JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

COMPETITIVE PROFILE MATRIX AS A TOOL FOR EVALUATING STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Maria Dinna Pelaez Avinante, Centro Escolar University Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines. mdpavinante@ceu.edu.ph, mdpavinante@gmail.com.

Citation: Avinante, M.D.P. (2016). Competitive Profile Matrix as a tool for evaluating strategic performance of Higher Education Institutions, Journal of Strategy and Performance Management, 4(3), 77-92.

ABSTRACT

This study presents results of a research conducted to explore the competitive environment among three Higher Education Institutes in Philippines. Competitive Profile Matrix is used to compare the competitors and their particular strengths and weaknesses in relation to each other. Critical Success Factors have been identified as the basis of CPM and for development of HEIs’ strategy.

Keywords: competitive profile matrix, critical success factors, market position, competition, differentiation

INTRODUCTION

Competitiveness has become a part of daily lives of managers in all kinds of institutions (Fred David, 2009, Rothaermel, 2013). Higher Education Institutes are no exception. In fact, their business environment may be relatively more competitive in times of slow global growth, leading to decline in jobs and pushing the workforce back to school for increasing their qualification and skills.

HEI’s as service providers are required to restructure (Kusumawati et al, 2010) and redefine their educational process through adoption of a market-oriented strategies (Nicolesco, 2009) and more attuned business concepts suitable for higher education. With increasing trend of international students around the world, the competitive environment of HEIs has become global rather than local. (Sohel, et al., 2014). Such competitiveness has impacted HEIs of all sizes and has necessitated strategization for retaining their customers.

!77

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

This study builds upon two important business concepts applied in higher education; consumer behavior and positioning strategies. Consumer behavior of students include meeting their expectations in terms of teaching competencies, quality of instructions, payment terms, facilities, national and international linkages, research environment and facilities, libraries, health and sports services, inter alia. Students’ expectations are seen as a valuable source of information (Nicolesco, 2009) for schools to base their innovations upon. Positioning as a marketing concept, on the other hand, is responsible for creating an institution's image in the minds of customers; defining their perceptions of the institution’s identity,features and perceived benefits.

Philippines is facing a paradigm shift in its educational system, brought primarily by the Asean Integration. It means opening up of a large market for goods and services, more skilled labor and professionals, recognition and qualifications of learners, licensure, innovations and best practices (Montano, 2014). Such changes are bringing greater competition and thus a need to prepare for it. Another important factor isthe k-12 program which is expected to be fully implemented by 2016 (Manzala, 2014).

In this context, the instant research uses Competitive Profile Matrix for HEIs to identify positioning strategies for competitiveness. 3 HEIs are compared to identify critical success factors present among HEIs in terms of:

1. Tuition Fees 2. Customer Service 3. Instruction 4. Teacher Competency 5. Physical Plant Facilities 6. Accreditation 7. Philosophy and Objectives 8. Quality Certification 9. Computerized enrollment/ On line Grading System 10. Student Based Activities 11. Research 12. Community outreach 13. Alumni Relations 14. International Linkage 15. Strong work ethics

METHODOLOGY

149 respondents participated in the study. They are divided into 2 groups . Each group was further subdivided into groups based on their ages, ranging from 13 to 45. Group 1 had 49:51 male:female ratio while Group 2 had 38: 62. Group 1 had 30% students, 33% parents,21% alumni and 16% were employees. Group 2 comprises of the same sets with 32%, 22%, 32% and 14% respondents, respectively. Participants were assured of using their data for research purposes only.

!78

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

Quantitative and qualitative method were used in the study. Quantitative is conducted to describe new situations , events, or concepts, examine relationships and determine the effectiveness of treatments.( Burns & Grove,2011). The purpose was to get information about the current status of the phenomena and to describe "what exists" on the variables or conditions in a situation (Zikmund & Babin, 2007).

Qualitative techniques allow the researchers to provide interpretations of market phenomena without depending on numerical measurement. The focus is on discovering the true inner meaning and new insights. Also, qualitative techniques are less structured and are more researcher dependent (Zikmund, Babin, 2007).

The study made use of survey questionnaires as the main data-gathering tool developed by the researchers. Also, the researchers conducted an orientation as to the critical success factors of the CPM of three HEIs. Interviews were conducted triangulation of responses.

CPM or Competitive Profile Matrix was used to show particular strengths and weaknesses about a firm’s strategic position (Fred David, 2009). The comparative analysis through CPM provides important strategic information which can assimilate and test information in a meaningful way. The results may be used by the administrators in their decision-making approaches.

CSFs of CPM include both internal and external factors and were assigned specific ratings as follows: 4 = major strength, 3= minor strength, 2= minor weakness, and 1 major weakness.

In CPM, the ratings and total weighted score for rival HEIs were compared. Each CSF was assigned a weight and ratings were made by the respondents. The results are indicative, only showing relative strengths and weaknesses of the competing HEIs (David, 2009).

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Decisions relating to choosing HEIs that offer different rankings and corresponding fees are difficult because of accompanying issues relating to individual behavior, attitude, intention, preference, commitment and identification (Kotler, 2004) Consumer buying behavior is a complicated issue because of many internal and external factors affecting the consumers buying decision. Since customers’ preferences are changing from time to time, companies are spending money through research to find the factors that affect the buying behavior. Having identified such factors, firms can develop their strategies to increase their competitiveness.

Competition is regarded as inevitable in the business world (Sohel et al. 2014). Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of HEI’s may increase their position in a marketplace. Companies like Proctor and Gamble recognize the tremendous demand for household products in Asia and strategize to create a sense of purpose in the marketplace (Hitt et al,

!79

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

1999). In such competitive environment, building and expanding networks and creating competitive advantage through superior performance is of greater importance (O. Jurevivious, 2013).

Strategists used different techniques in analyzing competitors and their competitive position in the marketplace. For companies, they used a strategy of getting the customers attention by creating a distinctive brand image for their products (Kim et al, 2001). For HE’s, strategies focus on strengthening competency, quality instructions, improving enrollment system and establishing an effective alumni relations among others.

Diversification of management role and systematic strategy based approaches (Nermin, Akeyl et al, 2012) may bring changes in the higher education structure like building reforms in its policies, governance, structure (Nicolescu, 2009) and adoption of various national and international certifications and accreditations. Such improvements afford more and improved choices to students.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The critical success factors identified by the researchers are shown in Table 1. These CSF are present in most schools and universities and have served as building blocks for success. ((Wysocki, et al.200).

The ratings of HEI(A), HEI(B) and HEI (C) are shown in table 2.Based on the results, CPM of HEI (A) shows a total score of 2.54. Only one CSF was given a rating of 1 as a major weakness of HEI (A) which is tuition fees. While customer service, student activities, alumni relations, student assistance and marketing communications were given a rating of 2 which is minor weakness for HEI (A). Rated 3 were instruction, physical plant, quality certification, research, international linkage, strong work ethics and distance education were the minor strengths of HEI (A) . Major strengths or a rating of 4 were given to accreditation, philosophy / objectives, computerized enrollment and health. Overall a total WA of 2.54 was given to HEI (A) by group 1.

While CPM of HEI (B) with a total of 2.73 as rated by group1. No minor weakness was given to HEI (B) but a major weakness was given to CSF instruction, physical plant, student activities and student assistance. While a minor strength or a rating of 3 were given to CSF to tuition fees, customer service, competency, philosophy and objectives, quality certification, community outreach, alumni relations, distance education, security, marketing communications and health. A major strength of HEI (B) was given to accreditation, computerized enrollment, research, international linkage, and strong work ethics.

CPM of HEI as perceived by Group 1 received a total weighted result of 3.61 for HEI (C) as perceived by Group 1. Only computerized enrollment/on line grades was rated 1 or a major weakness of HEI (C). Minor weakness was identified and rated 2 for CSF tuition fees, accreditation and alumni relations. Minor strengths were the most CSF identified like customer service, competency, instruction, philosophy/objectives, community outreach,

!80

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

research, international linkage, strong work ethics, distance education, student assistance, security, marketing , and health. The only major strength is the student activities for HEI (C).

Table 3 shows CPM of HEI (A) as perceived by Group 2 with a total of 2.14 only. The majority of the CSF were identified as minor weakness of HEI (A). CSF tuition fees, accreditation, philosophy and objectives, student activities, community outreach, alumni relations, international linkage, strong ethics, security and health. While a minor strengths are CSF customer service, teacher instruction, competency, research, student assistance and marketing communications. No major strength were identified for CSF of HEI (A).

While CPM of HEI (B) by group 2 shows a total weighted average of 2.34, CSF with a rating of 4 as major strengths are tuition fees and customer service. While minor strengths were instruction, competency, student activities, alumni relations and international linkage as minor strengths. Minor weakness is physical plant, philosophy/objectives, certification, community outreach, research, strong work ethics, distance education and same minor weakness for student assistance. While computerized on line grades, security, marketing communications, and health were rated as major weakness.

CPM of HEI (C) by group2 shows a total weighted average of 2.21. Only minor strengths were identified such as CSF Tuition fees, instruction, philosophy and objectives, linkage, strong work ethics and marketing were some of the identified minor strengths. Minor weakness are CSF customer service, physical plant, accreditation, certification, enrollment, outreach research, alumni relations, student assistance, security and health and major weakness were the physical plant, student assistance and distance education.

Table 4 presents the rating of CSF in terms of tuition fee. HEI B got the highest rating in terms of tuition fee with .30 compared with HEI A with .10 and .02 for HEI C. It only means that HEI B is offering tuition that is flexible and affordable compared to A and C. In terms of customer service, HEI B and C got the same rating compared to HEI A with only .10 which means that HEI B and C are offering better customer service. For instruction, a higher rating was given to HEI B which means that the respondents acknowledge the instructions, instructional materials provided by HEI B. For HEI B and C go the same rating of .06 except for HEI A with only .04. Physical Plant got rating of .15 for both HEI A and HEI C while HEI B got only a weighed score of .10.Accreditation shows HEI with the highest scored compared to HEI A and HEI C. For Philosophy and Objectives, both HEIB and HEIC got the same weighted score of .15 while Quality Certification, all the three HEIS got the same rating of .15. Computerized enrollment went to HEI A with a weighted score of .32 followed by HEIB with .20 and .08 for HEI C. Student Activities, HEI A and HEIB got the same weighted score of .10 while HEIC got a rating of .20 for Community Outreach, all three HEIS got the same rating of .06. Research went to HEIB with .20 weighted score while HEI A and HEI C got only .15. Alumni relations, International linkage and strong work ethics also went to HEI B. While the distance education, got the same rating for the three HEIS. Security and Health went to HEI A and Marketing communications is a tie between HEI B and HEI C.

!81

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

Table 5 shows the CPM of Group2 as compared to the three HEIS. In terms of tuition fees, customer service, student activities, alumni relations, international linkage distance education, security and health were given the highest ratings to HEI B. While customer service and strong work ethics were given to HEIA. HEIC got the highest weighted score on the following critical success factors such as certification and community outreach. While teacher competency, marketing communications, accreditations and instruction received a tie among the three HEIs with a rating of .15, .30 and .20.

Table 6 shows the summary of total weighted score of HEI’s (A, B, C) by group 1 with 2.54 for HEI (A) and 2.73 and 3.61 for HEI (B) and (C) respectively. While Group 2 rated HEI’S (A), (B), and (C) with ratings of 2.13, 2.34 and 2.21. The comparative analysis shows group 1 with higher ratings for HEI’s ABC while Group 2 with lower ratings for HEI’s ABC. HEI (A) shows a better standing compared to HEI (A) of group2 same with HEI (B) and (C). For group 1 it shows HEI (C) with the highest weighted score followed by HEI (A) and (B). While group 2 HEI (B) has the highest weighted score compared with HEI (A) and HEI (C). This only means that from the three HEIS it is HEI (B) which performs better and have greater strengths over HEI (A) and HEI (C). Furthermore, HEI (B)shows a strong competitive position in the marketplace compared to the other two HEI’s.

Table 7 shows that Critical Success Factor their mean and standard deviation. Tuition Fee and Instruction has the highest Mean of .3000 while Strong Work Ethics has the lowest Mean of .0333. This could mean that the two groups agreed that their institution have strong importance with regards to Tuition Fee and Instruction whereas Strong Work Ethics has weak importance.

One Sample Test is presented in Table 8, p> .05, which applies to the Critical Success Factor Research, Computerized Enrolment, Quality Certification, Instruction, and Alumni Relations. Therefore, it can be concluded that the population is statistically not significantly different in the said Critical Success Factor. While the rest of the Factors with if p< .05, mean statistically significantly different.

CONCLUSION

HEIs are facing increased competition in the wake of globalization and regionalizaiton. To remain competitive, HEI’s should focus on improving their minor and major weaknesses and maximize their strengths. This study presents a model study for developing CSFs and analyzing competing HEIs on the basis of CPM. The researchers acknowledge various limitations of the study. There is a need to expand the research in a broader context, include a bigger population and identify other critical success factors.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (2008). Strategic market management. John Wiley & Sons.

!82

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

Aldaba, R. M., & Navarro, A. ERIA Research Project: ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint Mid-Term Review Philippines Country Study:“The ASEAN Economic Community and the Philippines.

Azarcon, Gallardo et at.,( 2014). Attrition and Retention in Higher Education Institution: A Conjoint Analysis of Consumer Behavior in Higher Education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 5.

Kusumawati, A., Yanamandram, V. K., & Perera, N. (2010). University marketing and consumer behaviour concerns: the shifting preference of university selection criteria in Indonesia.

Bygrave, W.D. &Zacharakis, A. (2011) Entrepreneurship (2nd ed., ), NJ USA: Wiley.

Capps III, C. J., & Glissmeyer, M. D. (2012). Extending the competitive profile matrix using internal factor evaluation and external factor evaluation matrix concepts. Journal of Applied Business Research, 28(5), 1059.

Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206.

David, F. (2009). Strategic management: cases and concepts, Pearson Education, New Jersey.

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1999). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization, Western Publishing, Cincinnati.

Kapferer, J. N. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity, Kogan Page.

Luminita Niculesco (2009). Applying Marketing to Higher Education: Scope and Limits. Journal of Management and Marketing , Vol. 4, No. 2 pp.35-44

Rothaermel, Frank (2013). Strategic Management Concepts and Cases.

Sohel, S. M., Rahman, A. M. A., & Uddin, M. A. (2014). COMPETITIVE PROFILE MATRIX (CPM) AS A COMPETITORS’ANALYSIS TOOL: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE. From The Editor’s Desk.

Wood, Lisa (2009) Brands and Brand Equity: Definition and Management: Retrieved from hhttp:///www.emerald-library.com

Zikmund and Babin (2007). Essentials of Marketing Research, Cengage Learning.

!83

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

!84

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

!85

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

!86

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

!87

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

!88

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

!89

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

!90

JSPM Vol 4 Issue 3

!91