Strengths and Weaknesses of King Saud University: EFE, IFE Matrices and SWOT Analysis

This article analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of King Saud University, the first institution of higher learning in Saudi Arabia. It also includes EFE, IFE matrices, and SWOT analysis.

Running head: KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 1
King Saud University
Name of Student
Institutional Affiliation

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 2
King Saud University
King Saud University is the first Institution of higher learning in the entire Saudi Arabian
kingdom (Alimadadi et al., 2017). The College was established to instill a culture of learning in
the kingdom. The university was started to address numerous issues apart from mere literacy
conquest. The reasons for the establishment include: acquisition of artistic knowledge, literal
education, innovation, and technological advancement (Camilleri, 2017). Furthermore, the
university was to instill the teachings of Islam into students. Additional, the king of Saudi Arabia
during the time of the establishment of the University dreamed of an educated nation. This paper
looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the University. Moreover, the article looks at a possible
E.F.E, I.F.E matrices, and SWOT analysis.
Strengths and Weaknesses of KSU
Any reputable organization has numerous strong points. However, weak points are
inevitable in such establishments. The prestigious King Saud University has much strength and a
few weaknesses.
Strengths
The university is the first of its kind in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The numerous
years that it has been in the academic world has given it the experience to offer exemplary
education. The entire fraternity of KSU strongly relies on modern technology in their endeavors.
Modern technology makes learning easier and enjoyable. The university has invested heavily in
entrepreneurship. The profits from the businesses help the school to run its activity in an easy
manner. The university has one of the most expansive accommodation facilities in Asia. Thus, it
can recruit a large number of students. Additionally, KSU has more than four thousand faculties.
Thus, it provides a majority of relevant courses.

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 3
The school has a significant number of faculties trained in the Western Countries. The
University is forming partnerships with other leading institutions. Harvard School of Public
Health, University of Illinois, the National University of Singapore, and Indian Institute of
technology are some of its partners. The institution charges no tuition fees and it offers attractive
scholarship packages for both local and international students.
Weaknesses
The modes and quality of teaching at the university are not as productive as expected.
Nearly sixty percent of students are complaining about the learning methods. The lectures do not
translate into useful knowledge and skills. Almost fifty nine percent of graduates from the
University are saying that, practicing the knowledge from the University is not easy in the field.
The University has a limited number of international courses. Thus, the school is unable to enroll
a diverse number of international students. The university should improve on the areas of
weaknesses and keep up the strengths.
External Factor Evaluation (EFE) Matrix of KSU
EFE is a strategy applied to assess external factors that affect the growth and
development of a given firm (Alimadadi et al., 2017).
Opportunities Weights (%) Ratings Weighted Score
1.Improvement in
technological advancement
10 3 0.43
2.Increase in the number of
students from high school
13 4 0.36
3.Availability of more trained
tutors
9 4 0.19
4. Reduction in the cost of
learning materials such as
books.
9 3 0.33
5. Increase in government
funding.
17 4 0.49
Threats
1.High taxation rates by the 9 2 0.09

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 4
government
2. The emergence of more
institutions of higher learning
6 2 0.14
3. Economic decline 7 3 0.17
4. Declining job opportunities
for graduates.
4 3 0.09
5. Harsh climatic conditions
disrupting learning
16 2 0.17
Total Weighted Score 100 2.47
The rating of (4) indicates that KSU has high chances of utilizing the opportunities that
are available in the market (Camilleri, 2016). Poor rating such as (2) indicates the inability to
counters threats such as elevated taxation by the kingdom government (Diaz et al., 2015).
Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE) matrix of KSU
IFE is a strategy that an institution uses to examine its strengths and weaknesses
(Mirzakhani, Parsaamal & Golzar, 2014). Furthermore, the firm analyses its ability to uphold the
strengths and how to deal with its weaknesses (Moreno-Gonzalez et al., 2017). The table below
shows a proposed IFE matrix for KSU.
Internal Strengths Weight (%) Rating Weighted Score
1. High technological advancement 13 3 0.39
2. Many Entrepreneurship projects 12 4 0.43
3. High Accommodation facilities 14 4 0.41
4. High number of faculties 15 3 0.20
5. High Western-trained faculties 13 3 0.32
6. Highest ranking in Arabian World 12 3 0.21
7. Alliance creation with other top
Universities
11 4 0.29
Internal Weaknesses
1. Ineffective teaching methods 10 2 0.05
2. Few number of experienced
international faculties
10 2 0.23
Total Weighted Score 100 2.53

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 5
The weighted score of 2.53 is above the desirable mean of 2.5. That means that the
institution is in a pivot position to deal with the weaknesses while upholding the strengths
(Sutrisno et al., 2016).
SWOT Analysis of KSU
SWOT analysis concentrates on the combination of external and internal factors affecting
an institution (Shahba, Arjmandi, Monavari & Ghodusi, 2017). The initials stand for Strength,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (Wheelen, Hunger, Hoffman & Bamford, 2017). The
table below gives a brief SWOT analysis of KSU.
Internal
Factors
Strengths Weaknesses
1.Advancement in technology
2.Significant entrepreneurship
projects
3. Many accommodation
facilities
4.High number of faculties
5. Good working relationship
with other Universities.
1. Ineffective teaching methods
2. Few internal faculties
External
factors
Opportunities Threats
1.Technological advancement
2.Increased number of student
3. Reduced cost of learning
materials
4. more trained lecturers
5. Increase in government
funding.
1. increasing number of Universities
2. harsh economic times
3. high taxation
4. few job opportunities
5. Unfavorable climatic conditions.
Conclusion
King Saud University has numerous Strengths and few weaknesses. The school has a
strong technological system and more entrepreneurship projects. Furthermore, it has a lot of
accommodation facilities and a significant number of students. There are a numerous faculties
within the school. The university has good working relationship with other institutions. The
weaknesses include ineffective modes of teaching. Moreover, there are limited numbers of

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 6
international faculties within the institution. A number of opportunities and threats affect the
functioning of the institution from the external environment. The EFE, IFE and the SWOT
Analysis explain the factors affecting the standard functioning of KSU.

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 7
References
Alimadadi, J. A., Qasemkhan, A. H., Hjartabar, M., Gholamnia, R., Jazani, R. K., & Saeedi, R.
(2017). Evaluation of Health, Safety and Environment status using SWOT matrix to
provide continuous improvement strategies: A case study in municipality of Qazvin.
Journal of Health in the Field, 4(3).
Camilleri, E. (2016). Project success: critical factors and behaviours. Routledge.
Diaz, A., Hill, J., Jenkins, R., Kay, A., Pye, A., Morley, D., & Tejedor Garavito, N. (2015). A
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) evaluation of university
student-staff partnerships in co-creating educational resources, peer support and research
within STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) subjects. Journal of
Scientific Research & Reports, 5(2), 161-170.
Mirzakhani, M., Parsaamal, E., & Golzar, A. (2014). Strategy formulation with SWOT Matrix: a
case study of an Iranian Company. Global Business and Management Research, 6(2),
150.
Moreno-González, D., Alcántara-Durán, J., Gilbert-López, B., García-Reyes, J. F., & Molina-
Díaz, A. (2017). Matrix-effect free quantitative liquid chromatography mass spectrometry
analysis in complex matrices using nanoflow liquid chromatography with integrated
emitter tip and high dilution factors. Journal of Chromatography A, 1519, 110-120.
Shahba, S., Arjmandi, R., Monavari, M., & Ghodusi, J. (2017). Application of multi-attribute
decision-making methods in SWOT analysis of mine waste management (case study:
Sirjan's Golgohar iron mine, Iran). Resources Policy, 51, 67-76.

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 8
Sutrisno, A., Kwon, H. M., Gunawan, I., Eldridge, S., & Lee, T. R. (2016). Integrating SWOT
analysis into the FMEA methodology to improve corrective action decision making.
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 17(1), 104-126.
Wheelen, T. L., Hunger, J. D., Hoffman, A. N., & Bamford, C. E. (2017). Strategic management
and business policy. pearson.