Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Telematics and Informatics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tele

Competitive prospects of graduate program on the integration

of ICT superiority, higher education, and international aid
Dongsuk Kang a,b,1, Min Jae Park c,⇑
a
Future Research Center (FRC), Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST), 123 Cheomdangwagi-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju 61005, Republic of Korea
b
Advanced Photonics Research Institute (APRI), Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST), Republic of Korea
c
Department of Business Administration, A Seoul School of Integrated Sciences and Technologies (aSSIST) 46, Ewhayeodae 2-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic
of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Korea overcame the Asian financial crisis (1997–1998) with its governmental policies of
Received 7 March 2017 informatization and the promotion of the information and communications technology
Accepted 16 July 2017 (ICT) industry. It is a nation that has switched its international position from a recipient
Available online 17 July 2017
of international aid to a member of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
However, the level of official development assistance (ODA) by Korea is lower than the
Keywords: average of OECD DAC members. As a situational alternative, this study introduced a global
Developing country
information and telecommunication technology program (ITTP) that seems to integrate
Public officer
Research university
education on Korea’s superiority in ICT infrastructure and the industry with specialized
Educational aid ODA. In particular, this study analyzed the competitive environment of the ITTP by exam-
ICT4D ining its structural strengths and weaknesses through an analysis of strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats (SWOT). And then, this research illustrated the relationship
diagram of major stakeholders and their impact using Porter’s five forces approach. Our
analysis suggests that the ITTP needs to specialize in an ‘‘ICT for development” (ICT4D) pro-
gram in the competitive environment of Asian-Pacific universities by combining education
with techno-economic infrastructure projects in developing countries.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

It is important to establish and foster this close relationship between higher education and technology development in
knowledge-based societies. However, developing countries may have insufficient conditions for these two environmental
factors or weak support from their enterprises and governments. International aid targeted at the foundation of education
and technologies is crucial for less developed countries.
Korea received international assistance for economic development until the early 1990s, but the nation reversed its inter-
national position after becoming a member of the OECD in 1996 by becoming a part of Group 20 and the OECD Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) in 2009 (Chun et al., 2010). In particular, Korea overcame its economic difficulties stemming
from the Asian financial crisis (1997–1998) by actively executing promotion policies for the construction of new ICT infras-
tructure and social utilization of the internet and mobile services (Choudrie et al., 2003).

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: paper2black@gmail.com, ideartworld@gist.ac.kr (D. Kang), mjpark2@assist.ac.kr (M.J. Park).
1
ORCiD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3249-3674.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.009
0736-5853/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1626 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637

Furthermore, the infrastructure level and social utilization of ICT technologies in Korea seems to be noticeable around the
world. Korea was evaluated by the UN electronic government and online participants as having a decent environment for the
public use of ICT, and it also achieved high scores in the social utilization of ICT and civic education levels in the valuations of
ICT development (Table 1). This unusual case of Korea’s policy efforts with respect to its ICT industry and social utilization of
ICT seem to be a useful reference for developing countries without favorable environments for technologies and education to
learn from.
The Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC) in Korea implemented specialized graduate programs in two uni-
versities, which provide full scholarships and educate selected public ICT officials from developing countries for 2–3 years.
The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) implemented an information and telecommunications
‘‘technology” program (ITTP) in 2006 for officials from developing countries pursuing master’s or PhD degrees in ICT engi-
neering or management.
The ITTP provides education regarding Korea’s experience with ICT and policies. It enables students to engage with
Korean ICT firms and institutes on the future of ICT infrastructure. It is a unique program with a kind of triple helix relation-
ship between governments, universities, and industries, and also promotes the globalization of Korean universities. In addi-
tion, the ITTP includes a fellowship from the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (MSIP) that covers the tuition and
living expenses of students (MKE, 2012); this program has supported 119 alumni (i.e., 91 persons with a master’s degree and
28 persons with a PhD) from 52 nations over nine years (2006–2014) (KAIST, 2015c; Lee, 2015).
By comparison, the existing short-term (30 days) and temporary education programs from the Ministry of Education
(MOE) and the Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) for public officials from less developed countries appear
to be questionable with respect to officials’ learning and the stability of the programs in the long run. Alternatively, the ITTP
has the merit of offering a steady environment in which students can learn about Korea’s ICT policies and conduct research
for their homeland and Korea for an extended period. Advanced nations’ assistance in information and communication tech-
nologies for development (ICT4D) (Chaudhuri, 2012; Heeks, 2008; Walsham, 2017) could be practical for developing coun-
tries in settling their social problems (e.g., poverty reduction and economic growth). In this regard, the ITTP has the
multiplicative characteristics of a Korean policy effort that can integrate ICT academic education on Korean technology man-
agement and industry promotion with quasi-ODA.
Therefore, the present study considers the ITTP as a unique case that can achieve the multiple purposes of aiding ICT edu-
cation in developing countries, promoting cooperation between the Korean government and universities (i.e., KAIST), and
fostering learning regarding the ICT industry. This study raises the following three research questions: Question 1 (RQ1).
What is the position of ITTP in the global level? RQ2. What are its strengths and weaknesses in its environment? RQ3. What
are its competitive prospects in comparison with its position?
This research reviews the ITTP and its contents first, and then analyzes its competitive environment by investigating
university performances between major institutions around the world. Finally, this study discusses the development
plans for the ITTP through an analysis of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) in addition to an
examination using Porter’s five force model (FFM).

Table 1
The development of ICT infrastructure and social utilization of ICT services in Korea.

Panel A. UN world e-government rankings (every two years since 2008)

Components (abbreviation, weight) 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014
1. E-government development index (EGDI, 100%) 5 6 1 1 1
1.a. Online service index (OSI, 33.3%) 4 6 1 1 3
1.b. Telecommunication infrastructure index (TII, 33.3%) 9 10 13 7 2
1.c. Human capital index (HCI, 33.3%) 13 10 7 6 6
2. E-participation index (EPI, 100%) 4 2 1 1 1
Panel B. ITU ICT development index and world rankings
Components (weights) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ICT development index: overall rank (100%) 1 1 1 1 2
1. ICT access (40%) 11 11 10 11 8
1.a. Percentage of households with Internet access (8%) 1 1 1 1 1
1.b. Fixed-telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (8%) 15 5 4 1 3
1.c. Percentage of households with a computer (8%) 10 18 21 21 28
1.d. Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (8%) 61 6 66 70 79
1.e. International Internet bandwidth (bit/s) per Internet user (8%) 60 73 72 63 82
2. ICT use (40%) 1 1 1 2 3
2.a. Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (13.3%) 4 4 4 5 6
2.b. Wireless-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (13.3%) 2 2 3 5 9
2.c. Percentage of individuals using the Internet (13.3%) 8 9 12 15 17
3. ICT skills (20%) 1 1 1 1 2
3.a. Tertiary gross enrolment ratio (6.67%) 2 1 1 1 2
3.b. Adult literacy rate (6.67%) 18 16 15 15 20
3.c. Secondary gross enrolment ratio (6.67%) 36 39 48 48 51

*Sources: ITstat (2015), ITU (2014), UN (2014).

 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637 1627

2. Literature review: governmental efforts for promotion of ICT industry and education

The well-established ICT infrastructure and social utilization of technologies in Korea can be regarded as the outcome of
the Korean government’s persistent efforts on promotion policies and collaborations between governments, firms, and uni-
versities. During the Asian financial crisis (1997–1998), on the supply side of technologies, the MIC promoted the competi-
tion of infrastructure (or facility) construction among telecommunications service providers; on the demand side of
technologies, it implemented policies on civic internet literacy in order to increase public access and utilization of the inter-
net (Choudrie et al., 2003).
The government led the triple helix relationship between governments, industries, and universities by implementing the
policy project Brain Korea 21 (BK21. 1998–present). The project offers funds to universities and research institutes for per-
forming joint R&D activities with companies and publishing papers in (Social) Science Citation Index (SSCI, SCI, or SCI
Extended) journals (Park and Leydesdorff, 2010). The government also introduced the management tool Project Based Sys-
tem (PBS), which drives public research institutes to develop commercially valuable technologies and apply for patents (Park
and Leydesdorff, 2010).
Higher education (i.e., bachelor’s degree and higher) in addition to innovation and research activities in high-tech prod-
ucts and services were the most important factors for the civic utilization of ICT in 110 nations from 2008 to 2009 (Pick and
Nishida, 2015). Korea has a favorable environment for the social use of ICT as the educational participation (41.73%) of Kor-
ean citizens between the ages of 25–64 is one of the top six in the world (OECD, 2014). Moreover, a university with good
performance in research and academic-industrial collaboration attracts domestic and foreign students, as demonstrated
by student enrollment; the population of international students has increased by 4.52 million persons (2012) since 2000
(OECD, 2014). However, the market share of foreign students in Korea among the world’s higher education institutions is
as low as 1.31%, and the proportion of foreign students in Korea to Korean students studying abroad is 0.44 (OECD,
2014), which contrasts with the high proportion of Korean citizens involved in universities or graduate schools.
The Korean government has implemented globalization policies in domestic universities in order to attract foreign stu-
dents, and has pressured universities to improve their academic performance in the hope of reversing the brain drain of stu-
dents. The Ministry of Education (MOE) executed the second round of the Study Korea Project in 2008 with the goal of
attracting more than 100,000 foreign students from various nations as well as Asian countries until 2012 (Jon et al.,
2014). The government further promoted universities to become globally recognized research universities by 2012 through
the World Class University project (2008), which encouraged universities to partake in joint R&D and lecture activities with
foreign eminent scholars (Byun and Kim, 2011; Park and Leydesdorff, 2010). These active university-support policies by the
Korean government are closely related to Asian governmental efforts in the development of their vision of science and tech-
nologies by research funding to higher education institutions (George, 2006).
Korea can disseminate its policy experiences of domestic infrastructure and the social utilization of ICT technologies that
helped to overcome the economic difficulties of the Asian financial crisis (Choudrie et al., 2003). It can also stably execute
ICT-specialized ODA to developing countries and assist these countries to adopt the same standards of Korea’s ICT technol-
ogy, which already have acquired compatibilities among other world technologies (Chun et al., 2010). The ITTP is one plau-
sible alternative in this context; therefore, this study discusses the single case of the ITTP and analyzes its competitive edges
and prospects in the context of institutional policies.

3. Framework and analysis: ITTP and its competitive environment

3.1. Framework: case analysis with SWOT and the five forces model (FFM)

This research is a single-case study of the ITTP that examined the competitive capabilities and prospects of the program
through an analysis of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) and Porter’s five forces model (FFM). The
ITTP has the integrated features of providing education on Korea’s ICT policies and is quasi-ODA by providing full scholar-
ships to public ICT officials from developing countries. Thus, this study adopted a single-case study approach that considers
situational and structural factors by utilizing qualitative or secondary data and statistics rather than other empirical or sta-
tistical methods constrained by small or very limited samples (Runeson and Host, 2009; Yin, 2013).
This study utilized the two methods of SWOT and FFM for the analysis of the ITTP, which constitute a representative ana-
lytic tool for identifying structural environmental and strategic factors of an organization. With respect to SWOT, this
research used Weihrich (1982)’s approach which analyzes an organization’s capabilities by showing its internal resources
and macro-environmental factors (i.e., political, economic, social, and technological factors: PEST), and proposing the action
matrix of threats, opportunities, weaknesses, and strengths (TOWS). SWOT can intuitively provide the interconnected factors
of the inner strengths and weaknesses of an organization in its external environment of opportunities and challenges
(Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2003, 2007; Weihrich, 1982). And then, FFM seems to be useful for researchers to structurally dis-
cern the competitive environment (e.g., direct competitors, suppliers, customers, substitutes, and plausible entrants) of an
organization and explore its competitive edges (Porter, 1979, 2008).
Therefore, this paper first introduces the ITTP and identifies its current status, strengths, weaknesses, and threats by com-
paring the performance of KAIST, the principal institution involved in the ITTP, with major competitors, including the top
1628 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637

two universities in Asia-Oceania and in the world. This study analyzed the capabilities and environmental factors of the ITTP
by utilizing SWOT, and discussed its major competitors and competitive edges by visualizing FFM.

3.2. Case analysis

3.2.1. The ITTP at KAIST

The ITTP is a graduate program belonging to the School of Business and Technology Management (BTM) at KAIST, which
was established as a public university of natural sciences and engineering in 1971 (KAIST, 2015b). The ITTP has been sup-
ported by the MIC since 2006, and involves several full-time professors leading lectures and seminars on the management,
economics, and policies of Korea’s ICT sector. Some professors from KAIST’s School of Electrical Engineering offer lectures on
major ICT technologies, and external professors and lecturers manage projects on electronic government, informatization
policies, and Korean culture (i.e., Korean language, history, and Taekwondo or traditional Korean martial arts) (Fig. 1). This
style of ICT education at KAIST encourages ITTP students to adapt to their new surroundings and thoroughly understand the
details and context of ICT infrastructure and industrial policies.

3.2.2. University evaluations around the world

Graduate schools in Korea are comparable to their respective universities because of their similar or shared faculty,
majors, and undergraduate student entrance. In order to grasp the current status of the ITTP (RQ1), it is useful for us to
review several evaluation measures of world universities, such as Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking (QS),
Times Higher Education World Ranking (THE), and the Shanghai (SH) Academic Ranking of World Universities. This study
compared the ranks and evaluation scores of the aforementioned six universities with those of reference universities (i.e.,
the top three universities in the world and the top three universities in Asia and Oceania) for the checkup of the differences
between KAIST and the reference universities.
In QS’s overall evaluation score, KAIST ranked second in Korea, but 51st–63rd place in the world, which shows the con-
siderable gaps between KAIST and references such as MIT, the University of Hong Kong (UHK), and the National University of
Singapore (NUS) (Panel A in Table 2). THE’s results are quite similar to QS’s score, as KAIST ranked 52nd–68th in the world.
In SH’s academic performance score, KAIST ranked 200th in the world, which was lower than the rankings from the other
two evaluations. As SH assigns high weight on notable results in academic history (Panel B in Table 2), KAIST may rank lower

Fig. 1. Structure of the lectures in the ITTP. *Source: Outlined and edited from KAIST (2015a).
 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637 1629

Table 2
World university rankings and evaluation scores of QS, THE, and SH.

Panel A. Three results of world university rankings (QS, THE, and SH)
Year Rank University Score Year Rank University Score Year Rank University Score
Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings: overall score
2012 1 MIT 100 2013 1 MIT 100 2014 1 MIT 100
2 University of 99.8 2 Harvard University 99.2 2 University of 99.4
Cambridge Cambridge
23 University of Hong 87.9 24 National University of 89.4 22 National University of 91.1
Kong Singapore Singapore
24 Australian National 87.6 26 University of Hong 88.6 25 Australian National 89.7
University Kong University
63 KAIST 71.8 60 KAIST 75.8 51 KAIST 79.9
Times Higher Education (THE) World Rankings: overall score
2013 1 California Institute of 95.5 2014 1 California Institute of 94.9 2015 1 California Institute of 94.3
Technology Technology Technology
2 University of Oxford 93.7 2 Harvard University 93.9 2 Harvard University 93.3
27 University of Tokyo 78.3 23 University of Tokyo 76.4 23 University of Tokyo 76.1
28 University of 77.9 26 National University of 72.4 25 National University of 73.3
Melbourne Singapore Singapore
68 KAIST 64 56 KAIST 62.9 52 KAIST 64.5
Shanghai (SH) Academic ranking of world universities: overall score
2012 1 Harvard University 100 2013 1 Harvard University 100 2014 1 Harvard University 100
2 Stanford University 72.8 2 Stanford University 72.6 2 Stanford University 72.1
20 University of Tokyo 43.8 21 University of Tokyo 43 21 University of Tokyo 43.2
26 Kyoto University 41.3 26 Kyoto University 40.8 26 Kyoto University 39.9
201– KAIST na 201– KAIST na 201– KAIST na
300 300 300
Note. na: Data not available.

Panel B. Measure and methods of three evaluation results about overall score and its ranking
QS Six indicators with two survey data and four hard data
*Academic reputation (40% by global survey of academics), Employer reputation (20% by global survey of graduate employers), Faculty/
student ratio(20%), Citations per faculty (20%), International diversity of student ratio (5%), International diversity of faculty ratio (5%)
THE Z-score and cummulative probability score with five categories and relevant indicators
*Teaching (or learning) environment (30%), Research (volume, income, and reputation: 30%), Citation (30%), International outlook (staff,
students, and research: 7.5%),
Industry income (or innovation) (2.5%)
SH Four categories and six indicators with hard data
*Quality of Faculty (40%): Award (Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. 20%), HiCi (Highly cited researchers in 21
broad subject categories. 20%).
*Research Output (40%): N&S (Papers published in Nature and Science. 20%), PUB (Papers in SCI(E) and SSCI. 20%).
*Quality of Education (Alumni, 10%): Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. Per Capita Performance (PCP, 10%) of an
institution.

*Source: Outlined and edited from QS (2015), SH (2015), THE (2015).

because of its short history (since 1971). KAIST needs to make preparations for academic competition with top universities in
Asia and Oceania, which have comparable positions among the 20 highest ranked universities in the US and UK.
It is important for researchers to check individual scores of university performance in order to identify the requirements
for improvements to the ITTP and KAIST. This study utilized scores of QS and THE to gauge the current status of the ITTP and
KAIST against major universities around the world and in Asian-Oceanic regions.
In the 2014 QS evaluation, KAIST has higher scores in academic reputation and faculty-student ratio than other evaluation
sectors, but it has the lowest values in globalization indices among the sectors (Fig. 2A). The evaluation of THE in 2015 also
shows a similar tendency in that KAIST has the highest score in industry income (Fig. 2B), which can be explained by the
cooperation between universities and industries or firms. It has the lowest score in international outlook, which is closely
related to the low score in international indices by QS. Several universities in Asia and Oceania rank 20–50 (Fig. 2), which
is competitive with top world universities. ITTP and KAIST need to select a top university in Asia or Oceania as a mid-
term goal for competition because they are on par with world class universities.
As the ITTP is a specialized graduate program for public ICT officials to become professionals in ICT technology, manage-
ment, and policies, it is necessary to recognize the gap between KAIST and other top universities in the fields of ICT engineer-
ing and management. This study reviewed the QS evaluation scores of subjects and faculty because QS offers the most
detailed scores among the three evaluation measures (i.e., QS, THE, and SH).
Among its fields and subjects, KAIST has the highest score (i.e., rank 17th) from QS on the faculty evaluation of engineer-
ing and technology (Fig. 3A). It has the highest score in academic reputation and obtains around 80 points in the other indi-
1630 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637

Fig. 2. Comparison of KAIST and other universities on overall scores of QS and THE. *Source: Outlined and edited from QS (2015) and THE (2015).

vidual factors. On the subject evaluation of computer science and information systems, KAIST ranks 39th (Fig. 3B), and has
the highest score in citation per paper, but the lowest score (i.e., 72.7) in academic reputation (Fig. 3B). KAIST has grade gaps
of 10–15 against MIT and other top world universities, but KAIST can compete with NUS and other major universities in Asia
and Oceania because of small point differences of about 2–8.
KAIST has low evaluation scores in the faculty of social science and management (i.e., rank 111th) and the subject of busi-
ness and management (i.e., rank 51–100th) in Fig. 3C & D. It has low research performance in the social sciences and man-
agement due to the recent establishment of relevant graduate schools such as management engineering (since 1995), science
and technology policy (2007), and business and technology management (2009). Thus, KAIST needs to differentiate its inno-
vation and technology management academic programs as a kind of niche market for specialized graduate programs sepa-
rate from other Asian universities.
As KAIST is a relatively newborn university, it has the motivation and potential to accept internal and external changes of
environmental requests. For example, KAIST ranks 3rd globally from QS (2013–2014) and THE (2014–2015) among univer-
sities less than 50 years old (QS, 2015; THE, 2015). Similarly, other recently established organizations such as the Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology (HKUST), and Nanyang Technological University (NTU). HKUST seems to be a reference
university since it receives well-balanced evaluation scores by QS in engineering (i.e., it ranks 8th in computer science and
information systems. See Fig. 3B) and social sciences (i.e., it is in 18th place in Business and Management Studies. (QS, 2015)).
Therefore, the ITTP and KAIST need to promote a unique program of integrated education between ICT technologies and
management research and activate synergy effects in their international competition with HKUST.
 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637 1631

Fig. 3. Comparison of KAIST and other universities in the sectors of engineering and social sciences. *Source: Outlined and edited from QS (2015).
1632 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637

3.3. SWOT analysis and structural position with FFM

This study identified the recent status of the ITTP and KAIST in the fields of ICT engineering and management studies by
comparing KAIST with other major universities in the world, Asia-Oceania, and Korea (Section 2.2). According to our SWOT
analysis for RQ2, the main strengths of the ITTP seem to be its specialized education content of Korean-focused ICT engineer-
ing and promotion policies as well as stable support from the Korean government. The positive potentials of the ITTP are
public ICT officials’ interests in ICT development and their efforts toward interconnection between ITTP education and busi-
ness or ICT infrastructure policy projects in their home countries (Table 3).
Conversely, the ITTP has the weaknesses of low brand awareness, biased content of Korea’s model of ICT promotion, and
political instabilities from regular inspections by the MSIP and Korean National Assembly. In addition, it has the vulnerabil-
ities of low tangible results and the possibility of fierce competition from similar programs such as the ITTP (Seoul National
University (SNU)) and KOICA’s support for foreign students’ studies in Korea.
External promotion factors for the capabilities of the ITTP seem to be the practical conditions of longer project contracts
between KAIST and the MSIP for 5–10 years and funding from developing countries thanks to alumni’s recommendations.
The opportunity factors appear to be inter-organizational cooperation among domestic institutes and international organi-
zations for Korean international ICT leadership. The outer constraint factors seem to be the present variables of political
instabilities derived from the change in government and the ITTP’s weak preparation of content for pro-developing countries
such as technologies for the environment or other appropriate technology.
Other threat variables appear to be uncertainties in the educational supply and demand caused by Korea’s economic con-
ditions and developing countries’ socio-political emergencies and plausible competition between the ITTP and similar pro-
grams in other countries. In particular, educational progress such as massive open online courses (MOOC), which can easily
offer new and various course contents to meet students’ demand (Hew and Cheung, 2014), and open universities with free or
low costs can pressure the ITTP into preparing educational content for students from developing countries.
These results of the SWOT analysis can naturally promote a development plan for the ITTP by implementing the TOWS
action matrix, which corresponds to the matching actions between the internal and external factors that the SWOT provides
(Table 4). Above all, the most preferred action seems to be the interconnection between the ITTP’s strengths and opportu-
nities (SO in Table 4). This can imply educational concentration on the electronic government and promotion policies for ICT
industries, which the Korean government excels in, and the interlinkage between the ITTP and ICT infrastructure projects in
developing countries. The second best suggestions appear to be future-oriented actions, which can overcome the current
weaknesses of the ITTP (OW) and strength-focused actions (ST). Actions from the OW could be the transformation of ITTP
contents to a field curriculum for public ICT officials, such as public informatization and open data government, which could
interest students from developing countries and involve the Korean government.
The action of ST seems to be the export of the Korean government’s policy model, such as its experiences with
government-led drives for ICT infrastructure against the backdrop of the Asian economic crisis (1997–1998) and technology
pushes such as the establishment of Daedeok Innopolis (or Science Park) and KAIST in developing countries. The last sugges-
tion on action of MR is the managerial or risk-minimizing approach, as the ITTP screens and only supports countries that
have promising outlooks for economic and political relations with Korea in the short to medium term.
This study further utilized FFM, which is useful for easily visualizing the results of the SWOT and scores from university
performances around the world. FFM can structurally identify five influential stakeholders of an organization, including riv-
alry or direct competitors, buyers, suppliers, providers of substitutes, and new entrants (Porter, 2008). FFM can also expand
its five forces into a nine force model by considering the four factors of PEST (Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2007).
Fig. 4 intuitively suggests a map of network relations in which five competitors and five environmental factors (through
the SWOT and PEST analysis) can affect the competitive edges and performances of the ITTP. This study newly and qualita-
tively proposes the five degrees of influential actors in their order of priority. If an actor has a present and influential impact
(PI) on the ITTP, it has the power degree of PI. If an actor has a present but notable influence (PN) on the ITTP, it shows the
level of PN. In the case that an actor has a present and observable impact (PO) on the ITTP, it has the degree of PO. If an actor
is a candidate that may be of potential and influential (POI) to the ITTP, it has the level of POI. Otherwise, the actor seems to
be a potential but noticeable agent (PON) to the ITTP, and has the degree of PON.
As shown in Fig. 4, the ITTP has direct competition with major universities (and graduate schools) in Asia-Oceania, and
KOICA’s support program for foreign students studying in Korea. It has a plausible substitutive relation with the schools of
technology management in Korea and distance or electronic learning. Besides these competitive relations, budget funders
and auditing organizations can exert their supply impact on the ITTP. Also, ICT relevant firms and developing countries
may influence the demand of the ITTP. At the macro-level, technological development, political change, the economics of
Korea and developing countries, social expectations of ICT utilization for the prevention of global warming, and sustainable
development can compel the ITTP to fundamentally restructure its program. Therefore, the ITTP needs to prepare for long-
term adaptive change and sustainable competitive edges by reacting to its surroundings in the Asian-Oceanic market of
higher education in the fields of ICT engineering and management.

Table 3
SWOT analysis: Strengths and weaknesses of the ITTP and its environment.
Strengths (9 factors)
Present (6 factors)
Common factors in order of priority
A. Contents: Korean business and
policy projects in ICT
engineering.
B. Governance and Finance:
Budgetary and administrative
support by the Korean
government for years.
D. Students: Public ICT officials
from developing countries.
E. Geo-position: KAIST as the
representative university of
engineering and technology in
Korea and Daejeon City, the
Korean Mecca and concentrated
area of public research
institutes.
F. Co-opetition: Joint conferences
and exchanges with a similar
graduate program, the
Information and Technology
Policy Program (ITPP) at Seoul
National University.
G. Management: Plans and
implementation of professors
and committees in the
Department of Business and
Technology Management (BTM)
at KAIST.
Unique factors
Opportunities (7 factors)
Present (2 factors)
Common factors in order of priority
A. Legal (factor): The Korean
government’s long-term (i.e., 5–
10 years under contract) support
of the ITTP.
E. Social: External funds from
developing countries with the
recommendation of ITTP alumni.
D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637
Potential (3 factors)
A. Contents : Plausible
interconnection between the ITTP
and ICT projects for developing
countries.
H. Faculty: Interdisciplinary
collaboration with professors in
management & engineering and
ITTP alumni.
C. Changeability: The ITTP as a new
academic program within 10 years.
Potential (5 factors)
B. Political (factor): The plausible
expandability of the ITTP with help
from the major policies of the
Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future
Planning and the Korean
government.
C. Technological: The plausible
expandability of the ITTP with the
help of Korea’s ICT capabilities (e.g.,
electronic government and exports
of ICT products or services).
D. Economic: The plausible
expandability of the ITTP with the
help of Korea’s economic growth.
F. Political/Social: Aggressive
activities of the ITTP in
collaboration with international
organizations and their funds.
G. Environmental: Public
expectations and the demand of ICT
for development (ICT4D) in light of
Weaknesses (12 factors)
Present (7 factors)
C. Brand power: Low level of
social awareness of the ITTP.
A. Contents: Korean-biased
education and insufficient
learning regarding recent global
ICT issues.
B. Governance and Finance:
Regular audits from the Korean
government and National
Assembly.
D. Passive student: Focus on the
obtainment of a degree rather
than research activities.
G. Management: Dependence on
the BTM, and insufficient
capabilities for the differentiation
and autonomy of program
administration.
E. Location: Geographical and
socio-economic distance between
Daejeon and Seoul (the first city
and capital of Korea,
respectively).
I. Contribution beyond education:
Weak contribution by the ITTP to
community developments of ITTP
students and Daejeon.
Threats (9 factors)
Present (3 factors)
A. Legal (factor): The instability of
the ITTP, derived from severe
audits by the Korean government
and National Assembly.
G. Environmental: Insufficient
faculty for ICT4D and weak
preparation for future-oriented
education content.
1633
Potential (5 factors)
C. Brand power and performance:
Low research performance, lack of
external and objective evaluations
on the ITTP.
F. Co-opetition: ITPP and other
scholarship programs from the
Korea International Cooperation
Agency (KOICA)
B. Finance: Governmental budget
and restricted spending on
commercial activities.
H. Faculty: Lack of foreign faculties
in ICT for development, insufficient
full-time professors responsible for
the ITTP.
E. Environment: Weak
collaboration with respect to
interdisciplinary research activities
with other social sciences.
Potential (6 factors)
B. Political (factors): The instability
of the ITTP caused by the
restructuring of the relevant
ministry after the change of regime
in Korea.
C. Technological: Weak
consideration of software or SNS
platforms and fast changes in ICT
technology trends.
D. Economic: Political and
economic risks of regional or
continental crisis of economies in
Korea and developing countries.
E. Social: Sudden drop or absence in
student entrances after political
emergencies in developing
countries.
F. Political/Social: The possibility of
severe competition with new and
similar academic programs in
(continued on next page)
1634 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637

Table 3 (continued)

Opportunities (7 factors) Threats (9 factors)

Present (2 factors) Potential (5 factors)
the increasing social concern over
global warming and resource
shortages.
Unique factors
Present (3 factors)
A. Emergency (factor):
Unexpected suspension of ITTP
student mobility caused by
pandemic diseases (e.g., MERS,
Ebola) and regional terrorism.
Potential (6 factors)
China, India, or other developing
countries.
B. Political/Social (factor): Diffusion
of free (or inexpensive) education
and sharing services (e.g., e-
learning, open universities, MOOC),
and the necessity of the educational
differentiation of the ITTP.

Table 4
TOWS analysis: Action matrix for renovation.

Strengths
Opportunities Strengths and Opportunities (SO)
1. Advantages from law and politics: To strengthen the linkage
between ITTP education and ICT businesses or policy projects in
developing countries.e.g., electronic government and ICT
industry promotion.
2. Advantages from environment and politics: To specialize in
the program contents of ICT4D by fostering practical cooperation
of funds with developing countries.
Threats Strengths against Threats (ST)
1. Advantages from geo-position: To concentrate the content of
the ITTP to successful cases of Korea’s experiences in ICT policies
for developing countries.
Weaknesses
Opportunities against Weaknesses (OW)
1. Advantages from law and politics: To reinforce the
association between education and research in the relevant field
of electronic government.e.g., public informatization against the
digital divide)
2. Advantages from environment and politics: To establish
long-term, concrete cooperative projects between Korea and
developing countries with ITTP students and alumni.
Management and Restructuring (MR)
1. Positioning in a niche market: To select and concentrate on
preferred developing countries with promising political-
economic environments.

4. Discussion: university policy and prospects of the ITTP

The ITTP is a member school of KAIST, which recently ranked among the top 60 universities in the world, and KAIST has
made advances in world university rankings (e.g., QS and THE) for three consecutive years. The ITTP has the strengths of Kor-
ea’s ICT superiority and the Korean government’s stable support, although as shown through our analysis using SWOT and
FFM, this can adversely restrict the autonomy and identity of the ITTP.
The Korean government’s efforts for internationalization of its higher education, including the ITTP, share similarities
with Singapore and Hong Kong in the form of active policy intervention in universities and differences in geo-political fac-
tors. The international performance of Korean universities seems to be very restricted, as many universities have mainly
focused on the number of papers in (S)SCI journals (Park and Leydesdorff, 2010) over citations per paper, and increases in
English lectures (Jon et al., 2014) over the recruitment of foreign professors. In addition, the current level of student mobility
among universities appears to be locally biased in that most foreign students come from the People’s Republic of China and
other Asian countries (Byun and Kim, 2011).
Korean universities have a different environment in that they seem to be major players in the regional innovation systems
of metropolitan cities and provinces, and the Korean central government has dominantly influenced their activities (Mok,
2012). Under these different contexts of governmental intervention and geo-political aspects, it can be difficult for the ITTP
and KAIST to directly imitate or benchmark top universities in Singapore or Hong Kong. It seems desirable instead for them
to seek development plans that are appropriate in consideration of their environment and history.
As answers to RQ3, the ITTP can utilize co-operative relations among governments, universities, industries, and research
institutes as well as its experience with Korea’s ICT industrialization and promotion policies. Above all, the ITTP needs to
strengthen its project relations with small- and mid-sized enterprises and ICT research institutes. Although the ITTP has
close relations with the supporting and supervisory agencies, the ITTP and KAIST need to take active roles in fostering rela-
tions with stakeholders for the mutual benefits to Korea and developing countries in achieving tangible results and
sustainability.
The educational content of Korea’s successful experience in ICT industrialization and its policy efforts demonstrate the
leading role of the government and the importance of higher education for public ICT officials in developing countries. There-
fore, the ITTP, a quasi-ODA graduate program (with full fellowships) for public ICT officials in developing countries, needs to
develop a program of ICT4D that can compensate for the low level of ODA from Korea and meet the needs for the construc-
tion of ICT infrastructure in under-developed countries. For example, in 110 countries from 2008 to 2009, the level of
 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637 1635

Fig. 4. A map of stakeholders (in)directly connected to the ITTP through the expanded FFM approach. *Sources: Outlined and edited from QS (2015) and THE
(2015).

citizens’ higher education was the most important and significant variable in the relationship between the utilization of ICT
and socio-economic features (Pick and Nishida, 2015).
For developing countries, the degree of higher education and foreign direct investments were major contributors to their
social use of ICT (Pick and Nishida, 2015). At the same time, Korea needs to improve its ODA situation as it has a low ratio of
ODA to gross national income, a small proportion of free grants to less developed countries, and Asian-weighted support
through strategic and appropriate aid to beneficiary countries (Chun et al., 2010). In this regard, it seems to be important
for the ITTP to prepare for an integrated and customizable program of ICT4D that can cooperate with the relational network
of university-government-industry and gratify the demands of developing countries (See Table 4).
1636 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637

5. Conclusion

This study introduced the ITTP, which is a unique graduate program with the integrated characteristics of the utilization
of Korea’s ICT superiority, higher education, quasi-ODA for developing countries, and international ICT trade between Korea
and other countries. The study utilized a single-case study approach, which is useful for the unique case of the ITTP and its
qualitative feature of recency and insufficient empirical data regarding its performance. This research also analyzed the
recent status of the ITTP and its organization as part of KAIST by comparing the performance of KAIST with other major uni-
versities around the world. The research then identified the strengths and weaknesses of the ITTP and four action plans by
utilizing a SWOT with PEST and TOWS analysis. The study finally suggested major competitive actors and macro influencers
on the ITTP by visualizing a relation diagram using Porter’s five forces model (FFM).
The present study proposed common factors and prioritized unique variables in the SWOT analysis, and outlined 10
forces in the diagram of the five actors of FFM, macro actors of PEST, and complements with their power degrees. As a result,
the ITTP needs to specialize in its program on ICT for development, which would transform the existing introductory pro-
gram on Korean-centered ICT technologies and industry policies to cooperative education-field projects for the mutual
enhancement of Korea and developing countries.
Future research needs to implement diverse approaches of quantitative and qualitative data such as mixed method
approach in order to achieve complementary and confirmative findings from hard statistics and satisfaction survey by stu-
dents and alumni (Hsu et al., 2015). Forthcoming studies would empirically analyze the organizational outcomes of the ITTP
by adopting a resource-based view that can investigate the internal sources of competitiveness and complement the external
factor-focused approaches of the SWOT and FFM (Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2003).
Furthermore, it could be practically important for researchers to explore and suggest a concrete program of social devel-
opment for Korea and developing countries. For example, new policies for market competition of mobile services (Kang et al.,
2017) and utilization of social network media of government-to-citizens (Park et al., 2016) as well as governmental (or
social) management of energy sources (Kang and Lee, 2017), diversification policies against global warming (Lee et al.,
2017) and industrial efficiency for productivity (Kang and Lee, 2016) are universal issues for both developing and developed
countries.
In this way, higher education has intellectual responsibilities in the solution of social issues and need to overcome certain
behaviors used in the rankings of world universities, including the concentration on the production of journal articles and
patents, which QS, THE, and SH weight heavily when measuring rankings.

References

Byun, K., Kim, M., 2011. Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the internationalization of Korean higher education. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 15, 467–486.
Chaudhuri, A., 2012. ICT for development: solutions seeking problems? J. Inform. Technol. 27, 326–338.
Choudrie, J., Papazafeiropoulou, A., Lee, H., 2003. A web of stakeholders and strategies: a case of broadband diffusion in South Korea. J. Inform. Technol. 18,
281–290.
Chun, H.M., Munyi, E.N., Lee, H., 2010. South Korea as an emerging donor: challenges and changes on its entering OECD/DAC. J. Int. Dev. 22, 788–802.
Fleisher, C.S., Bensoussan, B.E., 2003. Strategic and Competitive Analysis: Methods and Techniques for Analyzing Business Competition. Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Fleisher C.S., Bensoussan B.E., 2007. Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods.
George, E.S., 2006. Positioning higher education for the knowledge based economy. High Educ. 52, 589–610.
Heeks, R., 2008. ICT4D 2.0: the next phase of applying ICT for international development. Computer 41, 26–33.
Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S., 2014. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): motivations and challenges. Educ. Res. Rev. 12, 45–
58.
Hsu, S.-H., Wang, Y.-C., Cheng, C.-J., Chen, Y.-F., 2015. Developing a decomposed alumni satisfaction model for higher education institutions. Total Qual.
Manage. Bus. Excellence, 1–18.
ITstat, 2015. UN E-Government Index: Korea Ranking (2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014).
ITU, 2014. Measuring the information society.
Jon, J.E., Lee, J.J., Byun, K., 2014. The emergence of a regional hub: comparing international student choices and experiences in South Korea. High Educ. 67,
691–710.
KAIST, 2015a. 2013–2014 KAIST Bulletin: Global Information & Telecommunication Technology Program.
KAIST, 2015b. History of KAIST.
KAIST, 2015c. KAIST educated IT public officers in developing countries for 10 years and promoted the export of the solution of Korea’s e-government
(written in Korean).
Kang, D., Lee, D.H., 2016. Energy and environment efficiency of industry and its productivity effect. J. Cleaner Prod. 135, 184–193.
Kang, D., Lee, D.H., 2017. Energy shocks and detecting influential industries. Energy 125, 234–247.
Kang, D., Park, M.J., Lee, D.H., Rho, J.J., 2017. Mobile services with handset bundling and governmental policies for competitive market. Telematics Inform.
34, 323–337.
Lee E., 2015. KAIST educated IT public officers in developing countries for 10 years and contributed to diffusion of Korea’s IT experiences around the world
(written in Korean). Yonhap News.
Lee, D.H., Kang, D., Rzayeva, I., Rho, J.J., 2017. Effects of energy diversification policy against crude oil price fluctuations. Energy Sources Part B 12, 166–171.
MKE, 2012. Outcome report on KAIST Global IT Technology Program in 2011.
Mok, K.H., 2012. The quest for innovation and entrepreneurship: The changing role of university in East Asia Globalisation. Soc. Educ. 10, 317–335.
OECD, 2014. Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators.
Park, H.W., Leydesdorff, L., 2010. Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: the role of programmatic
incentives. Res. Policy 39, 640–649.
Park, M.J., Kang, D., Rho, J.J., Lee, D.H., 2016. Policy role of social media in developing public trust: twitter communication with government leaders. Public
Manage. Rev. 18, 1265–1288.
Pick, J.B., Nishida, T., 2015. Digital divides in the world and its regions: a spatial and multivariate analysis of technological utilization. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
91, 1–17.
 D. Kang, M.J. Park / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1625–1637 1637

Porter, M.E., 1979. How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Bus. Rev. 57, 137–145.
Porter, M.E., 2008. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Bus. Rev. 86. 78-93+137.
QS, 2015. Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings (2012–2014. Online database).
Runeson, P., Host, M., 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Softw. Eng. 14, 131–164.
SH, 2015. Shanghai Academic ranking of world universities (2012–2014. Online database).
THE, 2015. Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2013–2015. Online database).
UN, 2014. E-government survey 2014.
Walsham, G., 2017. ICT4D research: reflections on history and future agenda. Inf. Technol. Dev., 1–24
Weihrich, H., 1982. The TOWS matrix-A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Plan. 15, 54–66.
Yin, R.K., 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage publications.