Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The Case of Miami University_Evrim Gözener

2,540

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,540
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Evrim Gözener
  • 2. Miami University was founded in 1809 in the small town of Oxford, Ohio. It has enrollment of around 15.000 undergraduates and its located just 35 miles of Cincinnati. The landscape of Miami consists of numerous red brick buildings and it’s considered one of the most beautiful campuses in the nation. The held educated students by developing, maintaining and supporting safe, functional and attractive campuses for Miami University.
  • 3. Vision of Miami University; To provide quality, friendly and timely service and to create an atmosphere of shared responsibility in which all employees have the opprtunity to contribute to process of improving the service that to provide the customers . MISION AND VISION STATEMENT ANALYSIS
  • 4. MISION AND VISION STATEMENT ANALYSIS
    • Mision of Miami University;
    • The advancement of learning throught teaching, scholarship and service to society : by offering to outstanding undergraduate and graduate students the best education available; by carrying out scholarly activities judged to be excellent when measured against the highest international standards; in those ways for which are well-studied by virtue of the academic strengths .
  • 5. MISION AND VISION STATEMENT ANALYSIS Costomers Yes Products or services Yes Markets No Technology Yes Concern for survival, growth and profitability No Philosophy Yes Self – concept No Concern for public image Yes Concern for employees No
  • 6. CPM MATRIX   Miami University University of Virginia University of Michigan Critical Success Factors W R Sc R Sc R Sc Advertisement 0.20 2 0.4 2 0.4 2 0.4 Servicve Quality 0.10 4 0.4 3 0.3 2 0.2 Fee Competition 0.10 3 0.3 4 0.4 3 0.3 Managemet 0.10 3 0.3 2 0.2 4 0.4 Financial Position 0.15 3 0.45 2 0.3 1 0.15 Loyalty 0.10 2 0.2 3 0.3 3 0.30 Market Share 0.25 4 0.1 3 0.75 2 0.5 TOTAL 1.00   3,05   2,65   2,25
  • 7. EFE MATRIX of MIAMI UNIVERSITY Key External Factors Weight Rating W. Score OPPORTUNUTIES       Government support 0.20 4 0.80 Private endowment and charities 0.15 3 0.45 High employment ratio 0.10 4 0.40 Student exchange programs 0.10 2 0.20 Online fulltime education system 0.10 3 0.30 Strong relationships with social societies 0.05 3 0.15 THREATS       Reduce subsidiary due high enrollment (up to 16.000) 0.10 2 0.20 Negative public perception (too white, too rich, too expensive) 0.10 3 0.30 Perception of p e ople (only liberal art) 0.10 2 0.20 TOTAL 1.00   3.00
  • 8. IFE MATRIX of MIAMI UNIVERSITY Key External Factors Weight Rating W. Score STRENGTH       Brand image of university 0.10 4 0.4 Graduate rate 64% per year 0.05 3 0.15 Enrollment raitio increase every year 0.10 4 0.4 Top rank in 21 universities in the USA 0.05 4 0.2 75% full time and part time PhD Faculty 0.15 3 0.45 Most frequent class size 20-30 0.10 4 0.4 Decentrilized System 0.05 3 0.15 Business realted education 0.05 3 0.15 WEAKNESS       Expensive 0.10 2 0.2 Low ratio of higher education 0.05 1 0.05 Hamilton and Midtown Campuses aren't residential 0.05 2 0.1 High fees 0.05 2 0.1 High strength of students from same state 0.10 2 0.2 TOTAL 1.00   2,95
  • 9. SWOT MATRIX
    • SO Strategies
    • New building required
    • WO Strategies
    • Built new residential campus
    • ST Strategies
    • Strict admission policy could be implement to control the enrollment ratio
    • WT Strategies
    • Reduce fee
  • 10. SPACE MATRIX SPACE FACTORS INTERNAL STRATEGY POSITION EXTERNAL STRATEGY POSITION FINANCIAL STRENGTH (FS) ENVIRONMENTAL STABILITY (ES) Fee & Other Charges 6 Technological Changes -4 Federal Grant 4 Rate of inflation -5 State & Local Grant 3 Fee of competing institutions -4 Endewment Income 2     Alumni 3     Other Sources 2       3,3   -4,3
  • 11. SPACE MATRIX SPACE FACTORS INTERNAL STRATEGY POSITION EXTERNAL STRATEGY POSITION COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE (CA) INDUSTRY STRENGTH (IS) Market share -3 Growth potential 5 Servicve quality -2 Financial stability 6 Loyalty -1 Technological know how 6 Competition capacity utilization -1 Resources utilization 3 Technology -1 Goodwill 3           -1,6   4,6
  • 12. SPACE MATRIX
    • Competetive Strategies
    • Backward Integration
    • Horizantal Integration
    • Forward Integration
    • Market Penetration
    • Market Development
    • Product Development
  • 13. IE MATRIX
    • Backward Integration
    • Horizantal Integration
    • Forward Integration
    • Market Penetration
    • Market Development
    • Product Development
  • 14. GRAND STRATEGY MATRIX
    • Related Diversification
    • Unrelated Diversification
    • Joint Ventures
  • 15. QSPM Stategic Alternnatives 1 2 New Buildings Required Reduce Fee Key Factors Weight AS TAS AS TAS STRENGTH           Brand image of university 0.10 4 0.40 4 0.40 Graduate rate 64% per year 0.05 2 0.10 3 0.15 Enrollment raitio increase every year 0.10 1 0.10 2 0.20 Top rank in 21 universities in the USA 0.05 2 0.10 4 0.20 75% full time and part time PhD Faculty 0.15 2 0.30 4 0.60 Most frequent class size 20-30 0.10 4 0.40 2 0.20 Decentrilized System 0.05 4 0.20 2 0.10 Business realted education 0.05 3 0.15 3 0.15 WEAKNESS           Expensive 0.10 2 0.20 2 0.20 Low ratio of higher education 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 Hamilton and Midtown Campuses aren't residential 0.05 4 0.20 2 0.10 High fees 0.05 3 0.15 3 0.15 High strength of students from same state 0.10 3 0.10 2 0.20 TOTAL 1.00        
  • 16. QSPM OPPORTUNUTIES           Government support 0.20 4 0.80 3 0.60 Private endowment and charities 0.15 1 0.15 3 0.45 High employment ratio 0.10 2 0.20 2 0.20 Student exchange programs 0.10 2 0.20 3 0.30 Online fulltime education system 0.10 1 0.10 2 0.20 Strong relationships with social societies 0.05 2 0.10 2 0.10 THREATS           Reduce subsidiary due high enrollment (up to 16.000) 0.10 2 0.20 2 0.20 Negative public perception (too white, too rich, too expensive) 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 Perception of prople (only liberal art) 0.10 4 0.40 2 0.20 TOTAL 1.00   4,70   4,95
  • 17. In Conclusion Our Strategy is; Reduce fee and admit the students of all classes including middle class people so that every talented person can got the education even a poor person who can’t bear the fee of their study.
  • 18. THANK YOU =)

×