Analysis Batangas University by Porter 5 Forces

There are a sum up of models and frameworks used in the analyses of conflict of technology science universities in the stage setting of inter topicization and globalization. Although such(prenominal) can be derived from such analyses, it is argued that universities that can be harnessed to turn in warring advantage can be best analyzed when regarded as an persistence.In this speculate, the battle of Batangas realm University College of engineering science was determined based on porters Five Competitive Forces model and was defined by the following the flagellum of bleak entrants, contention among existing firms within an industry, the threat of substitute products or services, the bargaining office staff of suppliers, and the bargaining power of buyers. The intensity of threats of new entering universities, short-term substitutes, and rivalry among existing universities were determined over the strength of Batangas posit University College of technology as suppli er, and as viewed by the industries and alumni as buyers.PURPOSEThis paper examined the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering victimisation doormans Five Competitive Forces Model. It assessed the competitive edge of the College as perceived by alumni and separate stakeholders vis--vis other engineering institutions, which highlighted the applicability of this model in determining the competitiveness of the College.DESIGN / METHODTo be able to analyze the competitive advantage of Batangas State University College of Engineering over the other existing engineering schools in Batangas, its graduates from twelve engineering programs over the last five years were surveyed. This determined the graduates assessment of faculty competence in different aspects, effectiveness of its curriculum, and the capability of the university in providing character services to the students.On the other legislate, the personnel from different companies in the region were included in the population of this study to determine their assessment of the competitiveness of the graduates of Batangas State University College of Engineering. The actents of this study were 386 alumni out of 2,197 graduates from twelve engineering programs of Batangas State University from the school year (SY) 2005-2006 to SY 2009-2010. On the other hand, a total of 52 respondents from major industries in the CALABARZON region were the foster group of respondents of the study.RESULTSResults revealed that the perceptions of the alumni and industry partners on the Colleges competitiveness as regards buyer power, supplier power, threats of new entry and rivalry among existing competitors were relatively high. On the other hand, they had an average perception on the competitiveness of the Colleges programs considering threats of substitutes .CONCLUSIONPorters Five Competitive Forces Model has been found applicable in the summary of competitiveness of Batangas State University C ollege of Engineering similar to that in business entities to pull in distinct holdings and capabilities which are presented to their clientele if they are to have a strong market and competitive position.The results underscore the competitiveness of the University in terms of faculty, curriculum and other attributes that make it a University of choice by students for an engineering education. Despite these, it is challenged byaggressive competition by other institutions and by alternative substitute modes of learning equal to an engineering degree.KEYWORDSPorters Five Competitive Forces, competitive advantage, differentiation strategiesIntroductionGlobalization has become inevitably beyond the tick of individual Higher Education Institutions and governments. Characteristically, since global cities have a high density of participation in higher(prenominal) education, there is a strong arrogant correlation between the higher education enrolment ratio of a nation or a region, and its global competitive performance (Bloom, 2005). Future opportunities and challenges for internationalization of higher education must be explored in order to respond to globalization of societies, cultures, economies and labor markets (Klvermark & Wende, 1997).There has been a continuing interest in the analysis of forces that own impact on organizations, particularly those that can be harnessed to provide competitive advantage like universities. (Thurlby, 1998).The Batangas State University stands as a university offering engineering education anchored on its mission and the mandates of the Commission on Higher Education. Having acquired recognition for its engineering education through the years, there is a felt need to avouch how it stands as to the entities it has served the alumni, and the market the industries.One of the bases of competitiveness is readiness for internationalization. Termed as internationalization of tertiary education (ITE), this means integrating inte rnational, intercultural or global dimension into the goals, functions, and delivery of higher education (Knight and de Wit, 1997) as cited by Eglitis and Panina (2010). Evidently, this is seen in the crafted vision of Batangas State University, which has geared its direction in the shaping of a global Filipino. Also, the Batangas State University is governed by national regulations, policies and norms which according to Duczmal (2006) may have an impact on students and their academic andpersonal and social behaviors as well as their choice of university.To date, the College is home to 122 top performers in national licensure examinations nonably in mechanical, electrical, electronics and communications, civil, chemical, environmental and sanitary and architecture programs, and the graduates performance in national licensure examinations is consistently higher than the national passing percentage expect among engineering graduates. As a result of the efforts to continuously improve the pure tone of its curricular programs, faculty, and research capabilities, it has become a university of choice by future engineering students and one of the top producers of globally competitive professionals in the region.According to Porter, it is imperative that organizations have their own strategies that reflect their needs and plans, given the institutional arrangements and external conditions. The Batangas State University took the venture of program differentiation when it started offering programs other engineering schools in the province did not offer. It adapted by making the faculty strong by direct them for advanced studies and trainings a ample to prepare them for the instructional needs and challenges of the new programs.To Porter, this move shows the competitiveness of an organization. Organizations adapting to new institutional arrangements and new demands will choose the way they respond and reorganize themselves. One way is to create added value to its pro ducts which in this context, Batangas State University did. Duczmal (2006) had cited not-for-profit organizations, such as a higher education institutions use added value strategies not just for money but works for value for society and performance of their mission, as well.MethodologyThe study was anchored on the possibleness of Michael Porter on competitiveness which is a tool used to analyze an industrys or companys structure and their corporate strategies. This will present the different competitiveness models and frameworks as applied to business and knowledge intensive organizations. Industry analysis in higher education institution was also presented to show the appropriateness of Porter theory in the analysis of competitiveness of universities.The respondents of this study were the 386 alumni out of 2,197 graduates over the past five years from twelve engineering programs of Batangas State University from the school year (SY) 2005-2006 to SY 2009-2010. The number of respond ents used exceeds the 339 minimum required number of samples determined using Slovins Formula with a margin of error of 0.05, distributed to different programs using stratified proportionate sampling technique. On the other hand, a total of 52 respondents from major industries in CALABARZON region were the second group of respondents in the study.Survey Questionnaire DesignGenerally, the developed questionnaire consisted of seven sections (Sections A to G). The first six sections (Sections A to F) were intended for alumni respondents while the seventh section (Section G) was aimed for industry personnel who were able to handle Batangas State University College of Engineering graduates and trainees. The responses of the respondents to the questionnaire items were given scalar values of 1-5 with 1 as the lowest to 5 as the highest.Section A. This part of the questionnaire dealt with the general criteria in choosing engineering university. This includes affordability, adequacy of faci lities, laboratories and library resources, availability of scholarships, efficiency of students services, accreditation of programs, honors and achievements realise by the university, and linkages with industries and other agencies. This reflects the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering as based on Porters buyer power attribute as perceived by alumni.Section B. This part pertained to faculty competence as to professional qualification, advanced education, sufficiency of teaching experience and training, affiliation to professional organizations, participation to seminars and conferences, and linkages with the industry. This reflects the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering based on Porters supplier power attribute as tofaculty competence as perceived by alumni.Section C. This was relate with the strength of the curriculum as to submission to Commission on Higher Education standards, updatedness and responsiveness to in dustry needs, and involvement of the stakeholders in its revision. This reflects the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering based on Porters supplier power attribute as to curriculum as perceived by alumni.Section D. This section dealt with the strength or limitations of Batangas State University as compared to other existing engineering schools in Batangas with regard performance, affordability, faculty, accreditation, research and innovation, awards and honors, linkages and international affiliation. This reflects the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering as based on Porters attribute of rivalry as perceived by alumni.Section E. This contained the preference to other substitutes to engineering courses which includes enrollment to short term or technical foul courses, affiliation to some professional organization, and enrollment to some online programs. This indicates the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering as based on Porters threats of substitute attribute as perceived by alumni.Section F. This part tapered on the acceptability of Universities that introduce new engineering programs that are competitive in providing engineering education. This shows the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering based on Porters threats of new entry attribute as perceived by alumni.Section G. This concerned the attributes of the graduates of Batangas State University College of Engineering as well as the responsiveness of its curriculum relative to the needs of the industry. This reflects the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering as based on Porters buyer power attribute as perceived by the industries.Competitiveness ModelsIn the higher education literature, Pringle and Huisman (2011) observed that most models and frameworks for analysis are based on shaping governance structure or coordination models such Clarks Triangle of Coor dination (1983), van Vughts Rational Planning and Control Model (1989), Olsens Four States Model (1988) and Hoods Comparative Framework (1998).Porter (1990) outlined his conceptual framework of competitiveness first in The Competitive Advantage of Nations. At a wide level, Porter distinguished between two sets of factors that impact competitiveness The social, political, macroeconomic, and legal context on the one hand and the microeconomic foundations on the other hand (Porter, 2004). In his research, Ketels (2006) pointed out that without microeconomic improvements macroeconomic reforms fail to achieve sustainable improvements in prosperity.Within the set of microeconomic factors, Porter distinguishes between the sophistication with which companies operate and the quality of the business environment Haataja and Okkonen (2004) synthesized the three competitiveness models as applied to knowledge intensive organization. This includes value chain, resource-based view and knowledge-ba sed view.Porter (1985) pointed out that every activity in the crop creates value for the customer through the chain of activities. According to this view, the chain of activities helps to develop knowledge creation and service processes.Porters Five Competitive Forces Model has already been applied in a wide array of businesses including non-profit organizations where competitive advantage is a central theme. As cited by Pringle and Huisman (2011), Porters model (1985) is anchored on microeconomics and despite criticisms from Mintzberg (1994) and others, it is still one of the most strategic frameworks used today. Since engineering universities can be harnessed to provide competitive advantage, it is in this context that Porters Five Competitive Forces Model was chosen by the researcher in analyzing thecompetitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering.Industry Analysis in Higher EducationAccording to Collis (1997), industry analysis is based on the concept that al l industries create value. The questions are what amount of value the industry can create and who captures the created value. The two forces that affect the size of the industry include threat of entry of new providers and threat of substitute products. On the other hand, the three forces that determine the division of the industry include power of buyers, power of suppliers, and the degree of rivalry. Together these five forces are considered contributory to the average profitability of an industry.Duczmal (2006) cited that some industries are inherently more profitable than others because of the distinct differences in their structure. In the analysis of higher education, the success of industry analysis lies in its focus at the various agents of change that operate directly or indirectly through the five forces. The framework considers the collective changes caused by the five forces, and how the resulting changes may reconfigure the higher education industry as a whole rather th an looking at the impact of the individual forces or drivers.Each public and private higher education institution always strives to gain a competitive advantage in the market. (Porter, 1980, 1998). Having a competitive advantage over other competing organizations attracts prospective sufficient students, and except generate state funding and tuition fee income, which is necessary for sustainable development. Porter distinguished two families of business concepts or strategies useful for industry analysis namely product differentiation strategy and efficiency or cost lead strategy.The first type of strategy refers to the idea that the organization is unique for it servesa particular market and offers products and services that are different fromthe products offered by other suppliers. In the second family of strategies, the advantage of the organization lies in its ability to produce its product in a less costly way as compared to its competitors. As further identified by Porter, s trategies can be directed towards either a full market or specific market segments. In some cases, targeting the broad market may lead to an increased added value and a better competitive position in the market (Duczmal, 2006).In the case of higher education applying focus strategy, universities and colleges concentrate on a narrow student or program segment, and within that segment they manage to develop the best offer and capture the students interests. This discourages other providers from competing directly. In this case, students have less choice and are left with fewer alternatives to choose from.On the other hand, a broad market-wide business concept suggests a broad market strategy, where the products offered caters to a wider market segments. Organizations choosing the broad market strategy can adopt the differentiation strategy or the cost leadership strategy, emphasizing bell first then availability. However, most often they will mix both strategies, offering low-cost p roducts to some consumer groups that emphasize the price first, and high-quality products to those consumers that are attracted by the send and quality of the products (Porter, 1980). Universities that consider a broad market strategy offer a wide range of programs, including those leading to bachelor, master or even doctorial degrees.They may offer varied modes of delivery, including full-time, part-time and evening-time programs. Their offer is targeted at a wide array of students groups from different economic classes. They also try to attract students from unsophisticated areas by opening branches in smaller non-academic cities. Higher education institutions that decide to adopt such a broad market strategy need to have diversified sources of financial resources in the form of state subsidies or large endowments, or donations (Duczmal, 2006).Porters Five Competitive Forces TheoryAccording to Porter (1980, 1985) and Porter and Millar (1985), as cited by Shin (2001), a firm dev elops its business strategies in order to obtain competitive advantage over its rivals. This is done by responding to five primary forces the threat of new entrants, rivalry among existing firms within an industry, the threat of substitute products or services, the bargaining power of suppliers, and the bargaining power of buyers (Figure 1). The threats of new entrants become a competitive force when they are new and render the same products and services. The easier it is for new companies to enter the industry, the more cutthroat competition there will be.Power of suppliers is the pressure suppliers can emerge on a business. If one supplier has a large enough impact to affect another companys offerings, definitely it becomes a competitive force to regard and then it holds substantial power. On the other hand, power of buyers is manifested by the pressure customers can place on a business. Businesses have to adopt strategies so that they provide requirements and demands of custome rs as they have impact to the success sustainability and profitability of the business.Availability of substitutes is a pressure as buyers will have the tendency to switch to another supplier with a competitive product or service. These forces help analyze the intensity of competition to the profitability and attractiveness of an industry. Figure 1 shows the interaction among the different competitive forces.In the context of Porters Five Competitive Forces, the study presupposed that these could also be adopted as assessment factors in determining the competitiveness of educational institutions. on this end, the forces were aligned so that they may appropriately be useful on the educational field. Supplier in the educational sector referred to faculty and curriculum.