Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

Performance reporting of Regional Public Service Agencies (BLUD) is a strategic instrument for strengthening accountability, transparency, and performance-based governance in primary healthcare services. This study aims to analyze the effects of information technology utilization, human resource competence, and functional supervision on BLUD performance reporting at Puskesmas Banggae I, Majene Regency. This study employed a quantitative approach with a causal-associative design. A total of 52 respondents participated in the study, and data were collected using a questionnaire and analyzed through chi-square tests and multiple linear regression. The results show that the three variables simultaneously have a significant effect on BLUD performance reporting (F = 17.746; p = 0.000), with an R Square value of 0.526, indicating that the model explains 52.6% of the variation in performance reporting. Partially, information technology utilization had a significant negative effect (B = -1.610; t = -3.515; p = 0.001), human resource competence had a significant negative effect (B = -1.047; t = -2.571; p = 0.013), while functional supervision had a positive and significant effect (B = 0.529; t = 2.557; p = 0.014). These findings indicate that BLUD performance reporting quality is not determined solely by technology availability and employee capacity, but also by system readiness, technical competency alignment, and effective supervision. Therefore, improving BLUD performance reporting requires integrated information systems, technical capacity strengthening, and continuous functional supervision.
Keywords: BLUD; performance reporting; information technology; human resources; supervision

Keywords

Keywords: BLUD; performance reporting; information technology; human resources; supervision

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

References

  1. Aini, Z., & Yasni, H. (2022). Faktor yang mempengaruhi efektivitas pengelolaan keuangan Badan Layanan Umum Daerah. CURRENT: Jurnal Kajian Akuntansi dan Bisnis Terkini, 3(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.31258/current.3.2.176-190
  2. Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00322
  3. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
  4. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.4.23
  5. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Cordery, C. J., & Hay, D. (2019). Supreme Audit Institutions and public value: Demonstrating relevance. Financial Accountability & Management, 35(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12185
  7. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
  8. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
  9. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New Public Management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
  10. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
  11. Hammerschmid, G., Van de Walle, S., & Štimac, V. (2013). Internal and external use of performance information in public organizations: Results from an international survey. Public Money & Management, 33(4), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2013.799803
  12. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
  13. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.
  14. Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004
  15. Piatti-Fünfkirchen, M., & Schneider, P. (2018). From stumbling block to enabler: The role of public financial management in health service delivery in Tanzania and Zambia. Health Systems & Reform, 4(4), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2018.1513266
  16. Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011). Emergence of the human capital resource: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0318
  17. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—Into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  18. Rakhman, F., & Wijayana, S. (2019). Determinants of financial reporting quality in the public sector: Evidence from Indonesia. The International Journal of Accounting, 54(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1094406019500094
  19. Ricardo, R., Trisna, W. V., & Astika, F. (2023). Analisis faktor yang mempengaruhi kualitas laporan keuangan (BLUD) Puskesmas pada Pemerintah Kota Pekanbaru. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Ekonomika, 13(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.37859/jae.v13i1.4388
  20. Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Caba Pérez, C., & López Hernández, A. M. (2007). E-government and public financial reporting: The case of Spanish regional governments. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(2), 142–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074006293193
  21. Sandria, M., Agusti, R., & Putra, A. A. (2020). Determinan efektivitas pengelolaan keuangan Badan Layanan Umum Daerah (BLUD): Dimoderasi sistem pengendalian intern pemerintah. CURRENT: Jurnal Kajian Akuntansi dan Bisnis Terkini, 1(2), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.31258/jc.1.2.266-286
  22. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  23. Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), e297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297
  24. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  25. von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296