal Tourism
Office (MTO) may encourage other interested groups, such as civil society, environmental
advocates, and community leaders, to join hands in the promotion and preservation of local
tourism destinations in the area that shall invite business development. It shall also welcome
the opportunity to discover existing local products at the Barangay level that need relational
improvements and advertisements. Through this mindset, local entrepreneurs might boost their
morale, hoping their talents and skills are considered and prioritized.

6.4 Academic Community

The ‘School of Thought’ is where knowledge frontiers also originate and continue to
flow from person to person in preserving and activating business theories, models, techniques,
and strategies. This could be done with the help of Business Faculty Members who can provide
input based on thriving business conditions. The knowledge and skills of business professionals
through Research and Extension, Community Linkages, and Networks will potentially drive
change and innovation in tourism promotion and business development.

6.5 Barangay Business Ready

One of the aims of this research is the objective identification of which among the 13
Barangays are observed to be avenues for business-ready based on demographic profile,
business opportunities, and risk appetite of concerned entrepreneurs. Data were elicited through
an FGD with the concerned KIIs. As per objective evaluation, six were identified as Barangay
business-ready: Batang, Bayambang, Cato, Maya, Patima, and Poblacion. In achieving
sustainable business operations from the aforementioned Barangays, a mini-business plan is
carefully designed to be considered in the next crafting of a 3-5year Municipal Development
Plan (Mila, 2024).

6.6 Local Support Group and Business Association

Through this initiative, our government leaders shall identify support groups and
business associations that will steer and sustain market conditions. The members comprising
business chambers where investors and capitalists reside will be invited to study and consider
potential investments in the Municipality, which will provide them an avenue for business
forums and intellectual exchanges. Business associations will also be empowered to innovate
continuously, especially through business engagements, events, exhibits, congregation, and
assembly. They will be given the opportunity to ‘sit and discuss’ essential matters that affect
the general picture concerning Business Management and Administration in town.

SOP No. 7 - MSMEs Sustainability

Theoretically, the suggested business model below depicted a sustainable business
operation in the Municipality.
The business model presented below was inspired by the following business
significance, such as helping new and developing companies attract investment, recruit talent,
and motivate management and staff (Business Operations, 2000; Vanhala & Saarikallio, 2016).

19
 Legend
ECs – Entrepreneurial Competencies
EOs – Entrepreneurial Orientations
CSO – Civil Society Group
DTI – Department of Trade and Industry
MTO – Municipal Tourism Office MECHANISMS
PTO – Provincial Tourism Office
BLDO – Business Licensing Division Office
MPDO – Municipal Planning Development Office
MSMEs – Micro Small and Medium Enterprises ECs EOs

SUSTAINABLE

MSMEs
Challenges
CHALLENGES
PERFORMANCE
Performance
EFFORT SUPPORT

MTO MPDO/
BPLD INVEST
/PTO CSO/ ORS
O/DTI
ASSO
C

Figure 1. Proposed MSMEs Business Model

In attaining sustainable MSMEs’ operation in the town, cooperating agencies, local

entrepreneurs, and potential investors must complement to achieve ‘win-win’ strategies.
Further, the implication of a sustainable MSME operation in the town could warrant a
perpetual flow of product and service deliverables while identifying potential products for
sustenance and relational improvement, becoming a product identity flagship of each
Barangay. There will also be observed increasing employment retention rates in the area. In
addition, local entrepreneurs ensure reinforcement of individual business acumen triggered by
attending seminars, training, and workshops initiated by the concerned LGU and its offices.
Infrastructures will multiply in the area to aid Farm-To-Market (FTM) road fruits and
vegetables, especially Agriculturally Identified-Barangays from mountainous and far-flung
areas. Livelihood will also be prioritized, wherein there is obvious support (technical
assistance, funding, logistics) to local farmers and manufacturers. Business performance will
yield positive figures (net income) and a favorable Return on Investments (ROI), encouraging
more investors and capitalists to draw in. There would be healthy competition among local
entrepreneurs because they see opportunities in every aspect of business endeavor.
In summary, the concerned LGU will benefit because there will be an increase in tax
collection in the area, which will help defray future entrepreneurial plans and projects. It will
give a favorable assessment regarding the continuing plans when applying for the increasing
category of the Municipality (from 3rd class to 2nd class, and so on).
Lastly, evaluating the crafted 3-5year Municipal Development Plan becomes a reality,
not just a work of the head.

Recommendations
In light of the identified business challenges in achieving sustainable MSMEs’
operations in the concerned Municipality were some of the topmost inputs and solution-
strategies that may be considered in the decision-making, such as positive attitude (e.g.,
aggressiveness, persistence, hard work, focus, self-esteem, creativity, honesty, good
management, good service, passionate, good decision), government capital/financial support

20
(like low interest, program prioritization), and provision of customer satisfaction and customer
service.
Besides, there must be a ‘consortium’ among government sectors, support systems,
business advocates, community leaders, concerned units and offices, and cooperating agencies
to develop a unified and strategic plan in the field of Business and Entrepreneurship.
The researchers encourage subsequent research studies exploring the presented
variables to validate existing claims and arguments in the context of MSME operations.

Ethical Considerations
This study observed the principles of autonomy. The respondents had the right to self-
determination. The respondents willingly participated in the survey without coercion. The
researchers elicited their approval by accomplishing the informed consent with the Data
Privacy Act (RA 10173). The data gathered will be used for academic purposes.
The study, the researchers, and the institutions declared no intention to malign or
discredit any mentioned positions or Agencies concerned.

Short Acknowledgment
The researchers would like to extend genial appreciation to the Office of the Vice
President for Research, Extension, and Innovation (OVPREI), the Municipal Business Permit
and Licensing Division Office (M-BPLDO) of the Local Government Unit of Infanta (LGU-
Infanta), the Office of the Campus Executive Director, and the Office of the Research
Coordinator of the PSU Infanta Campus.

References
Abor, J. Y., Agbloyor, E. K., & Kuipo, R. (2014). Bank finance and export activities of Small
and Medium Enterprises. Review of Development Finance, 4(2), 97–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RDF.2014.05.004

Business Operations. (2000, February 1). Elements of A Business Model.

https://www.launchnotes.com/blog/the-essential-components-of-a-business-model

Campus Admin. (2022, January 8). MESSAGE OF CAMPUS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

Campus Webpage. https://infanta.psu.edu.ph/about-us/

Department of Trade and Industry. (2020, January 1). Loca DTI Infanta.
https://cmci.dti.gov.ph/lgu-profile.php?lgu=Infanta%20(PS)&year=2020

Gok, K., Kara, O., Lakshman, S., Demirtas, O., & Chu, H. M. (2021). A Factor Analysis of
the Entrepreneurial Success, Motivation andProblems Faced: The Case of Chinese
Entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies,
7(2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575211019591

Konting, M. M., Kamaruddin, N., & Man, N. A. (2009). Quality Assurance in Higher
Education Institutions: Exist Survey among Universiti Putra Malaysia Graduating
Students. International Education Studies, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v2n1p25

Kyguolienė, A., & Švipas, L. (2019). Personal Entrepreneurial Competencies of Participants

in Experiential Entrepreneurship Education. Management of Organizations: Systematic
Research, 82(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/mosr-2019-0012

21
LGU Infanta. (2000, January 1). Municipality of Infanta Pangasinan.
https://www.pangasinan.gov.ph/city-municipalities/infanta/

Mila, M. A. M. , M. Z. L. S. , M. A. M. , M. R. R. , and M. N. Jr. , A. (2024). THE

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF LOCAL BUSINESSES IN THE MUNICIPALITY
OF INFANTA PANGASINAN. Asian Intellect For Academic Organization and
Development Inc, 30(2).
http://nebula.wsimg.com/b8ebcdfd84091301cf479541925ce090?AccessKeyId=6F07ED
F332B38BC2E6B8&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Robles, C. (n.d.). 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES -

CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY.
https://www.chanrobles.com/article14.htm#.YerFp_5BzIU

Soriano, J. D. (n.d.). Key Success Factors and Entrepreneurial Orientations of The

Beneficiaries of the One Town, One Product (OTOP) Program in the Province of
Tarlac. http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html

Vanhala, E., & Saarikallio, M. (2016). Business model elements in different types of
organization in software business. www.mirlabs.net/ijcisim/index.html

22