8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
1/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2082
SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
FOR MARKET LEADERSHIP AMONGST
THE PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES
IN MALAYSIA
Loh Teck Hua
KDU University College
Business School
Section 13 Campus,
76, Jalan Universiti,
46200, Petaling Jaya, Selangor DE
ABSTRACT
One of Malaysias economic goals is to become an education hub for the region. To achieve this, the Malaysiangovernment had liberalised government policies resulting in the proliferation of Private Higher Education
Institutions (PHEIs) including private Universities and University Colleges. As competition intensifies it becomes
increasingly pertinent to ask What sustainable competitive advantage should the Private Higher Education
Institutions (PHEIs) have to achieve market leadership in the Malaysian education industry? For the smaller
PHEIs, it is a question of survival itself. This paper aims to provide a theoretical study of some of the key strategic
activities of the leading PHEIs to answer this question.
The literature review covering both foreign and local sources indicates three key factors of sustainable
competitive advantage, i.e. branding and image, the physical aspects of higher education including location and
facilities, and the mode of delivery. The paper will seek to identify these factors amongst the market leaders to
ascertain the validity of the secondary data via critical analysis of their activities.
The theoretical framework employed for the analysis will be Michael Porters Three Generic Strategies and Five
Competitive Forces. The PHEIs have largely evolved into business entities and this development makes the
framework appropriate for the study.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
2/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2083
List of tables
Table1. Summary of expert views on sustainable competitive advantage 7
Table 2. Analysis of competitive advantages in the context of the five 13competitive forces
Table 3. Competitive advantage: a convergence of views. 15
List of figures
Fig. 1 McGee, Thomas and Wilsons differentiation strategy. 5
Fig. 2 The five competitive forces affecting the PHEIs 8
Fig. 3 The nature of educational offering 16
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
3/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2084
INTRODUCTION
Archer and Hutchins (2000) indicated that the reasons for undertaking a degree program were largely
personal and economic: to earn more money and to avoid hard, dirty or dangerous jobs. Higher education allows
personal development and facilitates social-class mobility by helping one move up in the socio-economic ladder.
Prior to 1996 only the public higher educational institutions had the rights to confer degrees. The PrivateHigher Educational Institutions (PHEIs) could only confer certificates and diplomas. Since 1996, the Ministry of
Education Malaysia (MOE) had introduced legislations that have revolutionalized the higher education system
bringing about educational reforms and the democratization of secondary education, increased student enrolment
at PHEIs, new public policies and the privatization of higher education in Malaysia.
While this development had generally benefited the industry, it had created a challenging, fluid
environment where Government interference and legislative changes demand great flexibility and an even greater
entrepreneurial mind set from PHEIs. With the creation of the Malaysia Qualifications Agency (MQA), a single
quality assurance agency is created in the country whose scope covers both the public and private higher
education providers using the Malaysian Qualification Framework (MQF) as a basis.While the MQA has added
value and has contributed to the growth of the PHEIs in recent years because it has bolstered confidence in the
quality of education, the MQA has also raised the bar for the PHEIs and the PHEIs had to readapt to the newlegislation to remain valid (Syed Ahmad Hussein, 2009).
Even more challenging than the quality assurance standards set by the MQA is the proposed index-rating
system for private varsities in 2011.According to the Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Khaled
Nordin, it would be compulsory for all institutions of higher education to participate in the Rating System for
Malaysian Higher Education Institutions (Setara) programme in 2010. By the year 2011, prospective students can
check on the standing of private universities and university colleges before enrolling. Poor ratings would
guarantee the eventual demise of sub-standard institutions. According to the minister, all this stringent controls are
necessary. Quote:
Weve no choice but to concentrate on quality. We want Malaysia to be a hub of higher education. We want first-
class mentality students (The Star, 2009)
The PHEIs as an industry has been growing at an average annual rate of 5.5% from 2000 to 2005 and the
growth rate projected from 2006 to 2010 is expected to be 6.7% (The Ninth Malaysian Plan 2006 p. 245). There
are many factors driving the industrys growth. The democratisation of secondary education by simplifying the
grading process thereby making it easier for students to reach the SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia)level, which is
the minimum requirement for furthering studies at the higher education level, has increased the number of
secondary students eligible for higher education.
MAPCU (Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and Universities) estimated the industry to have
generated a total fee income of RM1.5 billion in 2008 (Oh, 2009), a sizeable business to attract intense
competition.
According to Tan and Raman (2009), the intense competition has led to PHEIs lacking the competitive edge to
close down. They further add that the former director of the Department of Private Education, Datuk Hassan
Hashim revealed that 200 private institutions of higher learning had been closed down in 2002.
The PHEIs can be categorised into three types: universities, university colleges and non-university status PHEIs.
This study will focus mainly on the university status and university college PHEIs with significant investments in
activities and within the Klang Valley region.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
4/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2085
The university status and university college PHEIs tended to focus on science and technology while the non-
university status PHEIs offered Arts programmes. Further, the university status and university college PHEIs
operates off purpose-built campuses with full facilities while non-university status PHEIs lack proper facilities
and normally offer programmes that are easier to deliver and do not require high financial resources. Funding,
hence, appears to be a key factor for survival in the industry. Funding, particularly for the non-university PHEIs,
comes mainly from student fees and sustained enrolment numbers become the key determinant of survival and
market dominance. Indeed many PHEIs had gone for public listing for funding: Systematic Education Group
(now known as SEGi University College) in November 1994, Stamford College Berhad in May 2005, Inti
Universal Holdings Bhd in June 1996 and HELP International Corp Bhd in May 2007.Furthermore, funding also
comes in the form of corporate investments.The corporate sector, with vast resources and management experience,
is in a much better position to invest, build up and develop the private sector education industry and to achieve the
standard and quality required. They are also better equipped to provide the industrial link and experience for both
the staff and students of these institutions, helping in the overall development of the student learning experience
(Oh, 2009).
Some of these corporate-linked university status and university college PHEIs include Sunway University,
Taylors University and KDU University College, not to mention SEGi University College. The university-status
and university college PHEIs are expected to be the drivers of growth amongst the PHEIs: the university-status
and university college PHEIs benefiting from their significant financial resources and aggressive activities and theuniversity colleges from their upgrade that allows them to offer 3+0 programmes. Hence, these two categories of
PHEIs, i.e. the university status and university colleges will be the focus of this study.
In recent years was a clear warning that significant funding was no guarantee of success. Kemayan ATC was
delisted in May 2006, the Workers Institute of Technology and Goon Institute owned by Sateras Resources
Berhad in October 2007 while Stamford College became a PN17 company in May 2009 from the second board of
the KLSE (The Star,2009). This is a clear warning that not all is well despite the industrys growth as only the
well managed PHEIs will survive.
Strategic developments like the public listing of HELP University College in the KL Stock Exchange
(Education Guide 2003), Laureate, USAs purchase of INTI University and Limkokwing Universitys initiative in
exporting education overseas are some examples of the level of competition in the industry.
Market leadership amongst the PHEIs is defined by the researcher not just in terms of outstanding revenue
sales or student enrolment but includes their image and branding as perceived by their markets. The question then
remains which of these PHEIs would survive the competition in the long run? Put simply:
What sustainable competitive advantage do the PHEIs have to achieve market leadership in the Malaysian
education industry?
The researcher would delve into the key areas in the activities of the selected leading university status and
university college PHEIs to uncover sustainable competitive advantages using the five competitive forces
structure developed by Porter (1985).
Theories and propositions
The parent theories selected for the research is Porters competitive strategy and the five competitive
forces (Porter 1985). Porters theories were selected because they have shaped a generation of academic research
and business practice (Harvard Business Review, 2008). The theories are widely accepted by both academia and
by industry leaders worldwide. In the words of the editor of Harvard Business Review, Peter Crowther p6. It
started a revolution in the strategy field.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
5/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2086
Justification for the research
Based on the existing literature, Porters theories of competitive advantage and the five competitive forces
have never been applied to an education industry. Moreover, the three factors of competitive advantage, branding,
physical aspects and mode of delivery are areas not well covered vis--vis the university status and university
colleges PHEIs. This view is supported by Kim, Kim, Holdsworth and Chai (2006),when they remarked in their
research that despite the numerous literatures on choice in international education, little has been written about
the influence of brand message on students choice of education in Asia(p2).
This research is also underlined by the fact that no research has as yet been carried out to assess the strengths
of the industry players and, by inference, the industry itself.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Parent theories for the research
According to Porter (1985), the sustainability of a firms competitive advantage is, firstly, dependent on theability of a firms strategies to resist erosion by competitive activities and, secondly, the firms ability to anticipate
the evolution within the industry which it competes in. By strategies, Porter refers specifically to the three generic
strategies of low cost, differentiation and focus which Porter posits could be a source of competitive advantage for
the firm. However, for the strategy to succeed the firm must possess some barriers that make imitation of the
strategy by competitors difficult. The evolution within the industry refers to changes or challenges within the
industry structure that could render the abovementioned competitive advantage ineffective. In addition, having a
competitive strategy per se is insufficient. It must be translated into an above-average performance in the long run
a sustainable competitive advantage.
Porters three generic strategies.
To quote Porter (1985, p.3):
Competitive advantage grows fundamentally out of value a firm is able to create for its buyers that exceeds
the firms cost of creating it. Value is what buyers are willing to pay, and superior value stems from offering
lower prices than competitors for equivalent benefits or providing unique benefits that more than offset a higher
price.
Although a firm can have many strengths and weaknesses compared to its competitors, there are basically
two types of competitive advantage that a firm can possess: low cost or differentiation. Derived from these is a
third variation, the focus advantage which has two variants, cost focus and differentiation focus. (Porter,1985).
Cost leadership.
To pursue a low cost strategy usually requires the firm to seek economy of scale to bring down costs or
through proprietary technology or preferential access to raw materials. In the services sector, it would mean low-
cost labor and efficient training procedures because of high turnover. Low-cost firms usually sell a standard, no-
frills product or service. (Porter,1985). The cost leadership strategy is deemed inappropriate for the education
industry as highly qualified educationists, up-to-date modern facilities, technology and attractive premises are the
standard hallmarks of a quality institution and these make low cost unachievable at best. To provide a standard,
no-frills education will be at the expense of marketability. Rather than target low cost which, in this case, could
mean a low cost education, the antithesis of quality education, Porters model includes a differentiation strategy.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
6/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2087
Differentiation.
In the differentiation strategy, a firm seeks to be unique along some dimensions that are valued by its
customers and the attributes chosen must be different from that of rivals. Differentiation can be achieved through
the firms product, the delivery system, the marketing approach as well as a range of other factors. (Porter,1985).
Differentiation by adding value to products and services can provide a more sustainable competitiveadvantage compared to the cost leadership strategy provided, that is, that competitive advantage is not easily
copied by the firms competitors.One of the key methods for achieving differentiation is through brand loyalty.
Dibb and Lowe contend that in the growth stage of a products life cycle the typical marketing strategy adopted
would be to encourage strong loyalty and this is supported up by Mohd. Nazari Ismail and Mulkit s (2003) study
of Porters generic strategies as adopted by selected multinational companies in Malaysia. Their study included
Nestle, Phillip Morris and Ajinomoto. In their study Mohd. Nazarin Ismail et al summarize that these
multinational firms are not willing to dent their image, i.e. branding, if the process ( low cost operations) cannot
be controlled because of competitive cost activities. This suggests the greater importance multinational firms give
to the differentiation strategy as opposed to the low cost strategy.
Mazzarol and Hosie (1996) too take the differentiation view when they quote Hill (1988) and Murray (1988)
in saying that for successful long-term competitiveness customers attach weight to product attributes other thanprice and that a differentiation strategy is generally essential.
McGee, Thomas and Wilsons (2005) differentiation strategy grid in fig.2underscores specific factors which
are pertinent to the discussion:
Fig.1 McGEE, THOMAS AND WILSONS DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGY
Risks
Creating differentiation that buyers do not
value.
Excessive price premiums (or too low)
Failure to understand costs of
differentiation.
Failure to stay ahead.
Wrong customer segmentation.
Competencies
Strong marketing skills
Pricing expertise
Strong co-ordination of business functions.
Ability to attract creative people.
Corporate reputation for quality.
Strategy
True differentiation is only achieved by
satisfying buyer needs uniquely. Objective is to achieve a price premium
that exceeds the cost of differentiation.
Advantages
Superior service
Utilizing strong brand names
First to offer innovative features
Wide distribution coverage
Full range of course covered
Differentiation
Adapted from McGee et al, 2005.
Strong brand names, innovative features, strong marketing skills, strong coordination of business functions
are closely related to Porters firms product, the delivery system, the marketing approach. In these respects,
Limkokwing Creative Technology University, Inti-Laureate University, UCSI University, Taylors University and
SEGi University College are in active competition.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
7/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2088
Focus.
The cost leadership and differentiation strategies seek competitive advantage in a broad range of industry
segments, while focus strategies aim at cost advantage (cost focus) or differentiation (differentiation focus) in a
narrow segment. Both variants of the focus strategy depend on segments with buyers/customers with unusual
needs or the production and delivery system required to serve these buyers/customers differ from those in the
other industry segments. Limkokwing Creative Technology University appears to pursue the differentiation focus
although market pressures have dictated that it adds courses that are not focussed strictly on creativity.
Porters five competitive forces
Porter further adds that cost advantage and differentiation in turn stem from industry structure. They result
from a firms ability to cope with the five competitive forces better than its rivals. These five forces are: 1)The
entry of new competitors, 2)The threat of substitutes, 3)The bargaining power of buyers, 4)The bargaining power
of suppliers and 5) The rivalry amongst existing competitor
Based upon the above arguments, it is the present researchers view that key to the research is an analysis of
the perceived competitive advantages of the PHEIs, the intention of which is to evaluate them within the
framework of the three generic strategies, i.e., which of the three strategies were adopted, if at all. Thesecompetitive advantages will then be assessed against the backdrop of the five competitive forces of industry
structure to gauge their sustainability.
Opposing views to Porters theories
Notwithstanding the above, it must be noted that Porters theories have met with naysayers. The strongest of
them being Hamel and Prahalad (1994) who posit that to build leadership, a company must be capable of
reinventing its industry and to rebuild leadership, a company must be capable of regenerating its core strategies
and that it must have the capacity to become different. They further add that there is a need not only to keep score
of existing advantages what they are and who has them but to discover the engine that propels the process of
advantage creation. The tools of industry and competitor analysis, i.e. as suggested by Porter, are much better
suited to the first task than the second task (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994).
The arguments of both Porter and Hamel and Prahalad have been succinctly summarized by Doole and Lowe
(2005) as the two principle views as to how competitive advantage can be achieved the resource view by
Hamel and Prahalad and the competitive forces view by Porter.
Doole and Lowes view the two conflicting theories, i.e., Porters and Hamel and Prahalads, as being
compatible when Doole and Lowe concede that while organizational learning or the collective learning
organization are commendable theories, market intelligence, an analysis of how the market is affected by the
SLEPTC factors (social/cultural, legal, economic, political, technological, and competitive) and knowledge of
other environmental and industry factors remain the basis for developing competitive advantage.
Quoting Khairuddin study, Mohd.Nazari Ismail and Mulkit Singh(2003) noted that 30 percent of the small
and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Malaysia followed Porters differentiation strategy while 26 percent adopted
the cost leadership strategy. The relatively widespread use of Porters generic strategies in the Malaysian context
appears to further justify this researchers use of these parent theories to study the PHEIs competitive advantage in
the education industry.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
8/24
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
9/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2090
Fig. 2 THE FIVE COMPETITIVE FORCES AFFECTING THE PHEIs
.
Industry
Competitors
Rivalry Among
Existing Firms
Potential Entrants
Bargaining power of
suppliers
Bargaining power of
buyers
Threat of substitutes
Entry Barriers:
Proprietary product
differences
Brand identity
Capital requirements
Proprietary learning curve
Government policy
Rivalry determinants:
Industry growth
Product differences
Brand identity
Diversity of competitors
Corporate stakesExit barriers
Determinants of supplier power:
Importance of volume to supplier
Impact of inputs on cost or
differentiation.
Threat of forward integration
Determinants of substitution threat:
Relative price performance of
substitutes
Buyer propensity to substitute
Determinants of buyer power
Bargaining leverage and choice
Buyer information
Substitute products
Price sensitivity
Product differences
Brand identityImpact on quality/performance
Potential entrants and entry barriers.
Proprietary product differences.
A university status or university college PHEI has the privilege of developing their own syllabus and
awarding their own degrees over and above the foreign degree programmes which they are currently offering.
This development allows these PHEIs to create proprietary product differences while non university status PHEIs
make do with foreign partner degree programmes which are, by and large, generic and are shopped off the
market. Examples of such proprietary product differences include SEGi University Colleges degree programmes
in environmental technology, construction management and optometry; Nilai University Colleges Bachelor in
Automotive Engineering and UCSI Universitys degree in Traditional Chinese Medicine amongst others.
However, these proprietary product or service differences cannot be patented and can be easily duplicated. In
short, there is no real proprietary product or service differences to prevent entry by new or existing university
status or university college PHEIs
Brand identity.
Heavy brand building activities by well funded university status and university colleges PHEIs like Inti-
Laureate, UCSI, Taylors and Limkokwing Creative Technology University have raised the entry barriers to newentrants. Buyers/consumers choose reputable institutions and reputation is closely associated with brand identity.
The unknown, new entrants will be at a major disadvantage.
Capital requirements.
Unlike the education industry of the 1970s and 1980s, shop house and shopping complex colleges are no
longer encouraged by the government. The top PHEIs today, whether university status or otherwise, are housed in
stand- alone building complexes or located in their own purpose built campuses complete with modern, up-to-date
facilities. Massive capital investments in building fixtures and facilities are a pre-requisite for success in the
industry.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
10/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2091
Government policy.
Ong (2008) noted that as part of the Governments effort to stem the outflow of foreign exchange to the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Countries (OECD), the Government has liberalising
education. Further, since the economic downturn in 1997, 26 colleges have been granted the approval to conduct
3+1 degree programmes with selected foreign universities and this added to the plethora of options available to
students (Tan, 2002).The competitors are varied representing government-linked, financially robust organizations,
prestigious off-campus universities with global resources to newly awarded university status private colleges
which are often backed by major corporations. Amongst the PHEIs alone there is a proliferation of options for the
students.
The governments policies are generally pro-PHEIs and represent no real barriers to entry despite the setting
up of the MQA (Malaysian Quality Assurance) to monitor the quality and development of the PHEIs.
Threat of substitutes and determinants of substitution threats.
Relative price performance of substitutes.
Pricing is an important factor for the PHEIs as fees are significantly higher compared to public highereducation institutes although much lower than a foreign education in the UK, USA, Australia or New Zealand.
Obviously those who stayed home have pricing as a key consideration. This is also evident in the increasing
number and value of scholarships, loans, grants given out year on year to attract enrolment. Limkokwing Creative
Technology University is by far the most aggressive, advertising RM34 million in scholarships in 2010 followed
by UCSI University at RM5 million. SEGi University College offered RM500 off enrolment fees as an incentive
to potential students.Despite this, however, buyers will make their buying decisions based on customer value, i.e.,
the price will be weighed against the bundle of benefits offered. Price ultimately will not determine market
leadership.
Buyer/customer propensity to substitute.
University-status and university college status PHEIs must create a point of differentiation in order to
successfully compete in this crowded market place.Specialization of their individual curricula is one option but
with educational institutions pursuing their own financial interest and catering to popular needs a dynamic of
convergence and not divergence is the contrary result. All universities will attempt to cover the complete
spectrum of higher education instead of specialising. (King, R. 1995). With PHEIs offering largely generic
programmes, similarly prestigious foreign degrees and similarly competitive facilities, differentiation becomes
blurred. There are many choices in PHEIs, programmes and fee range. Buyer substitution is indeed a real threat
and only the PHEI with the competitive advantage most valued by the buyers can succeed.
Bargaining power ofbuyers/customers and the determinants of buyer/customer power
Buyer/customer information
Advertising spend by the PHEIs to promote their programmes is estimated at RM560 million in 2009 and
with the many education fairs, point-of-sale materials and other recruitment drives factored in, significant monies
have been invested to keep buyers/customers informed. This flood of information increases noise and clutter
and makes buyers/customers purchasing decision difficult and competition even more intense. Ultimately
advertising cut through is critical for a share of buyers mind. This is only possible with a strong, distinctive
advertising or promotional campaign. Limkokwing Creative Technology Universitys marketing communications
with their highly original and distinctive creative ads and communication materials represent an excellent
example of buyer awareness cut through. Sunway University Colleges Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah distinguished
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
11/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2092
speakers series advertising campaign is another attempt at advertising cut-through while at the same time building
brand image for the institution.
Institutional websites are common to all the PHEIs and these represent important sources of information,
direct marketing and interactive activities between the buyer/customer and the PHEIs. The Internet technology
similarly allows potential buyers and customers to shop around and compare between PHEIs giving them the
advantage of choice.
Substitute products
The options available to students are many: excluding public universities there are 559 PHEIs (2000 2005
projected) including private universities, branch campuses of foreign universities, university colleges and other
private colleges. (Adapted from Department of Private Education, Ministry Of Education Malaysia, 2003, p. 3).
As the university status PHEIs proliferate, choice will continue to increase. It becomes, in short, the buyers
market. The PHEI with the distinctive competitive advantage most valued by buyers will stand a better chance of
being chosen. The question remains: what are the competitive advantages that drive buyers choice?
Product differences (Service product)
Despite the many similarities amongst the PHEIs offerings there are sufficient product differences to
command the buyers interest, not just in terms of courses available but also other factors such as reputation and
affiliations. Inti-Laureate University brings global reputation and an international network of affiliations to the
local education industry which the organization claims 300 just in the USA alone. UCSI provides an enviable
range of science and arts programmes covering medicine to Traditional Chinese Medicine; Limkokwing
University of Creative Technology specialises in creative arts and sciences including architecture and movie
production; and Taylors University boasts the highest student success rate and the highest number of award
winners.
Brand identity
A PHEI with a strong brand identity can limit the power of buyers. Brand identity is closely associated with
reputation and that, in turn, with quality education. Brand identity and reputation can be created via strategic and
effective marketing communications. Short of a firsthand experience of a PHEIs education services, branding
serves as a proxy for decision making by buyers. Amongst the PHEIs Limkokwing Creative Technology
University,Taylors University, Sunway University, HELP University College, SEGi University College and
KDU University College appear to stand out in terms of branding. These institutions were winners in the 2010
Putra Brand Awards, awards which are measured based on consumer preferences and a robust and unbiased
consumer research polling system developed by a profession research organization called the Pulse Group. Touted
as the largest consumer research sampling of its kind in Malaysia involving a total of 6000 consumers, the awards
were stewarded by the MMVB (Malaysias Most Valuable Brands) board of governors and endorsed by the
Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE). (Pulse group.2011)
Furthermore in the governments SETARA 09 rating of Malaysian Universities and University Colleges,
Sunway University and Taylors University were the only two PHEIs in the research to be awarded the tier 5
excellent rating followed by HELP University College, Inti-Laureate University, Limkokwing Creative
Technology University and UCSI university in the tier 4 very good rating. (MQA 2011) Such recognition would
have afforded these institutions with substantial competitive advantage and makes them the PHEIs of choice
amongst buyers/customers.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
12/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2093
Bargaining power of suppliers and determinants of supplier power
Importance of volume to suppliers
The export of education is a major source of income for the UK, USA and Australia and to a lesser degree,
New Zealand. Like any business, volume counts. If enrolment falls and the foreign partner does not achieve their
business objectives the programmes may be withdrawn and transferred to PHEIs with better profit potential or,more often than not, offered to multiple PHEIs without exclusivity to any institution. A Herriot-Watt, UK, a
Northumbria University or a University of Curtin, Australia, twinning degree is available to multiple PHEIs.
In short, size matters. Needless to say, the leaders in the industry would be in a better position to negotiate
and be able to obtain the most prestigious foreign degrees at a better cost and offered to buyers/customers at a
higher price hence achieving cost advantage and better profit margins.
Cost relative to purchases in the industry
The accreditation fees have increased over the years eating into the PHEIs profit margins and necessitating
fees increases making them increasing less attractive as a source of alternate education. It has been reported that
the British government is proposing a drastic cut in subsidies to the public and private universities in the UK inthe near future (The Star, p56).This development may result in new increases in accreditation fees and may make
the popular 3+0 UK degrees even more expensive for the PHEIs to offer. The PHEI solution appears to be in their
own local degrees which are permissible upon achieving university or university college status. The cost can be
more affordable and the profits greater but the prestige of a foreign degree is irreplaceable.
Threat of forward integration
To date, there had been no forward integration amongst the major PHEIs. In the education industry where
activities are self-contained the issue does not arise. Student recruitment agencies are more common for overseas
markets and foreign students are not part of the current research.
Industry competitors and rivalry amongst existing firms
Industry growth
As mentioned in the introduction, the private higher education industry has been growing at an average
annual rate of 5.5% from 2000 to 2005 and the growth rate projected from 2006 to 2010 is expected to be 6.7%
(Adapted From The Ninth Malaysian Plan 2006 p. 245). MAPCU (Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and
Universities) estimated the industry to have generated a total fee income of RM1.5 billion in 2008 (Oh, 2009), not
including other related incomes. The size and growth of the industry will stimulate intense rivalry not to mention
attracting new entrants.
Brand identity
Brand identity is often a result of positioning, advertising and promotional activities. The bigger university
and university college PHEIs with more financial resources to carry out such activities usually command greater
buyer identification. Nevertheless, there are only a handful of university and university college PHEIs that have
strong brand presence based on advertising. They are Limkokwing Creative Technology University,Taylors
University, Sunway University, HELP University College, SEGi University College and KDU University College
as attested by their Putra Brand Awards 2010 selection.(Pulse group.2011).
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
13/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2094
Diversity of competitors
While there is a general lack of diversity and specialization in programmes except for Limkokwing Creative
Technology University, UCSI University and technology-focused UCTI-APIIT University College, there is,
however, diversity in the PHEIs differing corporate visions and marketing strategies. Laureate, USAs purchase
of INTI University has added new dimensions to the competition bringing new, advanced management and
marketing skills to the organization.
Limkokwing Creative Technology University with its many off-campus branches in the UK, amongst other
foreign countries, has not only taken on the new role of exporter of higher education in line with the Ninth
Malaysia Plan, 2006, but has also added prestige and marketing value to that institution.
Corporate stakes
Capital investment being a key success factor in the education industry it is then not surprising that corporate
funding and ownership is common amongst the PHEIs. Corporate involvement also has the added advantage of
industrial links that provide the necessary internship training to enhance the marketability of the graduates and
increase their job placement opportunities. These are major considerations when choosing a PHEI to further ones
studies. Sunway University, KDU University College and SEGI University College are owned by renown andsuccessful property magnates with the resources to develop and promote their PHEIs. They would be formidable
competitors in the provision of the physical aspects of education such as premises, excellent location and facilities
to compete with the other PHEIs.
Exit barriers
Exit barriers are high for those PHEIs that have invested significant sums of money into purpose-built
campuses and first class facilities. The competition to survive will be intense. The stronger PHEI may absorb the
weaker ones to form an oligopoly where the scenario could be one of a battle amongst titans. Inti-Laureate appear
to have taken this route by absorbing Metropolitan University College and UCTIs merger with APIIT.
Summary analysis of the five competitive forces in the Malaysian context
According to Porter an assessment of a firms competitive advantage must take the industrys structure into
account. The analysis indicates that the only true barriers to new entrants are a strong brand identity and capital
investments. Sufficient capital investments is required to build branding through heavy advertising and
promotional activities although such activities can only be successful if they are backed by a differentiated brand
positioning and an effective advertising and promotional campaign. Such activities can provide a strong
communication and information platform for buyers/customers and hence influence their decision making. This
will reduce the threat of substitutes; offset the lack of product and service differences and diversity; and reduce the
power of the buyers/customers. As a consequence of this, a strong PHEI with the financial and enrolment clout
would have a strong negotiation power over suppliers.Despite the intense competition and rivalry, the PHEI
would have achieved a significant competitive advantage over its competitors.To reconcile the discussion thus far:
Table 2. Analysis of competitive advantages in the context of the five competitive forces
Expert views of competitive
advantages
Five competitive forces analysis
Product and services
differentiation/
Superior product benefit.
No barrier to new entrants. Product and services differences
surmountable.
Threats of substitutes.
Subject to the bargaining power of buyer and suppliers.
Industry rivalry will render any product or service differences
marginal.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
14/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2095
Market focus and innovation Small segments vulnerable to the bargaining power of
suppliers.
Courses, career information,
physical aspects and facilities.Physical aspects minimise threats of potential entrants,
substitutes, the bargaining power of buyers/customers and rivalry.
Positioning of the organization
within its environment to defend itself.Minimises threats of potential entrants, substitutes, the
bargaining power of buyers/customers and rivalry.
Distinctive competencies of thefirm: Superior contacts, superior
knowledge of business and customers,
offensive attitudes.
Minimises threats of potential entrants, substitutes, thebargaining power of buyers/customers and suppliers and fend off
rivals..
Imagery and effective
communication.Minimises threats of potential entrants, substitutes, the
bargaining power of buyers/customers and rivalry.
Legal advantage Government policy is pro-industry. No barrier to new entrants
and rivalry.
Scale advantages Reduces the bargaining power of buyers/customers,
suppliers and the threat of substitutes.
The table above appears to indicate that the competitive advantages that satisfy the five forces of competition
analysis are courses, career information, physical aspects and facilities, positioning of the organization within its
environment to defend itself, distinctive competencies of the firm, imagery and effective communication and scale
advantages. However, positioning of the organization within its environment to defend itself is generic and
encompasses elements of physical aspects and facilities, distinctive competencies of the firm, imagery and
effective communication and scale advantages. Hence, the following convergence of views is perceivable:
Brand identity and image.
Capital investments to support the physical aspects of education and the facilities; and the brand
communications.
Core competencies of the firm be it in an organizations collective learning or its superior knowledge of
its business.
Scale advantages.
Buyers purchasing behaviour
Available consumer research findings regarding the buyers purchasing behaviour appear to support these
conclusions. Research findings collected from 616 business students in New Zealand by Joseph and Joseph (1997)
indicated that amongst the top three factor criteria considered the most important attributes looked for in institutes
of higher education are academic reputation and physical aspects. Joseph and Joseph (1997) in the same research
noted that physical aspects are the tangible aspects of the education service.Webb, Coccari, Lado, Allen and
Reicherts study (1998) indicated that of the ten criteria used by students when selecting a college the top three
included academic reputation of institution and marketability of the degree conferred; and reputation and branding
are closely related.Wagner and Fard (2009), in their separate research also found that physical aspects andfacilities as well as institutional information (advertising, websites, fairs, etc) have significant relationships with
the students intention to study at a PHEI.
Similarly, in Baharuns research A study of market segmentation in tertiary education for local public
higher education institutes (2002) the two specific university selection attributes identified were quality and
brand image. In that study, Baharun noted that:
The image represents the Local Higher Learning Institutes (LHLI) in the customers mind and gives him or her a
pre-taste of the university.. (2002 p40)
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
15/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2096
Reiterating the importance of image, Baharuns research paper Identifying Needs and Wants of University
Students in Malaysia highlighted several aspects relating to students choice of tertiary education institutions in
Malaysia, one of which is image.It is noteworthy that in all the previous researches (Joseph and Joseph and Webb
et al), academic reputation was highlighted. Reputation is closely related to image and in this sense all the
researchers agree with the importance of image as a factor in college selection.
Further Baharun also identified conducive facilities and resources as amongst the attributes consideredimportant by students and explains that a failure to react to these attributes or issues will result in losing
sustainable competitive advantage. Ancheh, Krishnan and Nurtjahjas findings (2007) based on 17 universities
and 64 colleges list the recognition and reputation of the institutions and campus environment, atmosphere and
facilties as important criteria for the selection of private universities and colleges in Malaysia. Ancheh et als
comments on lower costs are pertinent to the study. Nooraini Sheriffs (2007) research on information sources
influencing students choice of private colleges in Malaysia, on the other hand, drew the following findings: 1)
Influence from friends and family, 2) The NAB (National Accreditation Board or LAN) today upgraded to MQA
(Malaysian Quality Assurance) and the Ministry of Education, 3)Course counsellors and advertisements, 4)
Personal inspection of the PHEI, i.e. experiential sources such as college facilities, design, faade and layout.
Influence from friends and family a function of WOM (word of mouth) is usually related to reputation and,
hence, branding and image as is quality as measured through MQA recognition. Personal inspection points tothe importance of the physical aspects of education.
Summary analysis of buyers/customers purchasing behaviour findings
It is noteworthy that all the researchers above have academic reputation, physical aspects, institutional
information and advertisements and brand image as common higher education selection criteria. These factors
can be grouped into the same two broad categories of branding identity and capital requirements.
Competitive advantages: a convergence of views
Table 3 below sums up the areas of convergence based on comparing the discussions above.
Table 3. Competitive advantage: A convergence of views
Experts' view of competitive advantage/Competitive
advantage in the context of the five competitive forces Buyers/customers' purchasing behaviour
1. Brand identity and image. 1. Brand image and reputation.
2. Capital requirements/physical aspects and
facilities. 2. Campus layout, location and facilities.
3. Core competencies. 3. Product-service differences.
4. Scale advantages.
The areas of obvious commonality are the importance given to brand identity and image which is a function
of brand communications. The second significant area of convergence is capital requirements which is necessary
to acquire the physical aspects and facilities provided by the institutions of higher learning as well as the
investments on communications and information provision. Capital is also important in obtaining scale
advantages by building more branch campuses in and outside the country. Product-service differences while
dismissed earlier as fairly generic, should not be discounted altogether as it is the core of the education service
product the programmes and the quality of delivery. It represents the core competencies of the organization.
Having analyzed the competitive advantages of the education institution in isolation it is now pertinent to
discuss them with direct reference to the university status and university college PHEIs. To better understand their
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
16/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2097
existing competitive advantages Kotler and Foxs (1995) three levels of the service-product offering model
(education offering) will be used for the purpose.
The competitive advantage of the PHEIs: an analysis of the education offering:
THE NATURE OF THE EDUCATIONAL OFFERING
Figure 3 Three levels of anoffer
Core service:
Information/
Knowledge
Packaging: Campus/environment,
facilities.
Features:
Courses/curriculum
extra-curricular
activities
Branding:
Reputation,
image
Quality:
Prestigious degrees,
Qualified lecturers.
Styling:
Lecture methods/
Mode of delivery.
Financial terms:
Fees, scholarships
Guarantee:
Job placements
Follow-up service:
Customer service& care
Accessibility: campus location
Augmented
product
Core product
Tangible
product
(Kotler, 1995)
Core offer
The core offer represents the programs benefits from the students perspective or an institutions
marketability upon graduation. This varies from institution to institution: a foreign degree program would
doubtless be seen as better in terms of quality, prestige and marketability when compared with local degrees
which are also offered by university status PHEIs like UCSI University and Taylors University. The country of
origin of the foreign degree is also a key factor for student consideration be they British, American, Australian,
New Zealand or Canadian. However, almost all the PHEIs discussed offer the complete gamut of countries and
these do not constitute any significant or sustainable competitive advantage. Dual degree programs, i.e. two
degrees awarded for the same course, one from the foreign university partner and the other from the local
university, as offered by Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Taylors University and Nilai
University College would, by the same logic, double the graduates marketability and may constitute a product
service difference although this will proliferate over time.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
17/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2098
Tangible offer
Branding
The brand is a name, term, symbol, or design, or some combination, that identifies them with the institution
and differentiates them from competitors offerings. Brand names simplify the search for goods and services,
guarantee a specific level of quality and if the firm succeeds in fostering a degree of customer loyalty to the brand,it can charge a premium price for the product or service (Dibb and Lowe, 1997).
Branding helps in the reduction of uncertainty in consumer purchases, the reduction of social and
psychological risks associated with use or ownership of the wrong product (Berthon, Hulbert and Pitt, 1997). And,
according to Aaker and Biel (1993) advertising is the main marketing activity that implants ideas about a brands
uniqueness or positioning in consumers minds. Tucciarone (2008)s research found that one of the influencers of
student preferences was the advertisements of the institution. The advertisement influences from the component of
liking an ad and can create a positive feeling for a brand.According to Goi and Goi (2009), branding is powerful
in providing competitive advantages and quoting Stensaker (2005) they posit that one of the benefits of branding
for higher education institutes is providing information and image. Koku (1997) too states that the phenomenon of
rebranding often occurs in the service industry, and is specifically crucial for universities and colleges.According
to Dibb et al, a brand helps buyers evaluate the quality of a product or service, especially when they are unable tojudge its characteristics. It helps makes repeat purchase easier. Branding also helps foster brand loyalty and leads
to referrals. (Dibb et al, 1997) Branding helps students choose a specific university or college despite the many
competitive options available, often even at a higher cost and at times disregarding the shortcomings of facilities
or services.
Branding can add value to the institutions offer and more satisfaction for the consumer (Kotler et al, 1995).
Students take pride in noting that they are graduates from well-known and established institutions and this
represents a key selling point in a job interview. The INTI- Laureate brand name brings the full force of the
global education network of Laureate, USA, to support INTI Universitys advertising campaigns. Limkokwing
University of Creative Technology rides on the renown and highly recognisable personality of the founder and
owner of Tan Sri Professor Emeritus Lim Kok Wing as its brand ambassador.
Academic reputation is an aspect of the brand name as it represents the institutions identity on the same
footing as its name. It is an attribute of branding just as Oxford University and Harvard are names that spell
academic reputation. Branding is often achieved through imagery and effective communication, a competitive
advantage singled out by Davidson (1987).
Limkokwing University of Creative Technologys marketing communications stand out not only in terms of
their highly creative content that utilises futuristic graphics, distinctive advertising layouts and the iconization of
its brand ambassador and spokesperson Tan Sri Professor Emeritus Lim Kok Wing but also their offensive
attitudes, competitive toughness and a determination to win, another source of competitive advantage according
to Davidson (1987, p.56). Limkokwing University of Creative Technology employs person marketing and brand
endorsement ideas using the high profile personality of its owner Tan Sri Professor Emeritus Lim Kok Wing asthe vehicle to promote and brand the institution. His many philanthropic campaigns for the Palestinians, the
peace awards he received and his strong link to the government were prominently advertised. Accolades from the
government that Limkokwing Creative Technology University encapsulates the meaning of innovation in line
with the governments 2010 economic theme growth through innovation were featured full page across all the
major dailies in the country. This strong branding strategy is consistent with the institutes academic
specialization and positioning and is expected to strengthen the brand equity of the institute. Their winning of the
gold prize, the highest award in the Putra Brand Awards 2010 education and learning category attests to their
success in this area .(Pulse group 2010)
Inti-Laureate University benefits from the marketing expertise of Laureate, USA. Their increasing efforts
in advertising and branding activities challenge those of Limkokwing University of Creative Technology. From
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
18/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2099
press advertising, billboards to all promotional materials, the distinctive Laureate star was used as a mnemonic
device to establish brand recognition and association with Laureate, the American owner of the institute, and by
implication the American quality and resources available to their students.
In terms of branding and image Taylors University, Sunway University, KDU University College, HELP
University College and SEGi University College too stood out from the rest. Taylors University, Sunway
University both received gold awards in the Putra Brand Awards 2010 as well while KDU University College,
HELP University College received silvers. Distinct positioning and brand imagery aside, the important role
played by heavy advertising expenditure to establish consumer recall cannot be ignored. In this context, SEGi
University College would achieve branding and image simply through frequency of their advertisements. They
won the bronze award in the same award ceremony.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that the branding and imagery presented by Limkokwing Creative
Technology University and Inti-Laureate are sources of sustainable competitive advantage as they are not easily
duplicated by competitors. The first is backed by a strong and reputable personality in the creative field and the
other by association with an iconic American institution. Taylors University emphasises their many record
academic successes and by inference, their quality teaching, and while this offers strong branding it does not
constitute a sustainable competitive advantage if it rests on service quality which is variable and not its
organizational competencies and culture.
The quality
Quality represents the perceived level of performance of a service. Berry and Parasuraman (1992) argue that
the strategic success of a service organization depends on the ability of service providers to enhance their images
by consistently meeting or exceeding customers service expectations. Where the students have not yet enrolled
into an institution and have no direct experience of the quality as defined above, tangible quality would mean
the awards won, academic performance, MQA recognition, affiliations to reputable foreign universities, a strong
R&D culture and the physical aspects such as campus buildings and facilities. In this context, Taylors
Universitys frequently advertised academic achievements through its multiple award winning students over the
years including awards for being voted Most popular private college/university in 2009, the 2010 Putra Awards
gold for the education and learning category which was voted online by 6000 consumers nationwide, would begood examples. Or Limkokwing University of Creative Technologys high profile export of education to over 10
countries in the world including London would qualify as symbols of quality education. The Inti-Laureate
American education association and its global networks with a choice of 300 universities in USA and Canada
alone would also translate into quality in the minds of consumers.
While quality can be subject to multiple interpretations and may not constitute a clear competitive
advantage, international and global networks, i.e., a basis for collective organizational learning, such as those
offered by Limkokwing University of Creative Technology and Inti-Laureate can be sources of sustainable
competitive advantage as they represent core competencies within their organizations that are hard to duplicate.
Quality has always been cited as an important competitive advantage in the education industry. However, quality
means different things to different people and according to the context (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2007).
In view of the above, quality as a determinant of competitive advantage is a rather abstract concept and opens
itself to broad interpretations. Hence, the exclusion of quality from the research forms part of the delimitations for
the study.
The packaging
According to Kotler et al,(1995) the college campuss environment serves as the packaging of the academic
product. The architecture, topography, and landscaping of the campus should support the educational function of
the university. This packaging represents the most obviously tangible aspect of the education service. Students
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
19/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2100
in large part choose their institutions of learning based to a great extent on appearances the size and impression
of the physical environment of learning. This statement is supported by Hawkins and Frohoff (2008) when they
quoted Hayes (2008) in describing how physical facilities can translate into perceptions of quality and that the
appearance of the lab sporting the latest technological advances may make a statement thats hard to counter
through other facts even when an older lab may boast a Nobel laureate on the faculty (p3).
With the upgrade to university and university colleges, the PHEIs had invested significant monies to create
an impressive exterior to attract students. SEGi University Colleges RM150 million purpose-built main campus
in Kota Damansara has more affinity to the architecture of Europe than Malaysia, the purpose of which is, no
doubt, to create the appearance of a foreign university and by extension symbolize the quality it represents.
Nilai University Colleges 105-acre award winning campus recreates a self-contained township surrounded by
rolling hills and pleasant greenery far away from the distractions of the city.
Quoting Architect Bruce Carmichael, Kotler (1995) indicated that physical resources play a far more
important role in recruiting students, and especially retaining students, than is generally recognized.
Atmospherics are also consciously and skilfully built in the design of buildings to create or reinforce specific
effects on students such as feelings of well-being, safety, intimacy, or awe. The Limkokwing University of
Creative Technology is one good example where the faade of the main campus resembles a gigantic and
colourful work of art.
Taylors Universitys new imposing RM450 million 27-acre purpose built lakeside campus captures a
relaxed, peaceful atmosphere that is highly conducive to the pursuit of higher education.
UCSI University frequently advertises its grandiose KL campus with its North Wing and South Wing
campus which would soon include a proposed UCSI sky scraping tower and hotel block which is aimed at
creating awe amongst potential students. The hotel is an obvious boost to its Faculty of Hotel and Management
division. UCSI University also boasts real operating theatre and hospital facilities in their campus to promote their
medical courses.
HELP University Colleges new campus in Subang Jaya will be a self-contained monolith compared to the
current premises and KDU University Colleges new campus in Glenmarie is planned on a scale resembling a
mini township.
All the university status and university college PHEIs under study have their own purpose-built campus as
part of the MQA requirement. However, in the packaging competition size and appearance seems to matter and
the PHEIs with the financial resources have significant advantage over those that do not have the resources to
dazzle their consumers. Packaging, because of the enormous capital investments required, could represent a
sustainable competitive advantage that could raise entry barriers to smaller institutions and reduce the power of
suppliers and buyers/consumers.
The features
Features are individual components of the offer which could be easily added or subtracted without changing
the services style or quality (Kotler et al). E.g. Range of courses, specialized courses and extracurricular activities.
The use of features has many advantages. The institution can create specific features to target specific segments.
However, range and variety of courses offered are not by themselves sustainable competitive advantages as they
can be duplicated, bettered and improved without much effort and constraints.
The styling
Styling is interpreted by the researcher as the mode of delivery be it in instructional form or technology. In
the competition for student enrollment, the PHEIs had adopted various program styling to appeal to their
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
20/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2101
audience. HELP University College promoted their Active Learning teaching format, Limkokwing University of
Creative Technology their skills-driven programs, SEGi University College their experiential education program,
Nilai University College their real world curriculum and INTI University their career-focused programs tailored
to industry needs. While styling can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage as it can represent
distinctive competencies linked to the organizations distinct culture that cannot be easily duplicated and which
allow a PHEI to outperform its competitors, they are seen to be generic claims across the PHEIs. Every PHEI
under the study claims some sort of active learning, skills-driven, experiential or industry based methodology for
teaching. A co-learning curriculum with an IBM or a GE can make the difference. However, these companies only
account for a minor portion of the entire syllabus. Nevertheless, having the most number of top students and
award winners in both national and international competitions can be proof of the success of an organizations
mode of delivery. This can constitute a competitive advantage if based on core competencies which is intrinsic to
the organization and is hard to duplicate. Taylors University is one such organization.
The augmented offer
The augmented offer is the additional services and benefits that go beyond the core offer and the tangible
offer. It adds value thereby enhancing the total package to the consumers. Often, the augmented offer, ifdifferentiated, becomes a source of competitive advantage for the organization that has it. In an education
institution, the augmented offer includes financial terms, accessibility, guarantees and follow-up services.
However, like features, these are not sustainable as they can be modified and improved as the competition
requires.
Summary analysis of the education offerings sustainable competitive advantage.
Differentiation through branding, the physical aspects and the mode of delivery appears to provide a more
sustainable competitive advantage for university status and university college PHEIs competing for market
leadership in the education industry. In these respects, Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Taylors
University, SEGi University College, Inti-Laureate University, Sunway University and UCSI University are the
front runners in the competition. While only Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Taylors University,
SEGi University College, and Sunway University were awarded by the Putra Brands Awards for excellence in
branding, all except Limkokwing University of Creative Technology registered significant enrolment numbers for
2009: Taylors University (7480), SEGi University College (4814), Inti-Laureate University(7054), Sunway
University(8959), and UCSI University(7925). (2009 Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia).
CONCLUSION
Faced with the many challenges of governmental control and interference, intense industry competition,
commoditizing of education, rising costs, and more demanding customers, the survival of the PHEIs depends
greatly upon the development of sustainable competitive strategies to remain viable, if not achieve market
leadership.
The literature review assisted by a Porters theories of competitive advantage and the five competitive
forces have uncovered the three factors of sustainable competitive advantage relevant to the PHEIs under study:
Branding, physical aspects and mode of delivery.
These findings were applied to the university status and university college PHEIs under study using
Kotlers education offering model as a framework. Based on the arguments set forth the analysis indicates that of
the university status and university college PHEIs in discussion, the institutions with clear sustainable competitive
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
21/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2102
advantage are Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Taylors University, SEGi University College,
Sunway University, Inti-Laureate University and UCSI University. These institutions exhibit strong branding
(although of the six only Limkokwing University of Creative Technology and Taylors University SEGi
University College, Sunway University were officially recognized by the Putra Brand Awards), outstanding
presence in terms of physical aspects and distinctiveness in mode of delivery. However, while these factors are
singled out for analysis they still constitute only a part of the whole albeit a major part. Competitive advantage
should also be seen holistically with the minor parts such as course structure and flexibility, customer services, job
placements amongst others having their place in the entire machinery of growth.
These institutions being leaders in the industry would serve as role models for their competitors and as
copycats proliferate the bar would be raised further. Ultimately, the only sustainable competitive advantage, in the
words of Shell Petroleum CEO De Geus (1998):
The ability to learn faster than competitors may be the only source of sustainable competitive advantage
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to thank KDU University College, especially Dr Todd Nelson from the Business School, for encouraging
me to participate in this international conference and their sponsorship of the entire expenses incurred by this
endeavour. I hope that this would be just the first of many such contributions on my part to KDU University
Colleges objective of reaching greater heights in academic excellence.
My special thanks also go to Dr Ong Seng Fook for his encouragement and guidance in this conference paper,
which is adapted from my Doctor of Philosophy dissertation on a related subject.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. and Biel, A.L. (1993), Brand equity and advertising: advertisings role in building strong brands.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Archer, L. and Hutchings, M. (2000). Bettering Yourself: Discourses of risk, cost and benefit in
ethnically diverse, young working-class non-participants constructions of higher education. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(4), 555-74.
Baharun, R. (2002). A study of market segmentation in tertiary education for local public higher learning
institutes.Malaysian Management Review, Vol.37. No. 1 p40-44.
Bahtiar Mohamad, Hassan Abu Bakar and Nik Adzrieman Abdul Rahman (2007). Relationship between
corporate identity and corporate reputation: a case of a Malaysian higher education sector. Jurnal
Manajemen pemasaran, vol.2, no.2, Oct 2007:p 81-89. Retrieved on 25th
June 2010 from
http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/mar/article/viewArticle/117006.
Bharadwaj, S.G.,Varadarajan, P.R. and Fahy, J. (1993) Sustainable competitive advantage in service
industries: a conceptual model and research propositions.Journal of marketing. Vol.57 (Oct):83-99.
http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/mar/article/viewArticle/117006http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/mar/article/viewArticle/117006http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/mar/article/viewArticle/117006http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/mar/article/viewArticle/117006http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/mar/article/viewArticle/117006http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/mar/article/viewArticle/117006http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/mar/article/viewArticle/1170068/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
22/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2103
Belanger,C., Mount, J. and Wilson, M. (2002). International image and retention.Tertiary education and
management.Vol.3, 217-230.
Berry,L and Parasuraman, A. (1992). Prescription for service quality. American Organizational
dynamics, Vol.20. No.4, p5-15.
Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: A historical sociology of education and stratification. U.S:Academic Press.
Chapleo, C. (2004), Interpretation and implementation of reputation/brand management by UK
university leaders, International Journal of Educational Advancement, Vol.5, No.1, p7-23.
Day, G.S. (1995). Advantageous alliances.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Vol 23, no.4,p297-300.
Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage : A framework for diagnosing competitive
superiority.Journal of marketing. Vol.52 (April): 1-20.
Doole, I. and Lowe, R. (2005). Strategic Marketing Decisions in Global Markets. Italy: Thomson
Learning.
Dibb,S., Simkin, L., Pride, & W.M., Ferrel, O.C.(1997). Marketing Concepts and Strategies (3rd
ed).Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Education Guide 2003.
Hamel, G and Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hawkins, A.G. and Frohoff, K.M. (2008). Promoting the academy the challenges of marketing higher
education. Research in Higher Education Journal. Retrieved on 23rd
June 2010 from
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdf.
Hoffman, N. P. (2000). An examination of the sustainable competitive advantage concept: past,
present and future.Academy of marketing science review. Vol 2000. No.4.
Hemsley-Brown, J., Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization in the international higher
education market,Journal of business research,Vol.60, p942-948.
Index-rated private varsities from 2011. (2009, September 23). The Star, pp.N2.
Joseph, M. & Joseph B. (1997). Service quality in education: a student perspective. Quality Assurance in
Education , vol 5 No.1, 1997. p18.
King, R. (1995). What is higher education for? Strategic dilemmas for the twenty-first century university.
Quality Assurance in Education , vol 3 No.4, 1995.
Koku, P.S.(1997). What is in a name? The impact of strategic name change on student enrollment in
colleges and universities.Journal of marketing for higher education. Vol. 8(2), p53-71.
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10440.pdf8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
23/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2104
Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control. (8th
ed.).
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
Kotler, P.and Fox, K.F.A.(1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions, 2nd
ed., New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kotler,P.,Keller, K.L., Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M. and Tan, C.T. (2009).Marketing management: an asianperspective. 5
thEd. Singapore: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education South Asia.
Lee, M.N.N. (1999). Private higher education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: School of Educational
Studies, USM.
Lomas, L. (1999). The culture and quality of higher education institutions: examining the links. Quality
assurance in education. Vol 7, No.1, 1999. p33.
Lovelock, C. and Wirtz, J (2007). Services marketing: people, technology, strategy. 4th
ed. NSW:
Pearson Education Australia.
Lovelock, C., Patterson, P. and Walker, R (2007). Services 4: an Asia-Pacific and Australian
perspective. 6th
ed. USA: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Mazzarol, T. and Hosie, P. (1996). Exporting Australian higher education: future strategies in a maturing
market. Quality Assurance in Education.Vol 4.No.1.1996. pp37-50.
McGee J., Thomas, H. and Wilson, D. (2005). Strategy: Analysis and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill
Education
Mohd. Nazari Ismail and Mulkit Singh (2003). Relevance of Michael Porters generic strategies:evidence from Malaysian firms. Malaysian management review. Vol 38, No.1, 2003.p55.
Morgan, R.E., Katsikeas, C.S. and Appiah-Adu, Kwaku (1998). Market orientation and organizational
learning capabilities.Journal of marketing management, Vol14, p353-381.
MQA. (2011). SETARA 2009 rating system for Malaysian higher education institutions. Internet URL:
http://www.mqa.gov.my/setara09/index.cfm
Nooraini Sheriff (2007). Information sources influencing students choice of private colleges in
Malaysia: an exploratory perspective.Asian Journal of University Education. Vol.3. No.1, p133-144.
Oh, E. (2009, June 6). Challenges facing private education. The Star, pp SBW16.
Ong, S.F. (2008). Factors determining the financial performance of Malaysian private higher education
institutes (PHEIs). Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, Facultyof Business and Law, Multimedia University, Malaysia.
Ong, S.F. and Chong, W.Y. (2004). The changing roles of private higher educational institutions (PHEI)
in the provision of quality higher educational programmes in Malaysia. Paper presented at International
Conference on Higher Educational Research And Development Society For Australasia (HERDSA).
Curtin University Sarawak, 4-7 July. 2004.
8/6/2019 383-2nd ICBER 2011 PG 2082-2105 Sustainable Competitive
24/24
2nd
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (2nd
ICBER 2011) PROCEEDING
2105
Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia 2009.
Porter, M.E. (1998). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. (2nd
ed.).New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (1st
ed.).New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (2008). The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, Jan
08 vol 86 No.1, 81,86
Pulse group. (2011). Pulse powers inaugural Putra Brand Awards. Internet URL: http://www.pulse-
group.com/blog/?p=579
The Ninth Malaysian Plan 2006
The Department of Private Education, Ministry Of Education Malaysia, 2003 p. 3.
Schmidt, K., (1995). The quest for corporate identity. London: Cassell.
Syed Ahmad Hussein (2/2009). From quality control to quality assurance and enhancement. Buletin
MQA, 9.
Suhaimi Sulong (2005), Exploring linkages with industry for effective training in making graduates
more employable.MAPCU National Higher Education
Tan, Y.S. and Raman, S. R. (2009). The transformation from elitist to mass higher education in
Malaysia: problems and challenges. Centre for policy researchand international studies. Retrieved on
25th
June 2010 from
http://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20ed
ucation%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20and%20challenges.
Tucciarone, K., (2008). Advertisings effects on community college search and choice. Community
College Enterprise. P 73-92.
Webb, M.S., Coccari R.L.,Lado, A.,Allen, L.C. and Reichert,A.K. (1998). Selection criteria used bygraduate students in considering doctoral business programs offered by private vs. public institutions.
Journal of marketing for Higher Education 8(1): 69-90
http://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.usm.my/cenpris/the%20transformation%20from%20elitist%20to%20mass%20higher%20education%20in%20malaysia;%20problems%20andhttp://www.pulse-/Top Related