COOPERATION
PERFORMANCE
UNIVERSITY IN 2019-2023
Volume: 6 Number: 3 Page: 582 - 590 Article History:
Received: 2025-03-20
Revised: 2025-04-10
Accepted: 2025-05-15
NUSA
CENDANA
Melinda TALLAK1.
William DJANI 2.
Ajis Salim Adang DJAHA3 1,2,3Faculty of Social and Political Sciences.
Nusa Cendana University.
Indonesia Corresponding author: Melinda Tallak Email: talaklinda@gmail.
Abstract:
This study aims to analyze the performance of Nusa Cendana University's collaboration in the last five years .
9Ae2.
and to identify factors that support and hinder the effectiveness of the implementation of the collaboration.
The study used a qualitative approach with an instrumental case study method and was conducted at Nusa Cendana University.
Kupang.
Informants were determined purposively from three faculties representing the categories of high (FKIP), medium (FST), and low (FISIP) collaboration performance.
The results of the study show that, in general.
Nusa Cendana University has established various forms of collaboration at the university, faculty, and study program However, there are disparities in the performance of collaboration between work units, as reflected in the number of collaboration documents and the level of implementation of collaboration agreements (MoU.
MoA.
IA).
The most dominant collaboration is carried out in FKIP, while FISIP and postgraduate programs show relatively low achievements.
Factors that influence collaboration performance include ability and motivation factors at the study program level.
Supporting factors include: faculty leadership initiatives, availability of collaboration regulations and guidelines, collaborative experience, and active partner networks.
Meanwhile, the inhibiting factors found were: the absence of an integrated cooperation, coordination and monitoring system, limited human resources and technical operators, lack of administrative literacy on cooperation, and the unavailability of special budget allocation for cooperation activities.
This study recommends the importance of strengthening an integrated cooperation institutional system, increasing human resource capacity at the study program level, and preparing measurable and results-oriented follow-up strategies.
By optimizing supporting factors and improving structural obstacles.
Nusa Cendana University is expected to be able to improve its cooperation performance more evenly, effectively, and Keywords: Cooperation Performance.
Higher Education.
Nusa Cendana University.
Public Administration.
Supporting and Inhibiting Factors INTRODUCTION The implementation of cooperation and educational information systems can be carried out by taking stages, namely: exploration stage, cooperation signing stage, program preparation stage, implementation stage, evaluation stage, and reporting stage (Nata, 2.
Of course, cooperation has its own goals.
The purpose of cooperation is to develop a high level of thinking, important communication skills, increase interest, self-confidence, social awareness and tolerance towards individual differences.
In cooperation, we have the opportunity to express ideas, listen to other people's opinions, and together build understanding, which is very important in learning because it has elements that are useful for challenging thinking and increasing one's self-esteem (Maasawet.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC) 4.
0 licence Universities as units .
that organize higher education have an important position in the process of social change because universities function as agents of social change in carrying out cultural transformation towards a more advanced social condition.
Bamet presents a more detailed explanation in the Ministry of Education and Culture .
he identified at least three functions of higher education, namely: .
as a producer of qualified workforce, .
as a training institution for research careers, and .
as an efficient management organization.
Nusa Cendana University is one of the leading universities in Indonesia and is the best university in East Nusa Tenggara Province.
As one of the leading universities, various collaborations have been carried out by Nusa Cendana University as an effort to improve the quality of higher Starting from 2019 to 2023.
Nusa Cendana University has carried out many collaborations with various parties ranging from the university level, faculty, to the study program level.
Based on the available data, it can be seen that the total collaboration at the Nusa Cendana University level from 2019 to 2023 is 129 cooperation agreements, then at the faculty level there are 352 cooperation agreements, while at the study program level there are 30 cooperation agreements.
Source: Nusa Cendana University's Cooperation Section .
Figure 1.
Follow-up of Nusa Cendana University's Cooperation The following data will be displayed related to the Cooperation Based on Partner Criteria data to be able to classify the various criteria of partners who collaborate with Nusa Cendana University.
High
QS200 QS200
Gover Natio Univer World Multil univer univer nment nal/re sities.
Multin Global Class ateral Techn sities sities Gover , putabl faculti Educa Non- Institu Busine Organi based based nment Hospit privat e es, or Profit tions/ on agenci als e, cultur study Institu Comp Organi Organi World their their es nation al progra zation zation field field al, and institu ms in BUA ofA ofA interA tions relevA Series 1 Source: Nusa Cendana University Collaboration Section .
Figure 2.
Collaboration Data Based on Partner Criteria in 2023 This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC) 4.
0 licence The data above shows that the most collaborations carried out by Nusa Cendana University with partners are partners who are included in the criteria of Educational Institutions, as many as 126, followed by Universities.
Faculties, and Study Programs in relevant fields, as many as 51.
Meanwhile, the criteria that are still empty and have not been collaborated with are partners with the criteria of global technology companies, technology startups, world-class non-profit organizations.
Universities included in the QS200 list based on the field of science of state universities, research institutions, and cultural institutions.
Thus, of the 16 partner criteria listed, there are still 6 partner criteria that have not been collaborated with at all.
Based on the description that has been presented, it is true that cooperation has many benefits and positive impacts.
It is also true that Nusa Cendana University has carried out various cooperations as per the available data.
However, based on the available data, there are still many inequalities between the data of cooperation agreements that have been carried out at Nusa Cendana University.
The data shows that Nusa Cendana University only has 129 cooperation agreements (MoU), which are then reduced to faculty-level cooperation agreements (MoA) of 352.
However, if we look more clearly at the faculties at Nusa Cendana University, this figure is still far from expectations that most faculties only have 20 cooperation agreements.
In addition, if we look in more detail at the study program level, the smaller the cooperation agreements (IA) at the study program level, which is only 30.
So that the performance of follow-up cooperation at Nusa Cendana University is still low in the follow-up plan, and it must also be known what cooperation actions have been taken in following up on the various existing cooperation agreements.
METHODS
In this study, the researcher used Qualitative research with a case study approach.
Data were obtained by interviewing informants, observing and examining documents.
Informants were selected purposively with the categories of university leaders, faculty leaders and academics who have the ability and know information related to the research problem.
Data sources consist of primary data .
esults of interviews and direct observatio.
and secondary data .
ocuments, official reports, and academic literatur.
To ensure the validity of the findings, triangulation techniques were used, both for sources, techniques, and time of data collection.
Data analysis was carried out through the process of categorization, thematic interpretation, and inductive reasoning, in order to formulate collaboration patterns so that the results of this study are presented systematically and can be scientifically accounted for.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Output: Administrative Products and Real Activities of Collaboration.
In public administration theory, output refers to any form of product or service produced by a public organization as a direct result of the administrative process and organizational activities (Dunn.
In the context of higher education, the output of collaboration includes formal documents (MoU.
MoA.
IA), as well as real activities such as field practice, internships, collaborative research, and community service.
In public administration theory, output refers to any form of product or service produced by a public organization as a direct result of the administrative process and organizational activities (Dunn, 2.
In the context of higher education, the output of cooperation includes formal documents (MoU.
MoA.
IA), as well as real activities such as field practice, internships, collaborative research, and community service.
FISIP shows that cooperation has been carried out, but has not produced output that is structured and systematically documented.
The absence of This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC) 4.
0 licence adequate operators and information systems causes many cooperation documents to go unrecorded, so that the activities that are actually running become administratively invisible.
This shows that the output of cooperation is not optimal because there is no efficient documentation and reporting mechanism.
FKIP shows a much stronger output achievement.
It was recorded that more than 120 PKS documents had been signed in 2023, and all of them were followed up through the Implementation Arrangement (IA).
This is a concrete form of institutional output that is not only administrative but also operational.
FKIP is an example of a faculty that has developed a more systematic and well-documented cooperation system.
FST (Faculty of Science and Engineerin.
has also begun to show progress in establishing cooperation with industrial partners and other technical institutions.
However, like FISIP.
FST still faces obstacles in the aspects of documentation and coordination, where some cooperation does not yet have complete formal documents, and the implementation process is still sporadic.
FST's output is potential but not yet structured.
From a public administration perspective, differences in output quality across faculties reflect variations in institutional capacity and organizational leadership.
The concept of organizational capacity (Grindle, 1.
is very relevant here, as it shows that institutions with good structures, human resources, and procedures will produce more consistent and measurable output.
In public administration studies, the concept of output plays a very strategic role in measuring the effectiveness of public service and program delivery, including in higher education.
William N.
Dunn .
defines output as any form of product or service directly produced by a public organization as a result of the implementation of administrative activities and programs.
In the context of institutional cooperation in higher education, especially Nusa Cendana University (UNDANA), output includes two main forms, namely formal documents and implementation activities.
Formal documents such as Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), and Implementation Agreement (IA) are administrative representations of the initiation of cooperation with external partners.
These documents indicate that a work unit has reached the stage of formalization of institutional relations that can be legally and institutionally accounted for.
Meanwhile, other forms of output are the implementation of real activities as part of the agreed cooperation, such as student field practice (PPL), internship programs, collaborative research between lecturers and partners, teacher training, joint seminars, and community service activities.
Furthermore, the Results-Based Management (RBM) framework developed by the OECD .
provides further understanding that output is an important foundation in the results chain of public organizations.
RBM emphasizes that quality and well-documented output are a prerequisite for achieving outcomes .
edium-term result.
and impacts .
ong-term impact.
of a In the case of UNDANA, for example, if the MoA document has been neatly prepared and followed by the implementation of student internships or teacher training, then the output will contribute to improving the quality of graduates and the capacity of partners, which are outcomes of institutional cooperation.
Without valid output, outcomes cannot be identified empirically, and the organization loses the basis for strategic evaluation.
Furthermore, the logic model theory in public management also explains that output must meet specific requirements: it can be identified, recorded, and reported systematically.
This is where the importance of structured institutional governance and an integrated cooperation information system lies.
Outcome: Medium-Term Impact of Cooperation Implementation.
According to the resultsbased management theory, outcome refers to changes or benefits arising from the output produced by the organization (OECD, 2.
In the context of UNDANA, the outcome of faculty cooperation This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC) 4.
0 licence can be in the form of improving the quality of learning, student involvement in professional activities, improving the competence of lecturers and partners, and forming a productive academic FISIP faces major obstacles in converting outputs into outcomes.
Many internship and community service activities are not well documented, so they cannot be recognized As a result, the real achievements of the collaboration cannot be used as evaluation or assessment materials for institutional performance.
This reflects a failure in managing the administrative results chain, namely, when real activities do not have an impact on the institutional level due to a weak management system.
FKIP has succeeded in producing strong outcomes.
Collaboration with partner schools has improved student competency through PPL, and teachers at partner schools have also reported increased capacity in learning methods and technology These outcomes are a real manifestation of a healthy mutualistic symbiosis between higher education institutions and primary/secondary education institutions.
FST has begun to expand its collaboration to the industrial sector, but has not yet produced systemic outcomes.
Collaboration is still limited to sending students for internships or technical training, without integration with the curriculum or broader institutional strategy.
The weakness of these outcomes indicates that FST does not yet have a collaboration design based on strategic alignment, where the results of the collaboration are integrated into institutional goals holistically.
In public administration theory, institutional outcomes should not only be seen as the result of administrative processes but also as evidence of the functioning of the organization in providing services and creating public value (Moore, 1.
In the context of institutional cooperation at Nusa Cendana University (UNDANA), outcomes cover various dimensions, such as improving the quality of learning, student involvement in professional activities, strengthening the competence of lecturers and cooperation partners, and the formation of productive and sustainable academic collaboration networks.
These achievements not only indicate the ongoing cooperation but also reflect the existence of a real positive influence on educational goals and institutional missions.
The application of the Results-Based Management (RBM) theory is very relevant in assessing the success of the outcomes of this collaboration.
Kusek and Rist .
stated that RBM is a systemic approach that emphasizes the importance of causal relationships between input, process, output, and outcome.
They emphasized that Auresults are changes in the lives of peopleAnot just the completion of activities or delivery of outputs.
Ay Thus, outcomes in this context must be assessed based on real changes in institutional capacity, improvements in the quality of graduates, and verifiable social contributions.
Overall, the results of this study confirm that the achievement of outcomes from institutional cooperation at UNDANA still depends heavily on the effectiveness of internal management at the faculty level.
FKIP is the model that is closest to the ideal implementation of RBM, while FISIP and FST still need strengthening in the integration of cooperation systems, documentation, and resultsbased evaluation.
In the context of public administration, outcomes are not just technical results of an activity, but rather a reflection of institutional capacity in realizing public missions, responding to stakeholder needs, and creating socially and institutionally accountable impacts.
The Relationship between Efforts and Achievements: Efficiency and Rationalization of Resource Use.
Efficiency in public administration refers to the comparison between inputs .
osts, human resources, tim.
and the output produced (Rosenbloom, 1.
Efficient cooperation management is characterized by the ability to utilize resources to achieve maximum output This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC) 4.
0 licence FISIP shows low efficiency.
High dependence on individual initiative, the absence of standard SOPs, and manual systems cause the process of managing cooperation to be administratively expensive, slow, and unsustainable.
This reflects low technical efficiency because large inputs .
ime, energ.
are not directly proportional to output or results.
FKIP shows higher The allocation of a budget of around IDR 1 billion per year to support cooperation programs, especially PPL, allows the implementation of activities to be carried out smoothly and in a structured manner.
The availability of funds also creates administrative certainty and improves the quality of supervision.
FKIP applies the principle of value for money, namely the use of public budgets for meaningful results.
FST does not yet have a special budget allocation for cooperation, so that the activities carried out are still ad-hoc and depend on the flexibility of the faculty budget.
This causes low efficiency in the use of resources, because there is no special planning that supports the implementation of cooperation strategically.
In the theory of public administration efficiency, this difference shows the importance of performance-based budgeting and rational planning approaches so that faculties can plan and allocate resources according to institutional priorities and cooperation needs.
In the context of institutional cooperation management at Universitas Nusa Cendana (UNDANA), efficiency is an important measure in assessing how each faculty organizes its resources to build and implement strategic partnerships.
This study shows that there is a disparity in efficiency between faculties in managing institutional cooperation, which is directly influenced by the availability of administrative systems, the competence of implementers, and regulatory and structural support.
The performance-based budgeting approach, as developed by the OECD .
, also emphasizes the importance of measuring efficiency in public budgeting, where the budget is not only seen as an allocation of funds but as an instrument of performance management.
In this model, faculty members in higher education institutions must measurably plan collaborative activities, prepare clear output and outcome indicators, and link these achievements to the efficiency of budget and other resource use.
FKIP is an example of a unit that has implemented this principle through annual work plan documents and PPL reporting systems, while FISIP and FST still need to strengthen this system so that the collaboration carried out is not only symbolic or individual but contributes significantly to the institutional performance evaluation system.
Explanatory Information: Context.
Capacity, and Structural Barriers.
Explanatory information is not only a complement to performance reporting, but is an essential management analysis instrument.
Good management of explanatory information allows organizations to understand what works, what fails, and why.
In the context of UNDANA, the ability of each faculty to identify, document, and follow up on explanatory factors will determine the effectiveness of their institutional collaboration.
Faculties that have an internal evaluation system, documentation culture, and flexibility in responding to external dynamics will be better able to produce consistent and accountable performance.
Therefore, strengthening information systems.
SOPs.
HR training, and increasing cross-unit coordination are strategic steps in optimizing the value of explanatory information for improving future cooperation performance.
FKIP UNDANA is an example of an institution that has implemented the principles of performance management, with good output, results, and efficiency, as well as the ability to explain and manage internal and external factors strategically.
Meanwhile.
FISIP faces major challenges in terms of systems, human resources, and documentation.
This reflects weak organizational governance and a lack of systemic administrative support.
Meanwhile.
FST is in the middle: it has great potential for productive cooperation but needs to improve governance and budget planning, and expand partner networks, especially in the industrial sector.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC) 4.
0 licence In the context of public administration, inter-institutional cooperation in higher education should not only be assessed from the number of documents, but from its effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact on the public.
Therefore, an institutional reform approach, strengthening of human resource capacity, and integration of information systems and performance-based strategic planning are needed to optimize the role of cooperation in supporting the mission of higher education institutions such as UNDANA.
Supporting and Inhibiting Factors.
Several supporting factors that have been identified, such as increasing literacy in collaboration at FISIP, the existence of mutual needs between FKIP and partner schools, and the commitment of faculty leaders in maintaining the regularity of collaboration administration, indicate that there is social and institutional capital that can be This is in line with the view in contemporary public administration that emphasizes collaboration between actors .
ollaborative governanc.
, where the success of public policies and programs is highly dependent on collaboration between institutions, both vertically and horizontally (Ansell & Gash, 2.
In the context of FKIP, for example, collaboration based on shared needs and the active involvement of external partners in field practice indicate that collaborative mechanisms have been running even though a formal and structured management system has not fully facilitated them.
Another quite important finding is the disparity between study programs in terms of the intensity and capacity of collaboration, as is the case in FKIP.
The PGSD Study Program, for example, is more active than other study programs.
This inequality can be explained through institutional theory, which emphasizes the importance of formal structures and institutional norms in shaping the behavior of organizational actors (Scott, 2.
When there is no internal faculty policy that explicitly requires or encourages study programs to build cooperation, then the initiative will depend heavily on individuals.
Therefore, institutionalization of cooperation policies at the faculty and study program levels is crucial to creating equality, sustainability, and institutional synergy.
This discussion emphasizes that the quality of administrative governance and institutional capacity largely determines the success of institutional cooperation in higher education.
In the context of UNDANA, especially in FISIP.
FKIP, and FST, strengthening cooperation needs to be done through a more adaptive reformulation of the administrative system, the establishment of cooperation units at the study program level, administrative literacy training for lecturers and staff, the preparation of a digital-based cooperation information system, and the allocation of an adequate special budget.
In addition, strengthening a collaborative culture and inclusive leadership will be key in integrating the spirit of partnership into a more established institutional By referring to a more dynamic and participatory public administration approach, the transformation of the cooperation system at UNDANA can be directed at developing a one-stop shop system that is efficient, transparent, and accountable, and able to accommodate various interests both internally and externally.
This reform is important not only to meet the demands of accreditation or reporting, but also to ensure that the cooperation that is built truly has an impact on improving the quality of education, the relevance of graduates, and a real contribution to regional development.
CONCLUSION
The performance of Nusa Cendana University (UNDANA) cooperation during the period 2019 to 2023 shows a tendency to increase quantitatively at various institutional levels, starting from the university level, faculty, to study programs.
This increase is most prominent in the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education (FKIP) and the Faculty of Science and Engineering (FST), which This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC) 4.
0 licence recorded the highest number of cooperation compared to other units.
This achievement reflects the active efforts of several work units in building strategic networks and collaborations to support the activities of the tridharma of higher education.
However, qualitatively, the performance of this cooperation has not been fully optimal.
This can be seen from the still minimal number of cooperation documents stated in the form of an Implementation Agreement (IA) at the study program level.
In addition, the documentation and reporting process of cooperation activities is still weak and has not been systematically documented.
Many cooperations have been carried out, but are not followed by adequate documentation, making it difficult to evaluate and measure the impact of cooperation on improving the quality of the institution.
Furthermore, there is a fairly striking disparity in the performance of cooperation between work units within UNDANA.
Some faculties show very active performance, while others, including FISIP and the Postgraduate Program, are still at a low level.
This condition indicates that the institutional capacity to manage and develop cooperation is not evenly distributed across the university environment.
Differences in the availability of human resources, understanding of procedures, and structural support are also factors that influence this disparity.
REFERENCES