DISTORTIONS IN IKU-BASED PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON KPP PRATAMA FOR THE PERIOD 2023–2025
Abstrak
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a performance measurement system based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in representing organizational performance in the Primary KPP for the 2023–2025 period. In contrast to previous research that focused on aggregate achievements, this study focused on the analysis of indicator design, weighting systems, and potential distortions in performance measurement. The research uses a quantitative approach with a descriptive-evaluative method and utilizes secondary data in the form of performance indicator achievements. The analysis includes descriptive analysis, trends, and gaps between indicators. The results showed that despite the high aggregate achievement, there was a significant imbalance between the indicators that indicated distortion. This study concludes that the effectiveness of the measurement system is not only determined by the achievements, but also by the quality of the indicator design, weighting, and balance between performance components.
Referensi
Afiyah, S. (2024). Performance measurement and evaluation in public sector organizations. The Journal of Academic Science, 1(4).
Barus, I. N. E., & Djamhuri, A. (2024). Measurement of government performance in literature review. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development.
Gao, J. (2015). Performance measurement and management in the public sector: Some lessons from research evidence. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 86–96.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization. Harvard Business School Press.
Niven, P. R. (2008). Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies. John Wiley & Sons.
Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–521.
Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538.
Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Georgetown University Press.
Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance information for democracy: The missing link? Evaluation, 12(1), 38–55.
Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing Performance: International Comparisons. Routledge.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-government and performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 478–497.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance Management in the Public Sector. Routledge.
Gębczyńska, A., & Brajer-Marczak, R. (2020). Review of selected performance measurement models used in public administration. Administrative Sciences, 10(4), 99.
Handaningrum, O. (2023). The influence of key performance indicators (KPI) on government performance accountability. Dinasti International Journal of Digital Business Management.
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia. (2024). Manual of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) at the Work Unit Level (K-3) of the Directorate General of Taxes. Jakarta: Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia. (2025). Manual of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) at the Work Unit Level (K-3) of the Directorate General of Taxes. Jakarta: Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.
Murti, R. B., Mahmudi, M., & Nurfauziya, A. (2021). An analysis of performance measurement system used in Indonesia local government. Journal of Contemporary Accounting, 3(2), 64–76.
