| dc.identifier.citation | Akbar, R. 2012. Performance Measurement in Indonesia: The Case of Local Government. Pacific Accounting Review Vol. 24 No. 3, 2012:28. Cavalluzzoa, K. S., dan C. D. Ittner. 2004. Implementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence from Government. Accounting, Organizations and Society Vol. 29 (2004) (2004):243–267. Elg, M., dan B. Kollberg. 2009. Alternative Arguments and Directions for Studying Performance Measurement. Total Quality Management Vol. 20, No. 4 (April 2009):14. Indonesia, L. R. 2003. Pedoman Penyusunan Pelaporan AKIP. Jakarta. Indonesia, P. R. 1999. Akuntabiltas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (Inpres No. 7), edited by I. P. RI. Jakarta: Sekretaris Kabinet RI, 3. ———. 2014. Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (PP No. 29), edited by Menkumham. Jakarta. Indudewi, D. 2013. Pengukuran Kinerja dalam Instansi Pemda (Performance Measurement in Local Goverment). Jurnal USM vol. 8 no. 1. Jaaskelainen, A., dan V. Sillanpaa. 2013. Overcoming challanges in the implementation of Performance Measurement In Case study in public welfare services. Finlandia: Internatioal Journal of Public Sector Management. Jamil, B. O. 2013. Pengaruh Faktor Teknis & Faktor Organisasi terhadap Implementasi Sistem Pengukuran Kinerja. In (Studi Empiris Pada SKPD Pemerintah Kota Solok). Sumbar: Universitas Negeri Padang. Keathly, H., dan E. V. Aken. 2013. Systematic Literature Review on the Factors that Affect Performance Measurement System Implementation. Paper read at Industrial and System Engineering Research Conference, at Virginia, USA. Mike Bourne, dan A. Neely. 2003. Implementing performance measurement systems: a literature review. University of Cambridge, UK: International Journal Business Performance Management Negara, L. A. 1999. Pedoman Penyusunan Laporan Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah. Jakarta. Nurkhamid, M. 2008. Implementasi Inovasi Sistem Pengukuran Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah. Jakarta: Jurnal Akuntansi Pemerintah, Hal. 45 – 76. Presiden Republik Indonesia. 2006. Pelaporan Keuangan dan Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (PP No. 8), edited by Menkumham. Jakarta. Syachbrani, W., dan R. Akbar. 2013. Faktor-Faktor Teknis dan Keorganisasian yang Mempengaruhi Pengembangan Sistem Pengukuran Kinerja Pemerintah Daerah. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansidan Keuangan Vol.3 No. 2 (Oktober 2013). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD). 2001. Managing Public Expenditure. In a Referene Book for Transition Country, edited by Richard Ellen and D. Tomasi. Paris, France: OECD Publication Services. Waal, A. A. d., dan H. Counet. 2009. Lessons learned from performance measurement management systems implementations: International journal of productifity and performance management. Wijaya, A. H. C., dan R. Akbar. 2013. Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Measurement System: Evidences from Indonesian Public Sectors. Malang: Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan. | in_ID |
| dc.description.abstract | Now a day, organizations are increasingly finding themselves in a more dynamic
operational environment of scarce resources, as a result, many organizations are more focused
and become more competitive through the concentration and organizational improvement
initiatives (Keatley and Haken, 2014). One of the techniques and critical approach of the
improvement initiative is performance measurement (The Organisation for Economic Cooperation
Development (OECD))which has experienced an increase in both the focus and the practical
application of the academy of business and government. Although scientific research has been
done in the design, implementation, use, and continuous improvement of the Performance
Measurement System (PMS), most of the literature reporting the use of a less than optimal results
or, in some cases, a failure in the application and implementation of PMS primarily measuring
performance based on the Balanced Scorecard (Mike Bourne and Neely, 2003). In recent decades,
research on the application and implementation of the PMS has identified many factors that
determine the success and failure in an attempt to increase the likelihood that the full benefits of
the performance measurement system will be realized. Rules and regulations regarding
government performance measurement continue to be made to enhance Presidential Instruction
number 7 (Indonesia, 1999) regarding the performance accountability of government agencies
and program preparation Accountability Report Government Performance (LAKIP) by the
Institute of Administration (Indonesia State, 1999). This paper seeks to explore the factors
identified in the PMS implementation of some of the literature in a systematic way, and trying to
deduce which factors can be applied appropriately and wisely in the government organization that
eventually leads to a healthy governance (good government govermance). | in_ID |
