40 advantages for education institutions. 3.8 Student Satisfaction Student satisfaction is a factor that contributes to market success. Because market success, gained through competitive advantage, cannot be directly calculated by standard measure metrics, the researcher measured student satisfaction as a contributing factor of marketplace performance (Bharadwaj et al., 1993; Ballard, 2013). In this research student satisfaction was measured with the service-product bundle that universities offer. The bundle of goods and services refers to the inseparable offering of many goods and services that institutions offer to their students. The three elements of an institution’s service-product bundle includes physical or facilitating goods, sensual services provided (the explicit service), and psychological service (the implicit service) (Douglas et al., 2006). 3.9 Data Collection Before gathering data, the research proposal and IRB request were approved by the MBA program committee. The researcher then requested permission from the AIU Research Committee to distribute the survey to AIU’s students. After receiving the appropriate permissions, the researcher communicated with the different department Deans of AIU to request the departments’ help to distribute the questionnaire via social media groups, mass email, departmental group chats, etc. These departmental group chats, email blasts, and chats included active students and alumni of the department. The researcher also communicated, via Facebook, with
41 various members of the AIU/MC Alumni Facebook Group to acquire alumni responses. 3.10 Statistical Treatment All collected data from the responses were tabulated into a spreadsheet and then exported into SPSS software for analyses. The responses were grouped according to Student/Alumni Status (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Alumnus—graduate between 2015 and 2020), Alumnus—graduated before 2015)), Program of Study (Faculty of Arts & Humanities, Faculty of Business Administration, Faculty of Education, Faculty of Information Technology, Mission Faculty of Nursing, Faculty of Religious Studies, Faculty of Science), Religion (Seventh-Day Adventist, Other Christian, Buddhist, No Religion, Other—Muslim, Hindu, etc.), Gender (Male, Female), Locale/Region of Origin (Northern Asia (e.g., Japan, Korea, China, etc.), Southeast Asia (ASEAN countries), Other Asia, Africa, America, Europe, Australia). The collected data was analyzed descriptively. The means and standard deviations for the variables, as well as for individual survey items, were derived from the observed data. Differences across various demographic groups on each variable were analyzed by t-test and one way ANOVA. For differences involving ANOVA, Scheffe’s posthoc test was conducted to determine where the difference was explicit. Pearson’s correlation was calculated for the relationship between market success and distinctive competencies. Lastly, multiple regression was used to determine the association between distinctive competencies and market success.
42 3.11 Ethical Considerations Researchers designing and conducting studies using human data need to consider the values and principles of ethical conduct. The research questionnaire did not collect personal data, which enabled the identification of a person to be determined. This study was conducted according to the guidelines of AIU’s IRB and the MBA Research Committee. These research committees typically evaluate the ethical acceptability of research proposals. To collect the needed data, the researcher ensured that research participants were not be subjected to harm, their dignity was respected, privacy was protected, an adequate level of confidentiality of the research data was guaranteed, and no deception or exaggeration about the aims and objectives of the research occurred. 3.12 Summary In this chapter explanations of the research methodology, population, sample size, and instrument were included. A justification of the quality of the research instrument was also provided and broken down. The different distinctive competencies and student satisfaction measures were explained before the data collection, and the details of statistical treatment were given. Finally, the ethical considerations taken during the research were explained.
43 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.1 Introduction This chapter will present the results of the study. The chapter includes descriptive analysis summarizing the gathered sample information (frequency and percentage of the study participants, mean and standard deviation of the predictor and criterion variables) and data analysis used to answer the research questions and hypotheses. The data analysis section includes One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), T-test, Pearson correlation, and Multiple Regression. Finally, a summary of hypotheses testing is provided. 4.2 Descriptive Analysis In this section summaries are provided of the frequency of the study participants and means and standard deviations of the predictor and criterion variables. 4.2.1 Demographic Information The personal information retrieved from the sample comprises student and alumni data of AIU regarding their role at the university, their region of origin, program of study, religion, and gender. This information is shown in Table 1.
44 Table 1 Demographic Information (N = 260) Table 1 shows that a majority of participants were junior students and most respondents were students from the Mission Faculty of Nursing. A greater number of the respondents were Seventh-day Adventists, followed by Buddhists. Most participants were female. A larger part of the respondents was from Southeast Asia countries. Demographic Frequency Percentage Year of study/Role 17 6.5 Freshman 59 22.7 Sophomore 25 9.6 Junior 107 41.2 Senior 39 15.0 Alumni (Graduated between 2020–2015) 13 5.0 Alumni (Graduated before 2015) 17 6.5 Program of Study Faculty of Arts & Humanities 18 6.9 Faculty of Business Administration 33 12.7 Faculty of Education 16 6.2 Faculty of Information Technology 7 2.7 Mission Faculty of Nursing 137 52.7 Faculty of Religious Studies 24 9.2 Faculty of Science 25 9.6 Religion Seventh-day Adventist 140 53.8 Other Christian 8 3.1 Buddhist 108 41.5 No religion 4 1.5 Gender Male 72 27.7 Female 188 72.3 Region of origin Northern Asia (e.g. Japan, Korea, China) 12 4.6 Southeast Asia (ASEAN countries) 204 78.5 Other Asia 34 13.1 Other Continent 10 3.8
45 4.2.2 Distinctive Competencies of Asia-Pacific International University The mean and standard deviation values were adopted to assess the level of distinctive competencies of AIU. Table 2 shows the descriptive analysis of the level of distinctive competencies. Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviation of Distinctive Competencies Distinctive Competencies Variable Mean SD Level Brand Image 3.81 .64 High Partnerships (Alliance Formation) 3.69 .66 High Foreign Market Entry Strategy—Forward Integration 3.83 .62 High Organizational Expertise Quality of Employees 3.99 .57 High Organizational Culture 3.87 .63 High Effective use of Information Technology 3.98 .61 High Overall Distinctive Competencies 3.95 .59 High The analysis showed that the level of overall distinctive competencies of AIU was at all levels. Organizational expertise/quality of employees was the highest scored distinctive competency, followed by effective use of information technology, organizational culture, and foreign market entry strategy. Partnerships or alliance formation had the lowest distinctive competencies level. 4.2.3 Student Satisfaction Mean and the standard deviation was adopted to assess the student satisfaction level of AIU. This student satisfaction serves as a benchmark of market success and marketplace performance. The descriptive analysis of the student satisfaction level is shown in Table 3.
46 Table 3 Mean and Standard Deviation of Student Satisfaction Student Satisfaction Variable Mean SD Level Physical & Facilitating Goods 3.90 .65 High Explicit Service (sensual service provided) 4.07 .60 High Implicit Service (psychological service) 4.09 .64 High Overall Student Satisfaction 4.03 .64 High As shown in Table 3, the overall student satisfaction level at AIU was high. All sub-dimensions of student satisfaction also were at high levels. The implicit service, which relates to the satisfaction in the psychological service, was the highest student satisfaction, followed by explicit service, which pertains to the satisfaction in the sensual service provided, and satisfaction in physical and facilitating goods. 4.3 Hypothesis Testing: Analysis of Demographic Factors toward Distinctive Competencies This section presents the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and ttest analysis of the demographic factors and distinctive competencies. The main purpose of the analyses is to investigate if the difference in demographic of the respondents will result in the different level of overall distinctive competencies. 4.3.1 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Year of Study The results of ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference in the distinctive competencies among students with a different year of study or role (p < .05). The data are given in Table 4.
47 Table 4 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Year of Study Effect SS df MS F p Between Groups 6.001 5 1.200 3.601 .004** Within Groups 84.648 254 .333 Total 90.649 259 Note ** p .01; * p .05 The distinctive competencies was further tested with Scheffe’s method (see Table 5) to determine which mean scores for the year of study or role were significantly different from the others. Statistically significant differences were found for sophomore students and senior students. Senior students scored AIU’s distinctive competencies higher than sophomore students. Table 5 Post hoc Comparisons of Year of Study/ Role Year of study/Role Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 4.03 3.70 4.02 4.08 3.90 4.00 1. Freshman 4.03 0.33 0.01 -0.05 0.13 0.03 2. Sophomore 3.70 -0.33 -0.38* -.020 -0.31 3. Junior 4.02 -0.06 0.12 0.02 4. Senior 4.08 0.18 0.08 5. Alumni (Graduated between 2020-2015) 3.90 -0.10 6. Alumni (Graduated before 2015) 4.00 Note. ** p .01; * p .05 4.3.2 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Program of Study The results of ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in the distinctive competencies among students with a different program of study (p > 0.05). Table 6 shows the results.
48 Table 6 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Program of Study Effect SS df MS F p Between Groups 3.239 6 .540 1.563 .158 Within Groups 87.410 253 .345 Total 90.649 259 Note. ** p .01; * p .05 4.3.3 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Religion The results of ANOVA) showed no statistically significant difference in the distinctive competencies among students with a different religion (p > .05) as shown in Table 7. Table 7 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Religion Effect SS df MS F p Between Groups 1.699 3 .566 1.630 .183 Within Groups 88.950 256 .347 Total 90.649 259 Note. ** p .01; * p .05 4.3.4 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Region of Origin The results of ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in the distinctive competencies among students with a different region of origin (p > 0.05) as shown in Table 8. Table 8 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Region of Origin Effect SS df MS F p Between Groups .370 3 .123 .349 .790 Within Groups 90.279 256 .353 Total 90.649 259 Note. ** p .01; * p .05
49 4.3.5 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Gender The results of the independent sample t-test showed no statistically significant difference in the distinctive competencies among students with different gender (p > 0.05) as shown in Table 9. Table 9 Distinctive Competencies Compared by Gender Effect Male Female t p Mean SD Mean SD Distinctive Competencies 3.854 .679 3.989 .552 1.654 .099 Note. ** p .01; * p .05 4.4 Hypothesis Testing: Analysis of Relation between Distinctive Competencies and Student Satisfaction The analysis has the purpose of testing hypothesis 2. The researchers regressed AIU Students’ level of satisfaction from both the dimensions and overall distinctive competency. The correlation matrix (Table 10) showed that all variables were associated with each other. The relationship between student satisfaction and foreign market entry strategy was not as strong as the other correlations.
50 Table 10 Correlation matrix for Student Satisfaction and related variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Student Satisfaction 1.000 2. Brand Image .529** 1.000 3. Partnerships .500** .704** 1.000 4. Foreign Market Entry Strategy .499** .663** .753** 1.000 5. Organizational Expertise / Quality of Employees 613** .571** 672** .580** 1.000 6. Organizational Culture .572** .610** .672** 579** .620** 1.000 7. Effective use of Information Technology .593** .545** .611** .588** .572** 593** 1.000 Note. ** p .01; * p .05 As shown in Table 11, dimensions of distinctive competency, including brand image, partnerships, foreign market entry strategy, organizational expertise/quality of employees, organizational culture, and effective use of information technology, positively affected student satisfaction. The highest predictor is organizational expertise/quality of employees (.699) and the lowest predictor was partnerships (.490). However, the multiple regression analysis (Table 11) showed a different result. Partnership and foreign market entry strategy did not affect the satisfaction of students. Nevertheless, from the individual dimension, hypothesis 2a was supported. The dimensions of AIU’s distinctive competency positively affected student satisfaction in AIU.
51 Table 11 Regression results of Dimensions of Distinctive Competency as predictors of Student Satisfaction DV: Student Satisfaction Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Brand Image .537* * .170* Partnerships .490** -.145 Foreign Market Entry Strategy .523** .084 Organizational Expertise / Quality of Employees .699** .340** Organizational Culture .586** .194** Effective use of Information Technology .626** .245** R 2 .280 .250 .249 .376 .327 .352 .484 Adjusted R2 .277 .247 .246 .373 .324 .349 .472 F 100.4 37** 86.157 ** 85.698 ** 155.25 2** 125.29 0** 139.97 5** 39.521 ** Note. ** p .01; * p .05 As shown in table 12, AIU’s overall distinctive competency positively affected student satisfaction. Therefore, hypothesis 2b was supported. Table 12 Regression results of Overall Distinctive Competency as predictors of Student Satisfaction Variables Student Satisfaction Distinctive Competency .650** R 2 .356 Adjusted R 2 .354 F 142.748** Note: ** p .01; * p .05
52 4.5 Summary of the Hypothesis Testing The analyses showed support for all of the hypotheses. A summary of results of the hypotheses testing is given in Table 13. Table 13 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis Description Result H1:0 No significant differences in distinctive competencies of AIU are perceived by students with different demographic characteristics (H1a: year of study; H1b: religion; H1c: gender; H1d: region of origin; H1e: program of study). Not Supported H1:1a** A significant difference in distinctive competency levels is perceived by AIU students with differences in year of study. Supported H1:1b A significant difference in distinctive competency levels is perceived by AIU students with differences in religion. Not Supported H1:1c A significant difference in distinctive competency levels is perceived by AIU students with differences in gender. Not Supported H1:1d A significant difference in distinctive competency levels is perceived by AIU students with differences in region of origin. Not Supported H1:1e A significant difference in distinctive competency levels is perceived by AIU’s students with differences in the program of study. Not Supported H2:0 There is no significant relationship between AIU’s perceived distinctive competencies and the level of student satisfaction (H2a: dimensions of distinctive competency; H2b: overall distinctive competencies). Not Supported H2:1a** AIU’s dimensions of distinctive competency are positively related to AIU students’ level of satisfaction. Supported H2:1b** AIU’s overall distinctive competency is positively related to AIU students’ level of satisfaction. Supported Note. ** p <0 .01, * p < 0.05
53 4.6 Summary In this chapter the results of descriptive analysis and hypothesis testing were reported. Concerning the first hypothesis, there was a significant difference in distinctive competency levels among AIU’s students with differences in year of study. However, there was no statistically significant difference in distinctive competency levels among AIU’s students with differences in other demographic characteristics, including religion, gender, region of origin, and the program of study. For the second hypothesis, both the dimensions and overall distinctive competency were positively related to the level of student satisfaction. In the next chapter the conclusions, discussion, managerial implications, and recommendations for future study will be presented.
54 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Introduction A summary of the findings in the analyses conducted in Chapter 4 will be presented followed by an interpretation of the findings and the managerial implications of the results. Finally, the research limitations are identified and recommendations are made for future research directions, followed by a research conclusion. 5.2 Summary of Findings and Discussion 5.2.1 Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1:1 of this research indicated that significant differences were anticipated in distinctive competency levels among AIU’s students with differences in demographic characteristics (H1:1a: year of study; H1:1b: religion; H1:1c: gender; H1:1d: region of origin; H1:1e: program of study). After analyzing demographic factors towards distinctive competencies, only H1:1a was supported; there was a significant difference in distinctive competency levels among AIU’s students with differences in the year of study. Statistically significant differences were found between sophomore students and senior students. The analysis results show that students in different year of study have different perceptions towards AIU’s distinctive competencies. Senior students scored AIU’s distinctive competencies higher than sophomore students. This indicates that senior students perceived the distinctive competency strategies executed by the University. The results suggest that over time the students were more aware of the
55 strategies utilized by AIU. The findings imply that it takes time for students to become aware of the competencies that AIU does well. It may be the case that after four years of studying in AIU, senior students have more experience and are better able to reflect on their observations through the years. Comparably, the first two years may not be adequate time for a majority of students to recognize the competencies that are distinct to AIU. However, based on this conclusion—that more time affects the perception of distinctive competencies—, a more significant difference is to be expected from alumni, but the disparity was not a significant one. Descriptive analysis of the distinctive competencies showed that the level of overall distinctive competencies of AIU was high. So, despite the significant difference in perception between senior and sophomore students, all students and alumni had a high-positive perception of the six distinctive competencies. 5.2.2 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2:1 stated that AIU’s distinctive competency was expected to be positively related to the level of student satisfaction at AIU (H2:1a: dimensions of distinctive competency; H2:1b: overall distinctive competency). Upon analysis, the data supported the assumption that the individual dimensions of distinctive competency (H2:1a) and overall distinctive competency (H2:1b) positively affected student satisfaction. These findings are in line with those of researchers such as Mazzarol and Soutar (1999), who developed a model for sustainable competitive advantage for higher education institutions, which proposed that educational institutions can achieve competitive advantage by creating or enhancing several distinctive competencies.
56 As a result of the data obtained in this research, it is suggested that developing and continued utilization of brand image, strategic alliance formation, forward integration, human resource management, organizational culture, and effective use of IT will positively affect student satisfaction and potentially AIU’s market success. 5.3 Managerial implications The research findings were taken to imply that it takes time for students to observe or come to a realization of the distinctive competencies that AIU uses. The significant difference between sophomore and senior students showed that only later in their course of study do students become aware of AIU’s distinctive competencies. Managers may wish to employ approaches that are more visible so that students perceive distinctive competencies sooner than later. The marketing department will need to develop advertising content that reminds and maybe convinces its students of the strategy and direction administrators have chosen. Forward integration (the university’s foreign market entry strategy) does not affect the experience of already enrolled students. However, other distinctive competencies (i.e., brand image, partnerships, quality of employees, organizational culture, and effective use of IT) strategies impacts the students' overall experience in the university. The sooner students realize that they have enrolled in an institution that can put these strategies into effect, the likelihood of sharing their suboptimal experience is also reduced. Students will spend more time satisfied with the AIU’s services and presumptively tell people in their social circle about the university that they enrolled in.
57 The findings also show that administrators and managers also need to consider new marketing strategies that advertise the distinctive competencies more effectively, so there is no delay in students’ perception. Innovative internal marketing and brand awareness campaigns can affect the emotional connection students and employees have with the institution. Incorporating marketing messages into students’ everyday experiences ensures that students are more aware of the University's marketing strategies. The correlation matrix (Table 10) showed that all variables are associated with each other. However, the relationship between student satisfaction and foreign market entry strategy is not as strong as the other correlations. Administrators can begin by communicating to students the approaches they take to reach out internationally. 5.4 Suggestions and Recommendations for Future Research This research used a list of distinctive competencies developed by Mazzarol and Soutar (1999) for education institutions in a very general context. Future research should include customized distinctive competencies that stem from an individual institution or a group of institutions. Large-scale survey distribution and data collection will also yield a clearer picture of the findings and analysis. While the analysis indicated that students are more aware of the university's distinctive competency strategies as time goes on, the significant difference is only evident between sophomore students and senior students. If time and experience with the institution truly affect student perception, one would assume alumni would score the university distinctive competencies higher than any currently studying student group. Perhaps the lack of significant difference in distinctive competency levels can be
58 attributed to alumni being more exposed to other institutions and education services only after graduating and joining a workforce. Future research can consider this and further explore, in detail, the factors that affect students’ perception. The use of a case study approach, designed to explore different types of institutions in the education market, would also be a benefit in future research. Furthermore, future research can include a more elaborate definition of market success. In this research student satisfaction was measured to determine the institution's market success, but more can be learned by evaluating and measuring a broader, more accurate assessment of market success. 5.5 Conclusions In this research the relationship, if any, was explored between distinctive competencies of AIU and different demographic groups of its students. The relationship between distinctive competencies and student satisfaction was examined, which was taken as an indicator of market success. The findings indicated that students are not immediately aware of or initially perceive the distinctive competencies of the institution they are enrolled in. For educational institution managers and administrators engaged in international marketing, the findings indicate that, albeit all the students still recognize the distinctive competencies that the university applies, greater efforts can be allocated to help the students see the value of their enrollment earlier. The sooner students, the customer, see an institution's value, the more likely they will be satisfied with the service and share their positive experience with others.
59 This study was also designed to explore the relationship between levels of distinctive competencies and student satisfaction. Data analysis shows that individual dimensions of AIU’s distinctive competencies and AIU’s overall distinctive competency were positively related to AIU students' satisfaction. The findings suggest that employing and developing distinctive competency strategies (brand image, partnerships, forward integration, organizational expertise / quality of employees, organizational culture, and effective use of IT) generate or enhance competitive advantage through customer satisfaction. This finding implies that education institution managers and administrators engaged in marketing need to develop marketing strategies at several levels to generate or enhance distinctive competencies.
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2010). Competences, distinctive competences, and core competences. Research in Competence-Based Management, 5, 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1744-2117(2010)0000005004. Agrey, L., & Lampadan, N. (2014). Determinant factors contributing to student choice in selecting a university. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(2), 391–404. Ahmed, P., Loh, A., & Zairi, M. (1999). Cultures for continuous improvement and learning. Total Quality Management, 4(5), S426–S434. Ambler, T., & Puntoni, S. (2003). Measuring marketing performance. In S. Hart (Ed.), Marketing Changes (pp. 289–309). Thomson Learning. American International Health Alliance (2018). What is twinning? https://www.aiha.com/ourstory/what-is-twinning-3/ Anderson, E., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. (2004). Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 172–185. Anghel, M., Jaradat, M., Gherman, C., & Gabrea, R. (2015). The place and the importance of human resources in secondary education. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies, 6(1), 87–92. Asia-Pacific International University (2020a). University brand guide. https://www.apiu.edu/ Asia-Pacific International University (2020b). Quick facts. https://www.apiu.edu/quick-facts/ Asia-Pacific International University (2020c). Why choose Asia-Pacific. https://www.apiu.edu/ Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34. Ballard, P. J. (2013). Measuring performance excellence: Key performance indicators for institutions accepted into the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)[Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, USA]. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/196 Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Building competitive advantage through people. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 34–41.
61 Barusman, M. (2013). The development of strategy of sustainable competitive advantage at Indonesian pheis. International Journal on Education, 1(1), 64– 73. Bharadwaj, S., Varadarajan, P., & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitive advantage in service industries: A conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 83–99. Bogner, W., & Thomas, H. (1994). Core competence and competitor advantage: A model and illustrative evidence from pharmaceutical industry. In: G. Hamel & A. Heene (Eds), Competence based competition (pp. 111–143). Wiley. Boguslauskas, V., & Kvedaraviciene, G. (2009). Difficulties in identifying company’s core competencies and core processes. Engineering Economics, 62(2), 75–81. Brewer, P. D., & Brewer, K. L. (2010). Knowledge management, human resource management, and higher education: A theoretical model. Journal of Education for Business, 85(6), 330–335. Brewster, C., Dowling, P., Grobler, P., Holland, P. & Warnich, S. (2000). Contemporary issues in HRM: Gaining a competitive advantage. Oxford University Press. Brown, R., & Mazzarol, T. (2009). The importance of image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9183-8. Bryson, J., Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2007). Putting the resource‐based view of strategy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(4), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6210.2007.00754.x Bryson, A., Stokes, L., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). Can human resource management improve schools’ performance? LABOUR, 34(4), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/labr.12178. Carrington, R., Meek, V., & Wood, F. (2007). The role of further government intervention in Australian international education. Higher Education, 53(5), 561–577. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10734-005-8755-0 Chi, C. G., & Gursoy, D. (2009). Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and financial performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(2), 245–253. Clemente, M., & Greenspan, D. (1999). Culture clashes. Executive Excellence, 16(10), 12. Collis, D., & Montgomery, C. (1995). Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Havard Business Review, 73(4), 118–128.
62 Contractor, F., & Lorange, P. (2002). Cooperative strategies and alliances in international business. Elsevier Science. Cowell, D. (1984). The marketing of services. Heinemann. Crawford, F. (1991). Total Quality Management, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, occasional paper (London, December), cited in Hill, F.M. (1995), Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary consumer, Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21. Daniel, W. W. (1999). Biostatistics: A Foundation for analysis in the health sciences (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. de Haan, H. (2015). Competitive advantage, what does it really mean in the context of public higher education institutions? International Journal of Educational Management, 29(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2013-0115 Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251–267. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–13. Fard, H. D., Rostamy, A. A., & Taghiloo, H. (2009). How types of organisational cultures contribute in shaping learning organisations. Singapore Management Review, 31(1), 49–61. Frery, F. (2006). The fundamental dimensions of strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), 71–75. Gerson, R.F. (1993). Measuring customer satisfaction: A guide to managing quality service. Crisp Publications. Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 1(2), 175–191. Goldberg, S., & Godwin, J. (2004). Effective use of technology. The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 15(5), 85–86. Glusac, D., Tasic, I., Terek, E., & Gligorović, B. (2015). A study of impact of school culture on the teaching and learning process in Serbia based on school evaluation. Nastava i vaspitanje, 64(2), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.5937/nasvas1502255G. Hamel, G. (1994). The concept of core competence. In G. Hamel & A. Heene (Eds), Competence based competition (pp. 11–33). Wiley. Hamel, G., & Heene, A. (1994). Competence-based competition. Wiley.
63 Healey, N. (2008). Is higher education in really ‘internationalising’? Higher Education, 55(3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9058-4 Hénard, F., Diamond, L. & Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice: A Guide for Higher Education Institutions. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/Approaches%20to%20internationalisatio n%20-%20final%20-%20web.pdf Hofer, C. & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. West Pub. Co.. Holmes, G., & Hooper, N. (2000). Core competence and education. Higher Education, 40(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004003032197. Hussain, S., Lazim, H., & Taib, C. (2018). Technology capability perception & sustaining competitive advantage challenge for private higher institution: A review of literature. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2.29), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.29.13650. Huxman, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge. ICEF Monitor (2017). Thailand’s growing supply-demand gap in higher education. ICEF Monitor. https://monitor.icef.com/2017/10/thailands-growing-supplydemand-gap-higher-education/ Ittner, C., & Larcker, D. (1998). Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(3), 1–35. International Consultants for Education and Fairs (2016). Four megatrends that are changing the competitive landscape of international education. https://monitor.icef.com/2016/11/four-megatrends-changing-competitivelandscape-international-education/ Israel, G. D. (2003). Determining sample size. Series of the Agricultural Education and Communication Department. University of Florida. Kak, A., & Sushil (2002). Sustainable competitive advantage with core competence: A review. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 3(4), 23–38. Kapferer, J. (2008). The new strategic brand management; Creating and sustaining brand equity long term (4th ed.). Kogan page Limited. Khandekar, A., & Sharma, A. (2005). Managing human resource capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage: An empirical analysis from Indian global organisations. Education & Training, 47(8/9), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910510633161
64 Kido, E. (2010, November 15). For real education reform, take a cue from the Adventists. The Christian Science Monitor. https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1115/For-realeducation-reform-take-a-cue-from-the-Adventists Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2006) Marketing management (12th ed.). Prentice Hall. Kufaine, N. (2014). Competitive strategies in higher education: Case of universities in Malawi. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 1(7), 490–499. Kythreotis, A., Pashiardis, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). The influence of school leadership styles and culture on students’ achievement in Cyprus primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231011027860 Lamubol, S. (2017). Drastic population drop to hit higher education funding. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20170921174413542 Lee, K., Madanoglu, M., & Ko, J. (2013). Developing a competitive international service strategy: A case of international joint venture in the global service industry. The Journal of Services Marketing, 27(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041311330735 Lillejord, S., Børte, K., Nesje, K. & Ruud, E. (2018). Learning and teaching with technology in higher education – A systematic review. Knowledge Centre for Education. Mainardes, E., Ferreira, J., & Tontini, G. (2011). Creating a competitive advantage in higher education institutions: Proposal and test of a conceptual model. International Journal of Management in Education, 5(2/3), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2011.039482. Mansor, Z. D. (2009). International strategic alliance in higher education sectors (learning for competitive advantage) - A case from Malaysian private college. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 5(2), 74–83. Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. The International Journal of Educational Management, 12(4), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549810220623 Mazzarol, T., Hosie, P., & Jacobs, S. (1998). Information technology as a source of competitive advantage in international education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(1), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759399800200025 Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (1999). Sustainable competitive advantage for education institutions: A suggested model. The International Journal of
65 Education Management, 13(6), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549910294496 Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2001). The global market for higher education: Sustainable competitive strategies for the new millennium. Edward Elgar Publishing. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2012). Revisiting the global market for higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 717–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851211278079 Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G. & Seng, M. (2003). The third wave: Future trends in international education. The International Journal of Education Management, 17(3), 90–99. McGee, J., & Peterson, M. (2000). Toward the development of measure of distinctive competencies among small independent retailers. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(2), 19. Melesse, S., & Molla, S. (2018). The contribution of school culture to students’ academic achievement: The case of secondary and preparatory schools of Assosa zone, Benshangul Gumuz regional state, Ethiopia. Research in Pedagogy, 8(2), 190–203. Michael, R. (2018). Education in Thailand. World Education News + Reviews. https://wenr.wes.org/2018/02/education-in-thailand-2 Mittal, V., & Frennea, C. (2010). Customer satisfaction; A strategic review and guidelines for managers. Marketing Science Institute. Mintzberg, H., & Rose, J. (2003). Strategic management upside down: Tracking strategies at McGill University from 1829 to 1980. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(4), 27–290. Mockler, R., & Tobin, J. (2001). Making decisions on enterprise-wide strategic alignment in multinational alliances. Management Decision, 39(2). https://doi.org/0.1108/EUM0000000005414. Mooney, A. (2007). Core competence, distinctive competence, and competitive advantage: What is the difference? Journal of Education for Business, 83(2), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.2.110-115 Neil, T. (1986). Distinctive competence: A marketing strategy for survival. Journal of Small Business Management, 24(1), 16–21. Oliver, R. L. (1996). Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on the customer. McGraw-Hill.
66 Osbaldeston, M., & Barham, K. (1992). Using management development for competitive advantage. Long Range Planning, 25(6), 18–24. Ottesen, O. (2001). Marketing communication management. Copenhagen Business School Press. Pascale, R., & Athos, A. (1981). The art of Japanese management. Simon & Schuster. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of growth of the firm. Basil Blackwell. Pervez, Z., Dahar, M. A. & Maryam, A. (2017). Impact of school culture on student’s academic achievement at secondary level. Science International, 29(3), 565– 568. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. Harper and Row. Pinar, M., Trapp, P., Girard, T., & Boyt, T. (2014). University brand equity: An empirical investigation of its dimensions. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(6), 616–634. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0051 Plazibat, I., & Filipovic, D. (2010). Strategic alliances as source of retailers competitive advantage. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo (ICES2010). Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy; Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press. Porter, M. (1985). The competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press. Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91. Prystay, C. (1996). Boom in university ‘twinning’ across Asia. Asian Business, 32(9), 60. Sanchez, R. (2002). Understanding competence-based management, identifying and managing five modes of competence. Journal of Business Research, 57(5), 518–532. Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing corporate culture as a competitive advantage. Journal of Management Development, 20(10), 853–859. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110410851 Schoemaker, P. (1992). How to link strategic vision to core capabilities. Sloan Management Review, 34(1), 67–81.
67 Schroeder, R., Bates, K., & Junttila, M. (2002). A resource-based view of manufacturing strategy and the relationship to manufacturing performance, Strategic Management Journal, 23(2), 105–117. Selznik, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Row, Peterson & Co. Seventh-day Adventist Church (2021). Education. https://www.adventist.org/education Sirikrai, S. (2006). Measurement of organizational culture: A literature review. Journal of Business Administration, 29(109), 39–52. http://www.jba.tbs.tu.ac.th/files/Jba109/Article/JBA109Sajee.pdf Soutar, G., & Turner, J. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210415523 Swiercz, P. M., & Spencer, B. A. (1992). HRM and sustainable competitive advantage: Lessons from Delta Air lines. Human Resource Planning, 15(2), 35–94. Thompson, A., & Strickland, A. (1986). Strategy formulation and implementation: Task of the general manager. Business Publication, Inc. Uysal, G. (2007). Core competence: A competitive base for organizational success. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 1(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.20460/JGSM.2007118710 Vavra, T.G. (1997). Improving your measurement of customer satisfaction: A guide to creating, conducting, analyzing, and reporting customer satisfaction measurement programs. ASQC Quality Press. What is Market Performance. (2021). IGI Global. https://www.igiglobal.com/dictionary/market-performance/48121 Widiati, E., & Sefudin, A. (2019). Higher education strategy: Sustainable competitive advantages in niche market. Proceedings from the International Conference on Economics, Management, and Accounting, KnE Social Sciences, 311–327. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i26.5383 Wilcox, J., Laverie, D., Kolyesnikova, N., Duhan, D., & Dodd, T. (2008). Facets of brand equity and brand survival: A longitudinal examination. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 20(3), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511060810901028 Wong, S., & Yung, K. (2005). A new model for ERP assisted partnership development in outsourcing. Proceedings of the 2005 International
68 Conference on Services Systems and Services Management, 1(1), 602–607. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSSM.2005.1499543. Yeung, M. C. H., & Ennew, C. T. (2000). From customer satisfaction to profitability. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09652540010003663
69 APPENDIX A
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80 APPENDIX B
81 Item-Objective Congruence Testing Distinctive Competencies of Asia-Pacific International University Brand Image Measurement Item Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 IOC AIU has a positive reputation. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 AIU is well known in my community. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU’s brand identity (visual designs, purpose, mission, advertising & communication, etc.) reinforces the University’s values and beliefs. 0 +1 0 +1 0.25 AIU reinforces its brand (visual designs, purpose, mission, communication, etc.) through marketing. effectively +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 Partnerships (Alliance Formation) Measurement Item Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 IOC AIU has strong academic relationships with other international Universities. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 AIU has MOUs with other universities. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 AIU is actively part of a Higher Education Network. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU works with industry organizations. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00
82 Foreign Market Entry Strategy – Forward Integration Measurement Item Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 IOC AIU makes efforts to be known outside of its direct location (Thailand). +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU has offshore delivery programs for its students/customers. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU is marketed/advertised offshore (outside of Thailand). +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU has “twinning programs” (aka “twin programs,” “2+2 programs”) with other institutions. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 Organizational Expertise / Quality of Employees (Academic & Non-academic) Measurement Item Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 IOC Based on their lectures, AIU teachers/professors (academic employees) have industry experience in their field. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU have hired people (nonacademic employees) who do their jobs well. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU faculty & staff are trained and brought up-todate in their respective fields. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU faculty & staff are experts in their fields. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00
83 Organizational Culture Measurement Item Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 IOC The AIU culture is student oriented. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU’s culture (i.e. communication styles, performance measurement practices, decision-making process, problem solving, etc.) is constructive (helps students & faculty grow). 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 AIU has a community that share the same values. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 AIU encourages innovation and creativity. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 Effective use of Information Technology Measurement Item Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 IOC AIU uses Information Technology (IT) effectively for academic purposes. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU, as a university, effectively utilizes +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 technology (IT) in its daily operations. +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 AIU incorporates technology in various tasks and processes to be more productive. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75
84 Student Satisfaction Measurement Item Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 IOC Overall Physical & Facilitating Goods: Lectures and tutorials, presentations, handout materials and textbooks. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 Physical facilities such as the classrooms and halls, and their level of furnishing, decoration, lighting and layout. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 Supplementary services such as catering and recreational amenities. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 Overall Explicit Service (sensual service provided): Knowledge levels of staff +1 +1 +1 +1 1.00 Lecturer teaching ability 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 The consistency of teaching quality irrespective of personnel 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 Overall Implicit Service (psychological service): Friendliness and approachability of employees, concern shown if the student has a problem, respect for feelings and opinions. 0 +1 +1 +1 0.75 Overall availability of staff, capability and competence of staff. Competence, confidence and professionalism conveyed by the overall environment. *Note: Items under Student Satisfaction were revised to an assessment of Market Success benchmarked by the level of Student Satisfaction with Overall Physical & Facilitating Goods, Overall Explicit Service (sensual service provided), and Overall Implicit Service (psychological service).
85 APPENDIX C
86 Reliability of the Scale Item Distinctive Competencies Variable No. of Item Cronbach’s alpha Brand Image 4 .794 Partnerships (Alliance Formation) 4 .853 Foreign Market Entry Strategy – Forward Integration 4 .815 Organizational Expertise / Quality of Employees 4 .834 Organizational Culture 4 .847 Effective use of Information Technology 4 .900 Overall Distinctive Competencies 24 .951 Student Satisfaction Variable Physical & Facilitating Goods 3 .786 Explicit Service (sensual service provided) 3 .826 Implicit Service (psychological service) 3 .866 Overall Student Satisfaction 9 .911