AAEE 2012 CONFERENCE
Analysis of Competitiveness of Batangas State University
College of Engineering Using Porter’s Five Competitive
Tirso A. Ronquillo, Ph.D.
Batangas State University, Philippines
There are a number of models and frameworks used in the analyses of competitiveness of engineering universities in the context of internationalization and globalization. Although much can be derived from such analyses, it is argued that universities that can be harnessed to provide competitive advantage can be best analyzed when regarded as an industry. In this study, the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering was determined based on Porter’s Five Competitive Forces Model and was defined by the following: 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. The intensity of threats of new entering universities, short-term substitutes, and rivalry among existing universities were determined over the strength of Batangas State University College of Engineering as supplier, and as viewed by the industries and alumni as buyers.
This paper examined the competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering using Porter’s Five Competitive Forces Model. It assessed the competitive edge of the College as perceived by alumni and other stakeholders vis-à-vis other engineering institutions, which highlighted the applicability of this model in determining the competitiveness of the College.
DESIGN / METHOD
To 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 quality services to the students. On the other hand, 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 respondents 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 second group of respondents of the study.
Results revealed that the perceptions of the alumni and industry partners on the College’s 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 College’s programs considering threats of substitutes .
Porter’s Five Competitive Forces Model has been found applicable in the analysis of competitiveness of Batangas State University College of Engineering similar to that in business entities to have distinct attributes 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 by aggressive competition by other institutions and by alternative substitute modes of learning equal to an engineering degree.
Porter's Five Competitive Forces, competitive advantage, differentiation strategies
Globalization has become inevitably beyond the control of...
References: Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,
17: 1, 99-120.
Bloom, D. (2005). Raising the Pressure: Globalization and the Need for Higher Education Reform. In
Collis, D. J., Montgomery, C. A. (1997). Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Duczmal, W. (2006). The Rise of Private Higher Education in Poland: Policies, Markets and
Eglitis, J., Panina, L. (2010). Education and Sustainable Development. Perspectives of Innovations,
Economics & Business, Volume 4, Issue 1, ISSN: 1804-0519, pp
Haataja, Marjo and Okkonen, Jussi (2004). Competitiveness of a Knowledge Intensive OrganizationA Synthesis of Three Competitiveness Models. Business Information Management.
Kalvermark, T., & van der Wende, M. (Eds.). (1997). National policies for inter-nationalization of
higher education in Europe
Ketels, C. H. M. (2006). Michael Porter’s Competitiveness Framework—Recent Learnings and New
Knight, J. and De Wit, H. (1997). Internationalisation of Higher Education in Asia Pacific Countries.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107114.
Porter, M. and Millar, V.E. (1985). How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage. Harvard
Business Review, 63(4), July-August 1985, pp
Porter, M.E. (2004). Building the microeconomic foundations of prosperity: Findings from the business
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors.
Porter, M. E., (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
Pringle, J. and Huisman, Jeroen. (2011). Understanding Universities in Ontario, Canada: An Industry
Analysis Using Porter’s Five Forces Framework
Shin (2001). Strategies for Competitive Advantage in Electronic Commerce. Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, Vol
Thurlby, B. (1998). Competitive forces are also subject to change. Management Decision, Vol. 36, No.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document