Case Study Strategic Management

on

Presented To:

Mr. Dexter O. Miraflor

Presented by: Kristian Mark Cortez Jofari Pua Allanry Espenueva Evan Marcell Sisican
`

History
It was founded in 1809 in the small town of Oxford, OH. It has an enrollment of around 15,000 undergraduates and is located just 35 miles north of Cincinnati. The landscape of Miami consists of numerous red brick buildings and is considered one of the most beautiful campuses in the nation.
`

Mission Statement

To held educate students by developing, maintaining and supporting safe, functional and attractive campuses for Miami University

Vision Statement by University

Our vision is to provide quality service, timely service, and friendly service and to create an atmosphere of shared responsibility in which all employees have the opportunity to contribute to the process of improving the service we provide our customers.
`

Revised Mission Statement

Our Mission is the advancement of learning through teaching, scholarship and service to society: by offering to outstanding undergraduate and graduate students the best education available; by carrying out scholarly activities judged to be excellent when measured against the highest international standards; in those ways for which we are well-suited by virtue of our academic strengths.
`

Revised Vision Statement

We are committed to establishing a campus culture that reflects a fundamental respect for different ways of living, working, and learning. We intend to assure every individual the opportunity to reach her or his potential.
`

Matrices
IFE Matrix EFE Matrix CPM Matrix SWOT Analysis Space Matrix IE Matrix The Grand Matrix QSPM

IFE Matrix
Key Internal Factors Weight Rating W. Score 0.4 0.15 0.4 0.2 0.45 0.4 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.1

Strength
Brand Image of the university Graduate Rate 64% per year Enrollment ratio increase every year Top Rank in 21 Universities in USA 75 % full time and part time PhD faculty Most frequent class size 20-30 Business related education Weakness High Student Cost Low Ratio of Higher Education Hamilton and Midtown Campus are non residential High fee 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 2 1 2 2 Decentralized System 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.05 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3

High strength of students from same state

Total

0.10
1.00

0.2
2.95

EFE Matrix
Key Internal Factors Weight Rating W. Score

Opportunities
Government Support Private endorsement and Gift High Employment Ratio Student Exchange Programmes Wireless internet facility in campus 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 4 3 4 2 3 0.6 0.45 0.4 0.1 0.15

Students Organization (more than 400)

Strong linkage with social societies Threats

Reduce subsidiary due high enrollment (upto 16000) Negative public perception (too white, too rich, too expensive) Perception of people (Only Liberal Art) Total

Online Fulltime Education System

0.05 0.10
0.05

3 3
3

0.15 0.3
0.15

0.10 0.075 0.075 1.00

2 3 2

0.2 0.225 0.225 2.95

CPM Matrix
Miami University University of Virginia Sc R Sc University of Michigan R Sc Critical Success Factors W R

Advertisement Service Quality Fee Competition Management Financial Position Loyalty Market Share Total

0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.25 1.00

2 4 3

0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.45 0.2 1.0 3.05

2 3 4 2 2 3 3

0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.75 2.65

2 2 3 4 1 3 2

0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.15 0.30 0.5 2.25

3 2 4

Strategy-Formulation Analytical Framework

SWOT Matrix

Space Matrix ` Stage 2 The Matching Stage IE Matrix Grand Strategy Matrix

STAGE 2 THE MATCHING STAGE

Strength Weakness Opportunities Threats

Four Types of Strategies

Strength-Opportunity (SO) Weakness-Opportunity (WO) Strength-Threats (ST) Weakness-Threats (WT)

SWOT Matrix
Leave Blank Strength S 1 Brand Image of the university 2 Graduate Rate 64% per year 3 Enrollment ratio increase every year 4 Top Rank in 21 Universities in USA SO Strategies New building required O1+ S3 Weakness W 1 High Student Cost 2 Low Ratio of Higher Education 3 High fee 4 Nonresidential Campus WO Strategies

Opportunities O 1 Government Support 2 High Employment Ratio 3 Student Exchange Program 4 Strong linkage with social

Build New Residential Campus O1+w4

societies

Threats T 1 Reduce subsidiary (16000) 2 Negative public perception

ST Strategies Strict admission policy could be implemented to control the enrolment ratio T1 + S3

(too rich, too white, too expensive) 3 Perception of people (ART)

`
WT Strategies Reduce fee T2 + W2

Space Matrix
Two Internal Dimensions
Financial Strength (FS) Competitive Advantage (CA)

Two External Dimensions

Environmental Stability (ES) Industry Strength (IS)
`

Space Factors
Internal Strategy Position Financial Strength (FS) Fee & Other Charges Federal Grant State & Local Grant Endowment Income Alumni Other Sources 20/6 = 3.3 External Strategy Position Environmental Stability (ES) +6 Technological changes +4 Rate of inflation +3 Fee of competing institutions +2 +3 +2
`

-4 -5 -4

-13/3

-4.3

Space Factors
Internal Strategy Position Competitive Advantage (CA) Market Share Service Quality Loyalty Competitor capacity utilization Technology -8/5 = -1.6 -3 -2 -1 -1 -1 External Strategy Position Industry Strength (IS) Growth potential Financial Stability Technological know how Resources Utilization Goodwill 23/5 = 4.6 +5 +6 +6 +3 +3

Space Matrix
Conservative +6 FS +5 Aggressive

+4
+3 +2 `

CA
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1

+1
-1 -2

IS +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

-3
-4 -5

Defensive

-6

Competitive ES

IE Matrix
It based on two key dimensions: The IFE total weighted scores on the X-axis The EFE total weighted scores on the Y-axis Divided into three major regions: Grow and Build Cells: I, II, or IV Hold and Maintain Cells: III, V, or VII Harvest or Divest Cells: VI, VIII, or IX
`

The IE Matrix
Strong 3.0 ~ 4.0 Average 2.0~2.9 Weak 1.0~1.9

I
High 3.0~4.0

II V
`

III VI

IV
Medium 2.0~2.9

Low 1.0~1.9

VII

VIII

IX

As our EFE Weight score is IFE weight score is

2.95 2.95

HOLD & MAINTAIN

Grand Strategy Matrix

Rapid Market Growth
Quadrant II Quadrant I

Weak Competitive Position

Strong Competitive Position

Quadrant III

Slow Market Growth

` Quadrant IV

QSPM (Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix)

Key Internal Factor Strength Brand Image of the university Weig ht .02 New building Required 4 .08 Reduce fee 3 .06

Graduate Rate 64% per year

Enrollment ratio increase every year Top Rank in 21 Universities in USA

.03
.06 .02

2
1 2

.06
.06 .02

3
3 2

0.09
.18 .04

75 % full time and part time PhD faculty

Most frequent class size 20-30 Decentralized System High Student Cost Low Ratio of Higher Education
Hamilton and Midtown Campus are non residential

.1
.1 .05

4
4 3 2 1 4

.4
.4 0.15 .1 .02 .2

2
3 2 2 1 2

.2
.3 0.1 .1 0.02 .1

High fee

`
.05 .02 .05

Weakness

.05

.15

.15

QSPM
Key External Factor Weig ht
New building Required Reduce Fee

Opportunities Government Support .04 4 .16 3 .12

Private endorsement and Gift

High Employment Ratio Student Exchange Programmes Wireless internet facility in campus Students Organization (more than 400) Threats
Reduce subsidiary due high enrollment (upto 16000) Negative public perception (too white, too rich, too expensive) Perception of people (Only Liberal Art)

.09
.08 .05 .04 .05 .02 .03 .02 .03

1
1 2 4 4 2 2 1 4

.09
.08 .1 .16 .2 0.04 .06 .02 .12

3
3 2 2 3 2 2 1 2

0.27
.24 .1 .08 .15 0.04 .06 0.02 .06

Total

Online Fulltime Education System

2.67

2.48

Conclusion

Our strategy is to:

Reduce fee and admit the students of all classes including middle class peoples so that every talented person can got the education even a poor person who cant bear the fee of their study.
`