Competitiveness Analysis Using System Dynamics -Report

By: Zeina Abbas & Rahman Oloritun 10/28/2010

Also. These factors (in decreasing order of importance) include: quality of program. The second diagram includes the influencing factors of attractiveness. So. tuition. A model of this problem was created in Vensim to have a clear view of the factors affecting our main stock (Number of students). University B. This is shown as the Share saturation loop in the diagram. and negatively affected by the total attractiveness of programs. is equivalent to the demand. faculty to student ratio and optimistic word of mouth. quality of facilities. The first diagram shows that the rate of admission of students is the inflow to the stock of number of students. The inflow to this stock is the rate of graduating. is to increase the number of students of the university which. However. the main figures that are explained later are concerned with University B. quality of faculty. except for 1 . in our industry. both Universities A and B have the same influencing factors. The market share of University B is affected positively by the attractiveness of the program in University B (Program B). The rate of admission is affected by the total demand (carrying capacity) in the industry. Rates of admission are also affected by the market shares of the Universities.The objective of our university. and rate of graduating is the outflow of the stock. diagrams referring to University A are also included. but our focus will be on University B. The demand is mainly driven by the attractiveness of the program. Both Universities A and B are positively affected by the increase in total demand. The diagram was broken down to smaller loops to offer a better understanding of the reinforcing and balancing loops that we created (See attached figures). The competitor(s) to University B is represented by University A in the Figure. All the factors. Another stock included is the Alumni of the university.

which will increase the net income of the university. an increase in the faculty to student ratio increases the attractiveness of the program. An increase in the revenue however will decrease the cost of operation. This is because as the net income increases. The fifth diagram explains the different connections of the faculty to student ratio. which will ultimately increase the effect of factors on attractiveness of the program. The third diagram shows that the net income of University B affects three of these factors. leading to an increase in the rate of recruitment of faculty. All the relations present positivity and increase the revenue. It also decreases the rate of recruitment because of the large number of faculty. the ratio increases leading to a decrease in the rate of recruitment. As the number of students increases. faculty and facilities. it is affected by the alumni of the university positively. Also. are positively related to the attractiveness of the program. As for the optimistic word of mouth. qualities of program. The fourth diagram shows that the revenue of the university is affected by the tuition. As mentioned earlier. the ratio decreases.tuition. faculty and facilities increase as well. the increase in number of faculty increases the cost of operation. namely: qualities of program. Ultimately. This is illustrated by the Faculty student burden loop. as the number of faculty increases. and the number of students. donations from Alumni of university. 2 . It is also affected by number of students and the number of faculty. These relations are shown via the quality improvement. faculty improvement and facilities improvement loops.

it is moderately high and falls in the middle of the range. the optimistic word of mouth is relatively high and lies towards the upper end of the competition. Furthermore. If we had a limited budget for additional market research or empirical work. to raise or reduce quality of program. the faculty to student ratio is high and lies towards the upper end of the range. it is medium and towards the upper end of the range of competitiveness. As for the quality of facilities. Faculty and Facilities and complexity in determining what will be the quality benchmark in a competitive market. it is relatively high and towards the end of the range. 3 . Finally. the budget would be spent on understanding the relationships between Net Income and Quality of Program Net Income and Quality of Faculty Net Income and Quality of Facilities y y y There are inherent delays in raising quality of program. we are always operating within the range of competitiveness. there is need to do more market research into what constitute high quality Faculty.As for our University s current strategy. With respect to the quality of faculty. As for the tuition. it is medium and lies in the middle of the range. faculty and facilities to conform with the most popular preferences to make the program attractive to the most number of students and raise enrolment. program or facilities. In the case of the quality of our program.