14

According to Barney (1991), company has a competitive advantage when it is

implementing a value creating strategy different from the strategies of its competitors.

Peteraf (1993) defines competitive advantage as sustainable above-normal returns which

can be achieved only if four prerequisites (resource heterogeneity, ex post limits to

competition, imperfect mobility and ex ante limits to competition) are met. On the other

hand, Grant (2002) believes that the company has a competitive advantage when it earns

a higher level of profits than its competitors. Foss and Knudsen (2003) stress that the two

main definitions of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) are not related

because a company can continuously implement a unique strategy based on the resource

acquired in a competitive market and thus, according to Barney, possess a sustainable

competitive advantage, however, at the same time, it can generate only an average,

normal profit, which means that, according to Peteraf (1993), there is no sustainable

competitive advantage. As a response to Foss and Knudsen's (2003) critique, Peteraf and

Barney (2003) provide definition of competitive advantage that is consistent with those

by Porter (1985), Barney (1991) and Peteraf (1993). According to Peteraf and Barney

(2003), a company has competitive advantage when it is able to create greater economic

value. Economic value is defined as the difference between the perceived benefits gained

by the buyers and the economic cost to the company. There are multiple ways of

achieving competitive advantage, which means that, to achieve it, a company does not

have to be the best in all dimensions, but it must be superior in value creation (Peteraf

and Barney, 2003).

2.2 Theoretical Perspective on Sustainable Competitiveness

In business, where financial measures have traditionally been the primary focus, a

broadened range of performance indicators are being introduced to more fully represent

15

key success factors for an organization and employee satisfaction and innovation. As

issues of performance measurement and issues of accountability become increasingly

consequential in higher education, an understanding of the concerns motivating these

changes within the private sector and the new measurement frameworks which are

emerging can be extremely useful (Ruben, 1999).

The quality approach (Deming,1993; Juran,1995 & Ruben,1995) emphasizing external

stakeholder focus, process effectiveness and efficiency, benchmarking, human resource

management and integration and alignment among components of an organizational

system, provided impetus for the use of a more comprehensive array of performance

indicators. Many major corporations now couple financial indicators with other measures

selected to reflect key elements of their mission, vision and strategic direction. The

usefulness of these indicators extends beyond performance measurements, and

contributes also to self assessment, strategic planning and the creation of focus and

consensus on goals and direction within the organization.

One approach that addresses this need in a systematic way is the balanced scorecard

concept developed by a study group composed of representatives from major

corporations including American Standard, Bell South, Cray Research, Dupoint, General

Electric and Hewlett-Packard

A Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) translates an organization‘s mission

and strategy into a comprehensive set of performance measures that provides a

framework of strategic measurement and management system.

A Balanced Scorecard should translate a business unit‘s mission and strategy into

tangible objectives and measures. The measures represent a balance between external

16

measures for shareholders and customers and internal measures of critical business

processes, innovation and learning and growth. The measures are a balance between

outcome measures- the result of past effort- and the measures that drive future

performance. And the scorecard is a balance between objective, easily quantified

outcome measures and subjective, somewhat judgmental performance (Kaplan and

Norton, 1996).

They add on to say that organizations that adopt this approach report that they are able to

use the approach to: clarify and gain consensus about vision and strategic direction;

communicate and link strategic objectives and measures throughout the organization;

align departmental and personal goals to the organizations vision and strategy; plan, set

targets and align strategic initiatives; conduct periodic and systematic strategic reviews

and obtain feedback to learn about and improve strategy.

It has also been reported by an executive of a company that has used this approach

(Brancato, 1995) that:

“A balanced scorecard is an information-based management tool that translates our strategic objectives into a coherent set of performance measures starting with

the vision and its critical success factors; performance measures to measure

progress against those success factors; the target initiatives and the review

process to ensure that this balanced business scorecard is the key management

tool to run the business and finally how to tie in the incentives”.

Relevance of the Balanced Scorecard Theory

The Balanced scorecard is a relevant theory to this study because it a strategic evaluation

tool that evaluates a firm‘s performance not only on financial basis but also on other

organizational indicators such as: customer satisfaction; organizations learning and

growth and internal business processes. These four performance indicators have then

been used by Ruben (1999) to generate the ―Excellent indicators in HE‖. They include:

17

Teaching and learning; research; outreach, workplace satisfaction and finance. These

indicators have then been used as the Sustainable competitive constructs in this study.

2.3 Excellence Indicators in Higher Education

Organizations of all types are re-conceptualizing the excellence indicators they use and

the uses to which these indicators are being put. For those in higher education, what is of

significance is not so much the particulars of the balanced scorecard but the measurement

process and its role in advancing organizational excellence for sustainable

competitiveness.

In higher education, just like in business, there are time honored traditions relative to the

measurement of excellence. Rather than emphasizing primarily on financial measures,

higher education has historically emphasized academic measures. Motivated as in with

business, by issues of external accountability and comparability, measurement in higher

education has generally emphasized those academically- related variables that are most

easily quantifiable. Familiar examples are student and faculty demographics, enrollment,

Grade Point Average (GPA), scores and standardized test, class rank, acceptance rate,

retention rate, faculty-student ratio, graduation rate, faculty teaching load, counts of

faculty publication and grants and statistics on physical and library resources (Ruben,

1999).

As important as the traditional indicators are, these factors fail to present a

comprehensive image of the current status of an institution. They do not reflect some of

the key success factors of a college or a university, nor do they capture many of the

university‘s mission, vision and strategic directions. In the area of instruction, many

familiar measures such as student grade point average or standardized test capture

―input‖- the capabilities students bring with them to our institutions – but often not the

18

value colleges and universities ass through teaching and learning process nor the outputs

or benefits derived from having attended the university (Ruben, 1999). Higher education

assessment outcome studies (Austine, 1993) have contributed to the understanding of the

teaching and learning processes, but resulting measurement framework have generally

not been translated into indicators that are useful for monitoring, intervening in, or

comparing institutional excellence (Johnston & Seymour, 1996).

Other variables that are less obviously liked to academic, less tangible, or less readily

susceptible to quantitative analysis have been less a focus for measurement. Therefore

dimensions such as relevance, need, accessibility, fulfillment of expectations, value

added, appreciation of diversity, student satisfaction levels, impact and motivation for life

-long learning are not widely used indicators for excellence (Ruben,1999).

This indicates that traditional assessment frameworks typically fail to consider many

other indicators of present and potential excellence. In a study conducted for Educational

Commission of the States on measures used in performance report in ten states (Ewell,

1994), the most common indicators include: Enrollment/ graduate rate by gender,

ethnicity and program; degree completion and time to degree; persistence/ retention rate

by grade, ethnicity and program; remediation activities and indicators of their

effectiveness; transfer rate to and from two-and-four year institutions; pass rate on

professional exams; job placement data on graduates and graduates satisfaction with their

jobs; and the faculty workload and productivity in the form of student faculty ratio and

instructional contact hours.

One area deserving greater attention is the student, faculty and staff expectations and

satisfaction levels. In most colleges and universities little attention has been devoted to

19

systematically measuring expectations and satisfaction of students, and even less to

faculty and staff within particular units or the institution as a whole, despite the widely

shared view that attracting and also retaining and nurturing the best and the brightest

people is a primary goal and critical success factor (Ruben, 1999).

To some degree, just as with business, higher education indicators tend to be primarily

historical, limited in predictive powers, often incapable of alerting institutions to change

in time to respond, and have not given adequate consideration to important but difficult-

to-quantify dimensions. Ironically, the emphasize on easy-to-quantify, limited measures

has, in a manner of speaking ―come home to haunt‖ in the form of popularized college

rating systems with which educators are generally frustrated and critical, but which are

consistently used as the measures against which they are evaluated by their constituents

(Wegner, 1997).

2.4 World University Rankings

The Shanghai and HEEACT rankings of world universities

In 2003, Shanghai Jiao Tong University began publishing an ‗Academic Ranking of

World Universities‘ (2008). It is now the best-known measure of universities‘ output and

it puts weight on six indices, as follows: The number of alumni from the university who

have won Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine, or economics or Field Medals in

mathematics (10% of the overall index); The number of faculty of the university who

have won Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine, or economics or Field Medals in

mathematics (20% of the overall index); The annual number of articles authored by

faculty of the university that are published in the journals Nature or Science (20% of the

overall index); The annual number of articles authored by faculty of the university that

20

are in the Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index (20% of

the overall index); The number of Highly Cited Researchers (copyright Thomson ISI,

2008) in the university‘s faculty in 21 broad subject categories (20% of the overall

index); All of the above indicators divided by the number of full-time equivalent faculty

(10% of the index).

Obviously the choice of criteria and the weights on them are quite arbitrary. They are also

heavily weighted toward science. However, the arbitrariness is less problematic than it

might seem because, in fact, the available measures that one could reasonably put into

any index of university output are highly correlated. For instance, each of the components

of the Shanghai index is highly correlated with each other component. Also, the Shanghai

index has a correlation of 0.85 or higher with each of three other rankings that use very

different methodologies: the HEEACT ranking (2009), the Times Higher Education – QS

World University Ranking (2008), and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities

(2008).

The overall HEEACT ranking is so correlated with the Shanghai ranking that adding it to

the analysis would not be instructive. However, HEEACT also publishes scores for

universities by field: natural sciences, social sciences, and so on. Each university‘s score

in each field is based on: The number of research publications in the relevant field in the

last 11 years (10% weight) and the current year (10% weight); The number of citations to

research publications in the relevant field in the last 11 years (20% weight) and last 2

years (10% weight); The number of highly cited papers in the last 11 years (15% weight),

the number of articles in ‗high-impact‘ journals in the current year (15% weight), and the

H-index for the last 2 years (20% weight).

21

In short, it is not argued that either the Shanghai or HEEACT indices are correct (in the

sense of having the right formulas) but they are based on criteria that are themselves

reasonable measures of output and correlated with other reasonable measures of output.

The Shanghai index assigns the world‘s highest ranked university the number 1 and so on

down to number 100. After that, universities‘ rankings are indicated by a numerical range

– ‗101 to 151‘, for example – of which we use the mean. Universities below 500 are not

given a number.

2.5 A Balanced Scorecard for Universities

It is evident that the BSC (Balanced Scorecard) has been widely adopted in the business

sector but the education sector has not embraced it (Karanthanos and Karanthanos, 2005).

Cullen et al, 2003) proposed that BSC be used in educational institutions for

reinforcement of the importance of managing rather than just monitoring performance.

The fundamental mission of research universities and their academic units and programs

is the advancement of excellence in the creation, sharing and application of knowledge,

typically described in terms of teaching, scholarships/ research and public service/

outreach (Ruben, 1999).

Fulfilling this mission requires a distinguished faculty, high level research activities,

innovative and engaging teaching-learning processes, supporting technology and quality

facilities, capable students, competent faculty and staff and legislative and public support.

Stewart and Carpenter- Hubin (2001) and indicates that although historically less well

appreciated, universities also requires excellence in communication and a service

oriented culture, appropriate visibility and prominence within the state and beyond; and a

welcoming physical environment; a friendly, supportive and respectful social

22

environment; expectations of success; responsive, integrated, accessible and effective

systems and services; and a sense of community.

Most specifically, fulfillment of this mission requires successful engagement with a

number of constituency groups, and for which desired and potentially measureable

outcomes can be identified: prospective students- who are applying to a

university/program as a preferred choice, informed about the qualities and benefits they

can realize through attending; current students who are attending their university/program

of choice with well defined expectation and high levels of satisfaction relative to all

facets of their experience, feeling they are valued members of their university community

with the potential and support to succeed. The research contract agencies and other

organizations or individuals seeking new knowledge or the solutions to problems are

another constituency whose desired outcome is to actively seek out the university and its

scholars for assistance. Friends - who are proud to have a family member attending the

university/program, supportive of the institution, recommending it to friends‘ and

acquaintances; Alumni- who are actively supporting the university/program and its

initiatives; Employers- seeking out university/program graduates as employees,

promoting the university/program among their employees for continuing education;

Colleagues at other institutions- viewing the university/unit as a source of intellectual and

professional leadership and a desirable workplace; Governing boards- supportive of the

institution and enthusiastic about the opportunity to contribute personally and

professionally to its advancement; local community-viewing the institution as an asset to

the community, actively supporting its development (Ruben, 199).

23

Another constituency includes the friends, interested individuals, donors, legislators and

the general public-their desired outcome is valuing the university as an essential resource,

supporting efforts to further advance excellence; faculty-pleased to serve on the faculty of

a leading, well-supported institution/program, enjoying respect locally, nationally and

internationally and lastly staff-regarding the institution/unit as a preferred workplace

where innovation, continuing improvement and teamwork are valued, recommending the

institution/unit to others (Umashankar and Dutta, 2007).

2.6 Constructs of Sustainable Competitiveness

The constructs of sustainable competitiveness in this study have been derived from the

higher education dashboard indicators as explained by (Ruben, 1991). According to him a

university‘s mission, vision and goals may be translated into ―dashboard indicators‖ with

five indicator clusters, each composed of variety of constituent measures. The five

indicator areas include: teaching/learning, scholarship/research, service/outreach,

workplace and financial (Altabach, 2005); Karantahanos and Karanthanos, 2005.

24

TEACHING/LEARNING SERVICE/OUTREACH SCHOLARSHIP/

RESEARCH

WORKPLACE SATISFACTION FINANCIAL

Fig 2.1 : Higher Education Dashboard Indicators (Ruben,1999)

2.6.1 Teaching/Learning

In the proposed framework, instruction is composed of quality assessments in two

primary areas: program/courses and student outcomes. The model points to the value of

incorporating multiple dimensions, multiple perspective and multiple measures in

evaluating the quality of programs/courses and student outcomes. Appropriate to these

assessments are systematic inputs from peers/colleagues (at one‘s own and perhaps other

institutions), students (at various points in their academic careers), alumni (providing

retrospective analyses), employers and or graduate directors (providing data on

workplace and graduate/professional school preparation).

Each group can contribute pertinent and useful insights and collectively, these judgments

yield a comprehensive and balanced cluster of measures that help to address concerns

Program/Courses

Student outcome

University Profession Alumni

State pros families employers

students

Productivity

Impact

Faculty

Staff

Revenues

Expenditure

25

associated with a reliance of any single perspective of measures (Williams & Coci, 1997;

Trout, 1997). Colleagues from one‘s own or another institution for example can provide

useful assessment of the instructor qualifications and the scope, comprehensiveness, rigor

and currency of programs/course content etc. students and alumni can provide valuable

assessment of the clarity of course/program expectations, curricular integration,

perceived applicability and instructor delivery skills, enthusiasm, interest in students,

accessibility and other dimensions.

Examples of assessment dimensions that can be included in these indicators are listed in

Table 2.1. For example, disciplinary standing is derived from external review,

accreditation or other peer review systems; need can be assessed by a consideration of

such factors such as unfulfilled demand for a program/course offerings at other

institutions and systematic input from employers or alumni; coherence measures internal

curricular linkage and integration; rigor- includes data on assignment standards and

grading practices with student and alumni input; efficiency includes cost-student

enrollment ratios, student/faculty instruction ratio; qualification of instructors, course

content, and delivery assessments can be based on peer, professional review and other

inputs (Braskamp & ory, 1994). Adequacy of support services can be evaluated through

surveys of students, faculty and staff assessment.

26

Table 2.1Higher Education Dashboard Indicators and their Measurements

INSTRUCTION PUBLIC SERVICE/ SCHOLARSHIP

OUTREACH

Programs/Courses Productivity

-Mission clarity -prospective students -presentations

-Disciplinary standing -university -performance

-Need -profession/discipline -submissions

-Coherence -research agencies -publications

-Rigor -alumni -funding proposals

-Efficiency -families

-Instructor qualification -state Impact

-Currency/comprehensive- -Employers -publication stature

ness of course materials -community -citation

-Adequacy of support -governing boards -awards/recognition

services -public at large -editorial roles

-Teaching/learning climate -peer assessments

Measures -funding

Student outcomes -Activity level/contacts

-Preferences -selection for leadership roles

-Selectivity -reputation

-Involvement -meeting perceived needs

-Learning outcomes -satisfaction levels

-Satisfaction -contributions/funding

-Retention -preferences

-Preparedness

-Placement

-life-long learning

WORKPLACE SATISFACTION FINANCIAL

Faculty/Staff Revenue

-Attractions -funding levels

-Turnover -endowments

-compensation

-climate Expenditures

-Morale -operating expenses

-Satisfaction -debt services

-credit ratios

-deferred maintenance

Student Outcomes

Student outcome could include measures of program/ course preferences, selectivity,

involvement, learning outcomes (knowledge and competency acquisition), fulfillment of

expectations, satisfaction, retention, preparedness, placement and motivation for life-long

27

learning, and other variables that may be appropriate to the mission, vision and or goals

of the institution/program. Program preference measures for instance would document

questions such as ―was this program/course my preferred choice?‖ Sensitivity would

reflect ―input‖ measures of the quality of students enrolled in courses/programs and

learning outcomes would measure cognitive and behavioral competencies. In addition to

content learning, assessment might also include the ability to engage in collaborative

problem solving, appreciation of diversity, leadership skills interpersonal and

presentational communication skills, ethical thinking and other capabilities appropriate to

the mission, vision and goals of the institution/program (Karanthanos and Karanthanos,

2005; Ruben, 1999).

Survey and focus groups with student and alumni groups would provide the basis for

evaluating and overtime tracking of satisfaction with academic programs, support

services, facilities etc. for example, the alumni could be asked years after graduation,

whether they would choose the same university/program were they to be enrolled today.

Preparedness for careers or further graduate study could be assessed through input from

graduates, employers and graduate program directors. Placement could be directed

through systematic alumni tracking (Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin, 2001).

2.6.2. Scholarship/ Research

Research and scholarship are composed assessments of quality in areas of productivity

and impact. In areas of research and scholarship, colleges and universities generally have

well developed measures of achievement. The productivity indicators include activity

level. Depending upon the field, activity level could encompass frequency of

presentations, performances, articles and papers submissions, publications and funding

proposals. Impact measures for research and scholarship include publication rate,

28

selectivity and stature of journals or publishers, citations, awards and scholarly

excellence, funding of research (Carnegie Foundation,1994; Braskamp & Ory 1994).

2.6.3. Public Service/Outreach

The public service and outreach indicator cluster would be composed of measures of the

extent to which the university, unit or program addresses the needs and expectations of

key external stakeholder groups. This cluster should include measures of each of the

stakeholders groups whose assessments of the quality and performance of the institution/

program have important implications for the unit in terms of mission fulfillment,

reputation, recruitment, economic viability etc (Stewart and Capenter-Hubin, 2001).

The key definition of key stakeholder groups depends on the nature of the institution or

unit and its mission. Generally, for academic units the list of potential candidate groups

would include: the university (beyond the unit itself), profession/discipline, alumni,

potential students, organizations/individuals seeking new knowledge, family members/

parents of student, employers, community, state, region, governing boards, friends of the

institutions, donors, legislators and the public at large (Ruben, 1999).

The measure of each stakeholder should capture the quality of contribution of the unit

based on criteria of significance to the external group and reflecting their perspective.

Some of the general measures that are appropriate for a number of these stakeholder

groups are: activity level, selection of leadership roles, reputation, meeting perceived

needs and satisfaction level. For example, the university (beyond the particular unit)

measures include promotion and tenure rates, requests to serve on thesis and dissertation

committees in other programs and invitation to serve on and play leadership roles in key

committees and projects, in addition to other general measures of engagement and

perceived contribution to university life (Umashankar and Dutta, 2007).

29

In the case of potential employers, the measures would include: preference for university

graduates as employees, likelihood of promoting the university among their employees

for continuing education. In the case of organization or individuals seeking new

knowledge or solution to problems, the number of contacts, request for information,

proposal requested and initiatives funded would be among the measures. For alumni, key

financial and moral support of the university and its initiatives would form the measures

and the extent to which the university is perceived to an essential state resource would be

an important indicator of public support. For parents and families, areas of interest would

include: attitude towards having a family member attending the university, likelihood of

recommending the institution to friends and acquaintances.

While institution data may be available as input in some instances, focus groups, survey

programs and other systematic approaches to capturing the perspectives of these groups

are required (Altabach, 2005).

2.6.4. Workplace Satisfaction (Faculty and Staff)

In addition to indicators associated with instruction, scholarship and service/outreach,

another important indicator is workplace satisfaction for faculty and staff. Input

indicators for each group measures attractiveness of the institution as a workplace

climate, and faculty and staff morale and satisfaction. Measures in this category will

include a combination of institutional data (analysis of application and retention data) is

also perceptual data from faculty/staff groups and information derived from sources such

as exit interviews, focus groups and surveys (Umashankar & Dutta, 2007; Karanthanos &

karanthanos, 2005; Pursglove and Simpson, 2000).

30

2.6.5. Financial

The financial indicators include revenues by source such as state appropriations, tuition,

donations, endowments, grants etc., and the expenditure for example, operating budgets,

debt service, credit rations and ratios, deferred maintenance and expenditures for the

university/ unit. The specifics appropriate to this indicator would vary substantially

depending on the level and type of unit involved (Altabach, 2005).

2.7 Sustainable Competitiveness between Private and Public Universities

University education has become more competitive as a result of increasing private sector

participation, growing demand for accountability, limited public funding for tertiary

education, and the advent of borderless tertiary education. Competition in the developed

world is forcing some institutions to seek new markets in developing countries. Some

have established satellite campuses, or are partnering with local institutions in developing

countries to offer their degree programs in areas that have ready markets, for example,

business management and information technology. In view of the perceived greater

recognition and marketability of foreign degrees, and the certainty of completing the

degree within a prescribed period of time without the fear of interruption due to student

crises, these ‗name brand degrees‘ are becoming increasingly popular, posing a rising

challenge for local universities in some countries. (Materu, 2007)

Materu (2007) continues to state that sustainable competitiveness within institutions of

higher learning should take place throughout the teaching and learning process. Which

includes; screening of candidates for admission, staff recruitment and promotion

procedures, curriculum reviews, teaching and learning facilities, quality of research,

policy development and management mechanisms, student evaluation of staff, external

31

examiners for end-of-semester or end-of-year examinations, tracer studies, academic

reviews and audits.

According to (Blustain et al,1999) as quoted by Lidong (2007) public universities

strategies to gain competitive advantage include reputation of the institution, curriculum

and educational standards, cost, location and student activities. Other sources of

sustainable competitiveness for public higher education they say include easy access,

partnership with corporations, customized curriculum, flexible delivery and use of

technology.

One of the sustainable competitive indicators is workplace satisfaction and according to

Bunoti (2011) the remuneration of the teaching and non teaching staff at public

universities is far below the living wage. Given the cost of living, the academic staff take

up extra hours of teaching load, teach at other private universities, or engage in other

money making activities to ―make ends meet‖ at the expense of the quality of the service

they ought to offer. Poor remuneration results in brain drain, which is the international

migration of skilled human capacity which is common and a symptom of deeper

problems in Africa and developing countries in general. (Dzvimbo 2006)

Bunoti (2011) also states that there is no staff performance appraisal at the public

universities apart from when one obtains higher qualifications and that the process of

promotion takes time, which demoralizes them. She goes on to say that although the

academic staff are proud to be part of such a high caliber profession, they lack the morale

and job satisfaction to perform effectively. Both private and public Universities in Kenya

have neglected faculty development (Odhiambo, 2005) and this is going to limit their

growth in the years to come. Apart from faculty development, the management capacity

32

of both private and public Universities has been very weak and that will also limit their

growth.

According to (Gudo et al, 2011) lecturers in private universities were better motivated

that those in public universities. Kiganda (2009) noted that low level of staff motivation

was mainly due to inadequate remuneration which costs universities the loss of

outstanding brains and skills that have migrated abroad. The remaining staff has been

forced into income generating activities to supplement their dwindling earnings. It further

noted that inadequate remuneration has often been the cause of staff strikes. Thus,

inadequate staff remuneration and attendant low morale have negatively affected quality

of education in universities. In a study by Olayo (2005) as quoted by Gudo et al (2011)

among selected universities in Kenya, it was found that inadequate availability of

resources de-motivated employees and did not enhance work performance. This is

because possession of skills without adequate relevant tools of trade does not enhance

efficiency. To attract and retain quality faculty (Odhiambo, 2005), besides a competitive

international salary, they need good facilities: library, offices, health care, computers, and full

internet connectivity.

Olayo (2005) further found out that employees were de-motivated by inadequate training

opportunities for capacity building. Ndegwa (2007) as quoted by Gudo et al (2011) also

found out that public universities did not prioritize staff training. Capacity building in an

organization is vital in enhancing efficiency. This is so because of the changing nature of

technology and management styles.

Another indicator of sustainable competitiveness is continuous research and publications.

According to Mamdani (2007) a renowned educationalist, the ―publish or perish‖

philosophy reduces the quality of instruction at higher education; academicians spend

33

time doing research and not teaching. Mamdani contradicts the view that continuous

research by the university adds to a university being sustainably competitive. Gudo et al

(2011) states that, in addition to offering teaching services at under-graduate and post-

graduate levels, a public university departments engaged in research and publication.

However (Gudo et al, 2011), 90 per cent of the teaching staff interviewed reported that most

of the research projects they engaged in were not university projects but their private

undertakings with external funding. One senior academic staff summarized the situation as

follows:

“Research seems not to be a priority in our public universities. You are one of the teaching staff, just tell me how much money do these universities allocate for any

kind of research? If one waits for funds from these institutions, no research can be

done”(Gudo et al,2011).

Bunoti (2007) indicates that a number of researches are done by both lecturers and

students in public universities but no publications made. ―NGOrisation‖ of research

where NGOs come with specific themes and topics is another factor affecting research.

Because of poverty, researchers jump on the band wagon regardless of their areas of

specialization which undermines the quality of research output.

The third indicator of sustainable competitiveness is marketability of programs and

effective teaching. Odhiambo (2005) noted that the Government sponsors over 10,000

new students per year who are admitted into the public Universities, many of the students

do not pursue professional degree programs that the labor market (and private sector)

actually needs. Most of the degree programs in the public Universities were established

without a clear market analysis or regard to the needs of the country of the private and/or

public sectors of the economy. In contrast private Universities can only offer degree

programs that prepare graduates for careers and are therefore employable. The private

34

universities (Odhiambo, 2005) do not rely on any published market data but instead rely

on feedback from students and local companies and organizations. Similarly, public

Universities that have been increasing the number of privately sponsored students have

discovered that some of the degree programs are not in high demand by the students.

Enrollment data in private and public Universities suggests that professional degree

programs in medicine, law, IT, and business are in very high demand.

Gudo, et al,( 2011) asserts that Public universities still stick to traditional courses. The

inability of those courses to address the demands of the labour market, make the universities

less competitive as compared to the few private universities we have. This, together with the

constant university closures have led to some students seeking admission to private

universities. It has also been reported that about ten to fifteen per cent of those who qualify

for public university admissions do not take their place.

The fourth indicator of sustainable competitiveness is finance. Public Universities are

financed by the Government (Gudo et al, 2011; Odhiambo, 2005). The Government

therefore provided all the funding for both development (classrooms, labs, libraries) as

well as recurrent expenditures (mostly staff salaries). In addition, the Government also

sponsored or subsidized the tuition fees of most of the students.

Although the percentage of the University expenditure continued to increase, all of the

public Universities remained in debt with incomplete expansion capital projects started in

the late 1980s. In addition, there is pressure to increase the faculty salaries from the

University staff union. Public Universities therefore increasingly depend on tuition

revenue of privately sponsored students. It explains why 45% of the public university

students are privately sponsored. The additional revenue is being used to pay salaries,

35

invest and maintain the ICT infrastructure and even to finalize incomplete building

projects started in the late 1980s (Odhiambo, 2005).

Private Universities on the other hand, attract research funds from foundations or from

IFC. This increases the Universities shift from being predominantly teaching Universities

to applied research Universities (Odhiambo, 2005). Private Universities have been very

aggressive in fund-raising to make sure that there would be no need to increase the tuition

fees. In fact, most private Universities have a position of deputy vice-chancellor in charge

of institutional development. The fund-raising is for infrastructure development and other

capital expenditure. Consequently, the pressure to increase tuition fees has been

somewhat reduced (Odhiambo, 2005).

All public universities were required by the Ministry of Education (MOE), through the

then Commission for Higher Education (CHE), now Commission of University education

(CUE) to prepare comprehensive financial plans, indicating net assets, sources of

revenue, expenditure and how they intended to service their debts. Each individual

institution was to prepare a three-year financial plan using the format given by CUE

(Gudo, et al, 2011).

Gudo et al (2011) study indicated that the financial state of the public universities was

unstable. The universities have, since inception, depended heavily on government

funding for both recurrent and development expenditures. This source alone constituted

more than 95% of the average university budget. The government has continued making

reductions in the university budget. To avert a financial crisis at the universities, the

government has entrusted the Commission for University Education to facilitate and co-

ordinate financial management at these universities.

36

Although the Public universities had been relying heavily on government funding, there

had been attempts to raise additional funds internally through income-generating projects.

International donor agencies like the Ford Foundation, UNESCO, the British ODA,

JICA, CIDA and SIDA have played an important role in supporting the universities;

especially in respect of research and some specific faculty-based projects. Local private

sector financial support for the universities was negligible despite the fact that the private

sector was a major beneficiary of the universities‘ products (Gudo, et al, 2011).

The public universities were under pressure to look for alternative sources of finance and

be vigilant in managing their resources. In order to balance their operational budget, the

universities had embarked on cost-reduction and cost-control measures. For example,

tuition fees were adjusted upwards. The issue and modalities of staff retrenchment were

being worked out to reduce staffing levels and, thereby, reduce current expenditures.

There was a strong commitment from the universities management to introduce viable

and sustainable income -generating activities. For example, Kenyatta University started a

Bureau of Consultancy and Training and a Computer Centre which offered professional

courses. The projects proved viable and favorable because the university did not need to

invest heavily in extra resources and equipment. The universities were also negotiating

for a strong partnership with the local private sector to persuade them to support the

universities in achieving their missions (Gudo et al, 2011).

2.8 Resource Characteristics

2.8.1 Resource Value

The value of resources lies in their ability to neutralize threats and enable company to

exploit opportunities that arise in a business environment, i.e. resources are valuable if

37

they enable a company to design and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and

effectiveness. It is important to emphasize that the value of resources has to be estimated

in the context of corporate strategy and the specific environment in which the company

operates (Talaja, 2012).

A resource must enable a firm to employ a value-creating strategy, by either

outperforming its competitors or reduce its own weaknesses Barney, 1991;Amit &

Schoemaker, 1993). Relevant in this perspective is that the transaction costs associated

with the investment in the resource cannot be higher than the discounted future rents that

flow out of the value-creating strategy (Mahoney & Prahalad, 1992; Conner,1992,).

Barney (1991) uses the term ―valuable‖ to reflect the fact that a resource should desirably

enhance the firm‘s effectiveness and efficiency. Given the ambiguity in using the term

―valuable‖, (Barney, 2001) refers to it as revenue enhancement or cost reduction

potential. Revenue/cost reduction potential refers to how, everything else equal, a

resource will be beneficial if it allows the firm to offer more attractive products- thereby

increasing its revenue- or to operate more efficiently- thereby decreasing its cost. Related

statements emphasize the importance of the resource being potentially in demand (Collis

& Montgomery, 1997); at least somewhat durable (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993); and able

to generate heterogeneity relative to rivals (Peteraf, 1993). The capacity of a resource to

generate higher revenues and/ or lower costs is enhanced if the resource is fungible so

that it can be shared amongst multiple activities (prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Montgomery,

1992)- a point of particular importance when it comes to international or product-market

diversification (Buckley & Casson, 1976; Teece, 1980).

38

If a company fails to exploit valuable resources, it will have the competitive

disadvantage. If the resource that a company possesses is not valuable, then it will not

allow the company to choose and implement strategies that exploit opportunities and

neutralize threats from the environment. Such resources are considered as weaknesses

(Talaja, 2012).

Resource Value in Public and Private Universities

One of the resource values of universities is the approachability of lecturers. Bunoti

(2011) reports that lecturers in public universities have limited opportunity for

consultation; students meet lecturers only during lecturer time and therefore cannot

obtain guidance and counseling or other forms of support, but appreciate that the lecturer:

student ratio is high. She also found out that in public universities many lecturers are not

highly qualified; very few hold PhDs, apart from those at top management level. Bunoti

(2011) also found out that there was unprofessional behavior among lecturers and other

staff resulting in rudeness and use of threatening abuse of students. She also concluded

that in public universities, some lecturers do not prepare notes; instead they download

articles and assign text book chapters for students to make copies, which is very costly.

Student enrollment in Private universities is generally relatively small in size and also the

scope of the programmes, which are mainly in business and information and technology.

The private universities have also found that apart from a small proportion of mature

working adults, the majority of students who enroll in their institutions are self-funded

high school leavers (ed. Nhundu and Moanakwena, 2008). At the public universities,

student application and enrollment has become overwhelming, which have forced many

of them to admit students beyond their intake capacity. (Buzindadde 2000)

39

Another indicator of resource value is support from the university‘s alumni. Most of the

public Universities in Kenya do not yet have a strong and deep alumni network with

active associations. Private Universities attempt to track their students but they have not

yet been successful in fund-raising from the alumni. In most cases, the database of past

students is not current and this is a challenge (Odhiambo, 2005).

The University of Nairobi; an example of a public university, the largest and oldest

university in Kenya launched an alumni association in 2005 and it is expected that in the

future it will use it to raise funds for different capital projects or bursary schemes. On the

other hand, Strathmore University a (private university) has had a history of maintaining

current databases of their alumni. In 2005, the Strathmore University Alumni Association

was formally launched. In the future, it is expected that the association will endow academic

chairs, provide scholarships or help the University in different capital development projects

(Odhiambo, 2005).

Some Private Universities have established scholarship endowment funds sponsored by

the alumni and other well wishers as a way of increasing the number of scholarships

available to needy students. For example, Strathmore University has established a

Scholarship Endowment Fund using a grant from the European Union (Odhiambo, 2005).

In order to harness international support from alumni and friends, the Strathmore

University has established the Strathmore University Foundation, an organization

incorporated in the US to serve as a fund-raising vehicle, as well as facilitating

connections for Strathmore with leading institutions in the US.

The university‘s image is also an indicator of resource value. University image can be

defined as the sum of all the beliefs an individual has towards the university (Landrum et

al. 1998; Arpan et al. 2003).

40

2.8.2 Resource Rarity

Resource rareness implies that competitors do not have access to the particular resource,

or that they have only limited access. Valuable resources that are not rare cannot be the

sources of the competitive advantage (Talaja, 2012). A firm must ideally have dominant

access to the resource in order to capitalize on its resource/cost potential. To be of value,

a resource must be rare by definition. In a perfectly competitive strategic factor market

for a resource, the price of the resource will be a reflection of the expected discounted

future above-average returns (Barney, 1986a; Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Barney,1991).

Absent rareness, nearly instantaneous adjustment by competitors with the same will be

possible, negating any durable revenue/cost advantage. Therefore, a resource should be

rare (Barney, 1991), or equivalently scarce (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Collis and

Montgomery, 1997). Wenerfelt (1984) and peteraf (1993) highlighted the importance of

―uncommon resource positions‖ whereby a firm starts with overwhelming control over

the resource supply, thus preventing most rivals from accumulating them in similar

quantities. Valuable resources that are not rare are not irrelevant to a company. These

resources ensure the survival of the company and enable it to achieve competitive parity

in the industry in which it operates (Talaja, 2012).

The degree to which a valuable firm resource should be rare in order to have the potential

for generating competitive advantage is difficult to establish. It is though not difficult to

see that if a firm‘s valuable resources are absolutely unique among a set of competing

and potentially competing firms, those resources will generate a sustained competitive

advantage. However, it may be possible for a small number of firms in an industry to

possess a particular valuable resource and still generate a competitive advantage. In

general, as long as the number of firms that possess a particular valuable resource is less

41

than the number of firms needed to generate perfect competition dynamics in an industry

(Hirshleifer, 1980) that resource has the potential of generating a competitive advantage.

It is stressed that the value and rarity of resources are necessary conditions for achieving

competitive advantage. However, for achieving sustainable competitive advantage,

resources also have to be imperfectly imitable and not substitutable. Foss and Knudsen

(2003) reflect on Barney‘s classification of VRIN conditions, and state that there are the

only two necessary conditions for achieving sustainable competitive advantage:

uncertainty and immobility.

Resource Rarity in Private and Public Universities

Uniqueness of facilities such as libraries, lecture hall; programs and other resources are

the main indicators of resource rarity. According to Bunoti (2011), the number of

students admitted in public universities is not proportionate to the facilities available.

Consequently (Gudo, et al, 2011) they experience overstretched facilities due unplanned

student admissions by the management. The public demand for education and the

government's response affected the progress made in increasing enrolment in public

universities Libraries for example are not modern; they are too small for the number of

students and not well stocked, a majority of the books being out-of-date. The students‘

compete for space in the libraries and often forego meals especially during the peak

period of assignments and examinations (Bunoti,2011; Gudo et al, 2011).

Lecture halls are in public universities are also said to be too small for the number of

students and have insufficient seats. Students lose time by transferring seats from one

room to another and occasionally attend lectures standing up with an overflow on the

verandas. In addition, the lecture rooms are not sound proof; therefore lecturers are

42

interrupted by heavy rain, Guild campaigns and mowers. Quite often lecturers are put off

because of unbearable noise (Bunoti,2011).

The lecturer: student ratio at the public universities (Bunoti, 2011) is overwhelming.

While some lecturers are doing their best with limited resources, are knowledgeable and

have a good relationship with students, many exhibit tendencies of absenteeism,

sluggishness, inability to give valuable time, and lack of concern for students‘ challenges.

In relation to programs offered by public universities, commercialization of higher

education has lead to fragmentation of courses leading to very early specialization yet

students get attracted to courses by name and not content. For instance, at undergraduate

level Psychology has been fragmented into guidance and counseling, community

psychology, organizational psychology, while the Bachelor of commerce has been

fragmented into accounting and finance, procurement and logistics, business studies,

international business, business administration, banking, and entrepreneurship.

In relation to uniqueness of programs, Kasozi (2006) argues that the majority of the over

1800 programmes offered at public universities are theoretical and irrelevant to the job

market. Mamdani (2007), in his book Scholars in the Marketplace, accused universities

of duplicating courses for the sake of generating revenue from private students.

According to Odhiambo (2005), private University face difficulties in introducing new

programs. Even when they either have an interim letter of authority or charter, they still need

to get approval to introduce new programs. This is a good peer-reviewed quality assurance

process but unfortunately is relatively slower than it could be due to the lack of expert

reviewers willing to work with CHE now CUE. In contrast, public Universities can launch

new degree programs in less than 6 months. In addition, it is possible for public Universities

to enter into partnership agreements with private colleges to offer their degrees.

43

Apart from introduction of new programs, the program implementation is also an

indicator of resource rarity. The implementation of programmes in public universities has

suffered from a lot of confusion. This was due to the increase of government control over

public universities and the constant closures of universities due to student riots and staff

strikes. For example, in the 1994/95 academic year, teaching staff in public universities

were on strike for ten months. Over time, the quality of public university education has

become questionable. Frequent closures have meant longer periods to complete

programmes or reduction of course content, that is, courses were either not completed or

were rushed (Gudo et al, 2011).

2.7.3Resource Inimitability

If a valuable resource is controlled by only one firm it could be a source of a competitive

advantage (Barney, 1991). This advantage could be sustainable if competitors are not

able to duplicate this strategic asset perfectly (Peteraf, 1993; Barney, 1986b,). A central

proposition in strategy is that firms sustain relative performance advantages only if their

existing and potential rivals cannot imitate them (Nelson and Winter 1982, Dierickx and

Cool 1989, Barney, 1991).

Imitation means the purposeful endeavor to improve performance by copying the form

and strategy of a superior rival. An imitation strategy is one of many ways two firms may

become similar in appearance and performance (Ryall, 2009). Imitation fails when either,

it is physically impossible, legally prevented, economically unattractive, or the necessary

knowledge is lacking.

Saloner et al. (2001) label barriers of the first three types ―positional‖ and those of the

last ―capabilities based.‖ The conditions leading to positional barriers e.g., switching

costs, entry costs, scope and scale economies, and the likelihood of ex post retaliation

44

(Porter 1980, Tirole 1988). Capabilities-based barriers is when imitation is hampered by a

lack of knowledge, learning becomes a central issue. Capabilities-based advantage is

sustained only if learning of both types that is, explorative learning in the active sense of

learning from one‘s own experience (learning by doing), or absorptive in the passive

sense of learning from external information.

Firms can only be imperfectly inimitable for one or a combination of three reasons: (a)

the ability of a firm to obtain a resource is dependent upon unique historical conditions;

(b) the link between the resources possessed by a firm and a firm‘s competitive advantage

is casually ambiguous or (c) the resource generating a firms advantage is socially

complex (Dierickx and Cool, 1989).

2.7.3.1 Unique Historical Conditions and Inimitable Resources

The RBV approach to competitiveness asserts that not only are firms intrinsically

historical and social entities, but that their ability to acquire and exploit some resource

depends upon their place in time and space. Once this unique time in history passes, firms

that do not have space-and-time dependent resources cannot obtain them and thus these

resources are imperfectly imitable (Barney, 1991).

Resource-based theories are not alone in recognizing the importance of history as a

determinant of firm performance and competitive advantage. Traditional strategy

researchers (e.g. Ansoff, 1965 and Learned et al., 1969) often cited the unique historical

circumstances of a firm‘s founding, or the unique circumstances under which a new

management team takes over a firm, as important determinants of a firm‘s long term

performance. Economists (e.g. Arthur et al, 1987; David, 1985) also developed models of

firm performance that rely heavily on unique historical events as determinants of

45

subsequent actions. Employing path-dependent models of economic performance, Arthur

et al. (1987) suggests that performance of a firm does not depend simply on the industry

structure within which a firm finds itself at a particular point in time, but also on the path

a firm followed through history to arrive where it is. If a firm obtains valuable and rare

resources because of its unique path through history, it will be able to exploit those

resources in implementing value-creating strategies that cannot be duplicated by other

firms, for firms without that particular path through history cannot obtain the resources

necessary to implement the strategy.

The acquisition of firm resources depends on the unique historical position of a firm. A

firm that locates its facilities on what turns out to be much more valuable location than

was anticipated when the location was chosen possesses an imperfectly imitable physical

capital resource (Hirshleifer, 1988). A firm, for example with scientists who are uniquely

positioned to create or exploit a significant scientific breakthrough may obtain an

imperfectly imitable resource from the history-dependent nature of these scientists‘

individual capital (Burgelman and Maidique, 1988; Winter, 1988). Finally a firm with a

unique and valuable organizational culture that emerged in the early stages of the firm‘s

history may have an imperfectly imitable advantage over a firm founded in another

historical period, where different (and perhaps less valuable) organizational values and

beliefs come to dominate (Barney, 1989b).

2.7.3.2 Causal Ambiguity and Inimitable Resources

The term ―causal ambiguity‖ in its traditional usage refers to any knowledge-based

impediment to imitation (Saloner et al. 2001,). The first strategy paper using this term

appears to be Lippman and Rumelt (1982), who assert, ―basic ambiguity concerning the

48

technological environments may make those resources obsolete and curtail the firm‘s

dominance. Late entrants may comply with the technological innovativeness and

increased pressure of competition, seeking a competitive advantage by making the

existing competencies and resources of early entrants invalid or outdated. In other words,

innovative technological implications will significantly change the landscape of the

industry and the market, making early movers' advantage minimal. However, in a market

where technology does not play a dynamic role, early mover advantage may prevail.

2.7.3.3 Social Complexity and Inimitable Resource

Another reason that a firm‘s resources may be imperfectly imitable is the existence of

very complex social phenomena, beyond the ability of firms to systematically manage

and influence. When competitive advantages are based on such a phenomena, the ability

of other firms to imitate these resources is significantly constrained (Barney, 1991).

A wide variety of firm resources may be socially complex for example interpersonal

relations among managers in a firm (Hambrick, 1987), a firms culture (Barney, 1986b), a

firm reputation among suppliers (Porter, 1980) and customers (Klein & Lefler, 1981). It

is also to specify how these socially complex resources add value to a firm. Therefore,

there is little or no casual ambiguity surrounding the link between these firm resources

and competitive advantage. However, organizational culture for example those with

certain attributes or quality relations among managers can improve a firm‘s efficiency

and effectiveness does not necessarily imply that firms without these attributes can

engage in systematic effort to create them (Dierickx & Cool, 1989).

Physical technology is though not included in this category of sources of imperfect

inimitability. Physical technology for example machine tools or robots in factories

49

(Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984) or complex information management systems (Howell

and Fleishman, 1982), is by itself typically imitable. If one firm can purchase these

physical tools of production and thereby implement some strategies, then other firms

should not be a source of sustained competitive advantage.

It is only the exploitation of the physical technology in a firm with the use of socially

complex firm that can make the resource imperfectly imitable. Several firms may all

possess that same physical technology, but only one of these firms may possess the social

relations, culture, traditions to fully exploit this technology in implementing strategies

(Wilkins, 1989). If these complex social resources are not subject to imitation (and

assuming they are valuable and rare and no substitute exists), these firms may obtain a

sustained competitive advantage from exploring the physical technology more

completely that other firms, even though competing firms do not vary in terms of the

physical technology they possess.

Resource Inimitability in private and Public Universities

Organizational cultures is one of the resources that canot be easily copied. According to

Kuh & Whitt (1988), university culture can be defined as collective mutually shaping

patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that guide behaviour of

individuals and group. This provides a frame of reference within which to interpret the

meaning of events and actions on and off campus. University culture allows us to see and

understand, interactions of people outside the organization and special events, actions,

objectives and situations in distinctive way.

50

University culture basically comes from three sources; the beliefs, values, and

assumptions of founders of organizations and the learning experiences of group members

as their organizations evolve. Values, beliefs and assumptions can be thought greatly

influence decision making processes at universities and shape individuals and

organizational behaviors. Behaviors based on underlying assumptions and beliefs are

conveyed through stories, special language and institutional norms (Cameron & Freeman,

1991). University Culture is also created by new beliefs, values and assumptions brought

in by new members and leaders. According to Schein (1994), it is the leaders who play

the crucial role in shaping and reinforcing culture.

In university settings, it is especially important to investigate interactions between

members of faculty and between faculty and students. According to (Kalyani, 2011), the

characteristics that capture the essence of innovative culture include: openness,

collaboration, trust, authenticity, proactive, autonomy, confrontation, and

experimentation.

The definition of a public good (Dill, 2005) is a good or service which is neither rivalrous

in consumption nor excludable in ownership. That is to say it is inimitable. Such goods –

national defense being the classic example -- will either not be provided or provided in

insufficient quantities by the private sector and therefore must be provided by the state.

Not surprisingly economists applying this definition conclude that higher education

institutions and more specifically the services they provide are not public goods (Barr,

2004). Basic and applied research, academic degrees, and consulting are all supplied both

by private and public institutions in our society.

51

2.7.4 Non-substitutability

The last characteristic of firm resource for sustained competitive advantage is that there

must be no strategically equivalent valuable resources that are themselves either not rare

or imitable. Two valuable firm resources (or two bundles of firm resources) are

strategically equivalent when they each can be exploited separately to implement the

same strategies. Suppose that one of these valuable firm resources are rare and

imperfectly imitable but the other is not, firms with this first resource will be able to

conceive and implement certain strategies. If there are no strategically equivalent firm

resources, these strategies will generate a sustained competitive advantage (because the

resources used to conceive and implement them are valuable, rare and imperfectly

imitable). However, that there are strategically equivalent resources suggests that other

current or potentially competing firms can implement the same strategies, but in a

different way, using different resources. If these alternative resources are either not rare

or imitable, then numerous firms will be able to conceive of and implement the strategies

in question, and those strategies will not generate a sustained competitive advantage. This

will be the case even though one approach to implementing these strategies exploits

valuable, rare and imperfectly imitable firm resources (Barney,1991).

Even if a resource is rare, potentially value-creating and imperfectly imitable, an equally

important aspect is lack of substitutability (Dierickx and Cool, 1989;Barney, 1991). If

competitors are able to counter the firm‘s value-creating strategy with a substitute, prices

are driven down to the point that the price equals the discounted future rents (Barney,

1986a,; sheikh, 1991), resulting in zero economic profits.

Substitutability can take two forms. First, though it may not be possible for a firm to

imitate another firm‘s resources exactly, it may be able to substitute a similar resource

52

that enables it to conceive of and implement the same strategies. For example, a firm

seeking to duplicate the competitive advantages of another firm by imitating that other

firm‘s high quality top management team will often not be able to copy that team exactly

(Barney & Tyler, 1990). However, it may be possible for this firm to develop its own

unique top management team. Though these team will be different (different people,

different operating practices, a different history), they may likely be strategically

equivalent and thus be substitutes for one another. If different top management teams are

strategically equivalent (and if these substitute teams are common or highly imitable),

then a high quality top management team is not a source of sustained competitive

advantage, even though a particular management of a particular firm is valuable, rare and

imperfectly imitable.

Second, very different firm resources can also be strategic substitutes. For example,

managers in one firm may have very clear vision of the future of their company because

of a charismatic leader in the firm (Zucker, 1977). Managers of competing firms may also

have a very clear vision of the future of their companies, but this common vision may

reflect these firms‘ systematic, company –wide strategic planning process (Pearce et al.,

1987). From the point of view of managers having a clear vision of the future of their

company, the firm resource of a charismatic leader and the firm resource of a formal

planning system may be strategically equivalent, and thus substitute for one another. If

large numbers of competing firms have a formal planning system that generates this

common vision (or if such a formal planning is highly imitable), then firms with such a

vision derived from a charismatic leader will not have a sustained competitive advantage,

even though the firm resources of a charismatic is probably rare and imperfectly imitable.

53

Strategic substitutability of firm resources is always a matter of degree. However,

substitute firm resources need not have exactly the same implications for an organization

in order for those resources to be equivalent from point of view of the strategies that

firms can conceive of and implement. If enough firms have these valuable substitute

resources (i.e. they are not rare) or if enough firms can acquire them (i.e. they are

imitable) then none of these firms (including firms whose resources are being substituted

for) can expect to obtain a sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1991).

Conclusion on Resource Characteristics

Universities differ in terms of the characteristics of resources they posses. Some are

difficult, if not impossible to imitate or copy such as quality of faculty and the presence

of particular internal and external support structure. (Bryson et al, 2007). Previous

research suggests that expert knowledge and scientific capabilities (Deeds et al, 1997;

Finkle, 1998) as well as access to important personnel information and support structures

(Flynn, 1993; Mansfield & Lee 1996) are important sources of sustainable

competitiveness. Furthermore, access to university research; creation of new products and

processes of high technology industries (Mansfield & Lee 1996), have been shown to be

significant predictors of sustainable competitiveness. Hence in higher education context,

resources such as quality of faculty, the presences of particular programs and

infrastructure, the amount of research and development support represent critical

resources of a university.

2.8 Theory on Resource Characteristics

The resource-based view (RBV), as one of the most widely accepted theories of

competitive advantage, focuses on relationships between company‘s internal resource

54

characteristics and competitive advantage (Spanos and Lioukas, 2001). It is based on the

assumption that companies within an industry are heterogeneous in terms of resources

they control. Since resources may not be perfectly mobile, heterogeneity can be long

lasting (Barney, 1991). According to Barney (1992, 1995) resources and capabilities

include financial, physical, human and organizational assets that a company uses to

develop, manufacture and deliver products and services to customers. Financial resources

include debt, equity, retained earnings, etc. Physical resources include machines,

manufacturing plants and buildings. Human resources relate to the skills, knowledge,

ability to make judgments, risk-taking propensity and wisdom of individuals associated

with the company. Organizational resources are history, connections, confidence,

organizational structure, formal reporting structure, management control systems and

compensation policies (Barney, 1992, 1995).

Resources are inputs into a firm‘s production process (Barney 1991) that are either

knowledge-based or property-based (Miller and Shamsie 1996). Amit & Schoemaker

(1993) divide the construct ―resource‖ into resources and capabilities. In this respect,

resources are tradable and non-specific to the firm, while capabilities are firm-specific

and are used to engage the resources within the firm, such as implicit processes to

transfer knowledge within the firm (Makadok, 2001; Hoopes et al, 2003).

Makadok (2001) emphasizes the distinction between capabilities and resources by

defining capabilities as ―a special type of resource, specifically an organizationally

embedded non-transferable firm-specific resource whose purpose is to improve the

productivity of the other resources possessed by the firm‖. ―Resources are stocks of

available factors that are owned or controlled by the organization, and capabilities are an

56

The Resource based view explains that a firm‘s sustainable competitive advantage is

reached by virtue of unique resources being rare, valuable, inimitable, non-tradable, and

non-substitutable, as well as firm-specific (Makadok 2001; Finney et al.2004). These

authors write about the fact that a firm may reach a sustainable competitive advantage

through unique resources which it holds, and these resources cannot be easily bought,

transferred, or copied, and simultaneously, they add value to a firm while being rare. It

also highlights the fact that not all resources of a firm may contribute to a firm‘s

sustainable competitive advantage. Varying performance between firms is a result of

heterogeneity of assets (Lopez, 2005; Helfat and Peteraf, 2003) and RBV is focused on

the factors that cause these differences to prevail (Lopez, 2005).

2.9 Summary of the RBV

Although the RBV is considered one of the most influential theories of strategic

management (Powell, 2001; Priem and Butler, 2001; Newbert, 2008), its acceptance

seems to be based more on the basis of logic and intuition than on the empirical evidence

(Newbert, 2008). In most studies that examine the connection between company‘s

resources and performance, resource heterogeneity approach is employed. By that

approach, specific resource or capability is claimed to be valuable, rare, imperfectly

imitable or non-substitutable, and then the amount of that resource or capability that a

company owns is correlated with competitive advantage or performance (Newbert, 2007,

2008). This type of research provides evidence that a specific resource can help company

to achieve competitive advantage, but does not verify the influence of resource

characteristics (value, rareness, inimitability and non-substitutability) on competitive

advantage (Newbert, 2008).

57

Results of studies using the resource heterogeneity approach suggest that company‘s

asset influences market performance, but not profitability (Spanos and Lioukas, 2001),

company-specific resources (corporate management capabilities, employee value-added

and technological competence) enhance accounting-based and market-based measures of

performance (Acquaah and Chi, 2007) and that relationships between resource

sustainability, capability dynamism and resource orientation (RO) are significant

(Chmielewski and Paladino, 2007). Wu (2010) divided resources in two groups, VRIN

and non- VRIN, and concluded that groups are positively correlated to competitive

advantage in low and medium volatility environments, but in high volatility

environments, only VRIN resources have influence on competitive advantage.

2.10 Theory on Sustainable Competitiveness

The Balanced Score Card by Kaplan and Norton (1996)

The Balanced Scorecard is a performance management tool that enables a company to

translate its vision and strategy into a tangible set of performance measures. However, it

is more than a measuring device. The scorecard provides an enterprise view of an

organization‘s overall performance by integrating financial measures with other key

performance indicators around customer perspectives, internal business processes, and

organizational growth, learning, and innovation. Kaplan and Norton (1996) describe the

innovation of the balanced scorecard as follows: "The balanced scorecard retains

traditional financial measures. But financial measures tell the story of past events, an

adequate story for industrial age companies for which investments in long-term

capabilities and customer relationships were not critical for success. These financial

measures are inadequate, however, for guiding and evaluating the journey that

information age companies must make to create future value through investment in

58

customers, suppliers, employees, processes, technology, and innovation (Kaplan and

Norton, 1996)."

The Balanced Scorecard relies on the concept of Strategy developed by Michael Porter

(Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Porter argues that the essence of formulating a competitive

strategy lies in relating a company to the competitive forces in the industry in which it

competes. The scorecard translates the vision and strategy of a business unit into

objectives and measures in four different areas: the financial, customer, internal business

process and learning and growth perspective. The financial perspective identifies how the

company wishes to be viewed by its shareholders. The customer perspective determines

how the company wishes to be viewed by its customers. The internal business process

perspective describes the business processes at which the company has to be particularly

adept in order to satisfy its shareholders and customers. The organizational learning and

growth perspective involves the changes and improvements which the company needs to

realize if it is to make its vision come true.

59

Fig 2.2 Translating Vision and Strategy: Four perspectives Kaplan and Norton (1996)

A strategy is a set of hypotheses about cause and effect. The measurement system should

make the relationships (hypotheses) among objectives (and measures) in the various

perspectives explicit, so that they can be managed and validated. The chain of cause and

effect should pervade all four perspectives of a BSC (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). The

chain of cause-and-effect relationships can be established as a vertical vector through the

four Balanced Scorecard perspectives.

Kaplan and Norton (1996) assume the following causal relationship the measures of

organizational learning and growth are therefore the drivers of the measures of the

internal business processes. The measures of these processes are in turn the drivers of the

measures of the customer perspective, while these measures are the drivers of the

financial measures.

60

Financial

Customer

Internal Business

Processes

Learning and

Growth

Fig 2.3 Cause and Relationship Effect (Norton and Kaplan, 1996)

2.10.1 Financial

The financial performance measures define the long-run objectives of the business unit.

Though most businesses emphasize the profitability objectives, other financial objectives

are also possible. Businesses with many products in the early stages of their life cycle can

stress rapid growth objectives, and mature businesses may emphasize maximizing cash

flows. The three stages include: rapid growth, sustain and Harvest.

The financial objectives for businesses in each of these stages are quite different.

Financial objectives in the growth stage (Murby & Gould, 2005) will emphasize sales

growth; sales in new markets and to new customers; sales from new products and

services; maintaining adequate spending levels for product and process development,

systems, employee capabilities and establishment of new marketing, sales and

distribution channels. Financial objectives in the sustain stage will emphasize traditional

financial measures, such as return on capital employed, operating income and gross

margins. Investment projects for businesses in the sustain stage will be evaluated by

standard, discounted cash flow, capital budgeting analyses. Some companies will employ

newer financial metrics such as economic value added and shareholder value. These

Return on Capital Employed

Customer loyalty

process Quality process cycle time

Employee Skills

61

metrics all present the classic financial objective –earn excellent returns on the capital

provided to the business. The financial objectives for the harvest business will stress on

cash flow. Any investments must have immediate and certain cash paybacks. The goal is

not to maximize return on investment, which may encourage managers to seek additional

investment funds based on future return projections. Virtually no spending will be done

for research on development, or on expanding capabilities, because of the short time

remaining in the economic life of business units in their harvest phase (Kaplan, 2010).

Companies use three financial themes to achieve their business strategies: revenue

growth and mix; cost reduction/ productivity improvement and asset utilization/

investment strategy. Revenue growth and mix refers to expanding product and service

offerings, reaching new customers and markets, changing the product and service mix

towards higher-value-added offerings and re-pricing products and services. The cost

reduction and the productivity objective refer to efforts to lower the direct cost of

products and services, reduce indirect costs, and share common resources with other

business units. For asset utilization, managers attempt to reduce the working and physical

capital levels required to support a given volume and mix of business. These three

financial themes can be used with any of the three generic business strategies; the

particular measures will vary depending on the strategy (Kaplan and Norton, 1992).

2.10.2 Customer

In the customer perspective of the Balanced Scorecard (MacLellan, 2007), managers

identify the customers and market segments in which the business unit will compete and

the measures of business units performance in these targeted segments. The customer

perspective includes several generic measures of the successful outcomes from a well

formulated and implemented strategy. The generic outcome measures include: customer

62

satisfaction; customer retention; new customer acquisition; customer profitability and

market and account share in targeted segments.

Market and Account share

Market share, especially for targeted customer segment, reveals how well a company is

penetrating a desired market. When companies have targeted particular customers or

market segments, they can also use a second market- share type measure: the account

share of those customers‘ business. The overall market share measure based on business

with the companies could be affected by the total amount of business these companies are

offering in a given period. That is, the share of business with these targeted customers

could be decreasing because these customers are offering less business to their suppliers

(Isoraite, 2008). Companies can measure- customer by customer or segment by segment-

how much of the customers‘ and market segments‘ business they are receiving. Such a

measure provides a strong focus to the company when trying to dominate its targeted

customers‘ purchases of products or services in categories that it offers.

Customer Retention

A desirable way for maintaining or increasing market share in targeted customer

segments is to retain existing customers in those segments. Companies that can readily

identify all of their customers can measure customer retention from period to period.

Other than retaining customers, many companies will wish to measure customer loyalty

by the percentage growth of business with existing customers (Murby & Gould, 2005).

Customer Acquisition

The customer acquisition measure tracks, in absolute or relative terms, the rate at which a

business unit attracts or wins new customers or business. It can be measured by either the

63

number of new customers or the total sales to new customers in these segments.

Companies such as banks solicit new customers through broad, often expensive,

marketing efforts. These companies could examine the number of customer response to

solicitation and the conversion rate-number of actual new customers divided by number

of prospective inquiries. They could measure solicitation costs per new customer

acquired and the ratio of new revenues per sales call (Kaplan, 2010).

Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction measures feedback on how well the company is doing. Only when

customers rate their buying experience as completely or extremely satisfying can the

company count on their repeat purchasing behavior.

Customer profitability

Succeeding in the core customer measures of share, retention, acquisition and

satisfaction, however does not guarantee that the company has profitable customers. One

way to have extremely satisfied customers is to sell products and services at very low

prices. Since customer satisfaction and high market share are themselves only a means to

achieving higher financial returns, companies will wish to measure not just the extent of

business they do with customers, but the profitability of this business; particularly in

targeted customer segments. Activity-based Cost (ABC) systems permit companies to

measure individual and aggregate customer profitability. A financial measure, such as

customer profitability, can help keep customers-focused organizations from being

customer-obsessed (MacLellan, 2007).

The customer profitability measure may reveal that certain targeted customers are

unprofitable. This is likely to occur for newly acquired customers, where the considerable

64

sales effort to acquire a new customer has yet to be offset from the margins earned by

selling products and services to the customer. In this case lifetime profitability becomes

the basis for deciding whether to retain or discourage current unprofitable customers.

Newly acquired customers can still be valued, even if currently unprofitable, because of

their growth potential. But unprofitable customers who have been with the company for

many years will likely require explicit action to cope with their incurred losses (Norton

and Kaplan, 1996).

Measuring Customer Value proposition

Customer value proposition represents the attributes that supplying companies provide,

through their products and services, to create loyalty and satisfaction in targeted customer

segments. The value proposition (MacLellan, 2007) is the key concept of understanding

the drivers of the core measurements of satisfaction, acquisitions, retention and market

and account share. For example, customers could value short lead times and on-time

delivery, they could also value a constant stream of innovative products and services.

Value propositions vary across industries and across different market segments within

industries. A set of attributes have been observed that organizes the value propositions in

all the industries. The attributes are organized into three: product/service attributes;

customer relationships; image and reputation. Product and service attributes encompass

the functionality of the product/service, its price and its quality. The image and reputation

dimension enables a company to pro-actively define itself for its customers. The

customer relationship dimension includes the delivery of the product/service to the

customer including the response and delivery time and how customers feel about the

experience of purchasing from the company. The customer perspective enables business

65

unit managers to articulate their unique customer and market-based strategy that will

deliver superior future financial returns.

2.10.3 Internal Business Process

In the internal business process perspective, executives identify the critical internal

processes in which the organization must excel. These processes enable the business unit

to: deliver on the value propositions of customers in targeted market segments and to

satisfy shareholder expectations of excellent financial returns.

The internal business process perspective (Murby & Gould, 2005) reveals two

fundamental differences between traditional and the Balanced Scorecard approaches to

performance measurement. Traditional approaches attempts to monitor and improve

existing business processes. They may go beyond just financial measures of performance

by incorporating quality and time-based metrics. But they still focus on improving

existing processes. The Balanced Scorecard approach however will usually identify

entirely new processes at which the organization must excel to meet customer and

financial objectives.

The second departure of the Balanced Scorecard approach is to incorporate innovation

processes into internal business process perspective. The traditional performance

measurement system focus on the processes of delivering today‘s products and services

to today‘s customers. They attempt to control and improve existing operations –the short-

wave of value creation. But the drivers of long term financial success may require the

organization to create entirely new products and services that will meet the emerging

needs of current and future customers. The innovation process- the long wave of value

creation –is for many companies, a more powerful driver of future financial performance.

66

The internal business process perspective incorporates objectives and measures for both

the long-wave and the short-wave operations cycle (Kaplan, 2010).

2.10.4 Learning and Growth

The forth Balanced Scorecard perspective, learning and growth identify the infra-

structure that the organization must build to create long-term growth and improvement.

Organizational learning and growth comes from three principal sources: people, systems

and organizational procedures. The financial, customer and internal business process

objectives of the Balanced Scorecard will typically reveal large gaps between existing

capabilities of people, systems and procedures and what will be required to achieve

targets for breakthrough performance. To close these gaps, businesses will have to invest

in re-skilling employees, enhancing information technology and systems and aligning

organizational procedures and routines. As in the customer perspective, employee-based

measures include a mixture of generic outcome measures- employee satisfaction,

employee retention, employee training and employee skills- along with specific drivers of

these generic measures such as detailed indexes of specific skills required for the new

competitive environment. Information system capabilities can be measured by real time

availability of accurate customer and internal process information to front-line

employees. Organizational procedures can examine alignment of employee incentives

with overall organizational success factors, and measured rates of improvement in critical

customer-based and internal processes.

67

2.11 The Conceptual Framework

Independent variables

H3a H2

H1

H3b H3

H3c

H3d

Fig 2.4 Model Linking Resource Characteristics and Sustainable Competitiveness

Source: (Researcher, 2012)

Valuable resources

Rare resources

In-imitable resources

Non-substitutable

resources

Dependent

variables

Sustainable

Competitiveness Control

Variables Cost

Location

Age of university

Public &

Private

university

Public &

Private

university

68

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.0 Overview

This section comprises of the following sub-sections: description of the study area,

research design, target population, sampling design and procedure, sample size, sampling

technique, data collection, validity & reliability of the research instruments data

processing and analysis, outline of the data presentation techniques and ethical

considerations.

3.1 Description of the Study Area

The research was carried out between a private university and a public university in

Kenya. The public university is located in Eldoret town (Moi University) while the

private university is located within the capital city; Nairobi (Catholic University of

Eastern Africa). The reason for choosing these universities is that both of them were

began in nearly the same year (1984-1985) therefore, they were more likely to have

similarities in growth and progress. They can therefore be good examples of how they

utilize their resources to gain sustainable competitiveness.

3.1.1. Public University

The public university chosen for this study was Moi University main campus. It is

located 36 kilometers south east of Eldoret town on a 1,363.04 hectares of land which

was originally a wattle tree plantation formally owned by EATEC (Moi University

Calendar, 1996, 97). The university was founded in 1984. Moi University has a number

of other campuses including: Annex which houses school of law. It is 5 kms South of

Eldoret and is in 45.45 hectares of land; Town campus (College of Health Sciences) and

Eldoret West Campus, 5 kms North East of Eldoret. All these are within Eldoret Town.

69

Other campuses include: Nairobi, Coast, Kitale, Kericho, Alupe, Odera Akang‘o and

Yala (Moi University website, 2013).

The constituent Colleges of Moi University are Rongo and Garrisa University Colleges.

It is privileged to have 14 schools with a total of 72 departments. The university offers

over 53 undergraduate degree programs, and 70 post graduate degree programs (Moi

University Website, 2011/2012). The number of staff at all levels is 3,662 of whom 934

are academic (teaching) staff. The total student population is 31,723, with over 28,951

undergraduates (14,306 privately sponsored and 14,545 government sponsored). The post

graduates are 1,843 (1,577 doing masters and 266 doctoral students).

3.1.2. Private University

The private university chosen for this study was Catholic University of Eastern Africa

Nairob campus (Langata). The Catholic University of Eastern Africa (CUEA) started in a

modest way. It commenced as a graduate school of theology known as the Catholic

Higher Institute of Eastern Africa (CHIEA).

The Institute (CHIEA) was founded in 1984 by the regional ecclesiastical authority

known as the Association of Member Episcopal Conferences of Eastern Africa

(AMECEA). Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia are

the member countries of AMECEA (CUEA website, 2013).

On 2 May 1984, CHIEA was authorized by the Congregation for Catholic Education,

Vatican City (cf. Prot. N. 821/80/34), to offer two-year Licentiate/MA programmes in

Theology. On 3 September of the same year, it was officially inaugurated by Rt Rev.

Bishop Madaldo Mazombwe, the then Chairman of AMECEA. On 18 August 1985, it

was formally opened by Pope John Paul II. In 1986, the Graduate School of Theology

70

started negotiations with the Commission for Higher Education in Kenya towards the

establishment of the Catholic University of Eastern Africa (CUEA).

In 1989, the Institute obtained the "Letter of Interim Authority" as the first step towards

its establishment as a private university. After three years of intensive negotiations

between the Authority of the Graduate School of Theology (CHIEA) and the

Commission for Higher Education, the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences was

established. The climax of the negotiations was a granting of the Civil Charter to CHIEA

on 3 November 1992. This marked the birth of the university as a private institution. In

2002, the Faculties of Science and Commerce were established. Then in 2003, the Center

for Social Justice & ethics was established (CUEA website, 2013).

CUEA has other two campuses (Nairobi-Langata, Kisumu and Eldoret-Gaba). It also has

six faculties: Arts and Social Sciences; Theology; Education; Science; commerce and

Law. The catholic university of Eastern Africa offers 27 undergraduate courses and 21

post graduate courses. It has 49 academic staff and over 6,000 student population.

3.1.3 Justification for Single- industry

Scholars argue that the large-scale, multi-industry samples using generic resources set

will do little to tease out the unique and hard to copy resources that are at the heart of

competitive advantage (Hitt at al., 1998; Rouse & Daellenbach, 1999). Amit and

Schoemaker (1993) suggest the importance of using single industry studies in RBV

research because the strategic value of resources can be industry-specific. Barney (1991)

also observes that resources in a previous setting may be weakness of simply irrelevant in

a new industry setting. This research will therefore use a single industry setting in which

to theoretically develop the RBV and generate a relevant source set from the researcher‘s

context of interest.

71

In addition, to understand the process of how resources become valuable requires an

understanding of how resources are managed. Such information is unlikely to be found

across broad industry samples since managers are engaged in identifying, developing and

exploiting resources at the level of the firm (Rouse and Duellanbach, 1999). The authors

emphasize on seeking out firm-level sources of advantage, because it is at the firm where

the unique features of the resources and managerial capabilities can best be examined.

Therefore a two-level resource analysis at the industry and firm level promotes a

comparative approach to understanding competitive advantage.

Resource-based theory also predicts that even firms within the same industry can rely on

different resource sets and processes in managing their firms. It can therefore be argued

that a firm-level analysis, opposed to an aggregated industry level analysis, would best

uncover these sources of advantage. Rouse and Daellenbach (1999) explain that firms can

evidence differences in sources of competitive advantage as based on their distinct firm

characteristics and profit margins. Ray et al. (2004) states that it is only at the level of the

firm where resources and capabilities are most likely to meet the criteria of being

strategic assets in accordance with the RBV principles, especially if the managerial

processes exploit resources that are rare, valuable and costly to imitate.

Cockburn et al. (2000) proposes that questions investigating the origin and dynamics of

key resources will improve the utility of the RBV more than studies investigating

―differential performance‖ that pervade the strategy literature. A macro focus at the level

of the firm will enable researchers to ask the ―what‖ and ―how‖ questions that have

remained largely unaddressed in the RBV literature (Newbert, 2007; Priem and Butler,

2001; Cockburn et al., 2000; Miller and Shamsie, 1996).

72

Theoretically, the ―what‖ and ―how‖ questions are the most useful questions to provide a

framework for interpreting patterns in empirical observations (Robinson, 2008). In order

to extend the knowledge and boundaries of this study, the ―why‖ questions should also be

considered. That is, the ―how‖ and ―what‖ questions describe while the ―why‖ questions

explain.

3.2 Research Philosophy

The research philosophy adapted for this study is positivist. Positivists claim there is a

single, objective reality that can be observed and measured without bias using

standardized instruments. For the positivists, the goal is a universal truth, a rule or

explanation that is always true so long as specified conditions hold (Blake, 1993).

In the positivist paradigm, the researcher sees himself or herself as a neutral recorder.

Positivists (Saunders et al, 2007) evaluate the success of their research in part by

measuring how closely the findings of different researchers match. Though recognizing

that no data collection instrument is perfect, positivists seek to develop standardized

instruments that they believe precisely tap a single reality (Eriksson and Kovalainen,

2008). They seek to imitate the sciences that have developed quantitative ways of

measuring physical, biological, or chemical phenomena in replicable ways. In addition,

positivists judge research in terms of its validity—that is, the extent to which their

research tools actually do measure the underlying concept that they are supposed to

measure (Easterby-Smith et al, 2008).

Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) relate this to the organizational context, stating that positivists

assume that what truly happens in organizations can only be discovered through

73

categorization and scientific measurement of the behavior of people and systems and that

language is truly representative of the reality.

3.3 Research Design

This study was based on prospective causal-comparative research design. Prospective

causal-comparative research requires that a researcher initiates a study beginning with the

causes and is determined to investigate the effects of a condition (Gay et al, 2006). The

characteristics of this research design is that individuals are not randomly assigned to

groups as the study is involving an event or situation that has already occurred with

groups that are already formed (Lodico et al., 2006).Causal comparative research

attempts to determine the cause, or reason for existing differences in behavior or status of

groups. It describes the conditions that already exist.

In causal-comparative research participants are already organized in groups. These

groups, defined by Gay et al. (2006) as comparison groups, are selected because one

group does not possess a characteristic or experience possessed by the second group (this

characteristic or experience is the independent variable that the researcher plans to study)

or the two groups differ in the amount of a characteristic that they share (this, once again,

is the independent variable being studied).

Researchers conducting causal-comparative studies can employ a variety of methods to

control for extraneous variables. Such methods include; matching, compare groups that

are homogenous with regards to the extraneous variable, creating subgroups, and the use

of a statistical procedure called an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to analyze study

data. Using such controls require that researchers obtain measures of specific extraneous

variables of concern. The most common method employed to account for extraneous

variables in causal-comparative research is the usage of statistical tests such as multiple

74

regression (Wolgemuth and Leech, 2006). This study will therefore use hierarchical

multiple regression to control for extraneous variables.

Appropriateness of Design

A research design must match the research problem (Creswell, 2005). A causal

comparative design will be used to explore whether a pre-existing, independent variable

influences the dependent variables (Gay et al., 2006; Schenker & Rumrill, 2004). In this

study, the independent variable is the resources characteristics, and the dependent

variable is sustainable competitiveness. A causal-comparative method will be appropriate

for an attempt to identify the effect of resource characteristics on sustainable

competitiveness.

A causal-comparative design allows a researcher to infer differences in group behavior or

status and compare the groups on a variable (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006; Gay et al., 2006.

The research design is appropriate because the researcher is unable to manipulate the

independent variable ( resource characteristics), which is pre-existing, as opposed to true

experimental research in which there is manipulation of the independent variable (Gay et

al., 2006). A causal-comparative design is the correct methodology to explore the

potential effects of a pre-existing, independent variable on the dependent variables

between or among groups (Gay et al., 2006). In this research study, the pre-existing

independent variable is the organization‘s internal resources, and the dependent variable

is competitive advantage.

A causal-comparative design will be chosen in lieu of a co-relational design because the

study involves comparing two groups that vary on one independent, categorical variable.

A co- relational research design involves establishing a relationship within a group on

75

two or more continuous variables (Rumrill, 2004; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006; Gay et al.,

2006)

3.4 Target Population

This study targeted the staff of both private and public universities. The study focused on

the staff in the schools/faculties that are in both the universities. These included: Arts and

Social Sciences; Law; Education and Commerce/Business Management. The total

number of staff at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa in the four faculties/schools

is 170 while those from Moi University are 250. The staffs targeted were administrators,

and all the teaching staff of the four schools. This was because they were the custodians

of their departments‘ resources and would qualify the resources according to the resource

characteristics. Another reason for targeting administrators and academic staff was that

they were best suited to answer question on the sustainable competitiveness constructs

which included: teaching and learning, research, outreach, workplace satisfaction and

finance.

Table 3.1 Target Population

Schools

Arts &Social Education Law Commerce/Business Total

Sciences

Institution

Public 87 65 38 60 250

Private 46 53 30 41 170

Total 133 118 67 101 420

Source: Survey Data 2012

3.5 Sampling size and Technique

3.5.1 Sample Size

The four schools targeted were stratified into departments. The school of Arts and Social

Sciences for example was made up eight departments at public University and also eight

76

departments at private university; school of Law had 4 departments at the public

University and 2 at the private university; school of Education had 4 departments at the

public university and 2 at the private university and school of Business Management has

the 5 departments at the public University and also 3 at private university.

This study used Kerjcie and Morgan (1970) method for determining the sample that is

representative of the population using the following formula:

S = X2 NP (1− P) ÷ d2 (N −1) + X2P(1− P)

Where:

S = required sample size.

X 2 = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence level

(3.841).

N = the population size.

P = the population proportion (assumed to be .50 since this would provide the maximum

sample size).

d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (0.05).

A standardized table has been attached as an appendix. From the sample size table, the

public university staff population of 250 in the four schools will be represented by a

sample size of 148 and the private university population of 170 will be represented by

sample size of 114.

3.5.2 Sampling Technique

In order to determine how respondents were selected for the study, stratified sampling

was applied in order to select the respondents in both universities. This was done through

stratifying the staff members into the departments they work in. Stratified sampling is

useful when the researcher wants to develop categories of employees with non-

77

overlapping characteristics (Creswell, 2003). The sampling frame used was the

universities‘ school staff lists. After developing strata, the researcher applied systematic

sampling using the school‘s staff list as the sampling frame where every ith name were

selected depending on the list and the number required.

3.5 Data Collection

This section describes the types and sources of data, which were employed in the study.

3.5.1 Primary Data and Sources

Primary data refers to information that examines the general natural phenomena to

describe objectives (Nsubuga ,2000) as well as perceptions and attitudes of employees,

which was best obtained events, people and objects and administering questionnaires to

the respondents (Martella and Martella, 1999).the primary data collected from the

selected staff members of the four schools/faculties (Arts and Social Sciences; Law;

Education and Commerce/Business Management in both universities (CUEA and Moi

University) was through questionnaires.. The questionnaire gathered information on

employee perception on competitive sustainability based on characteristics of resources.

3.5.2 Secondary Data and Sources

Secondary data involves search of secondary literature that is studies by other author.

Secondary data in this study was obtained through review of published and unpublished

materials such as journals, theses, universities student statistics and government

documents in libraries, university calendar and the internet.

78

Table 3.2 Departments in the four schools in private and public universities

Departments

Public university Private University

Schools

Arts and Social Sociology Sociology

Sciences Anthropology and Human Anthropology

Ecology Kiswahili and Other African Kiswahili and

languages communication

studies

Linguistics and other foreign

languages Geography

Geography

History, political science & History& political

Public administration science

Literature, theatre and film studies Philosophy& religious

studies

Philosophy and religious studies Development studies

Economics

Sample size (48) (36)

Education Curriculum Instruction & Curriculum studies

Media studies

Educational management Educational

& Policy Studies Administration

& Planning

Educational foundations

Psychology, guidance &

Counseling

Sample size (40) (33)

Law Public law Public law

Private law private law

Commercial law

Legal Aid & Externship

Sample size (24) (18)

Business/Commerce Management Science Accounting &

Marketing and Logistics Finance

Marketing

Agricultural Economics

& Resource Management

Management

Economics

Accounting and Finance

Sample size (36) (27)

79

3.6. Data collection Instruments

The data collection instruments used in this study was questionnaires. The questionnaires

were administered to the staff members of the four schools (Arts and Social Sciences;

Law; Education and Commerce/Business Management in both universities (CUEA and

Moi University). Questionnaires were preferred because of the large number of the

sample size which means therefore that holding interviews would take very long. A

questionnaire was appropriate for this study because it gives the researcher an

opportunity to carry out an inquiry on specific issues on a large sample and thus make the

study finding more dependable and reliable (Nachmias,2004; Kothari, 2003). The

instrument was also appropriate because the respondents are literate and therefore can

respond to the questionnaire on their own. The questionnaires were self-administered;

where the respondents were asked to complete the questionnaires themselves.

3.7 Measurement Scales

Two main variables were used in this study; resource characteristics as the independent

variables and sustainable competitiveness as the dependent variables. Control variables

included Cost of the institution, location and age.

3.7.1 Sustainable Competitiveness

Sustainable competitiveness was measured using five constructs. They include

programs/courses, public service/ outreach, research, workplace satisfaction and finance

(Ruben,1999). The researcher measured the strength of the respondents‘ agreement on 10

statements developed by the researcher.

Two items were used to measure each of the five constructs of sustainable

competitiveness. Programs or Courses for example was measured using: ―all the

80

lecturers in the department have masters degrees and above‖ and ―programs offered in

the department are current in the market‖. Research was measured by ―the department

has a journal that is produced on quarterly basis‖ and ―publications are recognized if they

are published in selected stature of journals of publishers‖. The two items that measured

Outreach were ―Employers send their employees to the departments‘ programs for

continuing education‖ and ―the alumni of the department offer both financial and moral

support to its initiatives‖. Workplace Satisfaction was measured by ―the department

experiences very low staff turnover‖ and ―employees in the department are regularly

trained in their area of specialization‖ and lastly Finance was measured with ―the

department receives donations (monetary, books etc)‖ and ―departments prepares an

operating budget annually‖

3.7.2 Resource Characteristics

Resource characteristics were measured using four constructs: value, rarity, inimitability

and non-substitutability (Talaja, 2012). Value of resources was measured using 13 items

such as ―the department has built a good image over the years‖; ―the programs offered at

the department are very attractive‖. Rarity of resources was measured with 8 items e.g.

―the departmental library has very unique books for the different programs‖; ―the

department has some very unique programs it offers‖. Inimitability of resources was

measured using 11 items e.g. ―interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships in the

department cannot be copied‖; ―the trust that exists within the employees and the

management of the department cannot be emulated‖ and finally, non-substitutability of

resources was measured using 2 items: ―programs developed in the department cannot be

replaced by other programs from other institutions‖ and ―the lecturers‘ competencies

cannot be replaced by others and the same output expected‖

81

3.7.3 Control Variables

The study controlled for the Age of the university, location of the university and cost of

programs. The researched controlled for those factors so as to eliminate their effect on the

characteristics of resources‘ effect on sustainable competitiveness. Age was measured as

below 10 years; between 10-20years; between 21-30 years or over 30yrs. Location was

measured as either urban or rural setup while cost of programs ranged from less than

100,000; 100,000-110,000; 110,001-120,000; 120,001-130,000; 130,001-140,000 or

140,001 and above.

Table 3.3 Operationalization of the Variables

Questionnaire Type of Data Type of Scale and

Items (Researcher index construction

Self developed

Scales)

1. Sustainable competitiveness

a) programs/Courses Items 22-23 Continuous Interval scale

5-point Likert scale

b) Research Items24-25 Continuous Interval scale

5-point Likert scale

c) Outreach Items 26-27 Continuous Interval scale

5-point likert scale

d) Workplace Items 28-29 Continuous Interval scale

satisfaction 5-point likert scale

e) Finance Items 30-31 Continuous Interval scale

5-point likert scale

2. Resource characteristics

a) Value of resources Item 33-45 Continuous Interval scale

5-point likert scale

b) Rarity of resources Item 46-52 Continuous Interval scale

5-point likert scale

c) Inimitability of Item 53-62 Continuous Interval scale

resources 5-point likert scale

d) Non-substitutabilityItem 63-64 Continuous Interval scale

of resources 5-point likert scale

3. Control Variables

a) Age Item 19 Discrete Ordinal

b) Location Item 21 Discrete Nominal

c) Cost Item 20 Continuous Interval scale

Source: Survey Data (2013)

82

3.8 Validity & Reliability of the Research Instruments

The validity of a study depends upon how well an instrument or research design measures

what the researcher intends to measure (Gay et al., 2006). The ability to draw meaningful

and justifiable conclusions about the data depends on the validity of the study. Internal

validity refers to the degree to which the independent variable influences difference in the

dependent variable (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006; Schenker & Rumrill, 2004).Internal

validity is a concern in causal-comparative research designs. One threat to internal

validity in causal-comparative designs is the inability to manipulate the pre-existing

independent variable (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006; Schenker & Rumrill, 2004). Because the

independent variable in the study (resource characteristics) is pre-existing, it cannot be

manipulated. The purpose of the study is not to assign causality to the independent

variable but to determine the degree to which the independent variable (resources

characteristics) influences the dependent variable (sustainable competitiveness).

Another threat to internal validity in causal-comparative designs is that group

membership within the independent variable is pre-existing (Gay et al., 2006). To

increase internal validity in a causal-comparative study, homogeneous comparison groups

will be identified to control for extraneous variables (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). For this

study, the following schools (Arts and Social Sciences; Law; Education and

Commerce/Business Management) that exist in both universities will be used.

Because internal validity is difficult to establish in a causal-comparative study, external

validity is exceedingly important (Schenker & Rumrill, 2004). External validity refers to

the degree to which results of a study can be generalized beyond the research study. How

83

groups are defined affects the ability of researchers to apply the results found in a sample

to the larger population (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).

To increase external validity, operational definitions are given to specifically define the

population under study and guide sample selection (Gay et al., 2006). Operational

definitions provide meaning outside the study. Because of the specifically defined

variables, the conclusions drawn from the study might not be generalizable to other

geographic regions or other populations. External validity is present when the sample

represents the larger population from which the sample was drawn (Schenker & Rumrill,

2004).

To ensure content validity, an adequate judgment can be made by a thorough review of

literature; prior discussion with others; or a panel assessment (Saunders et al., 2009). This

research instrument was pre-tested with the staff of the University of Eldoret to ascertain

if the instrument is understandable and also to rectify any ambiguous language used. Pre-

testing was done to ensure that the questions are indeed eliciting the required responses,

while uncovering ambiguous wordings or errors before the actual study is carried out

(Burns & Bush, 2002; Zikmund et al., 2000). The preliminary questionnaire was

presented to one school (Education) at the University of Eldoret. The respondents were

requested to comment critically on the suitability, the appropriateness and the ease of

understanding of the each item. The respondents were requested to identify any

difficulties with wording, problems with double-barrelled questions, leading questions

and biasness (Zikmund et al., 2000).

To test reliability of the research instruments, this study will use cronbach‘s alpha to test

for internal consistency. Cronbach‘s alpha provides a measure of the extent to which the

84

items on the questionnaire provide consistent information with regard to the respondents‘

mastery of the domain (Wells and Wollack, 2003). The formula for cronbach‘s alpha is as

follows:

N/(N - 1)[1 - sum Var(Yi)/Var(X)]

Where:

N = Number of items

sum Var(Yi) = sum of item variances

Var(X) = composite variance (Allen & Yen, 1979)

The higher the reliability value the more reliable the measure. The general convention in

research has been prescribed by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) who state that one should

strive for reliability values of .70 or higher. Reliability values increase as test length

increases (Gulliksen, 1950). That is, the more items you have in your scale to measure the

construct of interest the more reliable your scale will become.

3.9 Data Analysis

3.9.1 Data Screening and Cleaning

After administering the questionnaires, the raw data collected was screened and cleaned

for missing values, normality and outliers. The missing values were replaced using mean

substitution estimation (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). All standardized scores were

within the interval -3.0 to 3.0, meaning there were no univariate outliers (Steven‘s, 2002).

Multivariate outliers were assessed using mahalanobis distance (D 2 ).

3.9.2 Descriptive Statistics

Typically, in causal-comparative studies data is reported as a mean or frequency for each

group. Inferential statistics are then used to determine whether the means ―for the groups

are significantly different from each other‖ (Lodico et al., 2006). The most commonly

85

used descriptive statistics in causal comparative include mean, which indicates the

average performance of a group on a measure of some variable and the standard

deviation, which indicates the spread of a set of scores around the mean- that is, whether

the scores are relatively close together and clustered around the mean or widely spread

out around the mean.

Normality was confirmed by examining the distribution of the variables, their skewness

and Kurtosis values using histograms. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient

was used to examine assumptions of linearity. Levenne statistic for equality of variance

was used to assess homogeneity. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to

determine the factor structure of the constructs (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling

adequacy and the Bartlett‘s test of sphericity were used).

3.9.3 Inferential Statistics

The inferential statistics used include the t-test, which is used to determine whether the

scores of the two universities are significantly different from one another in terms of

resource characteristics and sustainable competitiveness. This analysis technique was

useful for this study because the researcher sought to establish differences in sustainable

competitiveness and resource characteristics in both private and public universities (Gall

et al, 2003).

Lastly, to test exploratory hypothesis pertaining to the effect of resource characteristics

on sustainable competitiveness, multiple regressions were conducted. The multiple

regression analysis was appropriate in predicting the effect; utilizing R 2 and adjusted R

2

to determine the fitness of the model (Hair et al. 2006). This study used hierarchical

multiple regression. In hierarchical multiple regression, the independent variables are

86

entered in two stages. In the first stage, the independent variables that we want to control

for are entered into the regression. In the second stage, the independent variables whose

relationship we want to examine after the controls are entered. A statistical test of the

change in R² from the first stage is used to evaluate the importance of the variables

entered in the second stage. The hypothesis predicted sustainable competitiveness using

the following model:

Step 1: Y=α+β1Z1+ β2Z2+ β3Z3

Step 2: Y=α + β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3+ β4X4+ε

Where Y= Sustainable competitiveness

Z1= Age of the institution; Z2= Cost of the program and Z3= Location of the institution

X1=Value of resources; X2=Rarity of resource; X3= Inimitability of resources and

X4= Non-substitutability of resources

α and β =regression coefficients

ε= residuals

Assumptions of regression include: the accuracy of data, which should at least check the

minimum and maximum value for each variable to ensure that all values for each variable

are "valid."

Another assumption is Missing data. If specific variables have a lot of missing values,

you may decide not to include those variables in your analyses. Another assumption is

the outliers (i.e., an extreme value on a particular item). An outlier is often operationally

87

defined as a value that is at least 3 standard deviations above or below the mean. The data

should be normally distributed. There is also the assumption of linearity- that is there is a

straight line relationship between dependent and independent variable. The assumption of

homoscedasticity is that the residuals are approximately equal for all predicted dependent

variable scores. Lastly multicollinearity is a condition in which the independent variables

are very highly correlated (.90 or greater) and singularity is when the independently

variables are perfectly correlated and one independent variable is a combination of one or

more of the other independent variables. Tolerance statistics and Variance Infaltion

Factor (VIF) was used to detect multicolinearity. (Wolgemuth and Leech, 2006).

Data was presented in both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics

indicated the mean differences for comparisons awhile the inferential statistics tested the

―effect‖ using multiple regression.

3.10. Ethical Considerations

According to Polonsky and Waller (2005), the researcher should understand the basics of

ethical research and how this might affect the thesis. In accordance with this, as part of

Moi University requirements, all research proposals must have an approval from the

government of Kenya before collecting data. Therefore, a research permit was obtained

from National Council of Science, Technology and Innovation. A number of

considerations were also adopted to ensure that no one will be negatively affected by the

research. First, letters of formal invitation enclosed with the instrument were given to all

respondents in order to obtain their permission. The information includes the aim of the

study. It also included the intended use of data and issues related to voluntary

participation; ensuring confidentiality. Secondly, to ensure confidentiality of the data the

researcher undertook a number of procedures including: that individuals‘ personal

88

information will not be identified in any finding; raw data collected will not be used for

any other purpose other than those specified by the researcher and raw data to be

collected will be private to the researcher.

3.11 Limitations of the Study

Although this study has made theoretical and managerial contributions, it also had its

limitations. The data is entirely based on assessment of university staff on their

university, i.e. their opinion on investigated variables, which can often be biased. The

sample is made of one public university and one private university, which can limit the

generalization of findings. Also, replicating this study in another context or another

country could lead to broader generalization of results.

Another limitation of this study encountered was in the data collection. The staff of both

the universities took too long to respond to the questionnaire while others submitted the

questionnaires unanswered or answered halfway. This made the research period longer

and to some extent derailed the entire research process.

This study also failed to collected data on the universities over previous years which

means that study was cross sectional in nature. It only collected data on private and

public universities at a single point in time. A longitudinal research therefore would be

more appropriate so as to follow the trend of the universities over a longer period say 5 or

10 years.

89

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND

INTERPRETATION 4.0 Overview

This chapter presents the results of data analysis. The first section examines the response

rate; the second section presents screening and cleaning of data in terms of missing

values, outliers and normality. The third section represents the descriptive statistics of the

study variables. The fourth section compares the prevailing differences in sustainable

competitiveness among private and public universities. The fifth section compares the

prevailing in resource characteristics in private and public universities and the last section

presents a regression model of internal resource characteristics on sustainable

competitiveness.

4.1 Response Rate

The sample consisted of employees from public university (Moi) and private university

(CUEA). A total of 290 questionnaires were distributed; 170 to the public University and

120 to the private. These numbers are more than the sample sizes of 148 and 114 for

public and private universities respectively. This is because the some respondents

misplaced their questionnaires, requiring the researcher to redistribute them again. Table

4.1 shows the overall response rate of 91.7% (156) for the public University and 97.5%

(117) response rate for the Private University. A total of eight questionnaires were

discarded from the public University because they were blank & incomplete, similarly,

two were discarded from the private university for being incomplete. The total usable

questionnaires were 262, that is 148 (87.1%) from the public University and 114 (95%)

from CUEA which is acceptable for this type of research (Drnevich and Kriauciunas,

2011; Protogeron et al, 2008).

90

Table 4.1 Response Rate

Sample size Public university Private university

No. Percentage No. Percentage

Questionnaires distributed 170 100 120 100

Total Responses 156 91.7 117 97.5

Unusable 8 4.7 3 2.7

Usable responses 148 87.1 114 95

4.2 Data Preparation and Cleaning

All data was entered into SPSS version 18.0. Data screening was then conducted

according to guidelines set out by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). This included

assessment of missing data, outliers, normality and testing basic assumptions of analysis

of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression analyses.

4.2.1 Missing Data

Missing data was assessed with respect to the key variables used in the study (resource

characteristics and sustainable competitiveness). Results presented in table 4.2 indicate

that sustainable competitiveness together with the four components of resource

characteristics had missing values in several items. None of the missing values however

had missing data points in more than 5% of the cases. Mean substitution estimation was

therefore used to replace missing values (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).

4.2.2 Univariate outliers

Univariate outliers are cases with unusual values for single variables ( Tabachnick and

Fidell, 2007). Using standardized scores no univariate outliers were identified for any of

the sustainable competitiveness or resource characteristic variables (all standardized

scores were within the interval -3.0 to 3.0 recommended by Steven‘s (2002).

91

4.2.3 Multivariate outliers

Mahalanobis distance (D 2 ) was used to detect multivariate outliers for the set of resource

characteristic variables. As noted by Tabachnick and Fidell, (2007), Mahalanobis

distance (D 2 ) indicates how far a case is from the centroid of all cases for predictor

variables. A case is therefore deemed an outlier if the probability associated with its D 2

falls below 0.001. Using Mahalanobis distance (D 2 ) no multivariate outliers were

identified for any of the resource characteristic variables (all the probabilities of the D 2

were above 0.001).

Table 4.2: Missing Values by Variables

Variable Number of

missing values

percentage

Sustainable competitiveness

1.The department has a journal that is produced on

quarterly basis

2.Publications are recognized if they are published in

selected stature of journals or publishers

3.The alumni of this department offer both financial and

moral support to its initiatives

4.The department experiences a very low staff turnover

Value of resources

1.Graduates from this department have been employed at

very prestigious organizations

2.Research seminars are organized frequently at the

department level

3.Lecturers attend all the classes as they are required

Rarity

1.The departmental library has very unique books for the

different programs

2.The relationship between the department and the students

is very unique in that it goes beyond the classroom issues

Inimitability

The number of years of experience gained by my

department cannot be copied

Methods of content delivery changes with the

technological change

Non-Substitutability

2

4

3

3

3

3

3

10

4

1

7

0.8

1.5

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

3.8

1.1

0.4

2.7

Source: Survey Data (2013)

92

4.2.4 Normality Assessment

Normality was confirmed by examining the distributions of the variables (i.e. histograms)

and their skewness and kurtosis values. From the histograms (appendix), the distributions

of both sustainable competitiveness and resource characteristics were approximately

normally distributed. This was further confirmed by the skewness and kurtosis values

(none of the skewness and kurtosis values fell outside the interval -2.0 to 2.0) (Table 4.3)

Table 4.3: Normality Assessment

Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

Resource value -.013 .150 -1.518 .300

Resource Rarity -.565 .150 -.968 .300

Resource inimitability -.420 .150 -1.408 .300

Resource non-substitutability -.336 .150 -.904 .300

Sustainable competitiveness -.018 .150 -1.111 .300

Source: Survey Data (2013)

4.2.5 Assessment of Linearity

There were no issues with linearity. Pearson‘s product moment correlation coefficient

was used to examine assumptions of linearity. Results indicate that there were positive

correlations among resource characteristics as well as between resource characteristics

and sustainable competitiveness (Table 4.4)

4.2.6 Assessing Homogeneity of Variances

Using Levenne statistic for equality of variances, homogeneity of variances was assessed.

The study revealed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not violated

(Table 4.5). None of the levenne statistic was significant (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).

93

Table 4.4: Linearity Assessment

1 2 3 4 5

1.Sustainable Competitiveness 1

2.Value of resource .164 * 1

3.Rarity of resource .299 **

.707 **

1

4.Inimitability of resource .113 .751 **

.558 **

1

5.Non-substitutability of resource .096 .563 **

.423 **

.815 **

1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Source: Survey Data (2013)

Table 4.5: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Sustainable Competitiveness 1.689 1 260 .195

Value of resource 1.054 1 260 .351

Rarity of resource .794 1 260 .374

Inimitability of resource .314 1 260 .576

Non-substitutability of resource .334 1 260 .564

Source: Survey Data (2013)

4.2.7 Scale Dimensionality

Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to assess the underlying factor structure

of the given variables and also to reduce items in the case of complex variables

(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). A separate principal component analysis was conducted

for each of the resource characteristics scales as well as for the sustainable

competitiveness scale. The Kaiser criterion of retaining factors with Eigen values greater

than one was employed. To test data for suitability for PCA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett‘s test of sphericity were used. However, a

value of 0.6 and above for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistic and a significance measure of

spherecity were acceptable as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). After factor

extraction, the factors loadings were then rotated using varimax which is an orthogonal

94

rotation. This rotation method was used because it does not permit factors to be

correlated.

4.2.7.1 Value of Resource

Thirteen items were proposed to measure value of resource. Principal components

analysis extracted nine items that converged to measure value of resource. The items

accounted for 70.54% of the variance in value of resource. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

value of 0.911 together with the significant Bartlett‘s test of sphericity (χ2 (78)

=2822.302, p<0.01) indicated that data were adequate for PCA. Table 4.6 shows that all

factor loadings were above 0.714 and loaded highly on two factors. The reliability

coefficient of the value of resource scale was 0.941, which was well above the

recommended value of 0.7 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007) for internal consistency.

4.2.7.2 Rarity of Resource

A total of seven items were proposed to measure rarity of resource. Using PCA, all the

seven items were extracted. The seven factors were segregated into two factors which

accounted for 76.920% of the variance in rarity of resources (Table 4.7).

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was 0.730 and the Bartlett‘s test of sphericity value of

1347.391 was significant (p<0.01). This indicates that data for rarity of resource were

adequate for PCA. The Cronbach‘s reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be

0.888 and was above the recommended value of 0.7 indicating internal consistency of the

scale.

95

Table 4.6: Rotated Principal Components Analysis results for Value of Resource

Constructs and scales Loading Eigen

Values

Cum.

Variance

Explained

Value of resource

Factor1

Graduates from this department have been employed

at very prestigious organizations

The teaching methods used in my department are

appropriate

Lecturers are free and approachable to students

Lecturers in the department are very competent

All the lecturers hold a masters degree and above

Factor2 The department organizes for forums where the

alumni are invited

Social responsibility programs are organized by the

department to improve the society

Research seminars are organized frequently at the

department level

Lectures begin promptly at the beginning of the

semester

.941*

.719

.714

.715

.716

.860

.841

.868

.741

.831

4.643

4.527

35.726

70.542

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA:

Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: .911

.000

*Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient

Source: Survey Data (2013)

4.2.7.3 Inimitability of Resource

Eleven items were proposed to measure inimitability of resource. Using PCA, two

factors were extracted and accounted for up to 69.568% of the variance in inimitability of

resource. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of 0.777, and the significant Bartlett‘s test of

sphericity (χ2 (55) =2579.708, p<0.01) indicated that data collected for inimitability of

resource were adequate for PCA. The reliability coefficient of the ten items extracted was

0.919 confirming that the scale had internal consistency (Table 4.8)

Only two items were proposed to measure non-substitutability of resource. Consequently

PCA was not conducted for this resource characteristic.

96

Table 4.7 Rotated Principal Components Analysis for Rarity of Resource Variable

Constructs and scales Loading Eigen

Values

Cum.

Variance

Explained

Rarity of Resource

Factor1

The department has some very unique programs it

offers

Lectures are carried out in very conducive

environment for learning (quiet and serene)

The department has existed for many years therefore it

has an expansive experience

The staff of the department use their extracurricular

talents to help the students

The department has developed patents for its

innovations

Factor2

The departmental library has very unique books for the

different programs

The relationship between the department and the

students is very unique in that it goes beyond the

classroom issues

.888*

.893

.753

.702

.889

.756

.918

.907

3.322

2.062

47.459

76.920

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA:

Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: .730

.000

*Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient

Source: Survey Data (2013)

4.2.7.4 Sustainable competitiveness

Sustainable competitiveness was conceptualized in this study as the dependent variable.

Ten items were proposed to measure this variable. The principal components analysis

extracted six items which loaded highly on two factors. Data collected for sustainable

competitiveness were adequate for PCA as evidenced by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value

of 0.876 and the significant Bartlett‘s test of sphericity (χ2 (45) =1791.717, p<0.01). The

reliability coefficient of the six items extracted was 0.908 and variance explained was

66.779% (Table 4.9)

97

Table 4.8: Rotated Principal Components Analysis results for Inimitability of

Resource Variable

*Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient

Source: Survey Data (2013)

Constructs and scales Loading Eigen

values

Cum.

Variance

Explained

Inimitability of Resource

Factor1

The trust that exists within the employees and the

management of the department which cannot be

emulated

The process of developing programs within the

department cannot be easily copied by others

The values and beliefs that my department holds to

cannot be copied by competitors

The number of years of experience gained by my

department cannot be copied

The competence of the departments employees

cannot be copied

The department develops new programs regularly

Programs developed are reviewed annually

Methods of content delivery changes with the

technological change

Factor2

The name the university and department have built

cannot be imitated.

Market demand drives the development of programs

within the department

.919*

.726

.771

.881

.855

.734

.713

.859

.832

.912

.946

5.569

2.084

50.626

69.568

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA:

Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: .777

.000

98

Table 4.9: Rotated Principal Components Analysis results for Sustainable

Competitiveness

Constructs and scales Loading Eigen

values

Cum.

Variance

Explained

Sustainable Competitiveness

Factor1

The department has a journal that is produced on

quarterly basis

Publications are recognized if they are published in

selected stature of journals or publishers

The alumni of this department offer both financial

and moral support to its initiatives

The department experiences a very low staff

turnover The department receives donations

(monetary, books etc)

Factor2

employees in the department are regularly trained in

their area of specialization

.908*

.774

.777

.771

.723

.776

.726

3.906

2.771

39.064

66.779

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA:

Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: .876

.000

Source: Survey Data (2013)

4.3 Sample and respondents characteristics

The respondents characteristics were analyzed in terms of the type of institution, location

(setting), age of institution, school the respondent works in and cost of programs in the

school. The purpose was to help the researcher to understand the make up of its

respondents and the context in which the study was conducted. Moreover, the researcher

wished to identify the demographic characteristics in order to control for their influence

in testing the hypotheses.

99

Table 4.10 Demographic profile of the Sample Respondents

Characteristics Response Frequency Percentage

Type of institution Public 149 56.9

Private 113 43.1

Location of the institution Urban setup 113 56.9

Rural setup 149

Age of the institution 10-20yrs 4 1.5 21-30yrs 113 43.1

Over 30yrs 145 55.3

School Business 60 22.9

Law 39 14.9

Arts and Social 80 30.5

Sciences

Education 83 31.7

Cost of program BBM/BBA

Less than 100,000 50 19.1

110,001-120,000 99 37.8

120,001-130,000 113 43.1

BED

Less than 100,000 50 19.1

110,001-120,000 99 37.8

120,001-130,000 113 43.1

BA

Less than 100,000 50 19.1

100,001-110,000 99 37.8

110,001-120,000 113 43.1

LLB

Less than 100,000 50 19.1

120,001-130,000 99 37.8

130,001-140,000 133 43.1

Source: Survey Data (2013)

4.4 Sustainable competitiveness among universities

One of the aims of this study was to compare sustainable competitiveness among private

and public universities. Initially, ten higher education dashboard indicators were

proposed to measure sustainable competitiveness. However, PCA extracted only six

indicators which loaded highly on the construct.

100

This section analyses firstly, the prevailing differences in these indicators among

respondents drawn from private and public universities. Secondly, the section reports t-

test results of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in sustainable

competitiveness between private and public universities.

4.4.1 Prevailing differences in sustainable competitiveness indicators among Private

and Public Universities.

To assess differences in sustainable competitiveness among private and public

universities, respondents were asked their perceptions on the six indicators measuring

sustainable competitiveness. Responses were elicited on a 5-point scale ranging from 1-

strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. The variable sustainable competitiveness was then

computed from the six items using mean. Results of the cross tabulation of the mean

response scores across universities are presented in Table 4.11.

Results from the group means revealed that there was a difference in mean response

scores between the private and public university samples on sustainable competitiveness.

Public university (M=3.491, SD=0.879) performed better in sustainable competitiveness

than the private university (M=3.099, SD=0.997). This implies that respondents from the

public university perceived their university to be scoring highly in all the six indicators

measuring sustainable competitiveness as compared to the respondents in the private

university.

101

Table 4.11: Perceived Sustainable Competitiveness and Resource Characteristics in

Private and Public Universities

Group Statistics

University

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Sustainable

competitiveness Private 114 3.097 .997 .094

Public 148 3.491 .879 .072

Resource value Private 114 3.214 1.176 .110

Public 148 3.688 .969 .079

Rarity of resource Private 114 3.155 1.042 .098

Public 148 3.653 .983 .081

Resource inimitability Private 114 2.997 1.055 .099

Public 148 3.506 .946 .078

Resource non-

substitutability Private 114 3.055 1.002 .094

Public 148 3.578 1.006 .082

Source: Survey Data (2013)

4.4.2 Testing the hypothesis that there is no difference in sustainable

competitiveness between private and public universities.

Since there were only two levels of comparison (public and private universities),

independent samples t-test was the preferred test for the proposed hypothesis. The first

hypothesis of this study stated that there is no difference in sustainable competitiveness

between private and public universities. Using an alpha level of .05, independent samples

t-tests indicated a significant difference in sustainable competitiveness {t (260) =3.380,

p<0.05}between the private and public universities. And that public university was

perceived to be better in sustainable competitiveness than the private universities.

These results therefore mean that all the six indicators of sustainable competitiveness

were significantly different in public and private universities. They include: that public

university departments had journals that were produced more regularly than did the

private universities; that public universities recognize publications published in selected

102

stature of journal or publishers more than do the private universities; that the alumni of

the public universities offer both financial and moral support to the universities initiatives

more that those from private universities; that public universities experiences lower staff

turnover as compared to the private university; that the public university trains its

employees regularly in their area of specialization as do the private universities and that

public universities receive donations either in monetary terms or books more than do the

private universities.

Table 4.12: Results of Independent Sample ‘t’ Test Comparing Sustainable Competitiveness and Resource Characteristics in Private and Public Universities

T df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Sustainable

Competitiveness

Equal var-

assumed

3.380 260 .001 .3928 .116

Equal var- not

assumed

3.322 224.14 .001 .3928 .118

Resource value Equal var-

assumed

3.577 260 .000 .4741 .133

Equal var- not

assumed

3.483 214.05 .001 .4741 .136

Rarity of resource Equal var-

assumed

3.954 260 .000 .4978 .126

Equal var- not

assumed

3.923 233.67 .000 .4978 .127

Resource

inimitability

Equal var-

assumed

4.107 260 .000 .5096 .124

Equal var- not

assumed

4.046 226.47 .000 .5096 .126

Resource non-

substitutability

Equal var-

assumed

4.178 260 .000 .5234 .125

Equal var- not

assumed

4.180 241.87 .000 .5234 .125

Source: Survey Data (2013)

103

4.5 Drivers of sustainable competitiveness

The second hypothesis stated that there is no significant difference between the resource

characteristics in private and public universities in Kenya. The study highlighted a

number of major forces likely to impact on sustainable competitiveness among

universities. These forces revolved around four key drivers of sustainable

competitiveness among universities. These drivers were identified as the resource

characteristics inherent in these universities. Indeed, according to the resource based view

(RBV), the resources possessed by an entity are the primary determinants of its

performance, and may contribute to a sustainable competitive advantage of the entity

(Barney, 1991). They include: resource value, rarity, inimitability and non-

substitutability.

4.5.1 Value of the Resources

According to Barney (cited in Foss (2005), resources are valuable when they help seize

an opportunity in the ventures environment or when they help neutralize some threats in

the environment, or at least shield the venture against threats. Consequently, value of

resources was measured using thirteen indicators. PCA extracted nine indicators loading

highly on value of resource. Respondents were asked to state their opinion regarding the

nine indicators of resource value as practiced in their departments. Responses were once

again elicited on a 5-point scale ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree.

Results of the cross tabulation of mean response scores of private university against

public university (Table 4.11) indicated that public universities tended to outperform

private universities in resource value. Mean response scores for respondents drawn from

104

public universities (M=3.688, SD=0.969) were higher than those of respondents drawn

from private universities (M=3.214, SD=1.176).

To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in value of resources between private

and public universities, an independent sample ‗t‘ test was conducted. Results of the t-test

revealed significant difference in resource value {t(260)=3.577, p<0.01} between private

and public universities.

The results regarding value of resources indicate that private and public universities differ

significantly on the value of resource characteristic. Public universities produce graduates

who end up getting employed in prestigious organizations. In addition, they show more

willingness to organize social responsibility programs for improving the society and are

more proactive in engaging alumni through organized forums.

Results further revealed that public universities organize research seminars more

frequently compared to private universities. Besides, they employ very competent

lecturers across departments and that lecturers in the public university are free and

approachable than those in the private university.

4.5.2 Rarity of Resource

Although public universities were found to have an edge over private universities, Barney

and Zajac (1994) noted that any company would not achieve competitive advantage as a

result of owning a valuable resource only. It was therefore necessary to compare the two

institutions in terms of rarity of its resources.

In line with Barney‘s (1991) VRIN framework, a resource was considered to be rare in

the sense that it was scarce relative to demand for its use or what it was likely to produce.

105

In this regard, seven indicators were originally proposed to measure rarity of resources.

PCA extracted all the seven indicators which were segregated into two factors.

Respondents were asked to tick against the given statement to indicate their opinion

about rarity of resources found within their departments.

Results of the comparison of mean response scores on the rarity indicators (Table 4.11)

revealed that the average mean response scores for respondents drawn from public

universities were higher than mean response scores for the private university respondents.

More precisely, the mean response scores for the public university sample was (M=3.653,

SD=0.983) while the mean response scores for the private university sample was

(M=3.155, SD=1.042).

The t-test results on the significance of the observed differences in rarity of resources

between the two institutions (Table 4.12) further revealed that resource rarity was

significantly different{t (260) =3.954, p<0.05}.

These results indicate that public universities tend to have an edge in terms of rarity of

resources in comparison with private universities. This is more so considering that most

of the public universities have been in existence longer that private universities.

Consequently, public universities have been able to stock their libraries with a variety of

books tailored for their unique programs. Besides, most public universities were built on

expansive space which has provided a conducive environment for learning. In addition,

departments in public universities have existed for a longer time and have gained

valuable experience in designing unique programs tailored for the market. Public

106

university staffs also use their extracurricular talents to help students and also they have

patented their innovations.

4.5.3 Inimitability of Resource

Considering that public universities were found to have an edge over private universities

in terms of value and rarity of resources, it was necessary to compare the two institutions

with respect to inimitability of resources. This was based on the premise that when

valuable and rare resources are imitable, potential for competitive advantage would

disappear since competitors would copy them.

Inimitability of resources was originally measured using eleven items. PCA extracted ten

items which accounted for 69.6% of the variance in inimitability of resources.

Respondents were asked to indicate their opinion about inimitability of resources in their

respective universities. Once again, responses to the items were elicited on a 5-point scale

ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree.

Comparing the mean response scores with regards to inimitability of resources between

the two universities, results displayed in Table 4.11 revealed that the mean response

scores for the public university sample (M=3.506, SD=0.946) was higher than that for the

private university sample (M=2.997, SD=1.055). This implies that according to the

respondents, public universities have taken better steps of ensuring that their resources

cannot easily be imitated. Differences were observed in the following items:

The competence of the department employees cannot be copied; the number of years of

experience gained by departments cannot be copied, methods of content delivery changes

with technological changes; and values and beliefs held by departments cannot be copied

107

by competitors. In all these items, public universities were found to have a higher mean

response score. This could possibly be attributed to the unique historical conditions, ,

organizational culture, causal ambiguity and social complexities that have been gained by

those institutions and which tends to make their resources to be hard to copy.

On testing the hypothesis that there is no significant different in inimitability between

public and private universities, results revealed high significant differences in resource

inimitability {t (260) = 4.1.7, p<0.01} between public and private universities.

In all these indicators, high significant differences were observed with public university

having an edge over the private university. The observed performance of public

universities with regards to inimitability of their resources may be attributed to their

unique historical conditions, organizational culture, unique processes and procedures and

social complexities. Trust and value systems as noted by Jarvenpaa, Shaw and Staples

(2004) in their study on the role of trust in global virtual teams are time dependent. In

their assertion, benefits that a team gains from being trustful tend to be long term, and

conversely, the benefits of acting in an untrustworthy manner are generally short term. It

is with these arguments in mind that public universities which have been in existence

longer have managed to develop a trust and value system that may not be imitated.

Besides, the longevity of existence of public universities justifies the observed

differences with regards to inimitability experience and competence of employees in

these public universities.

4.5.4 Non substitutability of Resources

According to Barney‘s (1991) VRIN Framework, resources should not be able to be

replaced by other strategically equivalent valuable resources. When resources are

108

substitutable, they cease to be sources of sustained competitive advantage. Public and

private universities were consequently compared in terms of steps taken to ensure that

their resources were non substitutable.

Non substitutability of resources was measured using two indicators. Respondents were

asked to indicate by ticking appropriate response scores, their views regarding non

substitutability of resources in their respective universities.

Results (Table 4.11) revealed that respondents drawn from public universities appeared to

agree that programs developed in the department cannot be replaced by other programs

from other institutions and that lecturers competencies cannot be replaced by others and

the same output expected (M=3.58, SD1.006). On the contrary, respondents drawn from

private universities scored lower on resource non-substitutability (M=3.055, SD=1.002).

This would mean that most of the respondents were not sure about the two statements on

resource non-substitutability, indicated by the mean of 3.055.

On further testing whether the observed differences were significantly, the t-test results

revealed that the difference observed in resource non-substitutability was statistically

significant {t(260) =4.178, p<0.01} (Table 4.12).

The implication of these findings is that public universities have managed to harness non

substitutability of their resources by designing programs tailored to the needs of the

market. Besides, lecturers‘ competencies have adequately been addressed through regular

training programs within and outside the universities.

109

The second hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in resource

characteristics between private and public universities is therefore rejected in accordance

to the findings above.

The main aim of this study which was the third hypothesis stated that resource

characteristics have no effect on sustainable competitiveness of an institution with regard

to public and private universities. In this regard, hierarchical multiple regression analysis

was used. Hierarchical regression was used in order to control for cost of programs,

location and age of the university, all of which were thought to have an effect on

sustainable competitiveness. On the other hand, multiple regression was necessary so as

to explore the effect of each resource characteristic on sustainable competitiveness at a

time while controlling for the others.

In order to conduct the analysis, first the control variables of cost, location and age were

entered in step 1. This was then followed by entering the four resource characteristics in

step 2. Change in R 2 was assessed to establish the exact contribution of resource

characteristics on sustainable competitiveness when cost, location and age of institution

were controlled. The model summary results are presented in Table 4.13 below.

Table 4.13:Model Summary

Model

R

R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std.

Error of

the

Estimate

Change Statistics

Durbin-

Watson

R

Square

Change

F

Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .210 a .044 .037 .93243 .044 6.001 2 259 .003

2 .840 b .705 .698 .52207 .661 142.801 4 255 .000 2.097

110

a. Predictors: (Constant), Institutional setting, Age of institution

b. Predictors: (Constant), Institutional setting, Age of institution, Resource value,

Resource non substitutability, Rarity of resource, Resource inimitability

Results presented in Table 4.13 indicate that the R 2 value for the control variables was

0.044 which implies that the control variables accounted for only 4.4% of the variance in

sustainable competitiveness. On entering the four resource characteristics, the R 2 value

jumped to 0.705. This amounted to an R 2 change of 0.661 and implies that the four

resource characteristics accounted for 66.1% of the variance in sustainable

competitiveness.

Results of the hierarchical regression analysis of sustainable competitiveness on resource

characteristics are further presented in Table 4.14 below.

Results indicate that none of the control variables entered in step 1 was a significant

predictor of sustainable competitiveness. On the contrary, resource value (β=0.360,

p<0.01); rarity of resource (β=0.434, p<0.01); and resource inimitability (β=0.166,

p<0.05) were found to be positive and significant predictors of sustainable

competitiveness. Besides, the magnitudes of the t-values for rarity of resources (t=8.727)

and resource value (t=6.020) show that the two are the main predictors of sustainable

competitiveness among institutions of higher learning in that order.

111

Table 4.14: Coefficients a

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

T Sig.

Collinearity

Statistics

B

Std.

Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 2.248 .622 3.618 .000

Age of

institution

.231 .299 .129 .774 .440 .133 7.497

Institutional

setting

.163 .318 .085 .513 .608 .133 7.497

2 (Constant) .119 .360 .331 .741

Age of

institution

.192 .168 .107 1.145 .253 .133 7.532

Institutional

setting

-.204 .179 -.106 -1.137 .256 .132 7.555

Resource value .315 .052 .360 6.020 .000 .323 3.099

Rarity of

resource

.398 .046 .434 8.727 .000 .467 2.143

Resource

inimitability

.154 .063 .166 2.444 .015 .249 4.010

Resource non

substitutability

-.039 .050 -.042 -.781 .435 .393 2.543

a. Dependent Variable: Sustainable competitiveness

Resource non-substitutability (β=-0.042, p>0.05) was found not to significantly predict

sustainable competitiveness among institutions of higher learning.

112

The researcher therefore modeled sustainable competitiveness as follows:

Sustainable competitiveness =0.360value of resource +0.434rarity of resource

+0.166inimitability of resource - 0.042 non-substitutability of resource

These results imply that when other resource characteristics are held constant, an increase

of 1 standard deviation in value of resource will result in an increase of 0.36 standard

deviations in sustainable competitiveness. Similarly, when other resource characteristics

are held constant, an increase of 1 standard deviation in rarity of resource results in an

increase of 0.434 standard deviations in sustainable competitiveness. Also, an increase of

1 standard deviation in inimitability of resource is likely to result in a 0.166 standard

deviations in sustainable competitiveness when other resource characteristics are held

constant.

To detect for multicollinearity, tolerance levels and Variance Inflation factor (VIF) were

used. A VIF of 10 and more and a tolerance level of 0.1 and below have been used as the

rules of thumb to indicate serious multicollinearity (O‘brien (2007). The results of this

hierarchical multiple regression indicate VIFs of less than 10 and tolerance levels of more

than 0.1. This indicates that the multicollinearity rule of thumb was not defied. However,

the hierarchical multiple regression omitted one control variable (cost of program). This

can be as a result of it (cost of programs) being collinear with some of the predictor

variables.

113

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS,

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Overview

This chapter presents the discussions of findings of the study in line with the research

objectives; conclusions drawn from the findings and the implications and

recommendations of the study.

5.1 Discussion of the Study Findings

This section provides a discussion of the study in line with the objectives relative to

existing literature.

5.1.1 Comparing Sustainable Competitiveness between private and public

Universities

This study sought to establish the effect of resource characteristics on sustainable

competitiveness in private and public universities in Kenya. In this regard three specific

objectives were used. One of the objectives was to compare sustainable competitiveness

in private and public universities; to compare resource characteristics in public and

private universities and to establish the effect of resource characteristics on sustainable

competitiveness.

The first objective of the study was to compare the level of sustainable competitiveness in

public and private universities. Sustainable competitiveness in this study was measured

using five constructs: teaching/learning, research, outreach, workplace satisfaction and

finance. By comparing the mean response scores on indicators of sustainable

competitiveness, the study established that there was a difference in prevailing levels of

sustainable competitiveness among the two categories of institutions. The public

university‘s mean was higher than that of the private university in sustainable

114

competitiveness. The ‗t‘ test results further revealed that the there as a significant

difference in sustainable competitiveness between the two categories of universities.

The finding that there is a difference in sustainable competitiveness between private and

public universities is constistent with Materu (2007). In this regard, Materu (2007) found

out that public universities put a lot of emphasis on the quality of research outputs at their

universities and that they used it as a variable in their ranking systems. This therefore

indicates that public universities put a lot of importance on research quality and output.

Materu (2007) goes on to argue that although public universities regard highly the quality

of research produced at their university, they do not make available this information to

the public.

The other construct that was used to measure sustainable competitiveness apart from

research, was teaching and learning. According to (Del Ray and Romero, 2004) private

institution optimally chooses to provide an educational quality lower than the one

provided publicly. This result may be explained by the different strategies followed by

institutions when competing for students. On the one hand, the public university is able to

behave as a monopoly by means of setting admission standards and a zero tuition fee. On

the other hand, the private university‘s admission policy, based on tuition fees, makes this

institution attractive just to those students of lower ability who are not accepted into the

public university and can afford to pay the private fee.

Buzinbabbe (2000); Nhundu and Moanakwena (2008) and Gudo et al (2011) found out

that student application and enrollment in the public university was very high as

compared to that of the private university. Their finding concurs with this study‘s

115

findings that public universities are more superior in sustainable competitiveness as

compared to private universities.

Ekundayo and Alonge (2011) in their study ―Human and Material Resources as

Correlates of Academic Performance of Private and Public secondary school Students in

Ondo State, Nigeria‖ also differ in their findings. Although they used similar analytical

technique ( t –test) to the one used in this study, their findings revealed that there is a

significant difference in sustainable competitiveness of public and private institutions.

They found out that private institutions had better academic performance than the public

institutions. This contradicts this study whose results indicate that public universities

performed better in sustainable competitiveness. This could be explained by the

parameters used to predict sustainable competitiveness. Ekudanyo and Alonge (2011)

only tested two resources (human and material) as predictors of sustainable

competitiveness while this study tested four resource characteristics as predictors of

sustainable competitiveness. Resources could be similar in both the institution, the only

difference comes in their characteristics, which later is able to derive sustainable

competitiveness.

In regard to workplace satisfaction which was the third indicator of sustainable

competitiveness, (Dzvimbo 2006; Gudo et al, 2011 and Bunoti 2011) contradict with this

study‘s findings stating that remuneration of the teaching and non teaching staff at public

institutions of higher education is far below the living wage. Given the cost of living the

academic staff take up extra hours of teaching load, teach at other private universities, or

engage in other money making activities to ―make ends meet‖ at the expense of the

quality of the service they ought to offer. Poor remuneration results in brain drain, which

116

is the international migration of skilled human capacity which is common and a symptom

of deeper problems in Africa and developing countries in general.

Mpata (2010) indicates that because of low morale and lack of job satisfaction, staff in

public higher education institutions that have alternative employment opportunities

consider leaving and it is the best employees who often have the most opportunities.

Therefore widespread dissatisfaction can cause dysfunctional turnover; the best

employees moving on and the worst staying on and engaging in other forms of

withdrawal behavior. In the worst scenario the better employees go to work to the

company‘s competitors. In addition to the loss of time and money the institution has

invested in the disgruntled employees, they may also take sensitive information with

them to their new jobs. The teaching staff for instance have been said to be duplicating

the curricula for upcoming universities

Dvizimbo (2006) and Mpaata (2010) contradicting findings can be explained by the

research technique and further the data collection methods applied. Both authors used

qualitative research and collected data using interview schedules and focused group

discussions. These contradictions in findings can also be explained by the effort of the

trade unions in negotiating for better pay and better welfare of the staff at the public

universities. These negotiations have recently yielded to increased pay and better leaving

conditions. The contradiction on reduced employee morale can be attributed to security

of tenure offered by the public universities to its employees as compared to private

university employees.

The other indicator of sustainable competitiveness that was tested was outreach and

public service. Result indicated that the public university had an alumni association that

117

offered support to the organization more as compared to private university. This

contradicts Prof. Odhiambo‘s (2005) study on advancing the quality of higher education

through internationalization. His findings indicate that private universities maintain

current databases of their alumni who endow academic chairs, provide scholarships or

help the university in different capital development projects. This contradiction could be

explained by the analytical techniques used. Odhiambo (2005) used descriptive statistics

only to explain his findings without applying inferential statistics.

This contradiction could be attributed to the rigor of the alumni associations in public

universities. Although the public universities for alumni associations, their activities are

not felt the by neither the university nor the current students.

The last indicator of sustainable competitiveness tested was finance. Public university

(Del Rey and Romero, 2004) has an exogenous budget that allows it to cover the costs of

educating any chosen number of students. This budget comes from the government and is

funded out of general taxation. The fact that the public university is not subject to

budgetary constraints means that there are no capacity constraints in the public sector. If

we instead consider that the budget at the disposal of the public university is fixed, the

choice of the admission standard would be trivial since the number of students that the

university can admit is determined by this budget. Del Ray and Romero (2004) therefore

concur with this study‘s findings that public universities are more superior in sustainable

competitiveness as compared to the private university.

5.1.2 Comparing Resource Characteristics between Private and Public Universities

The second objective sought to compare resource characteristics in private and public

universities. Resource characteristics were classified as Value, rarity, inimitability and

non-substitutability. The study found out that the mean response scores for respondents

118

drawn from public universities were higher than for those drawn from private

universities. This implies that public universities posses resources that are superior to

those in private universities in terms of value, rarity, inimitability and non-

substitutability. Further, the ‗t‘ test results confirmed this superiority by showing

statistically significant differences in all the indicators measuring the four resource

characteristics. This finding contradicts Bunoti (2011) in her study on the quality of

higher education in developing countries. Bunoti (2011) found out that public universities

posses resources that are inferior to those in private universities in terms of value, rarity,

inimitability and non-substitutability.

In resource value for example, Bunoti (2011) noted that lecturers in public universities

are not approachable and that they meet students only during lecture time and therefore

students cannot obtain guidance and counseling or other forms of support. She adds on to

say that the lecturers in the public universities are not highly qualified and that very few

hold PhD‘s apart from those at top management level. These contrasting findings could

be explained by the approaches to research used. Bunoti‘s study was purely qualitative

that utilized the following data collection methods such as focus group discussion, in-

depth interviews and document analysis while this study was purely quantitative where

data was collected by use of questionnaires only. This could explain the difference in

findings. The difference in findings could also be attached to the increasing number of

student: lecturer ratio. This rising student numbers makes the lectures not have a one-on-

one with his students.

Resource rarity measured difference in unique resource between public and private.

Bunoti (2011) and Gudo et al (2011) again contradict with this finding that public

119

universities have more superior unique resources than private universities. According to

both authors the public university library has no unique book and also the programs

offered at the public universities are not unique. Bunoti (2011) and Gudo et al (2011)

found out that the library at public universities for example is not modern, is not well

stocked and that majority of the books are outdated.

Bunoti (2011) also adds that the lecture rooms in public universities are too small for the

number of students and have insufficient seats. She also found out that the lecture rooms

are not sound proof. Her study further revealed that the lecturer: Student ratio is

overwhelming. The difference in findings can also be explained by the difference in

methodological approach to research (qualitative versus quantitative). The programs

offered by public universities are not unique (Kasozi, 2006) rather they are more

theoretical and irrelevant to the job market. Mamdani (2007) also concurs with Kasozi

that universities are duplicating courses for the sake of generating income. These

contradicting findings can be explained on the basis of the target population. Kasozi

(2006), Mamdani (2007) and Bunito (2011) all targeted students and staff while this

study targeted only the staff of the universities. These differences in findings can be due

to duplication of courses by the newly established universities from the older universities.

The public universities are also not meeting the needs of their increasing student

population. This therefore means that they continue to use the old lecture halls that were

meant for small student numbers for the current large student numbers.

Resource inimitability measured the ability of the resources not to be easily copied while

resource non-substitutability measured the ability of the resource not to be replaced.

Results indicated that public university posses superior inimitable resources as compared

120

to the private universities. This finding concur with Mamdani‘s (2007) findings which

state the universities are duplicating courses. That is the courses are easy to copy. The

contradiction can be linked to the universities inability to adapt measures of how to

protect their academic programs from being accessed and duplicated by their competitors.

These two resource characteristics (resource inimitability and non-substitutability)

however have very limited literature that has been documented.

5.1.3 The Effect of Resource Characteristics on Sustainable Competitiveness

The main objective of this study was to establish the effect of resource characteristics on

sustainable competitiveness. Using multiple regression analysis and controlling for

institutions age, location and program cost, the study established that resource value

(β=0.360, t=6.020, p<0.01), rarity of resource (β=0.437, t=8.727, p<0.01) and resource

inimitability (β=0.166, t=2.444, p<0.05) were significant predictors of sustainable

competitiveness. In addition, the magnitude of the ‗t‘ values for rarity and value indicated

that they are the main predictors of sustainable competitiveness in that order.

These findings concur with Talaja (2012) in her study ―Testing VRIN Framework:

Resource Value and Rarity as sources of Competitive Advantage and above average

Performance‖ .Her findings indicate that VRIN framework (valuable, rare, imperfectly

imitable and not substitutable resources) have the potential for creating sustainable

competitive advantage. Talaja‘s (2012) findings revealed that valuable resources ensure

the survival of the company and enable it to achieve competitive parity in the industry in

which it operates. If a company fails to exploit valuable resources, it will have the

competitive disadvantage. If the resource that a company possesses is not valuable, then

it will not allow the company to choose and implement strategies that exploit

121

opportunities and neutralize threats from the environment. Such resources are considered

as weaknesses.

Newbert (2008) also concurs with this finding that resource value and rarity are

predictors of sustainable competitiveness. Newbert (2008) found out that value and

rareness are related to sustainable competitiveness. He also pointed that there is a paucity

of conceptual-level studies, particularly with respect to characteristics of value and

rareness. Talaja (2012) also agree with this finding. She indicated that valuable resources

that are not rare cannot be the sources of the competitive advantage. To achieve the

competitive advantage, resource must be valuable and rare. However, this does not mean

that valuable resources that are not rare are irrelevant to a company.

Talaja (2012), Resources are imperfectly imitable if competitors cannot obtain them on a

particular market. If there is no other resource that could be used as an adequate and

worthy replacement for the existing resource, existing resources are not substitutable. It is

stressed that the value and rarity of resources are necessary conditions for achieving

competitive advantage. However, for achieving sustainable competitive advantage,

resources also have to be imperfectly imitable and not substitutable. Foss and Knudsen

(2003) reflect on Barney‘s classification of VRIN conditions, and state that there are the

only two necessary conditions for achieving sustainable competitiveness: uncertainty and

immobility.

On resource non-substitutability, the study findings conclude that it is not a predictor of

sustainable competiveness. This finding is in agreement with Markman, et al (2004), who

came to the conclusion that competitive advantage is related to inimitability, but not

substitutability.

122

5.2 Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results

The results of the hypotheses testing are presented in Table 5.1.

Hypothesis H01: There is no significant difference in sustainable Competitiveness

between Private and Public Universities. The results indicated that there was a

significant difference in sustainable competitiveness between private and public

universities (t=3.380). This implies that the hypothesis was rejected. The group means

indicated that the public university performed better on sustainable competitiveness than

the private university.

Hypothesis Ho2: There is no significant difference in resource characteristics

between private and public universities.

Ho2a: There is no significant difference in resource value between private and public

universities. Results indicated that there was a statistical significant difference in

resource value between the public and private university (t=3.577). This means that the

hypothesis was not supported. The group means indicate that public universities posses

more valuable resources as compared to the private university.

Ho2b: There is no significant difference between rarity of resource in private and

public universities. Results indicated that there was a statistical significant difference in

resource rarity between the public and private university (t=3.954) This implies that the

hypothesis was not supported. The group means indicated that resources of public

universities were more rare (not easy to acquire) as compared to those of the private

university.

123

Ho2c : There is no significant difference in resource inimitability between private

and public universities. Results indicate that there is a statistical significant difference in

resource inimitability between private and public universities (t=4.107). this implies that

the hypothesis was not supported. The mean scores depict that resources of public

universities were more complex to copy as compared to those of private universities.

Ho2d: There is no significant difference in resource non-substitutability between

private and public universities. Results showed that there was a statistical significant

difference in resource non-substitutability between private and public universities

(t=4.178). This therefore means that there was a difference between private and public

universities in relation to possession of resources that are non-substitutable. The group

means depict that public universities scored higher in terms of possession of non-

substitutable resources than the private university.

Ho3: Resource characteristics have no effect on sustainable competitiveness of an

institution, controlling for Institutions age, location and its program costs

None of the control variables was a significant predictor of sustainable competitiveness.

The standardized coefficient of 0.360 and a t-value of 6.020 indicate a significant effect

of resource value on sustainable competitiveness. This implies that when other resource

characteristics are held constant, an increase of 1 standard deviation in value of resource

will result in an increase of 0.36 standard deviations in sustainable competitiveness. The

hypothesis was therefore not supported. This confirms that value of resources affects

sustainable competitiveness of an institution.

124

The standardized coefficient of 0.434 and a t-value of 8.727 show a significant effect

between resource rarity and sustainable competitiveness. This means that the hypothesis

was not supported by the data. The coefficient of 0.434 implies that an increase of 1

standard deviation in rarity of resources will result in an increase of 0.434 standard

deviation in sustainable competitiveness. This also confirms that rarity of resources

predicts sustainable competitiveness.

The standardized coefficient of 0.166 and a t-value of 2.444 indicate a significant effect

between inimitability of resources and sustainable competitiveness. This means that the

hypothesis was not supported by the data. The coefficient of 0.166 indicates that an

increase of 1 standard deviation in resource inimitability results in an increase of 0.166

standard deviation in sustainable competitiveness. This also confirms that resource

inimitable predict sustainable competitiveness. Resource non-substitutability was found

not to significantly predict sustainable competitiveness in universities.

125

Table 5.1 Summary of Findings of Hypotheses

Hypothesis β, (t-Value) Result

Ho1 There is no significant difference in t= (3.380) Not Supported

sustainable competitiveness between

Private and public universities

Ho2a There is no significant difference in t= (2.577) Not supported

resource value between private and public

universities.

Ho2b There is no significant difference in t= (3.954) Not supported

resource rarity between private and public

universities

Ho2c There is no significant difference in t= (4.107) Not supported

resource inimitability between private

and public universities

Ho2d There is no significant difference in t= (4.178) Not supported

resource non-substitutability between

private and public universities

Ho3 Resource characteristics have no effect on β=0.360 t=6.020 sustainable competitiveness of an institution, β=0.434 t=8.727 Not supported controlling for Institutions age, location and β=0.166 t=2.444 its program costs

Resource non-substitutability β=-.042 t=-.781 Supported

Source: Survey Data (2013)

5.3 Conclusions

This study sought to establish the effect of resource characteristics on sustainable

competitiveness. It builds on literature from empirical studies in areas of sustainable

competitiveness in institutions of learning, quality of education, Resource based View

and Balanced scorecard. Resource characteristics were classified according to the VRIN

framework (value, rarity, inimitability and non-substitutability) while sustainable

competitiveness is measured in terms of programs/courses, research, public

service/outreach, workplace satisfaction and finance.

126

The first hypothesis that stated that there is no difference between sustainable

competitiveness in public and private universities was not supported. The second

hypothesis that stated that there is no difference in resource characteristic between private

and public universities was not supported. The finding indicated that public university

was more superior in resource characteristics than private university. The third hypothesis

stated that resource characteristics had no effect sustainable competiveness. This

hypothesis was also no supported, which indicated that resource characteristics (value,

rarity and inimitability) were predictors of sustainable competitiveness except for

resource non-substitutability.

This research concurs with Talaja (2012) whose findings indicate that resource rarity and

resource value are the two major predictors of sustainable competitiveness. Resource

inimitability was also a significant predictor though its effect was weaker as compared to

resource rarity and resource value. The comparative approach indicated that there was a

significant difference in sustainable competitiveness between private and public

universities. That public university was more competitive as compared to the private

university. This concurs with Materu (2007) on research quality; Del Ray & Romero

(2004) on teaching and learning; Nhundu & Moanakwena (2008) and Gudo et al (2011)

on student enrollment. This study‘s findings however contrast findings of Dzvimbo

(2006); Bunoti (2011) and Gudo et al (2011) on workplace satisfaction. This could be

due to the trade union activities that have led to increased pay packages for teaching and

non- teaching staff at the public universities.

The other comparative measure was on resource characteristic between public and private

universities. The study found out that public universities had superior resource

127

characteristics (value, rarity, inimitability and non-substitutability) as compared to private

universities. This findings contrast the findings of Bunoti (2011) on the approachability

of lecturers (resource value). This could be explained by the very large student: lecturer

ratio which makes the lecturer unable to know the students at a personal level. This large

student numbers also lead to increased lecturers workload in terms of marking.

The findings on resource rarity contradict the findings of Bunoti (2011) and Gudo et al

(2011) on issues of unique programs, library books and lecturer rooms. These

contradictions may be attributed to ease access of the library books and programs by

other institutions. As much as public universities come up with unique programs, these

programs later on find their way into the competitors hands. This leads to the variable

resource inimitability which concurs Mamdani (2007) where private universities are not

coming up with their original programs but rather opt to duplicate existing academic

programs from public universities.

5.2.1 Theoretical Contribution

This study was informed by two theories; the Resource-based view (also known as the

VRIN) framework and the Balanced Scorecard. The resource-based view (RBV), is one

of the most widely accepted theories of sustainable competitiveness. it focuses on

relationships between company‘s internal characteristics and competitive advantage

(Spanos and Lioukas, 2001).

It is based on the assumption that companies within an industry are heterogeneous in

terms of resources they control. Since resources may not be perfectly mobile,

heterogeneity can be long lasting (Barney, 1991). According to Barney (1992, 1995)

resources and capabilities include financial, physical, human and organizational assets

128

that a company uses to develop, manufacture and deliver products and services to

customers. This study tested all the four resource characteristics (value, rarity,

inimitability and non-substitutability) hypotheses at the conceptual level and provided

evidence that resource value, rarity and inimitability are significant predictors of

sustainable competitiveness. Resource non-substitutability was the only non-predictor of

sustainable competitiveness. By empirically confirming these hypotheses from the VRIN

framework, this study significantly contributes to Resource-based view.

The other theory that was used in this study was the balanced scorecard. The Balanced

Scorecard relies on the concept of Strategy developed by Michael Porter (Kaplan and

Norton, 1996). Porter argues that the essence of formulating a competitive strategy lies in

relating a company to the competitive forces in the industry in which it competes. The

scorecard translates the vision and strategy of a business unit into objectives and

measures in four different areas: the financial, customer, internal business process and

learning and growth perspective. The financial perspective identifies how the company

wishes to be viewed by its shareholders. The customer perspective determines how the

company wishes to be viewed by its customers. The internal business process perspective

describes the business processes at which the company has to be particularly adept in

order to satisfy its shareholders and customers. The organizational learning and growth

perspective involves the changes and improvements which the company needs to realize

if it is to make its vision come true. Ruben (1999) also came up balance scorecard for

higher education that stipulates five constructs of sustainable competitiveness; programs,

scholarships/research, public service/outreach, workplace satisfaction and finance. The

129

study tested all the five constructs of sustainable competitiveness and found out that there

was no difference is sustainable competitiveness between private and public universities.

By empirically confirming this hypothesis from the balanced scorecard of higher

education, this study significantly contributed to this theory.

5.2.2 Managerial Contribution

The implication for the management profession includes emphasizing the importance of

accumulating different types of resources that is, physical, human, organizational,

intellectual and financial. Management needs to give attention to the characteristics

(value, rarity and inimitability) of the resources they posses in order to enhance their

ability to gain sustainable competitiveness. This means that they should accumulate and

develop resources with characteristics that are superior to those of their competitors and

that help them in exploiting opportunities and neutralizing threats that arise from the

organizational environment.

5.2.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are offered to

improve sustainable competitiveness in universities: Universities should strive to ensure

that they accumulate resources with VRI characteristics (value, rarity and inimitability).

The accumulation of these resources will most likely lead to the universities attaining

sustainable competitiveness. This study finding indicated that resource value, rarity and

inimitability are significant predictors of sustainable competitiveness.

This study also recommends that private universities should put measures to ensure that

their physical, human, intellectual and financial resources are valuable, rare, and

inimitable for them to attain sustainable competitiveness. This study revealed that public

130

universities had more superior resource characteristics as compared to those of private

universities.

5.2.5 Further Research

This study makes a contribution to the knowledge and literature on the effects of resource

characteristics on sustainable competitiveness in the service sector. This study compared

one private and one public university in Kenya. The findings of this study indicate that

resource characteristics (value, rarity and inimitability) are significant predictors of

sustainable competitiveness. Therefore, for a further research on this theme, the

researcher suggests a comparative research covering multiple organizations from other

service sectors such as hotels, hospitals banks including universities.

This study collected data only form the staff of the university, it is therefore

recommended that further research should be undertaken where data is collected from

both the staff, students and alumni of the universities on the effect of resource

characteristics on sustainable competitiveness. This will help to reduce the biasness as

there is likelihood that staff of a university will want to talk good about their institution.

This study also found out contrasting findings from other authors who used purely

qualitative research methods. This study was purely quantitative. It is therefore

recommended that a mixed method approach (qualitative and quantitative) be used in

future researches on the effects of resource characteristics on sustainable

competitiveness. This will help to get a clear picture of this effect.

131

REFERENCES

Acquaah, M.; Chi, T. (2007), A longitudinal analysis of the impact of firm resources and

industry characteristics on firm-specific profitability, Journal of Management and

Governance, 11: 179-213

Aghion, P, Dewatripont, M, Hoxby, C, Mas-Colell, A, and A. Sapir (2010), ―The Governance and performance of Universities: Evidence from Europe and the US‖, Economic Policy, Great Britain

Amit R., Schoemaker P., (1993), ‗Strategic assets and organizational rent‘, Strategic Management Journal,14: 33-46

Altbach, G. P. (2006) The Private Higher Education Revolution: An Introduction.

Kampala: NCHE.

Andrews, K.R. (1980) The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Revised, Homewood: Irwin.

Astin, A. W. (1993) What Matters in College? San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.

Aziz, A.; Elezi, Z. and Mazreku, A. (2013) Competition Between public and Private

Universities: international Experiences and Case of Macedonia, Journal of

Education and Instructional Studies in the World

Bailey, T., Cloete, N. and Pillary, P. (2007) Case Study: Kenya and University of

Nairobi, Universities and Economic Development in Africa

Barney, J.B., (1986a), Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck and Business

Strategy.Management Science,42: 1231-1241

Barney, J.B., (1986b), Organizational Culture: Can It be a Source of Sustained

Competitive Advantage? Academy of Management Review,42: 1231-1241

Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.

Journal of Management, 17: 99-120

Barney, J. B. (1992), Integrating Organizational Behaviour and strategy Formulation

Research: A Resource Based Analysis, Advances in Strategic Management,8: 38-

59

Barney, J. B. (1995), Looking inside for competitive advantage, Academy of Management

Executive, 9: 49-61

Barney, J .B. (1996) The resource-based theory of the firm. Organization Science

132

Barney, J.B., (2001), Is the Resource-Based Theory a Useful Perspective for Strategic

Management Research? Yes. Academy of Management Review,26: 41-56

Barr, N. (2004) The Economics of the Welfare State (4 th

Edition). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Blaikie, N. (1993), Approaches to Social Enquiry, 1st ed, Cambridge :Polity Press,

Blanke J., Crotti R. Drzeniek H.M., Fidanza B. & Geiger T. (2011) The Long-Term

View:Developing a Framework for Assessing Sustainable Competitiveness:

World Economic Forum

Boroah, V. (1994), ―Modeling Institutional Behavior: a Microeconomic Analysis of

University Management‖, Public Choice,81: 101-124

Brancato, C. K. (1995) New Corporate Peformance Measures. New York :The

Conference Board

Braskamp, L.A. and Ory, J. C. (1994) Assessing Faculty Work. San

Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, D. Gates, S. M., and C. A. Goldman (2002) In Pursuit of Prestige: Strategy and

Competition in US Higher Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Brush, C., Greene, P. G., and Hart, M. M. (2001) Frominitial idea to Unique Advantage:

The Entrepreneurial Challenge of Constructing a Resource Base. Academy of

Management Executive

Bryson, J. M, Ackermann, F and Eden, C. (2007) Putting the Resource-Based View of

Strategy and Distinctive Competencies to Work in Public Organization. Public

Administration Review

Buckley, P.J. and Casson, M. (1976) The Economic Theory of Foreign Investment.

Economics

Bunoti, S. (2011) The Quality of Higher Education in Developing Countries Needs

Professional Support. Kampala, Uganda

Bygrave,W. (1992) Venture Capital Returns in the 1980s: The state of the Art of

Entrepreneurship. Boston.

Caves, R. E. (1984) Industrial Organization, Corporate Strategy and Structure:

Competitive Strategic Management. New York : Prentice-Hall,

134

De Fraja, G. D. and Iossa, E. (2002) Competition among Universities and the Emergence

of Insitutions. Bulletin of Economic Research, 54 (3): 275-293

Debande, O. and Demeulemeester, J. L. (1998), ―Two-dimensional Competition between

Institutions: an Application to Higher Education‖. Mimeo, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Del Rey, E. (2001), ―Teaching versus Research: a Model of State University

Competition‖,Journal of Urban Economics, 49 (2): 356-373

Deming, W. E. (1993) The New Economics, Cambridge MA. MIT Center of Advanced

Engineering Study

Dierkx, I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of

Competitive Advantage. Management Science, 35: 1504- 1511

Dill, D. D. (2005) The Public Good, the public Interest and Public Higher Education.

Research Program on Public Policy for Academic Quality, 14 (1): 21-35

Dollinger, M. J. 1995. Entrepreneurship: strategies and resource. Boston: ma Irwin

Drnevich, P. L.; Kriauciunas, A. P. (2011), Clarifying the conditions and Limits of the

Contributions of Ordinary and Dynamic Capabilities to Relative Firm

performance, Strategic Management Journal, 32 (254-279)

Dzvimbo P.K. (2006) The International migration of skilled human capital from

developing countries. Kampala: NCHE.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. (2008), Management Research, 3rd ed,

London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Epple, D. and Romano, R. E. (1998) Competition between Public and Private Schools.

The American Economic Review, 44:77-86

Ekundayo, H. T. and Alonge, H. O. (2011) Human and Material Resources as Correlates

of Academic Performance of private and Public Secondary School Students in

ONDO STATE, European Scientific Journal, 8(10):170-180

Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2008), Qualitative Methods in Business Research, 1st

ed, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Ewell, P. (1994) Developing Statewide Performance Indicators. Education Commission

of the States

135

Finney, R., campell, N. and powell, C. (2005): ―Strategies and Resources: Pathways to Success?‖ Journal of Business Research,58: 1721-1729

Foss, N. J. and Knudsen, T. (2003) A Resource-Based Tangle: Towards a Sustainable

Explanation of Competitive Advantage, Managerial and Decision Economics, 24

(4):291-309

Foster, R. N. and Kaplan, S. (2001) Creative Destruction: Why Companies that are Built

to Last Underperform the Market – and How to Successfully Transform them, Crown Business

Galunic, D. C., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1994) Renewing the Strategy Structure-

performance Paradigm. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 215-255

Galunic, D. C. and Rodan, S. (1998). Resource Recombinations in the Firm: Knowledge

Structures and the Potential for Schumpeterian Innovation. Strategic Management

Journal, 19 (12): 1193-1205

Garvin, D. (1980), The Economics of University Behaviour, New York : Academic Press.

Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational Research: Competencies for

Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Ghemawat, P. (1991) Commitment: The Dynamic of Strategy, New York: Free Press.

Grant, R. M. (2002) Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques,

Applications. Oxford

Gudo, C. O; Oanda, I. O and Olel M. A (2011) Role of Institutional Managers in Quality

Assurance: Reflections on Kenya‘s University Education. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(2): 113-124

Hafstrand, H. (2006) Competitive advantage in the Magazine Publishing Business: A

Resource-based Perspective, Nordicom Review

Hair, J. F.; Anderson, R. E.; Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C.(2005) , Multivariate Data

Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,

Hitt, M., Irland, R. and Hoskisson, R. (2003): Strategic Management: Competitiveness

and Globalisation, , OH. South-Western : Cincinnati.

Hoopes, D.G.; Madsen, T.L.,; Walker, G. (2003) Guest Editors‘ Introduction to the Special Issue: Why is There a Resource-Based View? Toward a Theory of

Competitive Heterogeneity Strategic Management Journal, 20: 837-865

136

Johnson, R. and Seymour, D. (1996) The Baldrige as an award and Assessment

Instrument for Higher Education. Maryville MO: Prescott.

Juran, J. M., World War II and the Quality Movement. The Juran Institute. Re-printed in

and Adapted form Ruben, B.D. (1995) Quality in Higher Education. New Jersey:

New Brunswich,

Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive

Performance, Harvard Business Review, 70 (1): 71-79

Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D.P. (1993) Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work, Harvard

Business Review, 71 (1) 73-82

Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic

Management System,‖ Harvard Business Review, 74 (1) 75

Karanthanos, D. and Karanthanos, P. (2005) Applying a Balanced Scorecard to

Education, Journal of Education for Business

Kasozi A.B.K. (2006) The State of Higher Education 2005: Executive summary. NCHE

Kiganda, C (2009). East African Universities Vice Chancellors Urged to shift Students

Roles to Centre and make the Partners and Responsible Stakeholders. Inter-

University Council for East Africa (IUCEA). Newsletter, 39: 8-16

King, A.W. (2007). Disentangling Interfirm and Intrafirm Causal Ambiguity: A

Conceptual Model of Causal Ambiguity and Sustainable Competitive Advantage.

Academy of Management Review,22 (1): 75-99

Kothari, C. (2003) Research Methods; Methods and Techniques ; New Delhi: Eastern Ltd

Lado, A.A., Boyd, N. G. and Wright, P. (1992) A Competency-based Model of

Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Towards a Conceptual Synthesis. Journal of

Management, 18 (1): 77-91

Lawrence, S., & Sharma, U. (2002). Commodification of Education and Academic

Labour - Using the Balanced Scorecard in a University Setting. Critical

Perspective on Accounting.

Lidong, L.A, (2007) A Cross-case Study of the Competitive Advantage of Private Higher

Educational Institutions in Kuching Sarawak. A Published Thesis

Lippman, S. and Rumelt, R. (1982). ‗Uncertain Imitability: An analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition‘, Bell Journal of Economics,13: 418- 438

137

Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2006). Methods in educational research:

From theory to practice. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass,

Long, K., & Vickers-Koch, M (1995) Using Core Competences to create competitive

advantage. Organizational Dynamics

Ma, H. (2004). Toward Global Competitive Advantage: Creation, Competition,

Cooperation and Co-option. Management Decision, 42 (7): 907-924

Mahoney, J. T. and Pandian, J. R. (1992) ‗The Resource-based View within the Conversation of Strategic Management‘, Strategic Management Journal, 13: 363- 380

Makadok, R., (2001), ‗Toward a Synthesis of the Resource-based and Dynamic- capability Views of Rent Creation‘, Strategic Management Journal, 22: 387-401

Mamdani M., (2007)Scholars in the Marketplace. CODESRIA, Senegal.

Markman, G. D., Espina, M. I. and Phan, P. H. (2004), Patents and surrogates for

inimitable and non-substitutable resources, Journal of Management, 30: 529-544

Materu, P. (2007) Higher Education Quality Assurance in Sub-Saharan Africa: Status,

Challenges, Opportunities and Promising procedures. Washington D.C:

World Bank,

McEvily, S. K., and Chakravarthy, B. (2002) The Persistence of Knowledge- based

Advantage: An Empirical Test for Product Performance and Technological

Knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (4): 285-305

McGee, J. E. & Finney, J. B. (1997) Competing against Retailing Giants: A look at the

Importance of Distinctive Marketing Competencies. Journal of Business and

Entrepreneurship,25: 301-324

McGee, J. E., Thomas, H. and Wilson D. (2005) Strategy: Analysis & Practice. New

York: McGraw-Hill

McGrath, R. G., Tsai, M., Venkataraman ,S. and MacMillan, I. C. (1996) Innovation,

Competitive Advantage, and Rent. Management Science, 16: 251-275

Miller, D., and Shamsie, J. 1996. The resource-based view of the firm in two

environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of

Management Journal, 39(3): 519-544

Montgomery, C. A. (1994) Corporate diversification. Journal of Economic Perspectives,

19: 623-632

138

Mpaata, A. K. (2010) University Competitiveness through Quality Assurance; The

Challenging Battle for Intellectuals

Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.

Harvard University, MA: Cambridge.

Newbert, S. L. (2007), Empirical Research on the Resource-based View of the Firm: an

Assessment and Suggestions for Future Research, Strategic Management Journal,

28: 121-146

Newbert, S. L. (2008), Value, Rareness, Competitive Advantage, and performance: A

Conceptual-level Empirical Investigation of the Resource-based View of the

Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 29: 745-768

Nhundu, T. J and Moanakwena, P. G (2008) Making Quality a Priority in the Provision

of African Tertiary Education. Tertiary Education Council, Botswana

O‘brien, R. M.(2007) A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb of Variance Inflation Factors, Springer

Odhiambo, J. (2005) Advancing the Quality of Higher Education through

Internationalization.Strathmore University, Kenya

Pearce and Robinson (2007) Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation and

Control; Boston: McGraw Hill

Peteraf, M. A.; Barney, J. B. (2003), Unraveling the Resource-based Tangle, Managerial

and Decision Economics,24: 309-323

Peteraf, R. P. (1993) The Cornerstone of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-based

View.Strategic Management Journal, 14 (3): 179-191

Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel (1990). ‗The Core Competence of the Corporation‘, Harvard Business Review, 68 (3): 79-93

Priem, R. L.; Butler, J. E. (2001), Is the Resource-based ‗View‘ a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research?, Academy of Management Review,26: 22-40

Protogerou, A.; Caloghirou, Y.; Lioukas, S. (2008), Dynamic Capabilities and Their

Indirect Impact on Firm Performance, Paper submitted to the DRUID 25th

Celebration Conference 2008, available at

http://wwwz.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=2718&cf=29

Ray, G., Barney, J.B. and Muhanna, W.A. (2004). Capabilities, Business processes, and

Competitive Advantage: Choosing the Dependent Variable in Empirical Tests of

the Resource Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 23-37

139

Romero, L. and Del Rey, E. (2004) Competition Between Public and Private

Univeristies:Quality, Prices and Exams. Department of Economics, Universitat de

Girona

Rothschild, M. and White L. J. (1995) The Analytics of pricing in Higher Education and

other Services in which Customers are inputs. Journal of Political Economy, 103

Ruben, B. D. (1999) Towards a Balanced Scorecard for Higher Education: Rethinking

the College and Univeristy Excellence Indicators Framework. Higher Education

Forum

Ruben, B. D. (1995) The Quality Approach in Higher Education: Context and Concepts

for Change. New Jersey: New Brunswik.

Rugman A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2002), Edith Penrose‘s Contribution to the Resource- Based Views of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal,23 (8):

769-780

Rumelt, R. P. (1984) Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm. , New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Saloner, G., Shepard, A.and Podolny, J. (2001). Strategic Management. New York :

John Wiley & Sons

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business

Students, 4th ed, , Harlow: Prentice Hall Financial Times.

Selznik, P. (1957) Leadership in administration. New York, NY: Harper & Row

Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2007) Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic

Environments to Create Value: Looking inside the Black Box. Academy of

Management Review, 32 (1) 273-292

Spanos, Y.E., Lioukas, S. (2001) An Examination into the Causal Logic of Rent

Generation:Contrasting Porter's Competitive Strategy Framework and the

Resource-based Perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 907-934

Sterwart, A. C. and Capenter-Hubin (2011) The Balanced Scorecard Beyond Reports and

Rankings

Talaja, A. (2012) Testing VRIN Framework: Resource Value and Rareness as a Source

of Competitive Advantage and above Average Performance. Management

Journal, 17: 51-64

Teece, D.T. (1982) Towards an Economic Ttheory of the Multiproduct Firm. Journal of

Economic Behavior and Organization,3: 39-63

Tirole, J. (1988) The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

140

Trout, P. A. (1997) What the Numbers Mean. Change

Umashankar, V. and Dutta, K. (2007) Balanced Scorecard in Managing Higher Education

Institutions: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Educational

Management

Wegner, J. W. (1997) Rational, Accessible Way to Rank Law Schools. National Law

Journal

Wernerfelt, B. (1984) A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management

Journal, 5: 171-180

Williams, W. M. and Ceci, J. J. (1997) How‘m I doing? Problems with Student Ratings of Instructors and Courses, Change: 241-269

Winter, S., (1987), ‗Knowledge and competence as strategic assets‘, In Teece D.J., The Competitive Challenge, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger: 159-184

Wu, L. Y. (2010), Applicability of the Resource-based and Dynamic Capability Views

under Environmental Volatility, Journal of Business Research, 63: 27-31

142

APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR UNIVERSITY STAFF

Section A: Background Information of respondents

Kindly tick (√ ) that which best describes you

1. Kindly indicate your gender

Male [ ]

Female [ ]

2. Which section do you work in?

Administrative section [ ]

Academic section [ ]

3. Kindly indicate your school?

School of Arts and Social Sciences

School of Business/ Commerce

School of Law

School Education

6. Indicate your highest educational qualification

Doctorate Degree [ ]

Masters Degree [ ]

Bachelors Degree [ ]

Diploma [ ]

Certificate [ ]

SECTION B: INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE

7. What is the total number of students in the department categorized by gender?

8. What is the number of students categorized by the programs?

9. How many students apply for programs in the department in the academic year 2012/2013?

Less than 20 21-50 51-100 101-500 Over 500

Programs

BBM/BBA

BA

Bsc.Agric Ecomonics

BED

LLB

10. How many are enrolled for the programs they applied for?

Less than 20 21-50 51-100 101-500 Over 500

Programs

BBM/BBA

BA

Bsc.Agric Ecomonics

BED

LLB

143

11. What is the student graduation rate at the department?

Over 90% [ ]

Between 70%-90% [ ]

Between 50% and 69% [ ]

Below 50% [ ]

12. What is the lecturer/student ratio at the department?

1:<50 [ ]

1:50> <100 [ ]

1:100> <200 [ ]

1:>200 [ ]

13. What is the faculty teaching load per semester at the department?

Less than 3 courses [ ]

Between 4-6 courses [ ]

Between 7-10 courses [ ]

Over 10 courses [ ]

14. What is the number of faculty publications annually in the department?

Less than 5 [ ]

Between 5-10 [ ]

Between 11-20 [ ]

Over 20 [ ]

14. How much in grants is offered to the department annually?

Less than Ksh. 100,000 [ ]

Between Ksh 100,000-500,000 [ ]

Between Ksh. 500,001-1 million[ ]

Over one million [ ]

15. How many lecture halls are allocated to the department?

Less than 5 [ ]

Between 5-10 [ ]

Over 10 [ ]

16. Please tick (√) the option that best suits your opinion about the Library facilities in your department

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Library facilities 1 2 3 4 5

16:the library at the department has enough space

17: the library at the department has useful reading materials

18: the library also offers e-materials (journals)

19. What is the age of your institution?

Below 10 years [ ]

Between 10-20years [ ]

Between 21-30 years [ ]

Over 30yrs [ ]

144

20. How much do the programs in the department cost annually?

Cost of Programs Less than 100,000 100,000-150,000 151,000 and above

Programs

BBM/BBA

BA

B Education

LLB

21. Where is your institution located?

Urban setup [ ]

Rural setup [ ]

SECTION C: SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS

This section is on the Higher Education Dashboard Indicators that represent Sustainable

Competitiveness

22. Please tick (√) the option that best suits your opinion about the Teaching/Learning in your department using the Key below

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Programs/Courses 1 2 3 4 5

22:All the lecturers in the department have a masters degree and above

23: Programs offered in the department are current in the market

24. Please tick (√) the option that best suits your opinion about Scholarship/ Research in your department

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Scholarship/ Research 1 2 3 4 5

24: The department has a journal that is produced on quarterly basis

25: Publications are recognized if they are published in selected stature of

journals or publishers

26. Please tick (√) the option that best suits your opinion on the Public Service/Outreach in your department

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Public Service/ outreach 1 2 3 4 5

26: Employers send their employees to the departments‘ programs for continuing education

27: The alumni of this department offer both financial and moral support to its

initiatives

28. Please tick (√) the option that best suits your opinion on Workplace Satisfaction at your department

145

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Workplace Satisfaction (Faculty & Staff) 1 2 3 4 5

28: The department experiences a very low staff turnover

29: employees in the department are regularly trained in their area of

specialization

30. Please tick (√) the option that best suits your opinion on financial matters at your department Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Finance 1 2 3 4 5

30: The department receives donations (monetary, books etc)

31: department prepares an operating budget annually

SECTION D: INFORMATION ON RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

32. Please tick (√) against the statements to indicate your opinion about the Value of Resources as available in your department

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Value of Resources 1 2 3 4 5

Reputation

33: The department has built a good image over the years

34: The programs offered at the department are very attractive

35: Graduates from this department have been employed at very prestigious

organizations

After Sales Service

36: The department organizes for forums where the alumni are invited

37: Social responsibility programs are organized by the department to improve

the society

Content Delivery

38: The teaching methods used in my department are appropriate

39: Research seminars are organized frequently at the department level

40: Lectures begin promptly at the beginning of the semester

41: Lecturers make up for lost class hours

42: Lecturers attend all the classes as they are required

43: Lecturers are free and approachable to students

Technical Quality of Lecturers

44: Lecturers in the department are very competent

45: All the lecturers hold a masters degree and above

2. Please tick (√) against the statements to indicate your opinion about the Rarity of Resources as available in your university

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Rarity of Resource 1 2 3 4 5

46: The departmental library has very unique books for the different programs

47: The department has some very unique programs it offers

48: Lectures are carried out in very conducive environment for learning (quiet

and serene)

146

49: The department has existed for many years therefore it has an expansive

experience

50: The relationship between the lecturers and the students is very unique in

that it goes beyond the classroom issues

51: The staff of the department use their extracurricular talents to help the

students

52: The department has developed patents for its innovations

3. Please tick (√) against the statements to indicate your opinion about the Inimitability of Resources as available in your university

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Inimitability of Resources 1 2 3 4 5

Complexities

53: Interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships in my department cannot be

easily copied

54: The trust that exists within the employees and the management of the

department which cannot be emulated

55: The process of developing programs within the department cannot be

easily copied by others

Culture and History

56: The values and beliefs that the department holds to cannot be copied by

competitors

57: The name the university and department have built cannot be imitated

IR6: The number of years of experience gained by my department cannot be

copied

Causal Ambiguity

58: The competence of the departments employees cannot be copied

Change

59: The department develops new programs regularly

60: Programs developed are reviewed annually

61: Methods of content delivery changes with the technological change

62: Market demand drives the development of programs within the department

4. Please tick (√) against the statements to indicate your opinion about the Non-Substitutability of Resources as available in your university

Key: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree 3=not sure, 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Non-Substitutability of Resources 1 2 3 4 5

63: programs developed in the department cannot be replaced by other

programs from other institutions

64: The lecturers competencies cannot be replaced by others and the same

output expected

Thank you for your time.

147

APPENDIX III: LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA IN KENYA

148

APPENDIX IV: TABLE FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FROM A

POPULATION

149

APPENDIX V: NORMALITY OF SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS

150

APPENDIX VI: NORMALITY OF RESOURCE VALUE

151

152

APPENDIX VII: NORMALITY OF RESOURCE RARITY

153

APPENDIX VIII: NORMALITY OF RESOURCE IN-IMMITABILITY

154

APPENDIX IX: NORMALITY OF RESOURCE NON-SUBSTITUTABILITY

155

APPENDIX X: AUTHORISATION TO CARRY OUT RESEARCH FROM

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

156