Abstract:

Previous research built a model of relational coordination (De Pablos, 2018a, 2018b) for Arcada UAS University (Finland) and another one for ESPAM MFL University (Ecuador) by using factorial exploratory analysis, exhibiting high levels of similarities in factors, despite the differences of both educational models. The two factors that present more weight from the statistical analysis coincide in both universities: the coordination with the institutions and the communication with the staff are the most significant factors in terms of relational coordination (RC). Although two universities from different countries and different characteristics have been studied, the premises for RC model are verified in both cases. Therefore, the building of a unique model of relational coordination is proposed.

The main objective of this research is to build a global model of relational coordination and relate it with the level of quality at each university. By applying exploratory factor analysis (EFA), an empirical model of relational coordination has been built. Later on, by means of discriminant analysis, the organizational factors, level of quality and University, have been explained.

A stratified random sample composed by 559 students between 2016-2018 was collected by a survey composed on 29 items: 8 social and 23 organizational items disaggregated in 4 profiles: lecturers, administrative officers, classmates and students representative; and the two relational coordination dimensions described by Gitell (2000) and De-Pablos-Heredero et al. (2018): communication (frequent, timely, accurate and problem solving) and the relational (shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect). Items were measured through a likert scale offering from 1 (no frequent) to 5 (very frequent) (Hernández et al., 2003).

An empirical model of relational coordination by means of factor analysis was built (De Pablos et al., 2018; Ortega, 2015; Gulse, 2018). A factorial analysis (FA) has been applied as a way to reduce the number of variables and to reveal a relational coordination model using relationships among variables (Erdoğan, 2003; Netemeyer et al., 2003). The first step in FA was to test the adequacy of sample size using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Barlett tests (Hair et al., 2006). The FA can be made when KMO value is greater than 0.50 and probability of Barlett test is less than 0.05 (Durmuş et al., 2011). In addition, Cronbach Alpha coefficient was calculated by applying reliability analysis on designated factors.

In a second step, discriminant analysis was used to analyse the relationship between the coordination model obtained with the quality level and the university. Preliminary data analysis was carried out to determine outliers to be discarded before further analysis. As data presented different units of measurements, they were standardized to zero mean and unit standard deviation. Differences and similarities in the communication and the relational coordination obtained for each group of students were analysed using canonical discriminant analysis (Everitt and Dunn, 1991; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). The efficiency of the discriminative power of a given model was determined by the test of significance of the Wilks' lambda value. The capacity of prediction for each model was tested using the absolute assignment of students to the preassigned group.

For each University, the organizational factors that exhibit higher levels of discriminant power were different. In the case of Arcada UAS, communication is the factor that presents higher levels of discriminant power. On the contrary, Institutional coordination and direct communication are the factors that present higher levels of discriminant power.

As main conclusion, the relational coordination model explains a 62% of the variance and the 5 obtained factors were significant and reliable. The relational coordination model built is narrowly related with the level of quality in each University. However, the organizational factors that differentiate the quality of each university are different.

Keywords:

Relational coordination, quality, satisfaction, upper education, shared objectives, mutual respect communication.