Analysis Batangas University by Porter 5 forces

AAEE 2012 CONFERENCE
Melbourne, Australia www.aaee.com.au/conferences/2012/ Analysis of Competitiveness of Batangas State University
College of Engineering Using Porter’s Five Competitive
Forces Model
Tirso A. Ronquillo, Ph.D.
Batangas State University, Philippines [e-mail] BACKGROUND
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.

PURPOSE
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

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 G 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 Strategies 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 Research Priorities 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 competitiveness index 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.