IMAT5211 E-Commerce: DMU Distance Learning SWOT Analysis Report

This report presents a comprehensive analysis of De Montfort University's (DMU) distance learning (DL) program, focusing on an e-commerce context. The report begins with a SWOT analysis, identifying DMU's internal strengths (e.g., self-discipline, organization) and weaknesses (e.g., procrastination). External opportunities (e.g., market voids) and threats (e.g., multiple responsibilities) are also considered. The report then applies Porter's Competitive Forces Model to assess the competitive landscape, including rivalry, threats of new entrants and substitutes, and the bargaining power of suppliers and customers. The report outlines objectives for the DL program, critical success factors (e.g., flexible policies), and key performance indicators (KPIs). Finally, the report addresses cultural and trust issues in DL and proposes the use of online communication to reach the target audience. Recommendations include engaging faculty, securing management support, focusing on courses with strong job markets, and adapting to societal needs. The assignment is a detailed analysis of DMU's distance learning strategy, providing actionable insights for improvement.

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
Strengths..........................................................................................................................2
Weaknesses......................................................................................................................2
Opportunities...................................................................................................................2
Threats.............................................................................................................................2
SWOT diagram................................................................................................................3
Recommendations............................................................................................................3
Part 2....................................................................................................................................5
Porter’s Competitive Forces Model.................................................................................5
Objectives........................................................................................................................7
Critical success factors....................................................................................................8
Key performance indicators.............................................................................................8
Part 3....................................................................................................................................9
Ways to address cultural and trust issues........................................................................9
Use of online communication for reaching out to target audience..................................9
References..........................................................................................................................11

2DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Part 1
SWOT analysis
Strengths
Strengths are internal characteristics that enable someone to succeed and develop an edge
over the competition. In the world of academia, internal strengths will be traits that support
successful distance learning, such as self-discipline, organization and good study habits
(Phadermrod, Crowder and Wills 2019). Previous academic accomplishments can increase the
likelihood of succeeding at distance education. When students are free from the constraints of
learning place and time, they can better manage their career and family responsibilities in a way
that best suits them. For busy aviation professionals, this is truly a characteristic that gives DL an
advantage over the environments.
Weaknesses
Weaknesses are internal traits that inhibit an individual’s ability to be successful. A
weakness doesn’t mean success isn’t possible, but it may mean a distance learner will have to
work harder to achieve the same educational goals (Khaing, Win and Aung 2015). For this
reason, institutions planning on converting to WebCT should also plan on providing training to
its faculty before the semester actually begins. Adequate technical support should also be
provided to answer questions from both faculty and students during both day and at night. Some
weaknesses that might hinder distance education are procrastination, lack of focus, and learning
disabilities, such as dyslexia.

3DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Opportunities
Opportunities are external factors that can contribute to a distance learner’s success. For
instance, a small business owner may see a void in the local market that can be filled by someone
who possesses the proper education (Zhu and Mugenyi 2015). An opportunity may also be as
minor as owning a home computer with Internet access, which will enable the distance learner to
be an active participant in distance education.
Threats
Threats are also external factors, but they can prevent a distance learner from successfully
completing a distance education course (Zankadi, Hilal and Daoudi 2018). Some examples of
external threats to distance education include multiple responsibilities at home and work, which
may not leave a student with enough time to commit to distance learning, or limited financial
means, which could threaten a student’s ability to pay for distance education.
SWOT diagram
Figure 1: SWOT diagram

4DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
(Source: Cole 2016)
Recommendations
Some recommendations for the institute are as follows
1. Engage the entire university faculty to participate and act as part and parcel of
university DLS. The DLS will be more effectively operable only with the
cooperation and support from all staff members of the university (Siddiqui,
Waqas and Soomrani 2018). The entire faculty in this way is integral towards a
specific agenda. This will basically serve the purpose from three perspectives,
viz., to fix the students motivation, to retain the talented faculty and to improve
the university recognition.
2. Make the university management support as wide as possible. The management is
vital for any institution’s inter or intra operability (Smith 2016). Especially in
design of DLS, we need the management support to be as wide as possible due to
the following reasons, strategic decision making at several levels or institutions,
such as introducing new courses/programs (Bao 2016). Certain policies and
procedures can be fixed easily. For example, relaxing certain pre requisites,
waving of tuition fee for certain low economic group students. Smooth
maintenance of the DLS process, concerning with its cost and human effort.
3. Special attention towards the course (or programs) that have a rich job market. In
this highly competitive world, more stress is vital towards specific courses and
programs such as computer science, due to the rich job market for leading edge
technology (Judrups 2015). This is important for producing students to support

5DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
immediate societal needs and have a direct impact on the Nations’ socio-
economic conditions.
4. Take a noble look towards the far-reaching academic courses. Nowadays, certain
academic domains such as information technology have a direct and immediate
impact on the society’s economic status (Yao and Meng 2018). These courses are
primarily dependent on the task of knowledge processing, than on manufacturing
new products. Every academic institute developing DLS should be prepared to
meet this new challenging task. One general hurdle to meet this seminal task is
non-availability of dedicated faculty. This is mainly to improve the university
economy based on the knowledge processing – a vital component of the modern
era.
Part 2
Porter’s Competitive Forces Model
Competitive Rivalry: Lower competition among existing players because of the demand
supply gap. However, with limited number of institutes offering quality education, institutes
compete to attract best students to their respective campuses (Gill Ricciardi and Bates 2017). The
intensity of rivalry in the higher education industry can be identified by examining the factors
including, the profile of existing players and the industry context. They reported that the profile
of existing higher education institutions is defined by the number and type of institutions in the
pool, which can then determine the degree to which each institution must compete for students,
faculty, government-based funding, and research dollars (Khalid, Ali and Khaleel 2017). They
further argued that higher education is strongly influenced by political, economic, social, and

6DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
technological variables. Thus, the opportunities–threats and strengths–weaknesses dualities can
be determined by looking into the industry context (Haile, Křupka and Maštálka 2016). Higher
education institutions benefit the industry by conceiving and implementing strategies against
rivals.
Threat of New Entrants: Minimal infrastructure requirements allow startups to venture
into the preschool and vocational study sector. According to Křupka, Kantorová and Haile
(2018), new entrants to an industry result in increased pressure on prices, costs, and the rate of
investments. Thus, the threat of new entrants in an industry results in intensified competition that
can affect an industry’s overall profitability. A low entry barrier can intensify competition among
providers, whereas a high entry barrier can lead to fewer providers with less intense competition
within an industry. If the barriers to entry remain high, the threat of new entrants will be low.
Zhu and Mugenyi (2015), examined the threat of new entrants in the higher education industry,
arguing that the existence of educational institutions may be challenged with the threat of new
rivals, that is, new schools create an intensified competitive environment for higher education
institutions. Zankadi, Hilal and Daoudi (2018), suggested the following four factors that can
affect the potential for entry of a new competitor in the higher education industry: economies of
scale, capital requirements, competitor reaction and, buyer resistance. Economies of scale refer
to an organization’s ability to increase productivity or decrease its average cost of production by
more efficiently employing resources over time (Cole 2016). If existing providers can create
economies of scale, then the threat of new entrants will decrease.
Substitute Products: With many institutions offering specialized and skill based
courses, its easy for students to switch to courses that better meet their need. Siddiqui, Waqas
and Soomrani (2018), pointed out the fact that if the offering (i.e., distance learning program)

7DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
makes significant use of technology relative to existing delivery avenues or if it can reduce the
time it takes to complete the course, then it is distinct enough to qualify as a substitute rather
than a new entrant to the industry. They proposed three parameters that should be examined in
identifying substitutes or potential substitutes of existing higher education. These parameters
include time, convenience, and application (Conaway and Zorn-Arnold 2016). Convenience
drives an adult learner to seek out alternative modes of delivery, such as the distance/online
programs and their delivery methods of weekend and evening classes (Mathooko & Ogutu,
2015). In this way, the students can meet their ongoing training needs in-house or with a third-
party supplier (Collis, 2001).
Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Bargaining power of quality education institutes
remains high. Significant shortage of teachers has increased the bargaining power. The power of
suppliers in the higher education is considered to be the academics including instructors,
researchers, and administrators of universities. If suppliers offer products that are differentiated
and there is no substitute for what the supplier group provides, supplier power will be strong in
the industry. Many studies carried out by Bao (2016), indicate that a major indicator of quality of
higher education is academics. If the faculty members of a university differentiate themselves by
their research and teaching methods, it will be a great advantage for them. Judrups (2015)
showed that a faculty’s bargaining power is high because currently there are no realistic
substitutes.
Bargaining Power of Customers: High demand- supply gap has weakened the
bargaining power of the students. buyer power has been historically low as the market demands
grow. He also stated several factors that have led many to positively correlate their evaluation of
quality with price. These factors include the following: inability to negotiate tuition rates,

8DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
reduced student price sensitivity because of the high degree of differentiation by the premier
institutions; and the intangible quality of education. Smith (2016), also stated that students and
industries can be regarded as buyers of higher education. Yao and Meng (2018) also thought that
the students are the primary customers of higher education industry.
Objectives
To provide opportunities of academic pursuits to educated citizens willing to improve
their standard of knowledge
To provide quality educational programs relevant to the students future career of their
desired course.
To establish an online platform that encourages effective communication between the
instructors and students.
To provide a gracious panorama to the apprentices and the practitioners just to make their
learning an easy-go process.
Critical success factors
1. Liberal policies with respect to time allowed to complete courses (through
extensions/suspensions) and to complete degree programs (no “sunset clauses”
except where required by other institutions involved in consortia or collaborative
degree arrangements) (Gill, Ricciardi and Bates 2017).
2. Advanced credit assessment, credit coordination, and credit banking (allowing
students to earn transferable credits or to consolidate credits earned from various
institutions over time) (Khalid, Ali and Khaleel 2017).
3. Alternative forms of credit assessment (such as through experiential credit/prior
learning assessment, challenge examinations)

9DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Key performance indicators
Since 1998, colleges have been mandated by the Ontario Government to collect and
report performance data in five areas – Student Satisfaction, Graduate Satisfaction, Graduate
Employment, Employer Satisfaction, Graduate Rate. Based on themes of accountability and
excellence, the KPI project is a collaborative venture between the colleges and the Ministry
(Haile, Křupka and Maštálka 2016). Key Performance Indicators measure student satisfaction,
graduate satisfaction, graduate employment and some more factors.
Part 3
Ways to address cultural and trust issues
Some ways to address the issues are as follows
Language: Distance learning should be provided either through English or any other
local language depending upon the region of the world (Křupka, Kantorová and Haile 2018).
Qualified teachers could be involved to provide the distance education through mobile
technology.
Work cultures: Service provider must have through knowledge about the work cultures
prevailing in the receiving society to understand student behavior in preparation of assignments
and pursuing academic activities (Phadermrod, Crowder and Wills 2019). Each and every society
should be studied individually as the cultures can vary and it’s difficult to group them together
onto one quite often (Khaing, Win and Aung 2015). While preparing study materials at least one
person aware of the culture and work ethics of the society under consideration should be
included in the team.

10DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Use of online communication for reaching out to target audience
Social Media for Teaching
Some of the benefits of using social media in your teaching role include:
 Extending your teaching beyond the walls of your classroom and the time constraints
of the day (Zhu and Mugenyi 2015).
 Engaging students in ways they are most comfortable communicating.
 Sharing important information with parents and caregivers.
 Building personal learning networks.
 Energizing students' attitudes towards creating products that will be published.
For almost every form of social media, there is an educational platform that you can
utilize. One of the misconceptions outlined in my blog post is something I call the Facebook
fallacy - i.e. the belief that Social Media ISfacebook, when in fact there are hundreds of
social media tools at your disposal to use (Zankadi, Hilal and Daoudi 2018). Many of these
tools were created specifically for education.
Using Google Hangouts for Collaboration and Communication
Another powerful (free) tool Google offers that crosses into both collaboration and
communication is Google Hangouts (Siddiqui, Waqas and Soomrani 2018).

11DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
References
Bao, Y.F., 2016. Analysis of the learning evaluation of distance education based on the Internet
of Things. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 14(1), pp.168-172.
Cole, J.Y., 2016. Universally Designed Virtual Classrooms: Making Online Learning Accessible
to all Students.
Conaway, W. and Zorn-Arnold, B., 2016. The keys to online learning for adults. Distance
Learning Issue, 13, p.1.
Gill, T., Ricciardi, V., Bates, R. and James, D., 2017. Capacity Development in Agricultural
Education and training in Cambodia: A SWOT Analysis. Journal of International Agricultural
and Extension Education, 24(1).
Haile, M., Křupka, J. and Maštálka, M., 2016. Evaluation of Strategic Planning Process Using
Analysis of Fuzzy Integral. DIVAI 2016.
Judrups, J., 2015, April. Analysis of Knowledge Management and E-Learning Integration
Approaches. In ICEIS (2) (pp. 451-456).
Khaing, S.S., Win, A. and Aung, T.N., 2015, August. SWOT Analysis of E-Learning Course
Operation in Higher Education (Case Study: University of Technology, Yatanarpon Cyber City).
In International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (pp. 413-421). Springer,
Cham.
Khalid, J., Ali, A.J., Khaleel, M. and Islam, M.S., 2017. Towards Global Knowledge Society; A
SWOT Analysis of Higher Education of Pakistan in Context of Internationalization. Journal of
Business, 2(2), pp.08-15.

12DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY
Křupka, J., Kantorová, K. and Haile, M., 2018. Swot analysis evaluations on the basis of
uncertainty-case study. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of
Economics & Administration, 26(43).
Phadermrod, B., Crowder, R.M. and Wills, G.B., 2019. Importance-performance analysis based
SWOT analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 44, pp.194-203.
Siddiqui, S., Waqas, A., Soomrani, M.A.R., Qureshi, F., Gul, M. and Memon, I., 2018, July. U-
Learning: A Modern Paradigm Shift of Learning from Higher Education Students' Perspective.
In 2018 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for the
Muslim World (ICT4M) (pp. 191-195). IEEE.
Smith, M.L., 2016. Distance Learning on the Internet: A Situational Analysis.
Yao, J. and Meng, Y., 2018, July. Research on SWOT Analysis and Strategy of Education Live
Broadcasting. In 4th International Conference on Arts, Design and Contemporary Education
(ICADCE 2018). Atlantis Press.
Zankadi, H., Hilal, I., Daoudi, N. and Idrissi, A., 2018, May. Facebook and MOOCs: a
Comparative Analysis for a Collaborative Learning. In 2018 6th International Conference on
Multimedia Computing and Systems (ICMCS) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
Zhu, C. and Justice Mugenyi, K., 2015. A SWOT analysis of the integration of e-learning at a
university in Uganda and a university in Tanzania. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(5),
pp.1-19.