Analysis Batangas University by Porter 5 Forces

There ar a number of models and modelings use in the analyses of engagement of plan universities in the mise en scene of inter guinea pigization and globalization. Although ofttimes sack buoy be derived from much(prenominal) analyses, it is argued that universities that derriere be harnessed to can militant advantage can be best analyzed when regarded as an fabrication.In this subscribe to, the fight of Batangas disk operating system University College of engine room was determined based on doormans louvre Competitive Forces regulate and was defined by the following(a) the holy terror of immature entrants, rivalry among active firms deep down an labor, the threat of stockpile products or overhauls, the bargaining business office of suppliers, and the bargaining power of buyers. The intensity of threats of untested entering universities, short-term diversifys, and rivalry among existing universities were determined over the intensity of Batangas terra firma University College of engine room as supplier, and as viewed by the industries and alumni as buyers.PURPOSEThis idea examined the engagement of Batangas reconcile University College of Engineering using porters beers 5 Competitive Forces Model. It assessed the hawkish edge of the College as perceived by alumni and some dissimilar stakeholders vis--vis opposite engineer brasss, which spiritedlighted the applicability of this model in determining the fighting of the College.DESIGN / METHODTo be able to analyze the belligerent 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 grades were surveyed. This determined the graduates assessment of efficacy competency in contrasting aspects, effectiveness of its programme, and the capability of the university in providing quality services to the students.On the other hand, the person nel from antithetic companies in the orbit were include in the population of this study to determine their assessment of the battle of the graduates of Batangas State University College of Engineering. The respondents of this study were 386 alumni out(a) 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 second group of respondents of the study.RESULTSResults revealed that the perceptions of the alumni and intentness sectionalisationners on the Colleges scrap 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 engagement of the Colleges programs considering threats of substitutes .CONCLUSION doorkeepers Five Competitive Forces Model has been found applicable in the analy sis of competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering similar to that in business entities to fuddle distinct refers and capabilities which be presented to their clientele if they are to set about a potent merchandise and competitive prepare.The results underscore the competitiveness of the University in terms of skill, curriculum and other attributes that make it a University of excerpt by students for an engineering bringing up. 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 fabricate inevitably beyond the find out of individual Higher Education Institutions and governments. Characteristically, since global cities have a high density of participation in higher education, there is a strong positive correlation among the h igher education enrolment symmetry of a nation or a region, and its global competitive transaction (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 gratify in the analysis of forces that induce daze on establishments, particularly those that can be harnessed to provide competitive advantage like universities. (Thurlby, 1998).The Batangas State University stands as a university go engineering education anchored on its commission and the mandates of the Commission on Higher Education. Having acquired recognition for its engineering education done the years, there is a felt need to verify 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 internationaliz ation of tertiary education (ITE), this instrument integrating international, 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 heraldic bearing 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 and personalised and social behaviors as well as their choice of university.To date, the College is home to 122 tiptop performers in national licensure examinations nonably in mechanical, electrical, electronics and communications, civil, chemical, environmental and sanitary and architecture programs, and the graduates action in national licensure examinations is consistently higher than the national momentary percentage expected among engineering graduates. As a result of the efforts to unceasingly improve the quality of its curricular programs, faculty, and look for capabilities, it has become a university of choice by future engineering students and one of the top producers of globally competitive maestros in the region.According to Porter, it is imperative that organizations have their own strategies that reflect their needs and plans, abandoned the institutional arrangements and external conditions. The Batangas State University took the risk 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 sending them for advanced studies and trainings oversea to prepare them for the instructional needs and challenges of the new programs.To Porter, this move memorialises the competitiveness of an organization. Organizations adapting to new institutional arrangements and new demands go out choos e the way they respond and stir up themselves. One way is to create added value to its products 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 theory of Michael Porter on competitiveness which is a tool used to analyze an persistences or companys structure and their corporate strategies. This result present the different competitiveness models and mannikins as applied to business and knowledge intensive organizations. fabrication 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 Bata ngas State University from the school year (SY) 2005-2006 to SY 2009-2010. The number of respondents used exceeds the 339 minimum mandatory number of samples determined using Slovins Formula with a strand of error of 0.05, distributed to different programs using stratified proportional 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 starting six sections (Sections A to F) were intended for alumni respondents while the seventh section (Section G) was aimed for sedulousness 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 wi th the general criteria in choosing engineering university. This includes affordability, adequacy of facilities, laboratories and library resources, availability of scholarships, cleverness of students services, accreditation of programs, honors and achievements earned 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 concerned with the strength of the cur riculum as to submission to Commission on Higher Education standards, updatedness and responsiveness to industry 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 courses, affiliation to some professional organization, and enroll ment 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 focused 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) notice that most models and frameworks for an alysis are based on defining judicature structure or coordination models such Clarks Triangle of Coordination (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 patient of 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 sound 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 a s applied to knowledge intensive organization. This includes value chain, resource-based view and knowledge-based view.Porter (1985) pointed out that every activity in the process creates value for the customer done 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 telephone ex interpolate theme. As cited by Pringle and Huisman (2011), Porters model (1985) is anchored on microeconomics and notwithstanding 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 police detective in analyzing thecompetitiveness of Batangas State Univ ersity College of Engineering.Industry Analysis in Higher EducationAccording to Collis (1997), industry analysis is based on the concept that all industries create value. The questions are what amount of value the industry can create and who captures the created value. The two forces that relate 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 advantageousness 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 conquest of industry analysis lies in its focus at the various agents of change that operate directly or indirectly through the five forces. The framework cons iders the collective changes caused by the five forces, and how the resulting changes may reconfigure the higher education industry as a whole rather than 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 further generate state funding and tuition fee income, which is necessary for sustainable development. Porter distinguished two families of business concepts or strategies utile for industry analysis namely product differentiation strategy and efficiency or cost leadership 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 high- scathed way as compared to its competitors. As further identified by Porter, strategies can be directed towards either a broad 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 sign 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 different iation strategy or the cost leadership strategy, emphasizing price first then availability. However, most often they will mix both strategies, offering low-cost products to some consumer groups that emphasize the price first, and high-quality products to those consumers that are attracted by the brand and quality of the products (Porter, 1980). Universities that consider a broad market strategy offer a wide range of programs, including those star to bachelor, master or even doctoral degrees.They may offer wide-ranging 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 rural areas by open up branches in smaller non-academic cities. Higher education institutions that decide to adopt such a broad market strategy need to have modify sources of financial resources in the form of state subsidies or large endowments, or donations (D uczmal, 2006).Porters Five Competitive Forces TheoryAccording to Porter (1980, 1985) and Porter and Millar (1985), as cited by Shin (2001), a firm develops its business strategies in order to line up competitive advantage over its rivals. This is done by responding to five essential 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 alike 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 place on a business. If one supplier has a large enough impact to affect another companys offerings, by all odds it becomes a competitive force to reckon and then it holds substantial power. On the other hand, power of buyers i s manifested by the pressure customers can place on a business. Businesses have to adopt strategies so that they provide requirements and demands of customers 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. Along 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.