Author

  • Mattoasi

    • Gorontalo State University, Gorontalo, Indonesia
    • Indonesia

  • Rose Shamsiah Samsudin

    • Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia
    • Malaysia

Abstract

Understanding performance measurement in the public sector organization is very important in looking into the early performance of local governments. This is because having a good performance measurement model in place serves as part of the accountability to stakeholders (e.g., society as taxpayers). Choosing the right model of performance measurement will have an impact on the performance of the government. In this research, preliminary literature study conducted found that the model of performance measurement, which was used in Indonesia in the old order as well as the new order, was an old model (traditional). The traditional model tends to be input-oriented, causingthe model to be unfit or unsuitable with the current situation. In this concept paper, which also initially analyzing the contents of documents associated with Government Performance Accountability Report (LAKIP) for several years were reviewed and reveals that after the LAKIP model was applied in Indonesia, the local government performance which now focuses on the output level helps overcoming the disadvantages of the previous models in place.

Keywords

References

  • Aaron, W. (2009). Understanding the Difference between Performance Reporting and Performance Management. State and Local Government Review, 1, 174.
  • Halim, A. (2002). Seri Akuntansi Sektor Publik-Akuntansi Keuangan Daerah, Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
  • Alexander, J., Brudney, J. L. & Yang, K. (2010). Introduction to the Symposium: Accountability and performance measurement: The evolving role of nonprofits in the hollow state. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 39(4), 565-570.
  • Andrews, R. (2011). New Public Management And The Search For Efficiency. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management, pages 281-294.
  • Armstrong, M. & Baron, A. (1998). Performance Management – The New Realities. The American Political Science Review , 60, 29-47.
  • Audrey, T., Tamara, K. & Suzanne, K. (2011). Strategic Budgeting In Public Schools: An experimental comparison of budget formats. Advances in Management Accounting (Advances in Management Accounting, 19, 133 - 160
  • Bente, B. & Flemming, L. (2014). The Politics Of Performance Measurement: Evaluation use as mediator for politics. Sage jurnal , 20, 400-411.
  • Bouckaert, G. & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London, Routledge CA: Sage.
  • Carlin, T. M. (2004). Output Based Budgeting and the Management of Performance. Macquarie Graduate School of Management. Sidney.
  • Carol, A. A., Stephen, M. & Zahirul, H. (2014). Measurement of Sustainability Performance in the Public Sector. Sustainability Accounting. Management and Policy Journal , 5(1), 46 – 67.
  • Cavalluzzo, K. S. & Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence from Government. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 29, 243–67.
  • Chan, H. S. & Rosenbloom, D. H. (2010). Four Challenges to Accountability in Contemporary Public Administration. Lessons from the United States and China. Administration & Society , 42, 11S - 33S.
  • Chenhall, R. H. (2005). Adoption and Benefits of Management Accounting Practices: An Australian Study. Management Accounting Research , 9, 1–19.
  • Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis Oxford University Press, 2000,328 pages.
  • David, N. A., Ellen, G. L. & Jordan, A. J. (2013). Performance Management Purpose, Executive Engagement, and Reported Benefits among Leading Local Governments. State and Local Government Review , 45, 172179.
  • Diamond, J. (2005). Establishing a Performance Management Framework for Government. International Monetary Fund. Working Paper 05/50.
  • Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and The Promise of Performance: In search of mechanisms. Public performance and Management Review , 28, 376–417.
  • Buschor, E. (2013). Performance Management in the Public Sector: Past, current and future trends. Original Research Article Tékhne , 11(1), 4-9.
  • Fenwick, J. (1995). Managing Local Government. London. Chapman and Hall.
  • Fryer, K., Antony, J. & Ogden, S. (2009). Performance Management in the Public Sector. International Journal of Public sector Management , 22(6), 478-498.
  • Govindarajan, V. (1984). Appropriateness of Accounting Data in Performance Evaluation: An Empirical Animation of Environmental Uncertainty an Intervening Variable. Accounting Organ. and Society , 1, 125-135.
  • Hood, C. (1995). The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting Organizations and Society , 20, 93-109.
  • Hoque, Z. & Adams, C. A. (2011). The Rise And Use Of Balanced Scorecard Measures In Australian. Financial Accountability & Management , 27(3), 308-334.
  • Hou, Y. (2010). The Performance of Performance-Based Budgeting American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) San Jose, CA, 9-13.
  • Ulum I. (2004). Akuntansi Sektor Publik, UMM PRESS, Yogyakarta.
  • Jones, R. & Pendlebury, M. (1996). Public Sector Accounting, Business and economic. London.
  • Kennerley, M. & Neely, A. (2002). A Framework Of The Factors Affecting The Evolution Of Performance Measurement Systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 22(11), 225226.
  • Lane, J. E. (2000). New Public Management, Routledge, London.
  • LeRoux, K. & Wright, N. S. (2010). Does Performance Measurement Improve Strategic Decision Making? Findings from a national survey of nonprofit social service agencies. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 39(4), 571-587.
  • Majuta, J. M. (2014). Financial Performance of Local Government in Limpopo Province, 2010-2012. African Studies Quarterly , 15(1), 81.
  • Mardiasmo. (2002). Akuntansi Sektor Publik. ANDI Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta.
  • Marr, B. (2009). Managing and Delivering performance: How Government, public sectors, and not for profit organization can measure and manage what really matters. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heineman.
  • Herawaty, M. & Hoque Z. (2007). Disclosure In The Annual Reports Of Australian Government Departments: A research note. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change , 3(2), 147–168
  • Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks
  • Mitchell, G. E. (2012). The Construct Of Organizational Effectiveness: Perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Non profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0899764011434589.
  • Morgan, G. G. (2013). Purposes, Activities and Beneficiaries: assessing the use of accounting narratives as indicators of third sector performance. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management , 10(3/4), 295-315.
  • Mulyadi. (2002). SistemTerpadu Pengelolaan Kinerja Personal Berbasis Balance Scorecard, Penerbit UPP STIM YKPN.
  • Mulyadi. (2000). Auditing. Edisi ke-6. Jakarta: Salemba empat.
  • Sandalgaard, N., Bukh, P. N. & Stig, P. C. (2011). The interaction between motivational disposition and participative budgeting: Evidence from a bank. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting , 15(1), 7 – 23. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Darise, N. (2008). AkuntansiKeuangan Daerah AkuntansiSektorPublik). Indeks, Jakarta.
  • Packard, T. (2010). Staff Perceptions of Variables Affecting Performance in Human Service Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 39(6), 971-990.
  • Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. USA. Sage Publication Inc.
  • Apostle, P. S. (2003). Replaced Traditional Budgeting. California Management Review , 45(4).
  • Queeneville, M. V., Laurin, C. & Thibodeu, N. (2010). The Long Run Performance Of Decentralized Agencies In Quebec: A multidimensional assessment. In P. Lægreid& K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations. Proliferation, autonomy and performance, pp. 157-176
  • Robinson, M. & Last, D. (2009). A Basic Model of Performance-Based Budgeting. Technical Notes and Manuals. International Monetary Fund. Washington.
  • Robinson, M. & Brumby, J. (2005). Does Performance-Based Budgeting Work?: An Analytical Review of the Empirical Literature. International Monetary Fund. Working Paper 05/pg.210
  • Rubin, I. (2007). Budget Formats: Choices and Implications. Public Sector and local Government. Washington. The World Bank.
  • Rutgers, M. R. & van der Meer, H. (2010). The Origins and Restriction of Efficiency in Public Administration: Regaining Efficiency as the Core Value of Public Administration. Administration & Society journal , XX(X), 1–25
  • Sanger, M. B. (2013). Does Measuring Performance Lead To Better Performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 32, 185–203.
  • Shah, A. & Chunli, S. (2007). Citizen-Centric Performance Budgeting at the Local Level. Public Sector and Governance and Accountability Series: Local Budgeting. World Bank.
  • Simbolon, K. (2003). Laporan Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah. Webmaster – Dispenad. Jakarta.
  • Stewart, J. & Walsh. (1994). Performance Measurement: When performance can never be finally defined. Public Money &Management , 3, 45-49.
  • Thomson, D. E. (2010). Exploring The Role Of Funders’ Performance Reporting Mandates In Nonprofit Performance Measurement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 39(4), 611-629.
  • Wallis, J. & Gregory, R. (2009). Leadership, Accountability and Public Value: Resolving a Problem in New Governance. Int. Journal of Public Administration , 32(3-4), 250-273.
  • Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic Content Analysis. USA : Sage Publication, Inc.
  • Wildavsky, A. (1964). The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little.
  • Young, R. D. (2003). Performance-Based Budget Systems. Public Policy. International Journal of Public Sector Management , 22, 278–298.
  • Zafra-Gómez, J. L. P., Plata Díaz, D. A. M. & López-Hernández, A. M. (2012). Reducing Costs in Times of Crisis: Delivery Forms in Small and Medium Sized Local Governments’ Waste Management Services. Public Administration. doi: 10.1111/J.1467-9299.2011.02012.

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Mattoasi, & Samsudin, R. S. (2015). Current Practice Performance Measurement Model: A Case Study in Indonesia. Journal of Education and Vocational Research, 6(2), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.22610/jevr.v6i2.186

Share this article

License

Copyright (c) 2015 Mattoasi, Rose Shamsiah Samsudin (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2015) Governance, Pedagogy & Student Development View issue contents

Published

2015-06-30

Submissions

Have research to publish? Journal of Education and Vocational Research welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission