Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Abstract and Applied Analysis

Volume 2016, Article ID 3729791, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3729791

Research Article
The Impact of Cocreation on the Student Satisfaction:
Analysis through Structural Equation Modeling

Odette Pantoja Díaz,1,2 Gabriela Ribes-Giner,1 and María Rosario Perello-Marin1

1
Facultad de Administración y Dirección de Empresas, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera,
s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
2
Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Ladrón de Guevara E11-253, 170517 Quito, Ecuador

Correspondence should be addressed to Odette Pantoja Dı́az; odettepantoja1980@gmail.com

Received 12 May 2016; Accepted 2 November 2016

Academic Editor: Ivan Ivanov

Copyright © 2016 Odette Pantoja Dı́az et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

The objective of this study is to apply the cocreation initiative as a marketing tool in the context of university undergraduate
programs. Considering that cocreation is a practice that involves stakeholders in different phases of product production or service,
this research analyzes the interactions between some of the factors during the cocreation process as students collaborate with the
university. These factors are participation, communication, cocreation, and satisfaction, and this study focuses on how they fuse
together at the moment of cocreation. After a literature review, which supplied the basis for creating a model, we used exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling to validate the hypothesized relations between the variables;
finally, the proposed cocreation model was verified. The results could empower academic institutions to develop managerial
strategies in order to increase students’ collaboration and satisfaction.

1. Cocreation and the University value through client participation, with an active role during
the service process or product production [6] assuring a
Higher education has been involved in recent trends such as competitive advantage in the market [7].
the increasing competition in the university market, budget Although the university world differs considerably from
reductions, the internalization of education, the growth of the business sector, academic institutions are looking to
quality standards, and clients (students) becoming more increase their service quality and stakeholder satisfaction
demanding and competitive in the recruitment market. in order to gain a competitive advantage in the current
Facing this situation, universities need to reevaluate their situation [8]. Thus cocreation is analyzed with the objective
strategies and gain a marketing orientation [1, 2] in order to to research the impact of students’ inclusion in activities such
avoid the intense competitive force [3]. as curriculum and program development and the teaching-
Higher education institutions generate alternatives to learning process. The importation of cocreation to higher
increase their loyalty rates through active interaction with the education institutions allows universities to adopt a market-
student. Considering that consumer satisfaction positively ing orientation to seek excellence and recognize quality levels.
affects loyalty [4], a strategic goal for universities is to enhance The purpose of this investigation is to fill the existing
student satisfaction. gap in the academic market and to determine whether it is
At the current research, cocreation is conducted as a plausible to apply cocreation at higher education institutions.
marketing alternative to increase the institutions’ service This viability is explored in terms of the impact of the
satisfaction at the educational level. Cocreation assures two principal factors (participation and communication)
interactions and connections among different stakeholders, on the cocreation process and the impact of cocreation
generating communications and collaborative ties among on student satisfaction. Researching the links among those
them [5]. This approach allows the companies to generate elements will permit us to confirm whether cocreation is
2 Abstract and Applied Analysis

applicable in this sector. The principal research questions are guarantees quality and effective education. In this sense, the
do communication and student participation have a positive cocreation concept comes to life because the student plays an
impact under cocreation in the university context? What are important role when he collaborates actively in the teaching-
the consequences of applying cocreation in higher education learning process.
institutions? Does student satisfaction increase due to the On the other hand, student participation in formal and
cocreation experience? informal education on campus not only contributes to edu-
Although studies by [9, 10] have researched cocreation at cation quality but also positively affects the key competencies
the university level, they have only focused on postgraduate that students acquire [18]. Junco [19, p.168] described the
programs. The current investigation aims to respond to the effect of participation in social media such as Facebook,
aforementioned research questions by analyzing the relation- where it has been demonstrated that students’ active roles are
ships between four principal constructs (participation, com- “related to out-of-class engagement.”
munication, cocreation, and satisfaction) in undergraduate Regarding the relationship between communication and
programs as the target. Through the study of these relation- participation, we hypothesize the following:
ships, it is possible to validate the proposed model, which
has cocreation as its cornerstone. The principal qualitative H1: communication has a direct, positive impact on
tools of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and participation.
structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to confirm or
reject the different hypotheses and to validate the proposed
cocreation model. The research was developed by examining 2.2. Participation versus Cocreation. At the market and uni-
a case study of undergraduate students from 11 Ecuadorian versity context, participation refers to the client’s collab-
universities. oration with the institution, which is important in order
to develop a solid exchange of information to know the
consumer’s (students) desires and ideas and to avoid misun-
2. Relationships between Communication, derstandings and ambiguous situations [20].
Participation, Cocreation, and Satisfaction The user’s involvement in different steps of the processes
allows the coproduction development [21], leading customers
In this section, the theoretical basis of the proposed cocre-
to become partial employees [22]. Several studies (e.g.,
ation model will be analyzed. Four principal constructs were
[23–29]) had been analyzing the interrelationship between
identified (participation, communication, cocreation, and
participation and cocreation and found an interesting result
satisfaction), which have been detailed below by comparing
that supported the link between these two constructs at
the conceptual relationships existing among them at the
several industries.
university level.
The ties existing between participation and cocreation in
the university context have been addressed in some studies.
2.1. Communication versus Participation. Communication For example, students’ behavior is predominantly active in
and participation are two elements that have impor- what is called Education 3.0, in which collaboration allows
tant impacts on cocreation when applied to the business them to gain a “strong sense of ownership of own education,
world. Reference [11] commented about the positive effect cocreation of resources and opportunities” [30, p. 2]. In this
of communication on cooperation between stakeholders. standard the main objective is the generation of a more open
Communication with customers allows for positive client and free learning system. That is why one of the conditions
participation in open innovation processes [12], and the for developing this education level is the promotion of cocre-
Internet allows broad communication with a higher user- ation by creating multidirectional participation involving the
participation rate [13]. affected parts.
In their research, [14] revealed that communication tech- Educational services include stakeholders such as stu-
nologies have a positive influence on the interaction process, dents and professors; the students are emotionally and behav-
allowing the generation of new products. Terblanche [15] iorally involved during the service consumption, playing a
reflected on the employer’s role as an important generator in dynamic role during the interaction. Some the benefits of
the communications process. such a collaboration are the facilitation of learner control,
We find that the direct link between these two elements enhancement of program adaptation, and learning flexibility
is maintained in the educational environment. To strengthen [8].
the relationship between university and student, it is actu- Another study [31] remarked on the positive impact
ally a necessity to consolidate value through cocreation. of student participation in the curriculum design process.
Through the communication, dialogue, and participation of Across this collaboration in the cocreation activities, the
the involved stakeholders, it is possible to develop strategies teacher becomes a facilitator of learning, giving the students
such as knowledge cocreation in this field [16]. more responsibility at the individual and collective levels.
Authors in [17] have commented on the application Student collaboration and participation in different processes
to universities of methodologies such as blended learning, during the educational exchange allow satisfactory results in
which integrates the traditional face-to-face system with “both pedagogical and business outcomes” [8, p. 36].
online courses. The online learning approach, supported Yeo [32, p. 72] commented that, in the transformative
by the Internet and solid communication with students, view, students participate actively, improve their knowledge
Abstract and Applied Analysis 3

and skills, and have the “ability to think critically,” so collab- H2

Participation
oration leads to cocreation of knowledge.
Based on the findings obtained by the aforementioned H1 Cocreation Satisfaction
author, we hypothesize the following: H4
Communication
H2: participation has a direct, positive impact on H3
cocreation. Figure 1: The cocreation research model.

2.3. Communication versus Cocreation. As [5] commented,

communication had evolved from one-way to participatory
conversations, principally considering the Internet as an are student loyalty, cost reduction, increase in revenue, and
important channel of information flow. The positive influ- continued education.
ences that communication has under cocreation have been In the academic context, it has been proven that when
noted. curriculum is cocreated with student collaboration, the satis-
Communication between firms and clients (students) has faction level increases for both teachers and students [31]. The
an important influence in the cocreation process [33, 34] cocreation concept empowers the university to understand
and constitutes one of the four building blocks (dialogue) what the student wants and needs, and in consequence, it is
identified by [35] in the DART model (dialogue, access, risk, possible to deliver a superior service that directly influences
and transparency). This model was established to consider student satisfaction. By tailoring its educational offers to
the blocks in an accurate application of cocreation. students’ needs, an institution can provide a valuable learning
Social networks are a tool used to create content, as experience [8].
different participants can communicate and thus cocreate
In their study, [41] reformulated Porter’s value chain
knowledge. Applied to the educative framework, to assure
by coupling it to the higher education sector. The primary
an effective dialogue, “universities/colleges and the customer
services/attributes they proposed were programs, regulation
must become equal and joint problem solvers” to cocreate
recognition, moment of truth, learning spirit, and ser-
value [36, p. 50]. With this perspective shift, the student goes
vice competition; the supporting services were professional
from having a passive role to becoming a live participant
recruitment, modern tools and infrastructure, library, and
who can promote his or her opinion and initiatives through
after-sales service. Under this proposed change, the univer-
communication to foster the cocreation process.
sity and the students will be able to cocreate value that satisfies
As [22] commented, cocreation has been fomented by
both parties.
different communication media, such as blogs, e-distribution,
and home videos; therefore, people in environments with As [42, p. 728] commented, value cocreation is a learning
greater access to communications instruments are better able process characterized as “emergent, unstructured, interactive,
to collaborate in coproduction activities. Considering that and uncertain.” For that reason, the delivery of activities is
universities need to create physical and virtual spaces where important, and faculty-student and student-student interac-
students can obtain information, documents, and news as tions are key to the learning experience. The accomplishment
well as give their feedback or news ideas, enhancing the of student expectations generates satisfaction growth, but
communication channels with the institution. If communi- when the institution exceeds what the client/student wants,
cation is a mandatory condition to implement cocreation, then loyalty is reached.
the institution is responsible for eliminating the existing On the relationship between cocreation and student
barriers to dialogue and to create a space for facilitating a satisfaction, we hypothesize the following:
proper exchange of information. Based on the research on
the relationship between communication and cocreation, we
H4: cocreation has a direct, positive impact on satis-
hypothesize the following:
faction.
H3: communication has a direct, positive impact on
cocreation. 2.5. The Hypothesized Cocreation Model. The model to be val-
idated is shown in Figure 1, which reflects the different rela-
2.4. Cocreation versus Satisfaction. Satisfaction refers to a tionships to be analyzed. The different ties existing between
positive reaction in front of a state of fulfillment [37] and the constructs communication, participation, cocreation, and
as [38] reflected, the cocreation benefits are as follows: cost satisfaction have theoretical support from different authors,
diminution, response time and sales improvement, and the as mentioned above. The principal objective of this model
induction of higher satisfaction and enjoyment. Studies by is to analyze the impact of cocreation on satisfaction in the
[8, 39, 40] support the aforementioned relationship. higher education world.
At higher education institutions, satisfaction is linked The hypotheses to be studied are four and presented in
with “a short term attitude which arises from the students’ Table 1; the different constructs involved in the model and
evaluation of the educational experience, which is subjective the questionnaire items related to the components are also
in nature” [8, p. 38]. Some valuable impacts of satisfaction shown.
4 Abstract and Applied Analysis

Table 1: Hypothetical links in the research model, the constructs 4. Empirical Results: Multivariate Analysis
analyzed, and the related questionnaire items.
To analyze the results, we applied a confirmatory factor anal-
Hypothesis Construct Items ysis to explore the associations between items and constructs
com1, com2, and, lastly, SEM to investigate the causal relationships existing
Communication
H1: communication has a direct, com3, com4 between constructs.
positive impact on participation. par1, par2,
Participation
par3, par4 4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). EFA was applied in
cocre1, cocre2, order to check whether the principal components detected
Cocreation
H2: participation has a direct, cocre3, cocre4 by this technique were similar to the components identified
positive impact on cocreation. par1, par2, by the authors, recognizing that items that are pooled jointly
Participation
par3, par4 measure the same factor [49, 50]. Every variable was included,
cocre1, cocre2, taking into account the theoretical basis and allowing the EFA
Cocreation
H3: communication has a direct, cocre3, cocre4 to corroborate whether those statements were correct. EFA
positive impact on cocreation. com1, com2, granted the validity of each construct through the principal
Communication
com3, com4 components method [51]. It used the SPSS v19 program, and
cocre1, cocre2, the results showed that there are four principal components,
Cocreation
H4: cocreation has a direct, cocre3, cocre4 as established in the proposed model (participation, commu-
positive impact on satisfaction. sat1, sat2, nication, cocreation, and satisfaction).
Satisfaction A Varimax rotation and the maximum likelihood extrac-
sat3
tion method were used with the four fixed components.
Table 2 reflects the results of the first and second iteration.
In the first iteration, problems with four items were detected
3. Methodology, Data Collection, (par3: I have a high level of participation in the service
and Technique process, com1: the information provided by the university
can be trusted, com2: in case of any problem, the university
The technique applied during the investigation’s develop- provides me with enough information, and sat3: I think I
ment to recollect information was a structured questionnaire did the right thing when I enrolled in this university). The
comprising of 31 questions; only 12 questions were analyzed items par3, com1, and com2 had loading differences under 0.1
in the present research related to the variables studied. A with several constructs. The item sat3 had a loading difference
Likert scale with 7-level items, from strongly disagree (1) to above 0.1, but its highest loading values do not correspond
strongly agree (7), was applied. The questionnaire composi- with the construct relative to satisfaction. For that reason,
tion proceeded from previously accomplished investigations those four items were dropped; the rest of them (11 items)
[9, 43–46] and was distributed in two ways, physically and remained in the analysis.
electronically, in 11 public and private Ecuadorian universi- Cronbach’s alpha [52] is an indicator that reflects the
ties. We obtained 395 responses (92 women and 303 men) homogeneity in the instrument’s consistency; the second and
among the different versions distributed in order to prevent last iteration had an excellent value of 0.906 (above 130 0.7).
possible bias and to randomize the question order [47]. The The explained variance of the four principal components is
questionnaire was applied only in undergraduate programs, about 64.4%. The KMO value is 0.910, higher than 0.5 [53],
including students in their fourth through tenth semesters, and the Bartlett test returned as 𝑝 = 0.000. The differences
considering those scholars have a solid perception about the in these indicators between the first and the second EFA are
university’s services. minimal, and despite the diminished Cronbach’s alpha (from
0.926 to 0.906) and decreased KMO (from 0.936 to 0.9910),
3.1. Measures. Our measurements were adapted from exist- both indicators had excellent values.
ing scales developed in other studies in order to measure
the four constructs (communication, participation, cocre- 4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. A confirmatory factor
ation, and satisfaction). Participation was adapted from a analysis (CFA) was carried out with the remaining items. In
validated questionnaire created by [43] measuring the degree this step the SPSS Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS)
of the information students shared with the university and program was used, allowing us to assess the overall measure-
how much they were involved in the institution’s process. ment model.
Communication was extracted from [44, 48] investigations, A convergent and discriminant analysis to evaluate the
analyzing the exchange of information among the parties model’s validity was used. The convergent validity was studied
involved. Cocreation’s construct checked how the students through the composite reliability (CR), average variance
were involved in the different academic and administrative extracted (AVE), and the factor loading of each item. Table 3
processes, and it was measured by four items adapted from shows AVE values for the four constructs, and all of them
[9, 45, 46]. Satisfaction is comprised of items extracted from had values above 0.5, proving that the variance captured by
[45, 46] and studied the contentment that the user has with the constructs is larger than the variance due to measurement
the institution. Since all questions were originally in English, errors, as stated by [54]. The CR, as [55] mentioned, brings a
they were translated to Spanish for this study. proportion of variance attributable to only the latent variable
Abstract and Applied Analysis 5

Table 2: Exploratory factor analysis results.

EFA first iteration EFA second iteration

Components Components
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
par1 0.552 0.521
par2 0.714 0.615
par3 0.504 0.485
par4 0.660 0.766
com1 0.406 0.236
com2 0.179 0.489
com3 0.502 0.582
com4 0.501 0.563
cocre1 0.707 0.710
cocre2 0.766 0.786
cocre3 0.616 0.608
cocre4 0.647 0.654
sat1 0.679 0.667
sat2 0.792 0.746
sat3 0.448 0.457
Cronbach’s alpha 0.890 0.781 0.783 0.822 0.890 0.766 0.743 0.835
Cronbach’s alpha (general) 0.926 0.906
KMO 0.936 0.910
𝜒2 = 3889.291, 𝜒2 = 2466.155,
Bartlett test gl = 105 gl = 55
𝑝 = 0.000 𝑝 = 0.000
Variance explained 59.34 64.40

Table 3: Confirmatory factor analysis, CR, and AVE.

Constructs Factor loadings 𝑡-values

Participation (CR = 0.764, AVE = 0.519, Squared Root of AVE = 0.720)
par1 I put a lot of effort into expressing my personal needs to the staff during the service processa . 0.753 —
par2 I always provide suggestions to the staff for improving the service outcome. 0.696 10.784
par3 I have a high level of participation in the service processb . — —
par4 I am very much involved in deciding how the services should be provided. 0.711 10.157
Communication (CR = 0.781, AVE = 0.642, Squared Root of AVE = 0.801)
com1 The information provided by the university can be trustedb . — —
com2 In case of any problem, the university provides me with enough informationb . — —
a
com3 The university allows me to have an interactive communication with it . 0.844 —
com4 The university maintains a regular contact with me. 0.756 14.735
Cocreation (CR = 0.892, AVE = 0.676, Squared Root of AVE = 0.822)
cocre1 Overall, I would describe my relationship with this university as involving a high level of cocreation. 0.866 24.495
cocre2 The final purchase solution was arrived at mainly through the joint effort of the university and myself a . 0.901 —
cocre3 What I receive from this university is due to work jointly between the university and student. 0.790 19.829
cocre4 I contribute actively to the final solution in the educational service I receive. 0.721 17.235
Satisfaction (CR = 0.839, AVE = 0.723, Squared Root of AVE = 0.850)
sat1 Overall, I am pleased with the services offered by this university. 0.904 17.844
sat2 The service offered by my university meets my expectationsa . 0.793 —
sat3 I think I did the right thing when I enrolled in this universityb . — —
Notes. CR: composite reliability. AVE: average variance extracted.
a
Initial loading is fixed to 1 to set the scale of the construct.
b
Deleted after AFE.
6 Abstract and Applied Analysis

Table 4: Means, correlations (above diagonal), and covariance (below diagonal) among construct.

Mean Participation Communication Cocreation Satisfaction

Participation 4.63 1 0.680 0.630 0.568
Communication 4.86 0.789 1 0.743 0.770
Cocreation 5.39 0.751 0.945 1 0.806
Satisfaction 5.27 0.633 0.916 0.984 1

𝜁1 𝜁2
0.74
0.62 cocre1 𝜀4
0.57 0.46 0.86
𝜀1 par1 0.75
0.79
0.89 cocre2 𝜀5
0.48 0.70 𝜂1 𝛽1 𝜂2
𝜀2 par2
participation cocreation 0.80 0.63
0.71 0.22 cocre3 𝜀6
0.50 0.72
𝜀3 par4
0.52
cocre4 𝜀7

𝛽2
𝛾1 0.68 0.62
0.83

𝛾2
0.72 0.85 0.91 0.83
𝛿1 com4 sat1 𝜀8
𝜉1 𝜂3
0.79
0.57 communication satisfaction 0.62
𝛿2 com6 sat2 𝜀9
0.75

0.68 𝜁3

Figure 2: SEM model.

with a recommended value greater than 0.7, putting the four The proposed model fits the data well. The comparative
constructs’ CR values above the upper bound and confirming fix index (CFI) had an excellent value (0.962, over 0.95), and
the model’s reliability. Also, all the factor loadings are higher the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) also had a good
than 0.5, and the estimated coefficients of each item are all value (0.903 > 0.8). The root mean square residual (RMR) was
significant (𝑡-value > 2.0; [21, 56]). 0.076, under 0.09; the normative fit index (NFI) was 0.948,
In looking for the discriminant validity, we noticed that and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
the square roots of the AVEs had higher values than the cor- = 0.077 (less than 0.08; [59]).
relations among the constructs. For example, cocreation and The squared multiple correlation (SMC) of cocreation
satisfaction have AVE values of 0.676 and 0.723, the square showed that 62% (SMC = 0.623) of this element is explained
roots of AVE are 0.822 and 0.850, respectively, and both by the direct effect of participation and the direct and
values are higher than the correlation between cocreation indirect effects of communication, with a high value. Half
and satisfaction (0.806). The same occurred for the other of the variance of participation (46%; 0.459) was explained
constructs’ relationships, assuring the discriminant validity. by the direct impact of communication; more than half of
These analyses are shown in Tables 3 and 4. satisfaction’s variance (68%, 0.682) was explained by the
direct effect of cocreation.
4.3. The Structural Model. The SEM approach was used The four relationship studies have significant and positive
in order to validate the proposed model and to confirm impacts such as communication under cocreation with a
the relationship between the proposed construct, with the value of 𝛾 = 0.62 (𝑝 < 0.001), as many authors had
application of the SPSS AMOS software. SEM is widely used highlighted [21, 26–28]. Communication had a high impact
to build and validate theories [57, 58]. The SPSS AMOS on participation (𝛾 = 0.68, 𝑝 value < 0.001; [12, 13, 56]),
module was used, since it was primarily created for SEM and participation also had a positive effect on cocreation,
analysis. though with a lesser impact (𝛽 = 0.22, 𝑝 value = 0.003),
In order to obtain a better model fit, the item errors from supporting the relationship established by authors like in
par1 and par2 were correlated. Figure 2 shows the results of [5, 22, 60]. Cocreation had the highest impact on satisfaction
the SEM model and Table 5 shows the model fit indices and (𝛽 = 0.83, 𝑝 value < 0.001), as authors like in [24, 61] had
the structural model estimates. remarked.
Abstract and Applied Analysis 7

Table 5: Structural model results. Estimates and model fit.

Hypothesis Standardized coefficients (𝛽, 𝛾) SE 𝑝 value
Direct effects
Communication → participation (𝛾1 ) H1 0.677 0.067 <0.001
Participation → cocreation (𝛽1 ) H2 0.219 0.080 0.003
Communication → cocreation (𝛾2 ) H3 0.625 0.080 <0.001
Cocreation → satisfaction (𝛽2 ) H4 0.826 0.053 <0.001
Model fit indices
CMIN/DF 3.346 ≲ 3
CFI 0.962 > 0.95
GFI 0.943 ≳ 0.95
AGFI 0.903 > 0.8
RMR 0.076 < 0.09
RMSEA 0.077 < 0.08

Table 6: Participation mediation between communication and cocreation.

Direct effect 𝑤/𝑜 Direct 𝑤 mediator Mediation type

Hypothesis Indirect effect (3th sit.)
mediator (1st situation) (2nd sit.) observed
Partial mediation
communication, 0.631∗∗ 0.625∗∗ 0.148∗ Partial mediation
participation, cocreation
∗𝑝
value < 0.05; ∗∗ 𝑝 value < 0.01.

0.148

Participation Cocreation

0.625
Communication Cocreation
Communication
0.631
(a) Without mediator (b) With participation as a mediator

Figure 3: Direct effect of communication in cocreation.

We researched mediation by participation in Hypothesis 5. Conclusions and Contributions

H3, studying the relationship between communication and
cocreation. Authors like in [62, 63] had pointed to the impor- Taking into account the principal objective of the research,
tance of the mediation analysis. Table 6 and Figure 3 reflect the positive relationships existing between communication
the resulting analysis, where a poor but significant partial and participation, participation and cocreation, communica-
mediation existed by participation between communication tion and cocreation, and lastly cocreation and satisfaction in
and cocreation. the undergraduate context were verified. The research also
The obtained results allowed us to conclude that the validated a cocreation model, considering that participation
four hypotheses raised in the initial phase of the research and communication were the most important promoters of
are accepted. Communication had a positive and signifi- cocreation; cocreation also had a high impact on student
cant impact on participation (0.68), and participation had satisfaction. This model assured the importance of a change
a positive and significant influence on cocreation (0.22). to a management practice focused on cocreation, as was the
Communication also significantly and positively affected original intent.
cocreation (0.62), and cocreation in turn affected satisfaction To face the reality of student satisfaction, higher educa-
(0.83), with the highest regression coefficient indicating that tion institutions are looking for innovative ways to improve
this relationship was the strongest of all analyzed. their administration. Considering that cocreation had been
8 Abstract and Applied Analysis

studied previously by many authors with favorable effects in Higher Education Area (EHEA),” Journal of Service Manage-
terms of satisfaction, trust, and loyalty, it is a pragmatic tool ment, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 571–592, 2012.
to be considered and implemented in the university context. [7] L. A. Bettencourt, S. W. Brown, and N. J. Sirianni, “The secret
It will be important to notice that the lowest detected inter- to true service innovation,” Business Horizons, vol. 56, no. 1, pp.
action was between participation and cocreation. Based on 13–22, 2013.
this, undergraduate students mostly valued communication [8] J. L.-H. Bowden and S. D’Alessandro, “Co-creating value in
as a cocreation precursor. At this point, universities need to higher education: the role of interactive classroom response
develop open dialogues and bidirectional conversations with technologies,” Asian Social Science, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 35–49, 2011.
students to enhance open talks and forums and to improve [9] G. R. Giner and A. Peralt Rillo, “Structural equation modeling
the communication channels based on information or virtual of co-creation and its influence on the student’s satisfaction
systems, Internet, or other portals where the scholar can and loyalty towards university,” Journal of Computational and
interact with the school. Applied Mathematics, vol. 291, pp. 257–263, 2016.
Despite satisfaction as a valuable factor in terms of [10] G. Ribes-Giner, A. Peralt Rillo, and I. Moya Clemente, “Co-
competitive advantage, its existence is essential to obtain creation innovation model for masters programs in the univer-
high loyalty levels. That is why it would be interesting and sities,” in Innovation and Teaching Technologies, vol. 117, 2014.
innovative to investigate loyalty inclusion as a new construct [11] J. C. Anderson and J. A. Narus, “A model of distributor firm
within the cocreation model aforementioned in further and manufacturer firm working partnerships,” The Journal of
studies. Despite these relationships having been analyzed Marketing, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 42–58, 1990.
previously in postgraduate programs, they had never been [12] A. Vaisnore and M. Petraite, “The enablement of customer’s
researched in undergraduate programs. participation in the open innovation processes: an analytical
It will be useful and timely to deepen our understanding framework,” Economics and Management, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.
1600–1612, 2012.
of how we must change the institution’s process or how
to move from the actual vision of rigid value chains to [13] R. F. Lusch and S. L. Vargo, “Service-dominant logic: reactions,
newer ones, with the objective of materializing and concretely reflections and rezinements,” Marketing Theory, vol. 6, pp. 281–
288, 2006.
practicing the cocreation approach. The benefits of strategic
management oriented to this trend have been tested, but the [14] T. Kohler, K. Matzler, and J. Füller, “Avatar-based innovation:
using virtual worlds for real-world innovation,” Technovation,
implementation and the actions to be undertaken are a poorly
vol. 29, no. 6-7, pp. 395–407, 2009.
explored field.
It is important to foment and explore methodologies [15] N. S. Terblanche, “Some theoretical perspectives of co-creation
and co-production of value by customers: original research,”
for applying strategies such as cocreation in the university
Acta Commercii, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1–8, 2014.
context in order to increase the level of retention, word of
[16] F. Pucciarelli and A. Kaplan, “Competition and strategy in
mouth, and student loyalty.
higher education: managing complexity and uncertainty,” Busi-
ness Horizons, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 311–320, 2016.
Competing Interests [17] D. R. Garrison and H. Kanuka, “Blended learning: uncovering
its transformative potential in higher education,” The Internet
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. and Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 95–105, 2004.
[18] M. Barth, J. Godemann, M. Rieckmann, and U. Stoltenberg,
References “Developing key competencies for sustainable development
in higher education,” International Journal of Sustainability in
[1] C. Kerr, “A critical age in the university world: accumulated Higher Education, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 416–430, 2007.
heritage versus modern imperatives,” European Journal of Edu- [19] R. Junco, “The relationship between frequency of Facebook use,
cation, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 183–193, 1987. participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement,”
[2] L. Nicolescu, “Applying marketing to higher education: scope Computers and Education, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 162–171, 2012.
and limits,” Management & Marketing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 35–44, [20] E. N. Rodina and E. N. Chekushkina, “Socio-philosophical
2009. substantiation of making good use of intellectual and creative
[3] D. B. Arnett, C. M. Wittmann, and B. J. Wilson III, “Encour- resources in a teachers’ training institution of higher education,”
aging future helping behaviors: the role of student-faculty rela- Asian Social Science, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 111–117, 2015.
tionships in higher education marketing,” Journal of Marketing [21] S. Auh, S. J. Bell, C. S. McLeod, and E. Shih, “Co-production and
for Higher Education, vol. 13, pp. 127–157, 2004. customer loyalty in financial services,” Journal of Retailing, vol.
[4] S. W. Carvalho and M. de Oliveira Mota, “The role of trust 83, no. 3, pp. 359–370, 2007.
in creating value and student loyalty in relational exchanges [22] M. Etgar, “A descriptive model of the consumer co-production
between higher education institutions and their students,” process,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 36,
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 145– no. 1, pp. 97–108, 2008.
165, 2010. [23] A. Ordanini and P. Pasini, “Service co-production and value
[5] A. M. Muñiz and H. J. Schau, “How to inspire value-laden co-creation: the case for a service-oriented architecture (SOA),”
collaborative consumer-generated content,” Business Horizons, European Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 289–297, 2008.
vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 209–217, 2011. [24] V. Ramaswamy and F. Gouillart, “Building the co-creative
[6] M. Dı́az-Méndez and E. Gummesson, “Value co-creation and enterprise,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 100–
university teaching quality: consequences for the European 109, 2010.
Abstract and Applied Analysis 9

[25] Y. Yi and T. Gong, “Customer value co-creation behavior: scale from professional financial services across cultures,” Journal of
development and validation,” Journal of Business Research, vol. Marketing, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 48–64, 2010.
66, no. 9, pp. 1279–1284, 2013. [44] Z. Tohidinia and M. Haghighi, “Predictors and outcomes of
[26] A. Gustafsson, P. Kristensson, and L. Witell, “Customer co- relationship quality: a guide for customer-oriented strategies,”
creation in service innovation: a matter of communication?” Business Strategy Series, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 242–256, 2011.
Journal of Service Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 311–327, 2012. [45] E. R. Devasirvatham, Modelling co-creation and its conse-
[27] A. F. Payne, K. Storbacka, and P. Frow, “Managing the co- quences: one step closer to customer-centric marketing [Ph.D.
creation of value,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, thesis], Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New
vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 83–96, 2008. Zealand, 2012.
[28] K. E. Gruner and C. Homburg, “Does customer interaction [46] E. Rajah, R. Marshall, and I. Nam, “Relationship glue: customers
enhance new product success?” Journal of Business Research, and marketers co-creating a purchase experience,” Advances in
vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2000. Consumer Research, vol. 35, pp. 367–373, 2008.
[29] S. Timmis, “Constant companions: instant messaging con- [47] B. C. K. Choi and A. W. P. Pak, “A catalog of biases in
versations as sustainable supportive study structures amongst questionnaires,” Preventing chronic disease, vol. 2, no. 1, p. A13,
undergraduate peers,” Computers and Education, vol. 59, no. 1, 2005.
pp. 3–18, 2012. [48] P. Harrigan and M. Miles, “From e-crm to s-crm. Critical factors
[30] D. Keats and J. P. Schmidt, “The genesis and emergence of underpinning the social crm activities of smes,” Small Enterprise
Education 3.0 in higher education and its potential for Africa,” Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 99–116, 2014.
First Monday, vol. 12, no. 3, 2007.
[49] C. B. Dobni, “Measuring innovation culture in organizations:
[31] C. Bovill, “An investigation of co-created curricula within the development of a generalized innovation culture construct
higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA,” Innovations using exploratory factor analysis,” European Journal of Innova-
in Education and Teaching International, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 15–25, tion Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 539–559, 2008.
2014.
[50] R. L. Gorsuch, “Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item
[32] R. K. Yeo, “Service quality ideals in a competitive tertiary analysis,” Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 68, no. 3, pp.
environment,” International Journal of Educational Research, 532–560, 1997.
vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 62–76, 2009.
[51] T. R. Hinkin, “A brief tutorial on the development of measures
[33] C. K. Prahalad and V. Ramaswamy, “Co-creation experiences: for use in survey questionnaires,” Organizational Research
the next practice in value creation,” Journal of Interactive Methods, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 104–121, 1998.
Marketing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 5–14, 2004.
[52] L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
[34] A. Lundkvist and A. Yakhlef, “Customer involvement in new tests,” Psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297–334, 1951.
service development: a conversational approach,” Managing
Service Quality, vol. 14, no. 2-3, pp. 249–257, 2004. [53] H. F. Kaiser, “An index of factorial simplicity,” Psychometrika,
vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 31–36, 1974.
[35] C. Prahalad and V. Ramaswamy, “Co-creating unique value with
customers,” Strategy & Leadership, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 4–9, 2004. [54] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error,”
[36] A. Fagerstrøm and G. Ghinea, “Co-creation of value in higher
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 1981.
education: using social network marketing in the recruitment of
students,” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, [55] S. W. O’Leary-Kelly and R. J. Vokurka, “The empirical assess-
vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 45–53, 2013. ment of construct validity,” Journal of Operations Management,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 387–405, 1998.
[37] M.-K. Kim, M.-C. Park, and D.-H. Jeong, “The effects of
customer satisfaction and switching barrier on customer loyalty [56] J. C. Anderson and D. W. Gerbing, “Structural equation model-
in Korean mobile telecommunication services,” Telecommuni- ing in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach,”
cations Policy, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 145–159, 2004. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 411–423, 1988.
[38] C. K. Prahalad and V. Ramaswamy, The Future of Competition: [57] W. W. Chin, “The partial least squares approach to structural
Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers, Harvard Business equation modeling,” in Modern Methods for Business Research,
Press, 2013. G. A. Marcoulides, Ed., pp. 295–358, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mah-
[39] U. S. Grissemann and N. E. Stokburger-Sauer, “Customer wah, NJ, USA, 1998.
co-creation of travel services: the role of company support [58] M. Haenlein and A. M. Kaplan, “A beginner’s guide to partial
and customer satisfaction with the co-creation performance,” least squares analysis,” Understanding Statistics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp.
Tourism Management, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1483–1492, 2012. 283–297, 2004.
[40] C. Grönroos, “Service logic revisited: who creates value? And [59] G. R. Hancock and M. J. Freeman, “Power and sample size for
who co-creates?” European Business Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. the root mean square error of approximation test of not close fit
298–314, 2008. in structural equation modeling,” Educational and Psychological
[41] D. Makkar, E. O. Gabriel, and D. Tripathi, “Value chain for Measurement, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 741–758, 2001.
higher education sector-case studies of India and Tanzania,” [60] V. Ramaswamy, “Co-creating value through customers’ experi-
Journal of Services Research, 2008. ences: the Nike case,” Strategy and Leadership, vol. 36, no. 5, pp.
[42] M. Pinar, P. Trapp, T. Girard, and T. E. Boyt, “Utilizing the 9–14, 2008.
brand ecosystem framework in designing branding strategies [61] B. Bowonder, A. Dambal, S. Kumar, and A. Shirodkar, “Inno-
for higher education,” International Journal of Educational vation strategies for creating competitive advantage,” Research
Management, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 724–739, 2011. Technology Management, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 19–32, 2010.
[43] K. W. Chan, C. K. Yim, and S. S. K. Lam, “Is customer [62] T. D. Little, N. A. Card, J. A. Bovaird, K. J. Preacher, and C.
participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence S. Crandall, “Structural equation modeling of mediation and
10 Abstract and Applied Analysis

moderation with contextual factors,” in Modeling Contextual

Effects in Longitudinal Studies, pp. 207–230, Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ, USA, 2007.
[63] R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, “The moderator-mediator vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173–1182, 1986.
Advances in Advances in Journal of Journal of
Operations Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Decision Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Applied Mathematics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Algebra
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Probability and Statistics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

The Scientific International Journal of

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Differential Equations
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

https://www.hindawi.com

International Journal of Advances in

Combinatorics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Mathematical Physics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of Journal of Mathematical Problems Abstract and Discrete Dynamics in

Complex Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Mathematics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Applied Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International
Journal of Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Discrete Mathematics
Sciences

Journal of International Journal of Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014

Function Spaces
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Stochastic Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Optimization
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014