THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED DISTINCTIVE COMPETENCIES AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: THE CASE OF ASIA-PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY (AIU)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED DISTINCTIVE COMPETENCIES AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: THE CASE OF ASIA-PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY (AIU) By Haydn Golden An Independent Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Business Administration (Management Emphasis), Faculty of Business Administration Asia-Pacific International University Year 2021

i Research Project Title: The Relationship between Perceived Distinctive Competencies and Student Satisfaction in Private Higher Education Institutions: The Case of AsiaPacific International University (AIU) Author: Haydn Golden Research Advisor: Dr. Damrong Satayawaksakoon Program: Master of Business Administration Academic Year: 2021

ii ABSTRACT In this study the relationship was examined between distinctive competencies and different demographic groups of the target population of AsiaPacific International University (AIU), a higher educational institution in Thailand. In the research the relationship also was explored between the university’s distinctive competencies and student satisfaction. Data were obtained from 260 respondents (students and alumni of AIU), who answered the questionnaire developed for this research. It was analyzed using descriptive statistics, a t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation analysis, and regression analysis to test the hypotheses. The results revealed a statistically significant difference in the distinctive competencies among students from different years of study, specifically between sophomore students and senior students. However, no statistically significant differences were found among students from different programs of study, religion, regions of origin, or gender. Furthermore, the results revealed that the overall distinctive competencies positively affected student satisfaction. Several individual dimensions of distinctive competencies—brand image, organizational expertise/quality of employees, organizational culture, and effective use of information technology—positively affected student satisfaction. Among those dimensions that did exhibit a positive relationship with student satisfaction, the highest predictor of student satisfaction was organizational expertise/quality of employees. Other dimensions—namely partnership and foreign market entry strategy —did not affect student satisfaction. These research findings may benefit practitioners in the higher education industry. The findings suggest that employing and developing distinctive competency

iii strategies may generate or enhance competitive advantages through customer satisfaction. The research findings imply that higher educational administrators need to develop marketing strategies at several levels to generate or enhance distinctive competencies.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not be possible without the support of Dr. Damrong Satayawaksakoon, who worked actively to help me complete this research. My appreciation also extends to the Faculty of Business Administration and the various faculty members who assisted me and helped me pursue my Masters of Business Administration at Asia-Pacific International University. I am grateful for the guidance of the Business Research Committee and the supervision of the University Research Committee. With their evaluations and feedback, I was able to accomplish much in my study. Members of the committees provided professional guidance and taught me a great deal about research. Nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of this project than my family. I would like to thank my parents, whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue. Most importantly, I would like to thank God for the wisdom and strength He provided as I completed this course of study. Haydn Golden

v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................1 1.2 Background of Study ...........................................................................................2 1.2 Objectives of Research ........................................................................................5 1.3 Motivation for the Research ................................................................................6 1.4 Definition of Key Concepts.................................................................................7 1.4.1 Distinctive Competence ................................................................................7 1.4.2 Customer Satisfaction ...................................................................................8 1.5 Summary..............................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................9 2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................9 2.2 Related Concepts ...............................................................................................12 2.2.1 Distinctive Competency..............................................................................12 2.2.2 Brand Image................................................................................................14 2.2.3 Strategic Alliance Formation ......................................................................17 2.2.4 Forward Integration—Foreign Market Entry Strategy ...............................19 2.2.5 Organizational expertise and quality of employees—Human Resources Management.........................................................................................................21 2.2.6 Organizational Culture................................................................................24 2.2.7 Effective use of Technology .......................................................................26 2.2.8 Student Satisfaction ....................................................................................28 2.3 Objectives of the Research ................................................................................30

vi 2.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................31 2.4.1 Research Questions.....................................................................................31 2.4.2 Working Hypotheses...................................................................................32 2.5 Conceptual Framework......................................................................................32 2.6 Summary............................................................................................................33 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..........................................................34 3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................34 3.2 Methodology......................................................................................................34 3.3 Population and Sample Size ..............................................................................35 3.4 Instrument ..........................................................................................................36 3.5 Quality of Research Instrument .........................................................................37 3.6 Likert Scale Cut-Off Points ...............................................................................38 3.7 Distinctive Competencies..................................................................................39 3.8 Student Satisfaction ...........................................................................................40 3.9 Data Collection ..................................................................................................40 3.10 Statistical Treatment ........................................................................................41 3.11 Ethical Considerations.....................................................................................42 3.12 Summary..........................................................................................................42 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS............................................................................................43 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................43 4.2 Descriptive Analysis ..........................................................................................43 4.2.1 Demographic Information...........................................................................43 4.2.2 Distinctive Competencies of Asia-Pacific International University...........45 4.2.3 Student Satisfaction ....................................................................................45

vii 4.3 Hypothesis Testing: Analysis of Demographic Factors toward Distinctive Competencies...........................................................................................................46 4.3.1 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Year of Study .............................46 4.3.2 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Program of Study .......................47 4.3.3 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Religion......................................48 4.3.4 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Region of Origin ........................48 4.3.5 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Gender........................................49 4.4 Hypothesis Testing: Analysis of Relation between Distinctive Competencies and Student Satisfaction...........................................................................................49 4.5 Summary of the Hypothesis Testing..................................................................52 4.6 Summary............................................................................................................53 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ...................................................54 5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................54 5.2 Summary of Findings and Discussion ...............................................................54 5.2.1 Hypothesis 1................................................................................................54 5.2.2 Hypothesis 2................................................................................................55 5.3 Managerial implications ....................................................................................56 5.4 Suggestions and Recommendations for Future Research..................................57 5.5 Conclusions........................................................................................................58 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................60 APPENDIX A..............................................................................................................69 APPENDIX B..............................................................................................................80 Brand Image ............................................................................................................81 Partnerships (Alliance Formation)..........................................................................81 Foreign Market Entry Strategy – Forward Integration...........................................82 Organizational Expertise / Quality of Employees (Academic & Non-academic) ...82

viii Organizational Culture............................................................................................83 Effective use of Information Technology .................................................................83 Student Satisfaction..................................................................................................84 APPENDIX C..............................................................................................................85

ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Demographic Information (N = 260) .............................................................44 Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviation of Distinctive Competencies..........................45 Table 3 Mean and Standard Deviation of Student Satisfaction...................................46 Table 4 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Year of Study ..................................47 Table 5 Post hoc Comparisons of Year of Study/ Role ................................................47 Table 6 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Program of Study............................48 Table 7 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Religion ..........................................48 Table 8 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Region of Origin.............................48 Table 9 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Gender............................................49 Table 10 Correlation matrix for Student Satisfaction and related variables ..............50 Table 11 Regression results of Dimensions of Distinctive Competency as predictors of Student Satisfaction..............................................................51 Table 12 Regression results of Overall Distinctive Competency as predictors of Student Satisfaction..............................................................51 Table 13 Summary of Hypothesis Testing....................................................................52

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction In the field of education there has been a surge of new opportunities and its fair share of challenges over the past century. This set of circumstances brings an increase in competition in the higher-education environment. As competition increases, higher education institutions need to identify and improve the quality of their distinctive competencies and evaluate their services. In the “education industry,” as it is with most industries, developing or identifying distinctive competencies is key to establishing and maintaining competitive advantage because it helps the entire organization support that advantage (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2012; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Successfully combining distinctive competencies to respond to opportunities and threats results in sustaining a competitive edge over rivals and market success (Mazzarol & Soutar, 1999; Mooney, 2007). Essentially, identifying and developing distinctive competencies establishes competitive advantage that can result in market success. Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) showed that executing proper strategies that establish distinctive competencies results in developing competitive advantage, which, in turn, ultimately leads to market success. Mooney (2007) also concluded that, when successfully implemented, competitive advantage and the ability to outperform competitors can stem from distinctive competencies that an organization establishes. In this research attempts are made to provide insights into what students perceive to be the distinguishing competencies (i.e., distinctive competencies) in a

2 private higher education institution and the students’ level of satisfaction with the same institution. Then, the aim was to explore the relationship between the perceived distinctive competencies and student satisfaction in private higher education institutions. The list of distinctive competencies used in this research comes from Mazzarol and Soutar’s (1999) study of distinctive competencies that can help education institutions achieve market success. Competitive advantage and market success are not easily measured directly, so this research evaluated customer satisfaction (a function of marketplace performance) to predict market success, as customer satisfaction is a marketplace performance metric (Bharadwaj et al., 1993; Ballard, 2013). The population of this study consists of the students and alumni of AsiaPacific International University (AIU). Asia-Pacific International University is a private higher education institution located in central Thailand. The higher education market in Thailand has become more competitive as enrollment has dropped because of lower birth rates and an aging population (Michael, 2018) and increases in international competition (Lamubol, 2017). This increase in supply-demand gap and foreign competition has universities in Thailand doubling down on recruitment and marketing efforts to avoid the risk of closure (ICEF Monitor, 2017). 1.2 Background of Study The term “core competence” is found in the literature on education and research on economics and management. The concepts associated with core competence in the two fields are not the same and should not be confused for one another. In education, core competence is used to define a set of learning outcomes,

3 such as skills or competencies, that an individual should have acquired during or by the end of a learning period (Holmes & Hooper, 2000). In the field of management, and in this research, core competence refers to the skills or capabilities of an organization that are distinctive—it is visible to people (Mooney, 2007). Despite it being a topic introduced in the early 1990s, core competence, distinctive competence, and competitive advantage in Higher Education, or education services in general, is still a relatively new research field. The has been a lack of research of education as a specific marketing problem. And education, among other professional services, has been overlooked in research because of its intangible nature—it was, like marketing, practical only in supporting the selling of goods (Mooney, 2007; Mazzarol, 1998; Mazzarol & Soutar, 1999). Universities are different from typical business organizations; however, they still have to involve strategic management to pursue competitive advantage (Mintzberg & Rose, 2003). In the past 30 years, higher education institutions have slowly begun to utilize marketing strategies, but most still lack strategic management in their marketing (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2012). Education is its own field of professional service and has its own challenges. The competitive strategies recommended in the literature review are not all suitable in the context of education services (Kufaine, 2014; Mazzarol & Soutar, 1999). Administrators and managers in education institutions need to find marketable distinctive competencies that can bring market success to their organization. A comprehensive definition of core competence and distinctive competence is still lacking in literature review, but there is a general consensus on what these concepts are and what they mean. Mooney (2007) explained:

4 Core competence [is] a capability that is central to a firm’s value-generating activities. Distinctive competence [is] a capability that is visible to the customer, superior to other firms’ competencies to which it is compared, and difficult to imitate. (p. 112) Distinctive competencies should be capabilities that differentiate and distinguish an organization from others in the same field. Examples of distinctive competencies include Google’s superior search-engine technology and Amazon’s economy of scale. While distinctive competencies have been studied in industrial organizations, there is not as much research on the same topic in the education industry. Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) proposed brand image, strategic alliance formation, forward integration, organizational expertise, organizational culture, and effective use of information technology as a set of distinctive competencies that can become a source of competitive advantage and bring about market success. Mooney (2007) echoed the idea that competitive advantage, and doubtlessly market success, can stem from an organization’s distinctive competencies. Competitive advantage cannot be measured directly, but what can be measured is how competitive advantage reveals itself through market success. An indicator and measure of market success in educational institutions is customer satisfaction as a function of marketplace performance (Bharadwaj et al., 1993; Ballard, 2013). Competitive advantage is an indispensable factor in remaining competitive in any business field, and being competitive often entails some form of market success. Core competence, distinctive competence, or superior resources (assets) can potentially become a competitive advantage for any business (Mooney, 2007).

5 Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) developed a model for sustainable competitive advantage for educational institutions. They proposed that educational institutions could achieve competitive advantage by designing strategies to create or enhance several distinctive competencies that, in-turn, provide sources of competitive advantage. The distinctive competencies Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) discussed include brand image, strategic alliance formation, forward integration (i.e., foreign market entry), organizational expertise, organizational culture, and effective use of information technology (IT). If these distinctive competencies are successfully developed by institutions, they become a competitive advantage that consequently translates into market success, which can be predicted with levels of student satisfaction (Bharadwaj et al., 1993; Mazzarol & Soutar, 1999; Ballard, 2013). 1.2 Objectives of Research There are still gaps in the studies focused on exploring competitive advantage in the higher education sector (Mainardes et al., 2011). In this study the distinctive competencies of AIU are explored so that an informed discussion can be had regarding strategic options available to higher education institutions. Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) constructed a model for market success in the international education institution market. They proposed that distinctive competencies become vital sources of competitive advantage, which leads to market success. Mazzarol and Soutar’s (1999) model was used in this study in an attempt to guage its applicability. In this research the relationship was studied between distinctive competencies (so perceived by customers as they would not be distinct if not characteristic or distinguishing otherwise) and customer satisfaction. Customer

6 satisfaction has been shown to affect market success positively. In a way, clarification was sought for the model that Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) suggested for educational institutions. Along with exploring the distinctive competency strategies that education institutions can implement, the relationship was investigated between distinctive competencies and different demographic groups of the target population together with distinctive competencies and student satisfaction, a contributing factor to market success in service industry. 1.3 Motivation for the Research I worked in the Marketing Department of Asia-Pacific International University for several years. As a department at the center university promotion, we always wanted to know what strategies worked best to achieve institutional goals. AIU markets itself as a university with “international faculty, quality facilities, and holistic [approach to] education (Asia-Pacific International University, 2020c)”; however, this may not be what the students perceive. AIU may advertise itself as an institution that hires faculty from around the world, a school with excellent facilities, and a university that provides a complete educational program. However, these qualities may not be the same as what the students perceive. The students, our “customers,” may perceive other competencies as most distinct or specific to AIU. I realized that the department, and the university, could benefit from understanding its perceived distinctive competencies and the relationship of these competencies with student satisfaction. After all, investments in understanding and developing distinctive competencies, and establishing strategies based on distinctive

7 competencies, are approaches that generate competitive advantage and more satisfied customers, which ultimately lead to market success (Hofer & Schendel, 1978; McGee & Petterson, 2000; Mooney, 2007; Boguslauskas & Kvedaraviciene, 2009). Decisionmakers have a higher chance of developing winning strategies when they are better informed of the distinctive competencies that they can make the most of. 1.4 Definition of Key Concepts Researchers (Selznik, 1957; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Schoemaker, 1992; Hamel, 1994; Hamel & Heene, 1994; Sanchez, 2002) have maintained that careful consideration of an organization’s distinctive competencies and core competencies are correlated with the analyzing and managing, and therefore the success, of the organization. 1.4.1 Distinctive Competence Distinctive competencies are competencies that are distinguishing and highly visible to consumers (Neil, 1986). A firm’s distinctive competencies usually arise from successful branding, unique business processes, or technology. Some examples of distinctive competencies include Amazon’s brand recognition and distribution, Google’s superior search-engine technology, and Kodak’s premium film. Though it is not always the case, as in the case of Kodak, distinctive competencies can become a competitive advantage (Hofer & Schendel, 1978; Mooney, 2007). A distinctive competency is simply a business’s highly visible capability, and it may stem from the business’s core competence or other unique competencies that separate the business from its competitors (Mooney, 2007).

8 1.4.2 Customer Satisfaction Mittal and Frennea (2010) defined customer satisfaction as “customer’s post-consumption evaluation of a product or service.” Higher education students are the recipients of the service an institution provides and are considered the primary customer of a university (Crawford, 1991). Education institutions seek their students’ opinions about all aspects of academic life, typically, through satisfaction feedback questionnaires. Customer satisfaction is a marketplace performance metric (Chi & Gursoy, 2009; Mittal & Frennea, 2010; IGI Global, 2021), and it has a positive and significant relationship with financial performance. 1.5 Summary In this chapter some background information has been provided about “distinctive competencies,” where they may stem from, and their effect on an organization’s market success. The objectives of the research and the motivation behind the research have been outlined. Finally, the key concepts used in the study have been defined and discussed.

9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction As pointed out in the previous chapter, the words “core competence” in this research refers to the concept used in the field of economics and management. Core competence refers to an organization’s capability that is fundamental in its valuecreating activities. A core competence is a business’s skill or capability, and while it is not necessarily unique to the particular business, it is essential to processes and activities that generate value (Mooney, 2007). Examples of core competencies include Nike’s marketing, Amazon’s distribution and logistics, and Walmart’s supply chain management. Nike, Amazon, and Walmart have leveraged success through their own set of core competencies, which they have developed into distinctive competencies. These competencies have yielded competitive advantages for their businesses. Mooney’s (2007) model of the relationships between core competence, distinctive competence, and competitive advantage shows that competitive advantage can stem from distinctive competencies. Managers in the education industry have to consider their own organization’s distinctive competencies as potential success drivers. “Distinctive competencies” has been defined as a business’s skill, process, activity, or capability that is highly visible or notable by the consumer and is perceived to be uniquely better than rivals (Mooney, 2007; Thompson & Strickland, 1986). Some common areas of distinctive competencies include the following: experience/knowledge/skill of the owners/workers, unique/special/original product or service, better/more complete customer service, location, low cost/price, relative

10 quality of product/service, variety/availability/flexibility of product/service, friendly atmosphere, reputation/image, a unique method of marketing, reaching a unique market niche/untapped market. These are examples of distinctive competencies that can become sources of market success for most service, retail, and manufacturing business organizations. However, comprehensive literature on distinctive competencies for organizations in the “education industry” and their relationship with competitive advantage (market success) is still lacking (Bharadwaj et al., 1993; Mazzarol & Soutar, 1999; Mooney, 2007). In efforts to gain market success, management teams should consider organizational competencies that set them apart from the competition because distinctive competencies are factors that contribute to sustained performance (Eden & Ackermann, 2010). Bharadwaj et al. (1993) determined that organizational success can be measure in two significant ways: marketplace performance and financial performance. In this research student satisfaction (customer satisfaction) will be observed as a measure of marketplace performance. The early discussions of Selznik (1957) and Penrose (1959), in identifying and labeling the concept of distinctive competencies, showed that distinctive competencies are a valuable resource for an organization, and that it is the role of organizational leaders to identify, invest in, and protect its competencies. The data are consistent and suggest that companies should develop strategies based on core competence to generate competitive advantage(s) because it has a higher chance of leading to market success (Uysal, 2007). Bogner and Thomas (1994) found that organizations were able to survive recession better and emerge more strongly if their strategies were based on core competencies. Small businesses that invest in

11 developing distinctive competencies are also more likely to create competitive advantage even in markets dominated by mass merchandisers (McGee & Petterson, 2000). This confirms early studies by Hofer and Schendel (1978), which indicated that the organization’s distinctive competencies and its ability to utilize these competencies were essential building blocks of a successful strategy. Developing distinctive competencies that create imitation barriers is one way businesses can sustain competitive advantage in their market (Dierickx & Cool, 1989; McGee & Mark, 2000; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2012). Despite having become buzzwords in the business world, core competence, distinctive competencies, and competitive advantage are concepts that managers and leaders still struggle to grasp fully. Research on such concepts is still lacking in education, and therefore managers in the “education industry” are unable to exploit these opportunities for success. In an effort to shed some light on the matter, Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) suggested a model for competitive advantage for educational institutions. Their model showed that specific distinctive competencies, through successful marketing and market entry strategies, can be critical sources of competitive advantage. Successful external marketing strategies may lead to a distinctive brand identity. Successful foreign market entry strategies may lead to distinctive strategic alliance formations and forward integration. Successful internal marketing strategies may lead to distinctive organizational expertise, organizational culture, and effective use of technology. These strategies can be developed into a distinctive competency that gives an institution the edge they need to perform better than the competition.

12 2.2 Related Concepts In the following few sections a review will be made of distinctive competencies, distinctive competencies strategies (brand image, strategic alliance formation, forward integration, human resource management, organizational culture, and effective use of IT), and customer satisfaction (i.e., student satisfaction) as a measure of market success in the education industry. 2.2.1 Distinctive Competency Researchers (Selznik, 1957; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Schoemaker, 1992; Hamel, 1994; Hamel & Heene, 1994; Sanchez, 2002) have maintained that careful consideration of an organization’s distinctive competencies and core competencies is correlated with analyzing and managing, and therefore the success, of the organization. Prahalad and Hamel (1990) used the analogy of a tree and likened core competencies to the root system that “provides nourishment, sustenance, and stability” (p. 82). According to Prahalad and Hamel (1990), core competencies are the primary competencies that a firm capitalizes on to compete in its market. Others (Collis & Montgomery, 1995; Frery, 2006) characterized core competencies as the basic building blocks of a business’s corporate strategy. Essentially, core competencies are a sum of the skill, knowledge, and capabilities of an organization, rather than an ownership of a resource, that help the organization achieve its goal (Mooney, 2007). Core competence is considered core because without it the organization may not achieve its goal (Bryson et al., 2007).

13 Distinctive competencies are competencies that are distinguishing and highly visible to consumers (Neil, 1986). Distinctive competencies are usually core competencies that customers recognize and perceive the most (Mooney, 2007). A firm’s distinctive competencies usually arise from successful branding, unique business processes, or technology. Some examples of distinctive competencies include Amazon’s brand recognition and distribution, Google’s superior searchengine technology, and Kodak’s premium film. Though it is not always the case, as in the case of Kodak, distinctive competencies can become a competitive advantage (Hofer & Schendel, 1978; Mooney, 2007). A distinctive competency is simply a business’s highly visible capability, and it may stem from the business’s core competence or other unique competencies that separate the business from its competitors (Mooney, 2007). Understanding distinctive competencies mean understanding what customers perceive an organization does well, as it needs to be something known and visible to the customers. In this research customer satisfaction will be observed and measured—a manifestation of competitive advantage. Customer satisfaction has a significantly positive relationship with financial performance (Chi & Gursoy, 2009; Ittner & Larcker, 1998), and it can be used as a performance measure for many organizations (Ambler & Puntoni, 2003). Even so, other researchers found that satisfaction did have a positive financial impact, but the direct effects were generally minor (Yeung & Ennew, 2000).

14 2.2.2 Brand Image Branding has become one of the most essential elements of marketing, and it is no secret that an organization’s brand image has an influence on the organization's success. De Haan (2015) found that experts in the education industry ranked strong and positive image second only to the quality of education and/or research as one of the most important competitive advantages that an institution should seek to acquire. For smaller organizations with emerging brands, generating strong brand awareness facilitated better chances of survival (Wilcox et al., 2008). Educational institutions may have fundamental differences from the typical industry business, but they benefit from strong and positive brand image. Academic reputation, an aspect of brand image, was found to be one of the most important determinants of university preference and the institution’s sustainability (Soutar & Turner, 2002; Barusman, 2013). Branding image has become an essential organizational aspect in today’s global marketplace, but higher education institutions still lack experience with branding and brand management (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2012; Pinar et al., 2014). Brand image is a function of marketing communication. Ottesen (2001) stated that marketing communication should remind the buyer that an option of goods or services exists and shows the way to these offerings. In essence, marketing communication is a process of sending out messages and making sure that they are received. Kapferer (2008) developed a model showing the company or organization as the sender and the customer as the receiver in the communication process. The model shows that “brand identity” is what the company sends out to the customers, and

15 “brand image” is the perception that customers create about the brand when they receive the communication. In other words, regardless of what the institution may be, or try to be (brand identity), its image is the sum of its students’ perceptions, inferences, and feelings towards the communication of the brand identity. Traditionally, a brand exhibited its value through building, land, tangible assets, etc. However, the actual value of a brand is more abstract, and it lies in the minds of customers (current or potential) who have an impression of, a preference towards, and/or loyalty to the brand (Kotler & Keller, 2006; Kapferer, 2008). In other words, the reputation of an organization is an essential aspect of its brand image. Data presented in the literature review indicated that institutional brand image impacted student loyalty, as it played a vital role in determining students’ perceptions of value and overall satisfaction with education institutions (Chitty & Soutar, 2004; Brown & Mazzarol, 2009). In a study done in Thailand, Agrey and Lampadan (2014) found that prospective university/college students considered an institution’s reputation when making a selection because it indicated a higher probability of being hired when they earned their degree. Their study pointed out that universities should continually establish and maintain a positive reputation to attract high school students looking to undertake further studies. Asia-Pacific International University stands on the legacy of Southeast Asia Union College (SAUC), the first Adventist College in Southeast Asia known for its quality international programs. SAUC moved to Thailand and became Mission College (MC), which then changed to Asia-Pacific International University (AIU) upon acquiring university status. The university is considered a union of three

16 former institutions: SAUC in Singapore, Bangkok Adventist Hospital School of Nursing, and MC. The reputation that AIU holds is built on the repute that SAUC and the Bangkok Adventist Hospital School of Nursing attained for the quality Adventist education they provided. The branding of AIU has changed significant since SAUC in the 1990s, but its identity holds true to its Adventist education values. Through the years, the logos of SAUC, Bangkok Adventist Hospital School of Nursing, MC, and AIU have always been “designed to graphically represent the values, purpose, and scope of the [institution] (Asia-Pacific International University, 2020a).” AIU recently has introduced an updated branding that includes a University seal, a University logo, and a wordmark. Even after a recent update to the university's branding, AIU still maintains the graphical representation of its values, purpose, and scope and actively reinforces its branding practices in marketing and advertising efforts. Institutional image has become a variable that affects students’ decisions, perception of brand value, satisfaction, and loyalty (Brown & Mazzarol, 2009; Valitov, 2014; Panda et al., 2018). Making the most of brand image through different branding strategies and campaigns can give institutions the competitive advantage they seek. Of course, the brand should not be limited to a logo, tagline, etc.; it should be a holistic process and strategy taking into consideration an institution’s best qualities. In addition to the graphic and visual identity of the University, AIU’s reputation and effective brand communication through marketing is also essential.

17 2.2.3 Strategic Alliance Formation In the industry, alliances are formed for some motive such as entry into new markets, increased value, expanding distribution, access to new technologies, knowledge and abilities, reduction of risk, and creation of new opportunities (Mockler & Tobin, 2001). In the education industry, alliances, or nonlegal Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), also known individually as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), are formed to achieve similar goals. Mazzarol and Soutar (2001) predicted that alliances among higher education institutions would increase to secure a competitive advantage in the future. Pekar and Allio (1994) defined industry alliances as co-operated non-equity ventures beyond familiar joint ventures that include non-equity arrangements. Contractor and Lorange (2002) defined strategic alliances as partnerships between two or more organizations that work together to reach a goal or strategic objective. These alliances may be in the form of vertical alliances (i.e., alliances between suppliers and customers in the value chain), horizontal alliances (i.e., alliances between organizations or competitors on the same level of the value chain), or cross-alliances (i.e., alliances between firms of different areas) (Plazibat & Filipovic, 2010). Depending on the agreement of the alliance, the partners could export education (teach their courses or move educational assets) at the premises of the partner institution, which may be situated internationally. Of course, alliances could also be between organizations in the industry. Mazarol and Soutar (2012) pointed out that universities looked to make industry partners to secure not only funding for research and teaching but also “industry expertise and opportunities to

18 provide career pathways for students.” These industry alliances will help institutions develop and deliver specialized courses to meet industry needs. An increasing number of researchers have encouraged the idea of higher education institutions forming partnerships with companies and other universities to adapt and thrive in the competitive landscape. The linking or collaboration of different organizations and their individual competencies can become the source of distinctive competencies (Schroeder et al., 2002). This potential for competitive advantage has become a powerful argument for seeking cross-boundary collaboration (Huxman & Vangen, 2005). A qualitative study of alliances formed by a Malaysian education provider, Sepang Institute of Technology (the child partner) and United Kingdom partners Huddersfield University Business School and Blackburn College (the parent partners), found that the alliance added value, new skills, and fresh experiences to Sepang Institute of Technology (Mansor, 2009). The data gathered in the study supported the notion that strategic alliances became an effective way to obtain competitive advantage when the alliance included knowledge transfer rather than simply being used for bragging rights in marketing material. AIU is part of the Seventh-day Adventist education system, the world's second-largest Christian school system (Kido, 2010), and is affiliated with institutions such as Southern Adventist University (USA), Walla Walla University (USA), La Sierra University (USA), and Avondale University College (Australia). Locally AIU is part of the International Institution Quality Assurance Network, which consists of Stamford International University, Rangsit University, Asia-Pacific International University, and St. Theresa International College. Members of the

19 International Institution Quality Assurance Network have an MOU that benefits students enrolled in the institutions involved. The various departments of AIU also communicate with local businesses to provide employment opportunities for new graduates. Institutional activities such as these demonstrate AIU’s attempts to form partnerships that benefit the institution and its students. 2.2.4 Forward Integration—Foreign Market Entry Strategy The global market of higher education has changed due to affordable travel options, the spread of information, and communication technologies, such as the internet, mobile devices, and personal computers. Near the beginning of 2017, the International Consultants for Education and Fairs reported that approximately five million tertiary students were studying abroad and forecasted that it would increase to eight million students by 2025 (International Consultants for Education and Fairs, 2016). The wider international pool of high-potential students provides higher education institutions with the opportunity to increase reputation and revenue (Hénard et al., 2012). Forward integration is the process of moving offshore into an export channel and can involve licensing, franchising, joint ventures, and management contracting strategies that usually involve an international alliance (Mazzarol et al., 2003). Moving into an export channel is a logical next step after direct export of education (via strategic alliances or distance or distance learning, for example). In the context of institutions in the education industry, exporting education comes in the form of “students traveling from the source to host countries” (Mazzarol et al., 2003) and distance learning or e-learning (Carrington et al., 2007; Healey, 2008). There are

20 six fundamental strategies for service enterprises to enter into a foreign market: direct export, licensing, franchising, joint ventures, acquisitions, and management contracting (Cowell, 1984). In the education industry, education providers can move forward into a new market by developing twinning programs with a partner. The American International Health Alliance (2018) defines twinning as a “development model that uses institution-to-institution partnerships and peer relationships to benefit both sides.” Twin programs entail that students, depending on the type of program, will initially attend a local partner’s institution and study the curriculum supplied and, in some cases, are taught by the staff from the overseas school before moving to the international partner to finish the curriculum (Prystay, 1996). Typical programs are known as 2+1, 3+1, or 3+0, where the numbers indicate how many years a student studies in the local institution before moving to the partner’s institution to complete the curriculum. Such programs appeal to students who want to earn an international degree without the added cost of moving to and living in a foreign country. Nevertheless, among students and parents sending their children to study, there is also the argument that simply enrolling in a better local institution can be as beneficial, if not more beneficial, than enrolling in a private university advertising the world-class programs with top international universities. Asia-Pacific International University makes efforts to be known outside of Thailand. As an international institution, AIU boasts having students coming from 33 different countries (Asia-Pacific Internaitonal University, 2020b). In Thailand, University representatives attend and present at university fairs. The university also does school visitations throughout the year. Internationally, AIU uses

21 advertising, alumni recruitment programs, and church community word-of-mouth marketing, among other marketing strategies. Additionally, AIU organizes and delivers cohort programs in surrounding countries. In such programs, the university sends its faculty to teach intensive courses. Moreover, through its academic affiliations with international universities, AIU also has academic programs that allow students to begin their curriculum in Thailand before moving to the partner’s location to complete their studies. Lee et al. (2013) found that the success of international ventures with other education providers depended on the “similarity between the corporate values and missions of the two partners.” Managers and administrators have to be deliberate and mindful of the institutions they work with to ensure the highest possibility of success and practicality. 2.2.5 Organizational expertise and quality of employees—Human Resources Management Education institutions are responsible for developing and training what is arguably the most crucial industry asset—skilled individuals ready to contribute to society. This emphasizes hiring the right people with the right skills and knowledge. Human resource management directly affects the quality and expertise of an organization’s employees—an intangible asset that is likely to produce competitive advantage. Human resource management practices are positively correlated with workplace performance (Bryson et al., 2020). The edge in knowledge, skills,

22 capabilities, and expertise that an organization’s employees have contributes to the organization’s ability to obtain competitive advantage and sustain success (Brewster et al., 2000; Khandekar & Sharma, 2005). Bartlett and Ghoshal (2002) emphasized that human capital, not financial capital, must be the starting point and ongoing foundation of any strategy created to build competitive advantage. Literature review shows The importance of hiring the right people has been shown as contributing significantly to an institution’s ability to compete effectively. Every institution is comprised of academic and non-academic staff. The two groups represent distinct social communities. The professional orientation and expertise in both groups are equally important. According to SzelągowskaRudzka (2017), the management of employee competencies manifests itself in the university's attractiveness as a place of study and work. Every employee, academic or non-academic, of an institution, their knowledge, skills, work, and commitment contribute to the institution's attractiveness and, therefore, success. Educators with industry experience differ from teachers without industry experience (Burns, 2012). It is no surprise that students benefit more from learning from experienced lecturers (Johan, 2015; Gasper & Lipinski, 2016; Lipinski & Kosicek, 2016). However, Lipinski and Kosicek (2016, p. 346) also pointed out that “even faculty who worked in the industry are often decades removed from those positions and the relevance of that experience diminishes rather quickly.” In studies by Osbaldeston and Barham (1992) and Swiercz and Spencer (1992) (as cited by Mazzarol & Soutar, 1999), human resources and personnel training, if managed correctly, can become a source of competitive advantage. As industries and economies evolve and change, the attention needed on

23 the continuous training and improvement of teachers' knowledge bases grows more significant (Brewer & Brewer, 2010; Anghel et al., 2015). Teachers and staff need to be deliberately trained and brought up-to-date on occasion to ensure they adapt to changes in the industry. The training of employees is an undertaking of the human resources department. AIU’s mission statement includes its goal to provide holistic education, which involve developing mental, physical, social, and spiritual health, intellectual growth, and service to humanity (Seventh-day Adventist Church, 2021). To maintain capable and qualified employees, the Human Resources Department takes careful considerations in employing the right people for the right jobs. AIU also organizes workshops, conferences, an annual colloquium to train its employees (academic and non-academic) and keep them updated on topics in the industry. As of 2020, AIU claims it have hired 96 faculty with advanced degrees to ensure its students get the best education (Asia-Pacific International University, 2020b). In this study no attempt has been made to measure the level of competence or quality of AIU employees. The emphasis was directed to the students’ perception of organizational expertise to the extent they could observe it. Students are, after all, the customer in the education industry, and they may experience and perceive things differently as the receiver of the service.

24 2.2.6 Organizational Culture Every institution has its own unique organizational culture. The concept of organizational culture (also known as corporate culture) has become widely recognized as a critical component in corporate strategy. Some formal definitions of organizational include: “the philosophy that guides an organization’s policy toward employees and customers” (Pascale & Athos, 1981), “the collective thoughts, habits, attitudes, feelings, and patterns of behavior” (Clemente & Greenspan,1999), and “the pattern of arrangement, material or behavior which has been adopted by a society (corporation, group, or team) as the accepted way of solving problems” (Ahmed et al., 1999). It has been found that organizational cultures have positive or negative implications to an organization, and organizations that maintain strong, positive cultures and values are likely able to gain benefits and advantages (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Sadri & Lees, 2001). The literature review of Fard et al. (2009) showed studies that established the impact of organizational culture on multiple variables of an organization—i.e., job satisfaction, individual learning, organizational effectiveness, leadership, organizational problem-solving, organizational commitment, organizational performance, Total Quality Management communication, and information. Organizational culture clearly affects the quality and performance of many facets of an organization. The wisdom gained from literature reviews also indicates that organizational culture is synonymous with organizational climate, which implies that organizational culture consists of visible and invisible parts. Visible elements include “communication styles, performance measurement practices, decision-making

25 process, problem-solving, as well as artifacts such as physical equipment, attire, use of jargon, logos, and title, etc.,” and invisible elements include “basic assumptions, systems of unconscious values and belief, core organizational value, and conscious values” (Sirikrai, 2006). Because organizational culture is the “personality”—a combination of characteristics, qualities, and dispositions—it affects unity and ability to change and innovate. Several studies in education have indicated that there is a significant positive relationship between school culture and students’ academic achievements and learning (Glusac et al., 2015; Pervez et al., 2017; Melesse & Molla, 2018). Motivation (of both students and teachers), teacher job satisfaction, commitment, collaboration, and school community building have also been observed to be positively affected by a positive school culture (Kythreotis et al., 2010). Asia-Pacific International University is a multicultural Adventist community of students, faculty, and staff. As an organization, AIU is faithful to the Seventh-day Adventist education philosophy and the Adventist education system, which is “about teaching [how to achieve] a whole and complete life, for a lifetime” (Seventh-day Adventist Church, 2021). This shows it has a mission as an organization. The organization is focused on teaching and developing individuals who are spiritually, physically, intellectually, and social-emotionally (holistically) equipped. Being a faith-based institution, a majority of faculty and 52% of the student are Seventh-day Adventists. Many university community members share the same religion and therefore share beliefs and values that manifest themselves in the institution’s culture. Much focus is placed on cultivating every aspect of the students’

26 lives, bringing them closer to what God originally planned for them to have and to be (Seventh-day Adventist Church, 2021). 2.2.7 Effective use of Technology Information technology has become more significant in the past few decades. Innovations like the Internet have changed every industry's landscape by making the transfer and sharing of information almost instantaneous. The Internet and personal devices, which can tap on to the Internet (i.e., personal computers, laptops, cellphones, etc.), have become accessible to many businesses. Being connected to the Internet or owning a device that utilizes it is not a source of competitive advantage. Traditionally, businesses used computers as individual units for independent applications such as sales, inventory management, and payroll. Today, managers look to integrate these tasks to achieve greater efficiency and performance in processes involved in sales, logistics, and other financial matters (Coveney et al., as cited in Goldberg & Godwin, 2004, p. 85). Creating an information technology infrastructure, that unifies a firm with its suppliers and customers, has become a significant factor in sustaining competitive advantage (Wong & Yung, 2005). At face value, it may seem like technology is difficult to imitate because organizations need to have the finances to buy the latest piece of technology (Widiati & Sefudin, 2019). The effective management of technology, not the capabilities of independent technologies, is still less imitable and is more likely to become a competitive advantage (Kak & Sushil, 2002; Liang et al., 2010). The case is the same in the education industry.

27 Effective use of the available technologies (i.e., personal computers, the Internet, e-books, etc.) becomes a possible source of competitive advantage for education institutions. Internet and electronic media make it possible to promote and deliver education services to international markets (Mazzarol et al., 1998). Research suggests that virtual universities have gained attraction, and technology promotes students’ active learning. However, fewer students complete online courses (compared to students of conventional institutions), and the use of technology in classes is only positive if there is a systematic, multi-level institutional effort (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2012; Ghavifekr & Rosdy, 2015; Lillejord et al., 2018). Additionally, the “lack of computer understanding and skills of educators and students, absence of training and progress on technology and absence of actual technology planning” makes it difficult for institutions, especially ones in emerging economies, to make the most of IT (Hussain et al., 2018). Asia-Pacific International University stays up to date with IT equipment (for students, faculty, and staff) and implements new technologies to help faculty deliver lessons and material more effectively. Student identification card scanning is utilized to make payments, check-outs, and item borrowing more efficient. The System for Administration, Reports, Requests and Academics was also developed as a system where students obtain and query reports, academic information, and announcements. After the emergence of Coronavirus pandemic in 2019 , technology has become a more critical part of the education landscape worldwide. The University IT Department has ensured that the wireless networks (Wi-Fi) speeds are reliable and can support the online classrooms that many have been forced to move to. Desktop

28 computers available for students to use in the IT labs and University library have also been kept up to standards for the new online education environment that students and teachers find themselves in. Teachers and office staff have been introduced to online solutions for processes that can no longer happen due to social distancing protocols. With the move to online learning, AIU provided its faculty and students with Microsoft 365 services, which gives them access to tools such as Microsoft Teams, Microsoft OneDrive, and Microsoft Office. These online applications, among many others, make it easier for teachers and students to meet online, collaborate, and share files and information online. The potential benefits of effectively using information technology are clear in terms of academics and marketing. However, this is only achievable through hard work and careful management: Technology implementation in higher education intuitions [must be] aligned with goals for teaching and research. This work needs leadership and can only be achieved through a collaborative effort. (Lillejord et al., 2018, pp. 58) 2.2.8 Student Satisfaction Mittal and Frennea (2010) defined customer satisfaction as “customer’s post-consumption evaluation of a product or service.” Gerson (1993), Oliver (1996), and Vavra (1997) explained that satisfaction is a measure of how a product or service fulfills customer expectations. Generally, the most popular definitions of customer satisfaction are based on products and services meeting customers’ expectations.

29 Higher education students are the recipients of the service an institution provides and are considered the primary customer of a university (Crawford, 1991). Education institutions seek their students’ opinions about all aspects of academic life, typically through satisfaction feedback questionnaires. Student feedback also allows institutions to measure and self-evaluate marketplace performance (Rowley, 2003). Student satisfaction can be measured by looking into the students’ perceptions of the various parts of the University service-product bundle. This bundle of goods and services refers to institutions' goods and services to their students. The three elements of an institution’s service-product bundle include physical or facilitating goods, sensual service provided (the explicit service), and psychological service (the implicit service) (Douglas et al., 2006). Physical or facilitating goods include lectures and tutorials, supplementary documents/materials (i.e., presentations, slides, and handouts), and all physical facilities (i.e., lecture rooms, including their level of furnishing, catering, and recreational accommodation). Explicit services include the knowledge level of staff, lecturers’ teaching ability, and teaching quality (of all teaching personnel). Implicit services include friendliness and approachability of employees (i.e., concern shown if the student has a problem, respect for feelings and opinions), overall capability and competence of staff, and competence, confidence, and professionalism conveyed by the overall environment (Douglas et al., 2006). The strength of the customer satisfaction-marketplace performance association varies by industry (Anderson et al., 2004), but there is evidence that customer satisfaction relates to its performance (Mittal & Frennea, 2010). Park (2019)

30 found a significant relationship between overall satisfaction and the intention to reuse the service. In other words, customer loyalty is a likely outcome of satisfied customers. Moreover, any business is likely to lose market share, customers and investors if it fails to satisfy customers as effectively and efficiently as its competitors (Anderson et al., 2004). However, Yeung and Ennew (2000) argued that while satisfaction does have a positive financial impact, the direct financial effects are generally minor. In this research the relationship was investigated between the perceived distinctive competencies of AIU and the level of student satisfaction and the use to which the level of student satisfaction could be used as a potential indicator of market success. 2.3 Objectives of the Research Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) proposed that distinctive competencies led to market success by leveraging strategies that became competitive advantages in the industry. In the present study an attempt was made to understand the model that Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) proposed. The main objective of the research was to study the relationship between distinctive competencies and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction has been shown to positively affect market success. In the present study, an examination of Mazzarol and Soutar’s (1999) model was instituted for its applicability to educational institutions. The aim of the research was to analyze the relationship, if any, between distinctive competencies and different demographic groups of the target population.

31 The relationship was also investigated between distinctive competencies and student satisfaction, a contributing factor to market success. The descriptive information derived from this research will help administrators carry on an informed discussion about distinctive competencies that could be included in discussions of marketing strategies to promote education industry success. 2.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses A review of the literature showed that developing on distinctive competencies, which are often core competencies that customers perceive to be distinguishing, is a sustainable plan for success (Bogner & Thomas, 1994; McGee & Petterson, 2000). Insights into distinctive competencies of any education institution helps administrators assess operations and make plans for improvement. Such insights also reveal marketing opportunities. Management teams should consider organizational competencies that set them apart from the competition because distinctive competencies are a factor that contributes to sustained performance (Eden & Ackermann, 2010). The following were the Research Questions and Working Hypotheses: 2.4.1 Research Questions Q1: What differences in distinctive competencies of AIU are perceived by students with different demographic characteristics (year of study, religion, gender, region of origin, program of study)?

32 Q2: What relationship (if any) exists between perceived distinctive competencies and the level of student satisfaction in AIU? 2.4.2 Working Hypotheses H1:0: No significant differences in distinctive AIU competencies are perceived by students with different demographic characteristics. H1:1: Significant differences in distinctive competencies of AIU are perceived by students with different demographic characteristics (H1:1a: year of study; H1:1b: religion; H1:1c: gender; H1:1d: region of origin; and H1:1e: program of study). H2:0: There is no significant relationship between AIU’s perceived distinctive competencies and the level of student satisfaction. H2:1: There is a significant positive relationship between AIU’s perceived distinctive competencies and the level of student satisfaction (H2:1a: dimensions of distinctive competency and H2:1b: overall distinctive competencies). 2.5 Conceptual Framework DEMOGRAPHICS Year of Study Religion Gender Region of Origin Program of Study PERCEIVED DISTINCTIVE COMPETENCIES Brand Image Strategic Alliance Formation Forward Integration Human Resource Management Organizational Culture Effective use of IT STUDENT SATISFACTION

33 2.6 Summary In this chapter a review of the literature was completed that covered the distinctive competency strategies (brand image, strategic alliance formation, forward integration, human resource management, organizational culture, and effective use of IT) and customer satisfaction (i.e., student satisfaction). Then the objectives, research questions, and hypotheses were presented. Finally, a conceptual framework was presented to enable visualization of the connection among the different concepts.

34 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction In this chapter the research methodology is given, the type and number of respondents surveyed, the research instrument used in the study, data collection, and the statistical analysis of the data. 3.2 Methodology This study was descriptive in nature. The aim was to accurately and systematically describe, for the benefit of administrators, what perceptions exist in a population and not why they exist. The survey created for this study provided data on the perceptions of AIU's distinctive competencies, which will provide valuable information contributing to the research questions of this study. The researcher assumed that the survey of distinctive competencies would provide the following relevant information for administrators: Descriptive information of what students (currently studying students and alumni) perceived to be the distinctive competencies of AIU. This information is valuable because it may reveal potential marketing strategies that administrators can execute. Descriptive information which may show the outcomes of previous marketing campaigns (external marketing, foreign market entry, and internal marketing). This is valuable information because it will provide administrators with feedback on strategies that have been

35 executed in the past. With this information, administrators can decide to make adjustments to marketing strategies in place. The conceptual framework for this study was derived from “Sustainable competitive advantage for educational institutions: a suggested model” by Mazzarol and Soutar (1999), and the instrument used was designed for the educational context of this study. 3.3 Population and Sample Size The survey population for this study refers to current students and alumni of AIU. The researcher estimated an average of 150 students graduated from the university each year over the past 10 years. With 1,000 current students, the population for this study was estimated at 2,500 people. The researcher utilized the Population Proportion—Sample Size method to calculate the sample size appropriate for the research (Israel, 2003). Based on the formula with an error of 5%, a confidence coefficient of 95%, and a sample proportion of 25% (Daniel, 1999), the sample size for this study was calculated to be 259 (see below for the formula utilized). After distributing the online version of the interview (via departmental social media groups, mass email, group chats, and personal communication on Facebook), the final number of responses was 260. In the calculation alluded to above the following formula was used to calculate the sample size : = × + − 1 where,

36 = ( 2 ⁄ ) 2 (1 − ) 2 MOE is margin of error or error level, 2 ⁄ is the critical value of the normal distribution at α/2 (e.g., for a confidence level of 95%, α is 0.05 and the critical value is 1.96), is the sample proportion, is the population size, is a sample size. Note that a Finite Population Correction was applied to the sample size formula. 3.4 Instrument The Quantitative Research Method was used to gather the data needed for this descriptive research, where questions were developed based on the six distinctive competencies and their literature review. These questions were adapted for physical, printed-out forms and online surveys, using Microsoft 365 forms. The final questionnaire included two sections. In the first section, respondents provided information about demographic characteristics. In the second section, respondents were asked to rate different possible distinctive competencies of AIU and state the level of satisfaction with specified services of the University. The survey included a total of 38 question items, and it was estimated that respondents would need 5–10 minutes to answer all questions. Because the study population included Thai and English speakers, the survey was made available in English and Thai. The Thai version was translated with the help of a freelance translator and then verified by the research advisor. At distribution, the respondents could choose between the two languages on the landing page of the online questionnaire.

37 3.5 Quality of Research Instrument Validity. To ensure the validity of the research instrument, the researcher took the following steps. First, the survey was presented to the AIU MBA Program Committee for any suggestions for improvement. Secondly, upon receiving comments and recommendations, the questionnaire was corrected and adjusted based on the feedback. Thirdly, the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) was then used to find the content validity. This process involved four individuals (see Appendix B). The IOC was used to evaluate the items of the questionnaire based on the score range from -1 to +1 (Congruent = + 1; Questionable = 0; Incongruent = -1). Items with average scores lower than .5 were revised; items that scored higher than or equal to .5 were reserved. Reliability. The questionnaire's reliability was also determined to ensure that the responses collected through the instrument yielded consistent outcomes (see Appendix C). The questionnaire was tested with 20 students (10 current students, 10 alumni) that were not in the sample group. All items scored greater than the benchmark of .70, which is adequate (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). After further review and suggestions, the final section of the questionnaire was changed to assess the level of Student Satisfaction with Overall Physical and Facilitating Goods, Overall Explicit Service (sensual service provided), and Overall Implicit Service (psychological service). The level of student satisfaction is then used to suggest that market success had been attained or was attainable by the institution.

38 3.6 Likert Scale Cut-Off Points A five-point Likert Scale was used to record scoring on the survey. The five-point Likert scales were as follows: Strongly Agree/Very satisfied 5 points Agree/Satisfied 4 points Neutral/Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 3 points Disagree/Dissatisfied 2 points Strongly Disagree/Very dissatisfied 1 point Cut-off points were used to determine the range of each response category. The cut-off points for each range are calculated using the Class Interval Formula: = ℎ − The highest value was 5, the lowest 1, and the number of classes 5; therefore, the class interval was 0.8. The cut-off points and their interpretation were as follows: 1.00 and 1.80 were the cut-off points on the five-point Likert scale that represented Strongly Disagree/Very dissatisfied, which was interpreted as a very low-positive perception of the six distinctive competencies/the level of student satisfaction in AIU. 1.81 and 2.60 were the cut-off points on the five-point Likert scale that represented Disagree/dissatisfied, which was interpreted as a slightly low-positive perception of the six distinctive competencies/level of student satisfaction in AIU.

39 2.61 and 3.40 were the cut-off points on the five-point Likert scale that represented Neutral/Neither satisfied or dissatisfied, which was interpreted as a neutral-positive perception of the six distinctive competencies/level of student satisfaction in AIU. 3.41 and 4.20 were the cut-off points on the five-point Likert scale that represented Agree/Satisfied, which was interpreted as a high-positive perception of the six distinctive competencies/level of student satisfaction in AIU. 4.21 and 5.00 were the cut-off points on the five-point Likert scale that represented Strongly Agree/Very satisfied, which was interpreted as a very high-positive perception of the six distinctive competencies/level of student satisfaction in AIU. 3.7 Distinctive Competencies The distinctive competencies selected for this study were the following: A. Brand Image B. Strategic Alliance Formation C. Forward Integration (Foreign Market Entry) D. Organizational Expertise and Quality of Employees (Human Resource Management) E. Organizational Culture F. Effective Use of Information Technology This list of distinctive competencies originated from a study by Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) that assessed a suggested model for sustainable competitive