Background of the Study
A competitive advantage occurs when the firm is able to deliver products or services as competitors but at a lower cost (cost advantage). This can be achieved by implementing a low cost leadership strategy (Chien-Hung, Wen-Cheng & Ying-Chien, 2011). Differentiation advantage is a result of a firm delivering products or services with benefits that exceed those of competing products (differentiation advantage) (Chien-Hung, Wen-Cheng & Ying-Chien, 2011). Differentiation advantage is usually achieved when a company implements a differentiation strategy. According to Kuzmicki (2013), a competitive strategy consists of a company’s market initiatives and business approaches to attract, satisfy customers, withstand competitive pressure and strengthen market position. However, a cost leadership strategy can sometimes not improve institutional performance in terms of university student recruitment. For instance, Alzoubi and Emeagwali (2016) established that there is no significant association between cost leadership strategy and performance of a higher educational institution. Adopting differentiation and diversity concepts from van Vught (2007), differentiation strategies can be based on the following diversities within a higher education system:
- •
Programmatic diversity which relates to the degree level, comprehensiveness, mission and emphasis of programmes and services provided by the university;
- •
Procedural diversity which describes differences in the ways that teaching, innovation, research and services are provided by the university;
- •
Reputational diversity communicates the perceived differences in institutions based on status and prestige;
- •
Constituential diversity refers to differences in students served and other constituents in the universities (faculty, administration);
- •
Values and climate diversity are associated with differences in the social environment and culture of students and staff within a university.
Although the higher education system in Namibia is not based on neo-liberal policies, it is vital to analyse the possibility of commercialisation of some of the functions of higher education by learning from the business world. Business processes need to be managed in such a way that student inequality of opportunities does not exist as it might cause social stratification when it comes to higher education access in Namibia (Akyıldız & Tekinay, 2010). The need for the commercialisation of some of the higher education functions in Namibia is reinforced by Matengu (as cited in Hangula, Matengu, Likando & Shanyanana, 2018) who established that despite government subsidising higher education access, higher educational institutions still regard lack of adequate financial support as a major barrier to providing quality higher education to students. Financial resources derived from student enrolment form part of the institutional budget of many institutions of higher learning in Namibia.
During the 2017 period, the Namibia Qualification Authority (NQA) and National Council of Higher Education (NCHE) registered 13 institutions of higher education to offer academic qualifications at National Qualification Framework (NQF) level 5 and above (National Council of Higher Education, [NCHE], 2018). According to NCHE (2018), student enrolment at the Namibian higher educational institutions grew from 43761 in 2013 to 56047 in 2017, however some universities have experienced declining trends. For instance, the student enrolment for the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST) was recorded at 13130 in 2013 while in 2017 it had stood at 11226 (Namibia University of Science and Technology [NUST], 2019). Contrarily, the student enrolment at the University of Namibia (UNAM) was 17536 in 2013 and 25684 in 2017 (University of Namibia [UNAM], 2019). This implies that UNAM, NUST, International University of Management (IUM) and other institutions of higher learning have different competitive strategies in place which affect their student recruitment processes.