SWOT Analysis and Porter's Competitive Forces Model

This assignment discusses the SWOT analysis and Porter's Competitive Forces Model in the context of De Montfort University. It also provides recommendations for improvement and ways to address cultural and trust issues.

Running head: DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Name of Student
Name of University
Author’s Note

1DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Table of Contents
Part 1....................................................................................................................................2
SWOT analysis................................................................................................................2
SWOT diagram................................................................................................................4
Recommendations............................................................................................................5
Part 2....................................................................................................................................5
Porter’s Competitive Forces Model.................................................................................5
Objectives........................................................................................................................9
Critical success factors and key performance indicators.................................................9
Part 3..................................................................................................................................10
Ways to address cultural and trust issues......................................................................10
Use of online communication for reaching out to target audience................................10
References..........................................................................................................................12

2DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Part 1
SWOT analysis
The strengths weaknesses, opportunities and threats are mentioned in this part of the assignment,
they are as follows
Strengths
Abundance of technology and cyber culture makes the DLS more sophisticated and easy
accessible. Multimedia programmers are also easily understandable, which are provided by some
open and distance learning institutions (Mudrák, Turčáni and Burianová 2018).Besides the
SLMs, library facilities are also provided to all distance learners. Provisions for acquisition of
books and journals – both print and digital and educational Compact Discs (CDs), Video
Compact Disks (VCDs) and Digital Video Discs DVDs falling within the purview of the subjects
offered by the university under distance mode.
Weaknesses
Teacher-Student Interaction: Being a practical- oriented course, LIS education requires
computer training and practical classes for classification and cataloguing with personal contact
between teacher and student; but the numbers of days for contact classes are very limited (Haile
and Krupka 2016). Some universities do not even insist on students to attend contact classes.
There is no provision of credit hours for individual papers in the distance programme.
Opportunities
It emphasizes freedom from classroom limitations in location and time. Distance
education is flexible with variable timings and locations, whether at work or at home. Time to
learn is extended to fit individual needs (Boca 2015). It offers a chance to information

3DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
professionals and people who live and work in remote areas and have no way of improving and
continuing their education.
Threats
The UGC has banned pursuing researchprogrammers like M. Phil. and/or Ph.D. from
distance mode from the year 2009. However, the UGC has lifted the ban from IGNOU, New
Delhi, for conducting Ph.D. courses in distance mode (Strnadová, Voborník and Provazníková
2016). Need of getting programme accredited withapex educational or professional bodies like,
the National Assessment and Accreditation Council and the National Board of Accreditation.

4DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
SWOT diagram
Figure 1: SWOT diagram
(Source: Mosannenzadeh, Bisello and Diamantini 2017)

5DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Recommendations
1. The university should involve the cross section of the core faculty for the
improvement of the DLS, especially the technology-mediated courses.
2. For the purpose of monitoring the student progress, there should be some advisers
available on campus (Karunanayaka, Naidu and Rajendra 2017).
3. There should be a strong Web infrastructure, essential for supporting course
development and delivery; so as to cope up with competitive Web or Network based
education (Shahijan, M.K., Rezaei and Preece 2016).
4. The university management support or assistance (monitory and technical) should be
on a continuous basis for maintaining and improving the DLS
In order to establish the best DL practices, we should look at new-technology, research
findings, and assessment tools that support dynamic leading edge technology (Karunanayaka,
Naidu and Rajendra 2017). This is particularly useful for the under developed countries, to rise
and compete with the socio economic changes. In this connection, Internet and intranet are two
useful tools coupled with the object oriented technology act as a part and parcel of any DLS.
Part 2
Porter’s Competitive Forces Model
Competitive Rivalry:rivalry exists among the business schools in terms of attracting and
retaining the best faculty, students, and research grants. According to Raga and Rodavia (2018),
tough competition exists among neighboring universities and colleges. Such a competition has

6DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
increased in recent years because of the corresponding increase in the number of higher
educational institutions. To survive within this competitive environment, the university must be
more responsive to students’ needs and concerns, which is a positive effect of competition.
Nevertheless, an intensive competitive environment also results in difficult conditions for the
higher education institutions. Romero-Gutierrez, Jimenez-Liso and Martinez-Chico (2016),
mentioned that the universities need to re-examine their strategic planning processes to
determine whether adequate attention is being paid to rapid intensification of competition. They
pointed out that if rapidly intensifying competition in the global higher education sector was
identified as a threat during the strategic planning process, that issue should have received
attention in strategic plans and the degree of concern with that issue will be evident in the
relative prominence (or centrality) of the concept of competition.
Threat of New Entrants:the threat of new entrants in higher education is that new
universities offer the same faculties as existing ones. A high barrier to entry in higher education
will result in fewer new universities and less competition, while a low barrier to entry will result
in more new universities and, consequently, more competition (Jones and Graham 2015). The
potential threat of new universities as one of the five forces can be discussed in terms of the
following barriers to entry: (i) disadvantages coming from economy of scale: this means that new
universities should negotiate with current institutions of higher education or, alternatively, accept
a cost disadvantage; (ii) high capital requirements; (iii) reaction of existing universities; (iv)
student resistance: this means that students tend to prefer existing universities because of the
incumbency advantage, including reputation, experience, and prestige, which is not available to
potential new entrants; and (v) the requirements and restrictions imposed by the government.
When the factors mentioned above, which are obtained through Porter’s theory, are considered,

7DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
the following can be thought of as crucial barriers to entry in Turkish higher education: the
policy of the government and stance of CoHE, as the state agency in Turkey responsible for
higher education, on this issue; the dominance of existing universities because of the incumbency
advantage, including reputation, experience, and prestige in higher education; and that
establishing a university that can compete with established universities requires large capital
(Panfil 2016). Government policies and the regulations of CoHE’s support the establishment of
new universities; these policies and regulations can create opportunities for new universities. In
the opposite case, they would create a threat to new universities.
Substitute Products: distance learning programs, certified programs, and online
programs can help students from any location achieve a degree from a program abroad and apply
for a job within a shorter period; they serve as threats to the traditional higher education systems,
especially in developing countries. Nevertheless, according to Mudrák (2017), if one considers
the experience and socialization inherent to the traditional university experience as having
paramount importance, then the threat of substitution may be low, while the barriers to entry
such as the required facilities and supportive administrative structure would be high. However, if
one considers the Internet and the arrival of the “digital native” to be a growing force and driver
for change in the higher education industry, then the threat of substitutes is extremely high
(Harmon 2016). Certainly, many substitutes can result in more options for students thus
negatively affecting the profitability of traditional higher education institutions. Therefore,
universities should encourage application-based rather than theory-based education with
experience and socialization inherent in decreasing the threat of technology as a substitute for
traditional universities.

8DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Bargaining Power of Suppliers:Suppliers can use their bargaining powers by
threatening to increase prices or decrease the quality of the purchased goods and services. If
there are a few suppliers within an industry and these suppliers sell an essential component or
service, then supplier power in this case is high relative to other industries (Panda 2017).
Governments and private foundations can also be considered as suppliers who provide materials,
such as physical resources or subsidies, to higher education institutions. Similarly, high schools
can be considered as one of the major suppliers (Kukulska-Hulme 2016) in the higher education
sector; that is, the former provide the students to the latter. Sensuse, Prima and Mishbah (2017)
stated that academics serving as “laborers” in the higher education industry should be recognized
as suppliers. Srinivasa Rao (2017) stated that academics comprise one of the most important
suppliers as they are the ones who deliver academic knowledge, ideas, and research output.
Mudrák, Turčáni and Burianová (2018) indicated that, while support services for universities
(e.g., bookstores, health clinics, and food services) also make up a portion of supplier power, by
far, the biggest contributor is still the group of highly skilled “laborers” in the form of
instructors, researchers, and administrators. That is, as Haile and Krupka (2016) showed, higher
education can be assessed as a highly laborintensive sector.
Bargaining Power of Customers:students and their parents are the buyers of higher
education. According to the study of Boca (2015), students or parents are the buyers of higher
education in the sense that they purchase education from an institution. This same idea has been
stated by Strnadová, Voborník and Provazníková (2016). The students, employers, and other
institutions who want to have some special knowledge in their respective areas, along with the
students’ parents, are the primary customers of higher education institutions (Haile, Křupka and
Maštálka 2016). Mosannenzadeh, Bisello and Diamantini (2017) echoed this notion by stating

9DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
that other parties that benefit from quality education, such as parents, other industries, and the
society in general, fit the definition of “beneficiary.” In addition, the parents have an important
influence on their children’s decisions about their career paths; therefore, the parents are also
buyers of higher education.
Objectives
1. to produce graduates well-grounded in basic and applied science capable of meeting the
challenges and needs of society
2. to ensure that the quality and range of the School's activities are recognized and
appreciated by prospective students
3. to provide relevant or demand-driven courses/programmes in science, producing well-
informed, employable and adaptable graduates with broad skill base and a capacity for
life-long learning and challenges
4. to promote and enrich the study of science and applied research in schools and enhance
awareness, understanding and appreciation of science and applied research in schools and
the wider community
Critical success factors and key performance indicators
Based on students’ perceptions, Shahijan, Rezaei and Preece (2016) classified the CSFs
for e-learning into four factors, namely, instructors’ characteristics (teaching style, attitude
toward students, technology control, etc), students’ characteristics (motivation, technical
competency, perception of content and system, collaboration in interaction, etc), technology
infrastructure (ease of access, internet speed, screen design, etc), and institution support
(technical support, computer availability, learning material accessibility and printing, etc).
Karunanayaka, Naidu and Rajendra (2017) stated that resources that support e-Learning include

10DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
human resources, computer and internet technology resources, and e-Learning contents
resources. Raga and Rodavia (2018) synthesized the success indicators of e-learning system for
higher education institutions in Thailand and found that the factors were: media and technology,
institution and management, instructional design, supporting factors, and evaluation components.
Part 3
Ways to address cultural and trust issues
Some examples of achievements to break cultural barriers in this paper. More research
needs to be carried out to improve the conditions required for spreading distance learning among
billions in many countries through mobile technology and gearing up multimedia technology to
be easily transported to those locations for a proper presentation of study materials. Some
recommendations are as follows
Government Initiatives: Government initiative for the spread of distance learning is a
necessity (Romero-Gutierrez, Jimenez-Liso and Martinez-Chico 2016). Government should keep
aside a fund for distance learning all over the state or country concerned which would be a very
effective investment for the future of the country in many respect.
Rigidity Imposed by University Regulations: One should take the online attendance by
biometric mean to check the presence in class (Jones and Graham 2015).
Insecurities about learning: According to my research the institutes which have their
own campus are better and employer takes the students read from these colleges easily

11DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Use of online communication for reaching out to target audience
The quality and frequency of the interaction (via Internet, TV, phone): This varies from
program to program; more frequent meeting with undergraduate students over graduate students
is a positive sign for a DL program.
The quality of Curriculum: preparations, assignments and solutions. Preparation of
separate and restricted curricula/assignments in time and their availability over the web to
simulate a DL program with a traditional classroom program (Panfil 2016). The type of
examinations should be more relaxed (when compared to regular classroom students) for the DL
program candidates. In DL program more weight should be given to take home tests and
assignments, unlike the regular classroom student program.

12DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
References
Boca, G.D., 2015. SWOT Analyze and e–learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 182, pp.10-14.
Haile, M. and Krupka, J., 2016. Fuzzy evaluation of SWOT analysis. Int. J Sup. Chain. Mgt
Vol, 5(3), p.1.
Harmon, D., 2016. Exploring the Efficacy of Active and Authentic Learning in the Visual
Merchandising Classroom.
Jones, N.B. and Graham, C.M., 2015. Virtual teams in business and distance education:
Reflections from an MBA class. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, 2(1), pp.49-59.
Karunanayaka, S.P., Naidu, S., Rajendra, J.C.N. and Ratnayake, H.U.W., 2017. Designing
Reflective Practice in the Context of OER-based e-Learning.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2016. MOOCs, Informal Language Learning, and Mobility.
Mosannenzadeh, F., Bisello, A., Diamantini, C., Stellin, G. and Vettorato, D., 2017. A case-
based learning methodology to predict barriers to implementation of smart and sustainable urban
energy projects. Cities, 60, pp.28-36.
Mudrák, M., 2017, October. Analysis and implementation of adaptive course in Moodle. In 2017
15th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications
(ICETA) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Mudrák, M., Turčáni, M. and Burianová, M., 2018. Creation of Personalized Learning Courses
in Adaptive LMS. DIVAI 2018.
Panda, S.K., 2017. Unit-14 Management of Distance Education System.

13DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Panfil, g., 2016. Swot analysis of the educational system from romanian police
academy. eLearning & Software for Education, (2).
Raga, R. and Rodavia, M.R., 2018, July. Perceptions and Utilization of a Learning Management
System: An Analysis from Two Perspectives. In 2018 International Symposium on Educational
Technology (ISET) (pp. 33-37). IEEE.
Romero-Gutierrez, M., Jimenez-Liso, M.R. and Martinez-Chico, M., 2016. SWOT analysis to
evaluate the programme of a joint online/onsite master's degree in environmental education
through the students’ perceptions. Evaluation and program planning, 54, pp.41-49.
Sensuse, D.I., Prima, P., Mishbah, M., Sukmasetya, P., Erlangga, A. and Cahyaningsih, E., 2017,
October. Improving e-learning through knowledge management. In 2017 International
Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS) (pp. 67-72).
IEEE.
Shahijan, M.K., Rezaei, S. and Preece, C.N., 2016. Developing a framework of
internationalisation for higher education institutions in Malaysia: a SWOT
analysis. International Journal of Management in Education, 10(2), pp.145-173.
Srinivasa Rao, Y., 2017. C5 model for the consortium management: SWOT analysis. Library
Management, 38(4/5), pp.248-262.
Strnadová, V., Voborník, P. and Provazníková, K., 2016. Web Based Learning Method of
Information Retrieval for First Year Students at University. DIVAI 2016.