4 - Pengukuran Kinerja Sektor Publik

Pacific Accounting Review
Performance measurement in Indonesia: the case of local government

Rusdi Akbar Robyn Pilcher Brian Perrin
Article information:
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)
To cite this document:

Rusdi Akbar Robyn Pilcher Brian Perrin, (2012),"Performance measurement in Indonesia: the case of local
government", Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 262 - 291
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01140581211283878
Downloaded on: 26 August 2015, At: 17:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 87 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1122 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Rusdi Akbar, Robyn Ann Pilcher, Brian Perrin, (2015),"Implementing performance measurement systems:
Indonesian local government under pressure", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management,
Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp. 3-33 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-03-2013-0013
Harun Harun, Karen Van Peursem, Ian Eggleton, (2012),"Institutionalization of accrual accounting in the
Indonesian public sector", Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 257-285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/18325911211258308
Kevin Baird, Herbert Schoch, Qi (James) Chen, (2012),"Performance management system effectiveness
in Australian local government", Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 161-185 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01140581211258461
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:273599 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0114-0582.htm
PAR
24,3
Performance measurement
in Indonesia: the case of local
government
262
Rusdi Akbar
Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and
Robyn Pilcher and Brian Perrin

School of Accounting, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the implementation of performance
measurement systems (PMSs) in Indonesian local government (ILG) using Smart PLS. Couched within
an institutional theory framework, it explores a conceptual model developed to explain the hypothesised
relationships between technical and organisational factors and the development and use of performance
indicators and accountability practices.
Design/methodology/approach Surveys were sent to senior finance officers in all local
governments (457) across Indonesia with a response rate of 21.4 percent being achieved. Smart PLS
was used to assess the quality of the data and analyse the research model proposed.
Findings Findings revealed that ILGs developed performance indicators more to fulfil regulatory
requirements than to make their organisation more effective and efficient. As a way of increasing the
success of PMS implementation management commitment through good leadership was found to be a
major contributor. Coercive pressure from central government impacted on the result as did normative
isomorphism by way of widespread training by universities (and others) and the subsequent sharing
of this knowledge.
Practical implications The findings will assist Indonesian central government formulate future
government policy as well as design appropriate strategies for implementing the second wave of
(bureaucratic) reform.
Originality/value Set in a local government environment in a developing country, this research is
original and makes three major contributions. First, it provides an understanding of factors influencing
the development and use of performance measures in the ILG context. Second, the use of Smart PLS is
original in this context and fills a gap in the literature examining local government PMS. Last,
the existence of institutional isomorphism reaffirms that this theory is still applicable in the twenty-first
century and relevant as an explanator of the results in the context examined here.
Keywords Performance measurement systems, Indonesia, Local government, Institutional theory,
Isomorphism, PLS analysis, Performance management
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Many government entities in developed countries have introduced elements of new
public management (NPM)[1] (Hood, 1991, 1995; ter Bogt, 2004) which is based on
a fundamental concept that public sector organizations can, and even should, borrow
Pacific Accounting Review
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2012
pp. 262-291
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0114-0582
DOI 10.1108/01140581211283878
The authors would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers at the AFAANZ 2010
Conference for their feedback on an earlier version of the paper. The authors would also like to
thank the two anonymous reviewers who provided feedback as part of this journals review
process.
many management strategies from the private sector. In Indonesia the government
introduced performance measurement reporting to respond to public demand on
productivity, transparency and accountability. According to Cheung (2011, p. 131),
the NPM and good governance models were the two dominant paradigms having
the greatest impact on Asian (in which he includes Indonesia) institutional reforms.
This study focuses on two pivotal aspects in the public sector accountability and
performance measurement. Over the last 40 years the idea of performance measurement
has been the focus of considerable attention from both academics and practitioners
(Neely, 1999; Kihn, 2010). Initially, the research in the field mainly concentrated on
performance measurement in the private sector (Kaplan, 1983; Johnson and Kaplan,
1987; Chenhall and Smith, 2007). However, since then there have been a number of
studies addressing the issues of performance measurement in the public sector
(Hood et al., 1998; Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004; Micheli and Neely, 2010). In Indonesia, the
interest in performance measurement began to emerge at the beginning of the reform era
in 1999 when President B.J. Habibie signed a presidential instruction (Inpres No. 7/1999),
the Performance Accountability Report of State Apparatus (known as LAKIP).
Coinciding with the first wave of public sector reform, this research investigates the
implementation of performance measurement systems (PMS) in Indonesian local
government (ILG). A second generation structural equation modelling technique known
as partial least squares (PLS) was used to analyse the proposed model and relationships.
Based on a survey of ILGs, the research explores a conceptual model adapted
and developed to explain the hypothesised relationships between technical and
organisational factors and the development and use of performance indicators
and accountability practices. The theoretical development and interpretation of this
research is drawn from institutional theory. A major contribution of this research is that
it provides an understanding of factors influencing the development and use of
performance measures which, in turn, could be used to formulate future government
policy. Further, it fills a gap in the literature exploring PMS and accountability in a
developing country in this case, Indonesia. This paper begins with a brief literature
review followed by an explanation of the theoretical framework employed. Section 4
then considers the research model and hypotheses development, and Section 5 discusses
the research method used. Section 6 presents the results of the research using SmartPLS,
with these results discussed in the penultimate section. A conclusion and suggestions for
future research ends this paper.
2. Literature review
NPM and accountability
NPM was introduced in Europe in the 1980s. Lapsley and Pallot (2000) considered this
framework separately from that of institutional theory, whereas Bovaird and Downe
(2006) use institutional isomorphism to understand NPM-type reforms. This paper
adopts the latter framework as it considers whether, with the introduction of PMS,
institutional isomorphism particularly coercive plays a role in the implementation
processes adopted by ILG.
The development of NPM was seen as a means by which to enhance accountability
and transparency of governments and this, in turn, required performance information
that was more comparable, relevant and useful for decision-making within the public
sector. Romzek and Dubnick (1998, p. 6), define accountability as a relationship in which
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
263
PAR
24,3
264
an individual or an agency is held to answer for performance that involves some

delegation of authority to act. Government organisations are created by the public,
for the public, and need to be accountable to the public. Given the myriad definitions and
variations on the term accountability, for the purposes of this paper, accountability is
separated into two components internal accountability (the accountability of
management to the major/head of district (elected official)), and external accountability
(accountability of ILG to its stakeholders such as central government, parliaments
and citizens).
Performance measurement/PMS
Managing and measuring performance has been one of the key drivers in the reform of
the public sector (Gianakis, 2002). Osborne and Gaebler (1992) claimed that to win public
support, government officials needed to demonstrate the results achieved. From this, one
could ascertain that local government should manage and measure its performance
using PMS in order to better serve the citizens and in turn gain their support. As the form
of government that is closest to the people, ILG has been recognised as the sphere of
government that has the largest capacity to deliver real outcomes at a local level
(LOGOTRI, 2003). This development, in turn, should increase the quality of life for its
citizens. In order to do this, however, local government must have some way of
measuring the success, failure, and progress achieved in the pursuit of the objectives.
Increasingly, performance measurement is considered to be a vital tool for local
government to not only measure its activities, but also to then provide feedback into
the management process to help improve future performance (LOGOTRI, 2003).
Further, the development and use of performance measures is considered a key element
of NPM implementation (Lapsley, 2008; Boston, 2011).
Research on performance measurement in the Indonesian public sector is quite
scarce. One study by Riandi (2003) found there was still an expectation gap between
local government authorities and the community about the public service delivery.
This gap occurred due to the lack of relevant performance indicators available to
distinguish success from failure in public services delivery (Mahsun, 2005). McLeod
(2005, p. 1) examined the reform process in Indonesia as a whole and provided
some explanations from the private sector for what he saw as demonstrably poor
performance in Indonesia.
Adoption of PMS as an important component of management reform in the public
sector has become more prevalent in the last two decades. Some scholars claimed that
the arguments for this movement were mainly rational or technical in nature, and that
PMS was adopted as an effort towards achieving an efficient and effective organisation
(Andrews et al., 2006; Meier et al., 2006). As a result of PMS implementation it was
envisaged that better substantive performance would occur due to the expected benefits
of enhanced efficiency, accountability, and quality of public service delivery. For
example, Andrews et al. (2006) argued that PMS be included in both theoretical and
empirical models of public sector organisational performance. However, a different point
of view is offered by institutional theory, which argues that the main reason underlying
organisational change is gaining legitimacy rather than improving substantive
performance (Ashworth et al., 2009). Reasons for the shift in characteristics, therefore,
were not only due to rational or technical reasons, but often political or legitimising ones
(Ashworth et al., 2009; Scott, 1987).
3. Theoretical framework
Introduction
As a theoretical framework, institutional theory is a very broad concept and has many
strands that have evolved since the development of the theory in the early twentieth
century. The foundation of early institutionalism (old institutionalism) and its
application to organisations has been outlined by Selznick (1949, 1996). In contrast,
modern institutionalism (new institutionalism) emerged in the 1970s, as has been shown
in the work of Silverman (1971) followed by Meyer and Rowan (1977), Zucker (1977) and
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) who extended Meyer and Rowans (1977) concept of
isomorphism to encompass the organisational field. Selznick (1996) compares the old
with the new in an attempt to explain the differences such as the definition of
institutionalisation as well as promote the concept that institutional theory should be
able to embrace all the classifications and definitions embedded in both the old and
new. One major difference between the two is the view of the institution, with
researchers like DiMaggio and Powell (1991) espousing isomorphism and then the
doctrine of power, subordination and responsibility (Selznick, 1996, p. 272). More
recently, academics have considered institutional theory in varying forms: Modell (2004,
2005) and Tsamenyi et al. (2006) utilise the new institutional sociology to explain
organisational change; Brignall and Modell (2000) who consider that institutional
theory could explore organisational change with the addition of the interests and power
from various stakeholders; Thornton and Ocasio (2008) who contend that institutional
logics provide a bridge between some of the earlier institutional theories; Lounsbury
(2008) offers alternatives to isomorphism; Ashworth et al. (2009) shows the benefits
of using isomorphism as an explanator of change; and Collin et al. (2009) who suggest
integrating positive accounting theory with institutional theory.
It is obvious from this brief summary that institutional theory has many dimensions.
In the field of organizational study, the concepts of institution and institutionalization
have been defined in many different ways. One definition proposed by Scott (1987)
was institutionalisation as a process of creating reality. This definition is relevant
here as this form of institutional theory is based on a shared social reality which, in turn,
creates a human construction in social interaction. In other words, organisations
(councils) operating in the same field (local government) react similarly and, over time,
develop similar responses or adopt similar practices when facing certain situations.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 147) explain: Institutionalization is a rational response;
one of the key outcomes of institutionalization is a homogeneous organizational
structure. Debate around nuances associated with variations on the old and then
new institutional theory continue today (Falkman and Tagesson, 2008; Lounsbury,
2008; Ashworth et al., 2009). Although many of these nuances would have fitted with the
research objective here (for example, that proposed by Schneiberg and Soule (2005)
which considered political and cultural aspects of the diffusion process), the more
traditional form of institutional isomorphism was used to inform the instrument and its
subsequent analysis. As a developing country, in many ways Indonesia is still in its
infancy in regards to the development of PMS particularly during the first wave of
reforms. Coercive and normative pressures played a role in the adoption process as will
be explained in the discussion section below.
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
265
PAR
24,3
266
Isomorphism
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) proposed that over time, in a well-established field,
organisations tend to move towards homogenisation, even though they show considerable
diversity at first. The term used that best describes the process of homogenisation is
isomorphism. Although there are said to be different types of isomorphism (Meyer and
Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), institutional isomorphism is used here. It is
a useful concept in an environment where politics and ceremony (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983, p. 150) are embedded in organizational life. Meyer and Rowan (1977, p. 348) argue
that isomorphism had three consequences for organisations:
(a) they incorporate elements which are legitimated externally, rather than in terms of
efficiency; (b) they employ external or ceremonial assessment criteria to define the value
of structural elements; and (c) dependence on externally fixed institutions reduces turbulence
and maintains stability.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified three isomorphic forces coercive, mimetic and
normative. Given this is not a longitudinal study, the first and latter isomorphic
pressures are considered for this project. Coercive isomorphism stems from political
influence and the pursuit of legitimacy. This pressure comes from both formal and
informal pressures from other organizations. Normative isomorphism, on the other
hand, is usually associated with professionalism and the way both formal and informal
collaboration can lead to more homogenisation of organisations.
Despite myriad views on other aspects of institutional theory and questions
regarding its applicability, institutional isomorphism is still being used successfully
worldwide (see for example, Tuttle and Dillard (2007) USA; Kim et al. (2009) Korea;
Arnaboldi et al. (2010) Italy).
Performance measurement and isomorphism
Over the years management control systems with performance measurement playing
an integral role, have been studied from functionalist, behavioural, interpretive and
critical perspectives. Recent studies, however, have been particularly influenced by
institutional theories (Berry et al., 2009). Studies that adopted this theory assumed that
organizations compete not only for resources and customers but also for political
power and institutional legitimacy. Institutional theory suggests that organizations
pursue legitimacy by conforming to isomorphic pressures in their environment
(Ashworth et al., 2009, p. 1). Therefore, from this perspective, the logics of change in
PMS are institutionalized into organizations by means of three processes: coercive,
mimetic, and normative (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
This study investigates the implementation of PMS in ILG and considers senior
finance officers perceptions of performance measurement within an institutional theory
framework. The way performance measurement is used within government may depend
on the power relationship between its constituents and itself (Pilcher and Dean, 2009).
Demonstrating this, Pilcher (2011, p. 368) examined local governments reporting under
a performance measurement regime designed to ensure councils performed or
perished. Brignall and Modell (2000, p. 282) also examined the implementation of PMS
and claimed that to extend previous research in the area, it was necessary to shift
the attention to the power and pressures exerted by different groups of stakeholders
and how these affect the use of performance information in organisations.
Hence, in a decentralised government, such as Indonesia, the central authority normally

has greater coercive power over local government than other constituents.
In Indonesia, the sources of isomorphic pressures potentially come from central
government via enactment of laws and regulations that will affect local government.
These regulations include Inpres No. 7/1999 that requires all government entities,
including local government, to report on performance to central government. This
coercive pressure tends to occur due to most local governments being heavily dependent
on central government for their financial resources or recognition via some award
system. Even though ILGs are required to submit performance reports to central
government, this does not mean that they actually use performance information in their
day-to-day management practices (as found by various authors, including, for example,
in a US study by de Lancer Julnes and Holzer (2001)). Therefore, an understanding of
factors influencing the development and use of performance measures is important.
The knowledge of these factors could be utilized to evaluate and improve future
government policy. Although policy adoption has been said to rely on factors from
rational and technocratic theory (de Lancer Julnes and Holzer, 2001, p. 693), actual
implementation is more complex and is influenced by political and cultural
considerations (de Lancer Julnes and Holzer, 2001, p. 693). Hence, this
study contributes to the literature and understanding by government policymakers
by considering factors associated with development and use of performance measures
in Indonesia.
The third of DiMaggio and Powells (1983) isomorphic pressures, but the second to
be used here, is normative isomorphism. This element of pressure is normally
developed by professional and occupational groups (Rahaman et al., 2004). Given the
low level of human resources capacity in ILGs, there has been a trend in the last decade
to give more attention to the education of government employees and managers. As the
demand emerged, many universities in Indonesia have offered programmes (degree and
non-degree) that are specially designed to respond to government employees and
managers needs. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argued that the more educated the
workforce becomes, in terms of academic qualification and participation in
professional and trade associations, the greater the extent to which the organization
becomes similar to other organizations in the field.
4. Research model and hypotheses formulation
The objective of this research is to develop a conceptual model that identifies the factors
that influence the development and use of performance indicators in ILG. The primary
research question is:
RQ1. What factors affect the development and use of performance indicators and
accountability practices in ILG?
The issues identified in previous studies were used to formulate the theoretical
framework described in Section 3 and secondary research questions that drive the
research:
RQ2. Do metric difficulties, technical knowledge, management commitment, and
legislative requirements influence the development and use of performance
indicators in ILG?
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
267
PAR
24,3
268
RQ3. Does institutional isomorphism exist in the development and use of PMS and
accountability practices in ILG?
The conceptual model outlined in this paper combines components of the accountability
model of Wang (2002) with the model of performance measurement from Cavalluzzo and
Ittner (2004). It is modified and extended here to not only fit within the ILG context but
also to be analysed within an institutional theory framework. Cavalluzzo and Ittners
(2004) study considered factors associated with performance measurement in the US
Government. Questions related to the first four dependent variables (described and
tabulated in Appendix 1) were adapted from their study with one major difference being
the modification of five items (1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 under development of indicators in
Appendix 2) to include a family of measures derived from the Indonesian LAKIP
guidelines. In regards to the final dependent variable external accountability Wangs
(2002) model (in itself a permutation of items from other sources) was used as a template
and the eight items from the performance accountability construct were adjusted to suit
the ILG context.
In regards to the five independent variables, questions were again adapted from
Cavalluzzo and Ittner (2004) for the first four variables whilst four items were taken
from Wang (2002) to measure the level of organisational capacity (the final independent
variable). Again, differences existed with the first relating to technical knowledge
which, although based on the training construct in Cavalluzzo and Ittner (2004),
differs in the areas it addresses so that it fits with the ILG environment (and, again,
LAKIP). Legislative requirements are also based on LAKIP. Combining components of
each of these two studies not only allowed for a comprehensive examination of factors
affecting the development and use of performance indicators, but also provided an
important aspect for ILG particularly within NPM being accountability. Hence,
all three research questions detailed above could be addressed.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model tested in this analysis and Appendix 1
contains a copy of the constructs used in the model.
The hypothesised relationships between the independent and dependent variables
are discussed in the following sections along with the hypotheses proposed.
Dependent variables
Development and use of performance indicators. Various studies regarding the use of
performance measurement conducted in local government suggest that the practice of
collecting performance indicators, at least at a rudimentary level, is fairly well
established in many countries, including the USA, the UK and Australia (Pilcher and
Dean, 2009). Despite this growing practice, previous studies found that the development
and use of performance indicators in the public sector is problematical with very few local
governments using performance indicators (Bellamy and Kluvers, 1995; Ammons, 1995).
As shown in Figure 1, the model includes five dependent variables:
(1) development of performance indicators;
(2) managerial use of indicators;
(3) higher use of indicators;
(4) internal accountability; and
(5) external accountability.
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
Metric
Difficulties
Development of
Indicator
Technical
Knowledge
269
Managerial Use
of Indicator
Internal
Accountability
Management
Commitment
Higher Use
of Indicator
External
Accountability
Legislative
Mandates
Organisational
Capacity
Notes:
P < 0.001 and P < 0.01;
P < 0.05;
no association
In this study, development, accountability and use of performance indicators are

assessed by asking respondents to answer a series of survey questions that refer to the
development and adoption of different types of performance measures used by the
organisation. The first construct reflects the extent of performance indicators
developed by ILG organisations. Managerial use of indicators refers to the extent to
which performance indicators are used by mid-level managers to manage the
organisation. Higher use of indicators refers to measures that are used by top-level
management to make funding decisions and manage high-level changes.
Accountability in local government is measured by financial and non-financial
performance indicators. The internal accountability construct determines the extent of
the accountability relationship between the supervisor and subordinate (for example,
in ILG between the general manager and the council members), whereas the external
accountability construct measures the extent of the relationship between ILG
organisations and their stakeholders (refer to Cheng (1994), for an example of the
myriad stakeholders associated with local government).
Figure 1.
Conceptual model
PAR
24,3
270
Independent variables
There were five independent variables identified within the model (Figure 1):
(1) metric difficulties;
(2) technical knowledge;
(3) management commitment;
(4) legislative requirement; and
(5) organisational capacity.
Metric difficulties. The first independent variable refers to measurability of organizational
output or outcome. In other words, it considers the ability to define and assess metrics
that capture desired actions and outcomes (Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004, p. 247). In public
sector organizations the complexity of programmes is not always the same. Some outputs
and effects are relatively easy to measure yet some are more difficult. For example, in
Indonesia, Mahmudi (2003) found that local government managers had difficulties
in determining higher level indicators such as outcome, benefit and impact, therefore in
practice they placed more weight on input measures rather than outcome measures. Given
the situation in Indonesia it is logical to expect that there will be a tendency in performance
measurement users to give more weight to the easy-to-measure indicators:
H1a. Development of performance indicators is negatively associated with metric
difficulties.
H1b. Managerial use of performance indicators is negatively associated with metric
difficulties.
H1c. Higher use of performance indicators is negatively associated with metric
difficulties.
Technical knowledge. An organizational factor that is expected to influence the
development and use of performance indicators is the extent to which training on related
knowledge is provided to support the implementation (Shields, 1995; Cavalluzzo and
Ittner, 2004). According to Sukarno (2006), a lack of understanding of systems designed
to support the implementation of performance indicators has impacted on their
development. Technical knowledge enables improvement in the ability of internal
stakeholders to understand and use PMS, and should positively improve the
development and use of performance indicators (de Lancer Julnes and Holzer, 2001;
Laurensius and Halim, 2005). Different types of efforts, from technical training to formal
degree programmes, have been undertaken in Indonesia to increase the knowledge of
government employees and officers. From this perspective, normative mechanisms as
suggested by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) may also take place in practice:
H2a. Development of performance indicators is positively associated with related
technical knowledge.
H2b. Managerial use of performance indicators is positively associated with related
H2c. Higher use of performance indicators is positively associated with related
Management commitment. Implementation of PMS in government requires changes

in the operation, personnel, structure, or even culture of the organization. It is important to
build high levels of commitment amount senior management first, followed by support
from middle managers and staff (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). de Lancer Julnes
and Holzer (2001) found that internal stakeholder support was positively related to the
adoption of PMS. As well, management also provides the political support needed to
encourage and motivate individuals who resist the innovation. In addition to financial
resources, time and personnel, the existence of internal commitment, especially by
top-level management within an organization, is required for the successful
implementation of performance reporting in Indonesia (Sukarno, 2006):
H3a. Development of performance indicators is positively associated with

management commitment.
H3b. Managerial use of performance indicators is positively associated with
H3c. Higher use of performance indicators is positively associated with
H3d. Internal accountability is positively associated with management commitment.
H3e. External accountability is positively associated with management commitment.
Legislative mandates. Institutional theory suggests that legislative mandates
(or regulation requirements) is an organizational factor that is relevant to the success
of reform implementation in government organizations (Brignall and Modell, 2000).
Furthermore, in an institutional environment such as ILG which primarily depends on
an external organization (i.e. central government) for its financial support, external
bodies have the authority to impose organizational practices on subordinate units.
Consequently, subordinate organizations will implement the required practices, but the
actual results tend to be superficial (Scott, 1987). The implementation process of Inpres
No. 7/1999 on accountability in Indonesia was highly centralistic. Cavalluzzo and Ittner
(2004) found that implementation of externally mandated PMS was merely executed to
meet legal requirements. This resulted in the measures having little influence on internal
operations. In other words, it was just more to conform than to perform (Barreto and
Baden-Fuller, 2006, p. 1559). From this perspective, coercive mechanisms as suggested
by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) may take place in practice:
H4a. Development of performance indicators is positively associated with
legislation requirements.
H4b. Managerial use of performance indicators is positively associated with
legislation requirements.
H4c. Higher use of performance indicators is positively associated with legislation
requirements.
H4d. Internal accountability is positively associated with legislation requirements.
H4e. External accountability is positively associated with legislation
requirements.
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
271
PAR
24,3
272
Organizational capacity. The final factor employed considers the impact of

organizational capacity/resources on accountability practices. Prior research found
that insufficient resources were often a cause of implementation failure (Ammons and
Rodrigues, 1986). The importance of capable staff in regard to the intensive use of
performance measurement information has been studied by researchers such as Wang
and Berman (2001). They found a positive relationship between staff competence and
performance measures (Wang and Berman, 2001).
Furthermore, van Dooren (2005) argued that lack of resources is an issue in performance
measurement practice. Laurensius and Halim (2005) found that in Indonesia resources
have a statistically significant effect on developing performance indicators. These findings
confirmed those of de Lancer Julnes and Holzer (2001) who claimed that committed
resources had a significant effect on the development of performance indicators:
H5d. Internal accountability is positively associated with organizational capacity.

H5e. External accountability is positively associated with organizational capacity.
5. Research method
Table I provides a summary of the proposed model variables and the number of items
used to measure each variable. The structural equation model offered here is divided
into two key components; the measurement model and the structural model. The
measurement model, or outer model, focuses on the relationship between the unobserved
latent variables that cannot be directly measured and the measurable items known as the
manifest variables (Hair et al., 2012; Chapman and Kihn, 2009). The structural model,
also known as the inner model, focuses on the hypothesised relationships or paths
between the latent variables (Hair et al., 2012). All of the measureable items used in this
research are classified as reflective indicators.
Survey
In September 2008, surveys were sent to senior finance officers who are responsible for
performance reporting in all local governments across Indonesia[2]. The constructs used
to develop the questionnaire were adapted from surveys used in Western countries
(Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004; Wang, 2002), hence all the questions needed to be translated
from English into Bahasa Indonesia. There are several techniques available with the
direct translation method, and a relatively simple and straightforward but effective
Table I.
Research model variables
Latent variable
Short code
Manifest variables
Development of indicator
Managerial use of indicator
Higher use of indicator
Internal accountability
External accountability
Metric difficulties
Technical knowledge
Management commitment
Legislative mandate
Organisational capacity
Dev
Muse
HUse
IAcc
EAcc
Met
Kno
Com
Leg
Cap
Dev1 to Dev7
MUse1 to Muse8
HUse1 to HUse3
IAcc1 to IAcc4
EAcc1 to EAcc8
Met1 to Met5
Kno1 to Kno5
Com1 to Com3
Leg1 to Leg2
Cap1 to Cap4
Total
No. of items
7
8
3
4
8
5
5
3
2
4
49
method was used here (Usunier, 1998). A qualified and experienced translator from
the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters was invited to
translate the questions and instructions used in the research instruments. To mitigate
the disadvantage of direct translation, the study conducted a pilot test to ensure that
a satisfactory level of reliability was achieved (Usunier, 1998).
As of 2008, there were in total 457 local governments within 33 provinces with a total
population of 230 million (Indonesian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Of these, 211 were
newly established as a result of the districts and cities separation process over the
previous five years. Table II presents the distribution of responses from the survey. Due
to invalid data, two responses were ineligible for further analysis and consequently only
98 usable responses (equivalent to a 21.4 per cent effective response rate) were analysed.
Among the respondents, 44 per cent were from Java with 56 per cent from
outer-Java. Most respondents (78 per cent) came from districts and only 22 per cent
came from cities. When comparing the response rate of local government by type, the
sample is fairly comparable with 21.5 per cent from districts and 23.2 per cent from
cities. With regard to location, there was only a 16.4 per cent response rate from
outer-Java, whilst that from Java was 38.3 per cent. The relatively low response rate can
be explained by two factors. First, and the most likely reason, was the lack of
experience in performance reporting of the 211 newly established local governments.
This was supported by the fact that almost all responses were from local governments
in existence long before the reform era (old local governments). Second, anecdotally,
very low responses are normally expected from local governments in outer-Java.
To ensure no response bias, the 14 late responses were compared to the 84 earlier
responses using the Mann-Whitney test (Field, 2009). Analysis revealed that for all
variables employed the mean rank between earlier and later responses was not
significantly different.
Demographic information of the respondents is summarized in Appendix 2.
One point worth highlighting is that only 9 per cent of the respondents were female and
89 per cent were male (2 per cent missing). These figures are representative of the
population of the study given the fact that the percentage of female senior finance
officers in Indonesian civil servants is only 9.5 per cent.
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
273
6. PLS analysis and results

SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle et al., 2005) and SPSS 18 were used to assess the quality of the
survey data and analyse the research model proposed. SmartPLS is a second
Sent (457)
Frequency
Location
In-Java
Outer-Java
Type
Districts
Cities
Received (100)
Frequency
%
Response rate (21.9%) (%)
115
342
25.2
74.8
44
56
44.0
56.0
38.3
16.4
362
95
79.2
20.8
78
22
78.0
22.0
21.5
23.2
Note: Due to invalid data, two responses were excluded and 98 were further analysed
Table II.
Distribution of responses
PAR
24,3
274
generation structural equation modelling technique that has been used in a number of
accounting studies (see Hall (2008), for a list of studies). It is particularly suited to this
study because of the small sample size and complexity of the proposed model
(Hair et al., 2012). Several authors, including Barclay et al. (1995), suggest the sample
size should be no lower than ten times the number of items within the most complex
construct of the model tested. Based on this rule, the sample size for this study would
need to be a minimum 80 cases (n 8 items related to managerial use of indicator and
external accountability by ten). Here there are 98 valid cases in this study satisfying
the requirement for a sound PLS analysis. One limitation of this rule is that it does not
consider factors such as size and reliability. Such factors are discussed shortly. What it
does do is provide an estimate of the minimum sample size requirements and thus
has been used by many for robust PLS estimations (Hair et al., 2012).
Data examination
Scanning of data on a line-by-line basis confirmed the absence of errors and the data set
was ready for further SmartPLS procedures. As PLS regression analysis does not
require the data to be normally distributed (Chin et al., 2003), tests for normality were not
necessary. As well, goodness-of-fit measures were not appropriate here. Instead, similar
to the process used in prior PLS research, fit was evaluated by the overall incidence of
significant relationships between constructs and the explained variance of the
dependent variables (Chapman and Kihn, 2009; Chenhall, 2005).
Five exogenous (dependent) variables and five endogenous (independent) variables
were employed in the model. Research indicates that a minimum of two indicators
(i.e. questions) are needed to measure a construct (Kline et al., 1998; Rahim et al., 2001).
In this research, the number of indicators used to measure each of the model variables
ranged from two to eight, with only one variable (legislative mandates) having the
minimum of two indicators.
Convergent validity
The measurement model of PLS analysis consisted of two phases: convergent validity
followed by discriminant validity. The first phase assessed the models convergent
validity using two measures: individual item reliability and internal consistency
(Santosa et al., 2005). Individual item reliability measures the convergence of each
indicator variable on its associated construct. Item reliability is assessed by examining
the loading (i.e. correlations) of the indicator with their respective construct.
Convergence, then, is established by comparing the loadings with a certain benchmark.
All indicator loadings used in this research were above the minimum requirement (0.4)
suggested by Igbaria et al. (1997) and Hair et al. (2006).
The second convergent validity measure considers the internal consistency of
constructs. Composite reliability was used (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) as it is considered
superior to the traditional measure of consistency (Cronbachs a) because it does not
depend on the number of indicators. Adequate reliability is gained when composite
reliability value is greater than 0.5. Here, all the constructs exhibited adequate reliability.
Fornell and Larcker (1981) also suggest that convergent validity can be determined by
using a more conservative test, which is by considering the average variance extracted
(AVE). AVE should equal or exceed 0.5 to be judged adequate and again all constructs
presented here meet this requirement (Table III).
Construct
Composite reliability
Cronbachs a a
AVE
0.904
0.926
0.912
0.863
0.955
0.926
0.860
0.933
0.925
0.904
0.876
0.908
0.858
0.791
0.946
0.901
0.793
0.892
0.838
0.876
0.574
0.609
0.777
0.625
0.726
0.716
0.558
0.823
0.861
0.574
Development of indicator
Managerial use of indicator
Higher use of indicator
Internal accountability
External accountability
Metric difficulties
Technical knowledge
Management commitment
Legislative mandate
Organizational capacity
Note: aPresented only for comparative purposes
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
275
Table III.
Internal consistency
and AVE
Discriminant validity
At construct level, discriminant validity is adequate when the variance shared
between a construct and any other construct in the model is less than the variance
that construct shared with its indicators (Fornell, 1982; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Regarding indicator level validity, Barclay et al. (1995) suggest that no indicator
variable should load more highly on another construct than it does on the construct it
is supposed to measure. Within SmartPLS, a technique known as cross loading of
constructs is used to test the discriminant validity at both indicator and construct
level. Table IV shows the results of the correlation of the constructs for each of the
model variables.
Table IV presents the correlation matrix of the construct and the square root of
AVE (in italics). Previous literature recommends that these tests are best tabulated as
in Table IV because the off-diagonal items (correlation of constructs) must be less than
or equal to the bolded diagonal items (square root of the AVE) in the corresponding
rows and columns (Barclay et al., 1995; Gefen et al., 2000). Table IV shows that
diagonal values are greater than the off-diagonal values in their corresponding rows
and columns, therefore there should be no issues with discriminant validity of
the constructs.
Cap
Cap
Com
Dev
EAcc
HUse
IAcc
Kno
Leg
MUse
Met
Com
Dev
EAcc
HUse
IAcc
Kno
Leg
MUse
Met
0.758
0.390
0.907
0.238
0.581
0.758
0.491
0.614
0.483
0.852
0.224
0.490
0.501
0.424
0.881
0.275
0.620
0.442
0.642
0.644
0.790
0.339
0.516
0.513
0.528
0.361
0.466
0.747
0.189
0.505
0.510
0.491
0.361
0.507
0.515
0.928
0.179
0.732
0.652
0.545
0.608
0.552
0.556
0.546
0.781
0.073 2 0.231 2 0.280 2 0.069 2 0.109 2 0.114 2 0.172 2 0.043 2 0.252 0.846
Note: Italicised diagonal are the square root of AVE
Table IV.
Correlation of constructs
and the square root
of AVE
PAR
24,3
276
Structural model assessment

The structural model focuses on the hypothesized relationships or paths between the
latent variables (Hair et al., 2006). A structural model can be used to draw conclusions
about the significance of the relationship between constructs and to comment on the
predictive power of the model proposed.
Given the fact that SmartPLS does not assume a normal distribution of data, it is
inappropriate to use traditional tests to ascertain the statistical significance between
constructs (Chin and Newsted, 1999). Instead, scholars of PLS have developed two
nonparametric approaches to test the relationship between variables; either jackknife
or bootstrap techniques (Gefen et al., 2000; Santosa et al., 2005). In this study bootstrap
was used as it is considered to be a more sophisticated approach than jackknife
(Chin, 1998). It provides two measures of the structural model: a t-value (similar to the
t-test) and R 2 (interpreted similarly to the traditional multiple regressions analysis).
The predictive power of the research model can be assessed by using R 2 stemmed
from the output of the bootstrap. Although prior research has confirmed the robustness
of using PLS for non-normal data, it has still been raised by some that highly skewed
data can increase bootstrap standard errors. However, findings by Hair et al. (2012),
determined that reporting the extent to which data are non-normal is not often done by
researchers and those studies that do show that there is very little evidence of
significant differences. Table V shows the R 2 values for each of the dependent
variables in the model.
As indicated, R 2 values range from 0.265 to 0.607. The strongest R 2 value is that of
managerial use of indicator (0.607) which indicates that 60.7 per cent of use of indicators
for managerial level purposes can be explained by the constructs used in this model.
The second strongest is for external accountability (0.497), while the lowest is that of
higher use of indicator (0.265). All R 2 values meet the 0.10 minimum limit suggested by,
for example, Santosa et al. (2005). The path coefficient results are shown in Table VI.
The results range from the weakest of only 0.002 (for Met ! HUse) to the strongest of
0.529 (for Com ! MUse).
Hypothesis testing
To test the hypotheses, it was necessary to interpret the construct equations with standard
errors and test statistics. The construct equations measure the extent to which one factor
relates to another, that is, the structural path coefficient and t-values between
hypothesized constructs, reflecting direct relationships (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996).
These path coefficients and associated t-values identify and demonstrate the direction and
Table V.
R 2 values
Construct
R 2a
Development of indicator (Dev)

Managerial use of indicator (MUse)
Higher use of indicator (HUse)
Internal accountability (IAcc)
External accountability (EAcc)
0.455
0.607
0.265
0.437
0.497
Notes: a0.67 substantial, 0.33 moderate and 0.19 weak

Source: Henseler et al. (2009)
Hypothesis
Relationship
A. Development of indicator
H1a
Met ! Dev
H2a
Kno ! Dev
H3a
Com ! Dev
H4a
Leg ! Dev
B. Managerial use of indicator
H1b
Met ! Muse
H2b
Kno ! Muse
H3b
Com ! Muse
H4b
Leg ! Muse
C. Higher use of indicator
H1c
Met ! HUse
H2c
Kno ! HUse
H3c
Com ! HUse
H4c
Leg ! HUse
D. Internal accountability
H3d
Com ! IAcc
H4d
Leg ! IAcc
H5d
Cap ! IAcc
E. External accountability
H3e
Com ! EAcc
H4e
Leg ! EAcc
H5e
Cap ! EAcc
Sign.
Coeff.
t-value
20.162
0.195
0.322
0.240
1.956 *
2.224 *
2.534 *
2.735 * *
20.092
0.171
0.529
0.187
1.500
2.077 *
7.243 * * *
2.346 *
0.002
0.108
0.377
0.115
0.020
0.854
3.498 * * *
0.987
0.472
0.261
0.042
3.621 * * *
2.298 *
0.346
0.374
0.245
0.299
3.449 * * *
2.618 * *
2.398 *
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001
strength of each relationship and, as indicated, are obtained by using the bootstrapping
technique in SmartPLS software. The t-values (robust scores) need to be significant to
support the hypothesized paths and should be above 1.96 or 2.56 for alpha protection level
of 0.05 and 0.01, respectively (Gefen et al., 2000, p. 35). Using this criterion, the results for
the structural relationships are reported in Table VI followed by an examination of
implications for the hypotheses. The discussion of the results appears in Section 7 with
Figure 1 (reviewed in Section 4) providing a graphical representation of the results.
Development of indicators (H1a-H4a)
The results show a strong positive association between the development of indicators in
ILG and performance reporting legislation (H4a, p , 0.01). In other words, as new
regulations related to performance reporting emerged, ILG responded promptly by
providing more indicators as required by those regulations. Further, the development of
performance indicators in ILG increased as officers and staff gained more related
technical knowledge offering support for H2a ( p , 0.05). The results also show support
for H1a ( p , 0.05) and H3a ( p , 0.05). This indicates that metric difficulties are
negatively related to the development of performance indicators and that management
commitment from ILG managers is positively related to the development of indicators.
Managerial use of indicators (H1b-H4b)
The results reveal that the proposed relationship between management commitment
and managerial use of performance indicators (H3b) is highly significant ( p , 0.001)
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
277
Table VI.
Summary of hypothesis
testing results
PAR
24,3
278
and therefore supported. This result clearly indicates that the use of performance
indicators in ILG at managerial level is highly influenced by the commitment of ILGs
top-level management. The results also show the proposed relationships between
legislative requirements, technical knowledge and managerial use of performance
indicators (H4b and H2b) are both moderately significant ( p , 0.05) and hence
supported. This implies that the extent of use of performance indicators by mid-level
management is affected by the level of their technical knowledge and legislative
requirements. The greater their level of knowledge, the more extensive the use of
performance indicators. The results determine that there is no support for H1b,
indicating that using performance indicators at the managerial level is not associated
with the problems that exist in the process of developing performance indicators.
In other words, and supporting prior literature (Mahmudi, 2003), once indicators
become available, ILGs managers just use them without a need to consider the
problems that existed when they were developed.
Higher use of indicators (H1c-H4c)
The results reveal a strong positive association between the use of indicators at a higher
level and the commitment of ILG management (H3c, p , 0.001). It is not surprising that
the results provide no support for H1c. This suggests that higher level ILG managers
simply use the indicators that are provided to them. As for Cavalluzzo and Ittners (2004)
findings, this is logical, given that in government (or in this case ILG), the responsibility of
developing performance indicators is usually that of senior finance officers (or equivalent).
Further, results offered no support for H2c, indicating that technical knowledge is not a
determinant in the use of performance indicators by higher level ILG managers.
Finally, the results provided no support for H4c implying that, unlike at managerial level,
the use of indicators in ILG at the higher level is unaffected by regulatory
mandates received by ILG. It seems that regulations related to performance reporting
(mainly imposed by central government) had no impact on level of use of indicators at a
higher level. This was inconsistent with the finding in H4b. ILG managers at a higher level
respond differently to the regulatory mandates than those at managerial level.
Internal accountability (H3d-H5d )
The results provide strong support for H3d ( p , 0.001) and moderate support for H4d
( p , 0.05). This implies that the extent of internal accountability is influenced by both
the level of commitment by ILG officers and the amount of legislative mandates
imposed by central government. The results offer no support for H5d suggesting that
organizational capacity (i.e. management information systems and staff capability)
had no association with the extent of internal accountability practiced in ILGs.
External accountability (H3e-H5e)
First, similar to the results for H3d, strong support for H3e ( p , 0.001) indicated that
there was a positive association between external accountability and management
commitment. This implies that the extent of external accountability provided by ILGs
to their stakeholders was affected by managements commitment to implementing
PMS. The results also provide support for H4e ( p , 0.01) indicating that legislation
mandates had an impact on the level of external accountability of ILG. It also suggests
that the mandatory nature of performance reporting regulations did ensure
improvement of external accountability of ILG. Finally, and contrary to the finding in

H5d, the results provide moderate support for H5e ( p , 0.05). In other words,
organizational capacity had an impact on the level of external accountability of the ILG.
The higher the capacity of ILGs, the higher the level of external accountability.
7. Discussion
Performance measurement
PLS analysis, as shown in the previous section, provided significant results with support
for many of the hypotheses. As expected, metric difficulties had a negative association
with development of performance indicators, while the other three factors technical
knowledge, management commitment, and legislative mandates had a positive
significant association. These supported findings in Cavalluzzo and Ittner (2004). For
example, in their study, metric difficulties caused significant problems with the extent of
performance measurement development whilst their equivalent to management
commitment, legislative mandates and technical knowledge had a positive association
with development. Findings here also revealed that the variable legislative mandates
had a strong association with development of performance indicators. This indicates the
potential existence of coercive isomorphism in ILG as management tend to be more
concerned about legislative requirements than other more technical (metric difficulties
and technical knowledge) and normative (management commitment) factors. Bovaird
and Downe (2006) found that organisations within the field of UK local government were
homogenised in their adaptation of externally mandated institutional pressures. Here,
there is an indication that organisations in the field of ILGs developed performance
indicators more to fulfil regulatory requirements than to make their organization
more effective and efficient. This is also consistent with other prior research on coercive
isomorphism such as that by Arnaboldi et al. (2010) who found that the decision by
government to adopt performance appraisal systems was forced on them by legislation,
raising the presence of coercive isomorphism. As well, it supports our premise above
that one of the main reasons for implementing PMS is to gain legitimacy rather than
improve performance (Meier et al., 2006; Ashworth et al., 2009).
Contrary to expectation, H1b and H1c that metric difficulties have a negative
association with the use of performance indicators (both at managerial and higher level)
was not supported by the results. This finding indicates that issues related to
measurability did not affect the use of performance indicators by ILG managers one way
or the other. Mid- and top-level managers were impervious to how indicators were
developed and they only used indicators for formal reporting (legislative requirements)
or political/ceremonial speeches both reasons indicate strong support for the presence
of coercive isomorphism (and also supporting prior literature relating to isomorphism
and political concerns, such as de Lancer Julnes and Holzer (2001). Findings also imply
that metric difficulties are more troublesome when developing indicators than when
actually using them. Performance measurement was measured in two stages
development first and use second. Given this sequence, it is not surprising that the
problem with measurability did not affect the use of indicators as at this stage the
indicators had already been developed.
Whilst support was found for H2b, that the use of indicators at managerial level was
positively associated with technical knowledge, it was not the case for the use at higher
level (H2c). The implication here is that issues related to technical knowledge are more
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
279
PAR
24,3
280
relevant at managerial levels than for higher levels. This may indicate that at managerial
level ILG officers are more concerned with technical indicators while higher level officers
normally use more macro (high level) indicators which are less technical, thus easier to
comprehend. Furthermore, technical training on performance measurement for ILG is
usually aimed at managerial and operational levels, not higher level managers. This,
in turn, provides support for normative isomorphism. Widespread training by audit
firms and universities, and the sharing of this knowledge, assist ILGs to maintain
legitimacy. This dissemination of information is most common at managerial level.
In line with expectations, the positive association between management commitment
and use of indicators both at managerial and higher levels (H3b and H3c) was highly
supported. This finding is not surprising given organizational commitment is extremely
valuable. What was surprising, given Cavalluzzo and Ittners (2004) findings, was that
use at managerial level was supported as their study only determined support for higher
level use. Other literature, such as Fernandez and Rainy (2006), contends that successful
change relies on participation by employees along with direction and commitment from
management. de Lancer Julnes and Holzer (2001) also found that commitment has a
positive impact on the use of indicators. In a country (Indonesia) that is relatively
new to a decentralised form of government, commitment to use at both levels is an
encouraging finding.
With regard to legislative mandates, the results were mixed. Support was found for
H4b that managerial use of indicators was positively associated with legislative
mandates, but that was not the case for higher use (H4c). As in technical knowledge, the
concern about regulation is also more relevant at managerial level than at the higher
level. Again this differed from Cavalluzzo and Ittner (2004), where there was no
association found for use at either level. Since the emergence of regulation on LAKIP in
1999, more technical indicators were expected to be developed and then reported in an
ILG performance report. This requirement placed more pressure on managerial level
officers who deal with the use of technical indicators than higher level officers who are
expected to use higher level indicators that, again, are less technical. With pressure from
central government to comply with legislative requirements linked to funding, coercive
pressure is felt by those at managerial level.
Accountability
The research found that the existence of leadership was critical to the success of
developing and using performance indicators in ILG. It is generally expected that the
success of performance measurement implementation, in turn, will increase an
organizations internal and external accountability. Both internal and external
accountability were associated with management commitment. Wang (2002) found
associations between internal accountability and leadership or management commitment,
however, not between external accountability and management commitment. Support
here was also found for the variable legislative mandate. This indicates that one important
factor that makes ILG discharge accountability is legislative requirement. The pressures
from central government were still strong despite decentralization being in place for
a decade. This indicates the potential existence of coercive isomorphism.
With regard to organizational capacity (i.e. MIS, human resources capability), results
were mixed which was unexpected. Organisational capacity is crucial to ensure
success of an organisation, including achieving accountability goals. Strong support for
the relationship between organisational capacity and accountability was consequently

expected however, this was not found to be the case here. Organisational capacity had
a strong relationship with external accountability but not with internal accountability.
One explanation for this inconsistency is that it does not require many resources to
increase internal accountability, but rather it needs commitment from both the leader
and the subordinates. Therefore, any ILG, regardless of its organisational capacity,
has the potential to improve internal accountability within its organisation. Conversely,
it is not an easy task for many ILGs to fulfil external accountability. Discharging
accountability to external stakeholders is risky and more complex than that to internal
management. Accountability can be perceived by stakeholders to exist when human
resources receive further training and education. Interacting on a professional basis with
others at this training coincides with normative isomorphism.
8. Conclusion
From the study we can answer RQ1 that in an ILG environment there is evidence that
four organizational factors (metric difficulties, technical knowledge, management
commitment, and legislative requirements) have an impact on the development of
performance indicators. Of these four factors, legislative requirement has the strongest
effect. This implies that the main reason for developing indicators is simply to comply
with central government regulation. In other words, the motivation is more about
conformance than performance, and coercive pressure is strongest from central
government. This, and the further suggestions of isomorphic pressures discussed
below, helps answer RQ2 implying that ILGs are not using the indicators effectively.
Second, metric difficulties is the only factor that has no effect on using performance
indicators at managerial level. Technical knowledge through formal (e.g. training) or
informal (e.g. professional group meetings) means had an impact on managerial level
officers use of performance indicators. Normative isomorphism played a positive role in
the understanding and sharing of knowledge at this level. On the other hand, management
commitment had an effect on the use of performance indicators at both levels, managerial
and higher level ILG managers. This was contrary to much of the prior literature and an
important contribution of this research study. Third, all three independent variables
tested management commitment, legislative requirement, and organizational
capacity are evidenced to have influence on external accountability. Similar to the
results achieved analysing the use of performance indicators, in regard to both internal
and external accountability the strongest factor is management commitment.
Institutions need to confirm their legitimacy to their various stakeholders and hence
top-level managers in ILG need to give their full commitment to using PMS.
If stakeholders, whether they be the citizens or central government, can see ILGs are
committed to using performance indicators, funding and recognition via awards can be
forthcoming. As indicated earlier, Meyer and Rowan (1977) claimed that isomorphism
had three consequences for organisations; those three consequences have been found to
be relevant here. First, PMS was implemented so that the ILG could be legitimated
externally; second, the fact that central government based their funding and award
criteria on the submission of the performance report influenced the ILGs decision to
implement; and finally, implementation meant being part of an organisational field that
was dependent on central government and hence this reduced turbulence and
maintained stability (Meyer and Rowan, 1977, p. 348).
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
281
PAR
24,3
282
Academically, the model as adapted and modified for this study can now be used
in other developing countries to analyse similar factors. As well, with its unique use of
SmartPLS in the given context, this paper lays the foundation for further exploration of
other theories. In saying that, in this particular environment, institutional isomorphism
provided an excellent lens through which to explore and explain the possible motivations
behind the development and use of PMS. Although there have been many recent
suggestions (Schneiberg and Soule, 2005; Falkman and Tagesson, 2008; Lounsbury,
2008) of other ways institutional theory can be relevant, this should not detract from the
work of the early authors such as Meyer and Rowan (1977) or DiMaggio and Powell (1983,
1991) and the strength of institutional isomorphism as shown here.
Practically, a major contribution of this research is that it provides an understanding
of factors influencing the development and use of performance measures in Indonesia
and, in particular, in local government. Cavalluzzo and Ittner (2004) found that
implementation of externally mandated PMS in US Government organisations was used
merely to fulfil regulatory requirements, and tended to be symbolic in nature, without
substantive impact on internal operations. The Indonesian Government at every tier has
embraced PMS and reported performance since the reform process began. Findings here
will assist local and central government, accountants, auditors, professional bodies and
universities to name a few have more of an understanding of the factors influencing
the development and use of performance measures in Indonesia. Further, they will assist
with future research in other developing countries. The knowledge of these factors
could, in turn, be utilised to evaluate and improve or even formulate future government
policy. Local government is the government closest to the citizens and provision of
quality services as measured by effective performance indicators would be an ideal
outcome. Finally, to enhance external accountability more interaction and/or training
could assist stakeholders (putting normative isomorphism to good use) to have more of
an understanding of PMS, and accountability may not then be such an onerous
requirement. Future research will consider how performance indicators are used by the
various ILG stakeholders. Another area of future research is to consider why in ILG
management commitment had an effect on the use of performance indicators by both
levels of managers. Is ILG doing something other countries/organisations could adapt?
Finally, future research will explore the development and use of PMS in other developing
nations and whether alternative theories can provide as rich results as offered here.
Notes
1. A list of acronyms is available in Appendix 3.
2. If you would like a copy of the survey please contact the author.
References
Ammons, D.N. (1995), Overcoming the inadequacies of performance measurement in local
government: the case of libraries and leisure services, Public Administration Review,
Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Ammons, D.N. and Rodrigues, A. (1986), Performance appraisal practices for upper management
in city governments, Public Administration Review, September/October, pp. 460-7.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. and Walker, R. (2006), Strategy content and organizational performance:
an empirical analysis, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, pp. 52-63.
Arnaboldi, M., Azzone, G. and Palermo, T. (2010), Managerial innovations in central

government: not wrong, but hard to explain, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 78-93.
Ashworth, R., George, B. and Delbridge, R. (2009), Escape from the iron cage? Organizational
change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 165-87.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), The partial least squares (PLS) approach to
causal modelling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration, Technology
Studies (Special Issue on Researh Methodology), Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Barreto, I. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2006), To conform or to perform? Mimetic behaviour,
legitimacy-based groups and performance consequences, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1559-81.
Bellamy, S. and Kluvers, R. (1995), Program budgeting in Australian local government: a study
of implementation and outcomes, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 39-56.
Berry, A.J., Coad, A.F., Harris, E.P., Otley, D.T. and Stringer, C. (2009), Emerging themes in
management control: a review of recent literature, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Boston, J. (2011), Basic NPM ideas and their development, in Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (Eds),
The Ashgate Research Companian to NPM, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 17-32.
Bovaird, T. and Downe, J. (2006), N generations of reform in UK local government: compliance
and resistance to institutional pressures, International Public Management Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 429-54.
Brignall, S. and Modell, S. (2000), An institutional perspective on performance measurement and
management in the new public sector, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11,
pp. 281-306.
Cavalluzzo, K.S. and Ittner, C.D. (2004), Implementing performance measurement innovations:
evidence from government, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 29 Nos 3/4,
pp. 243-67.
Chapman, C.S. and Kihn, L.-A. (2009), Information system integration, enabling control and
performance, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34, pp. 151-69.
Cheng, R.H. (1994), A politico-economic model of government accounting policy choice,
Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol. 8, pp. 39-68.
Chenhall, R.H. and Smith, K.L. (2007), Multiple perspectives of performance measures,
European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 266-82.
Cheung, A. (2011), NPM in Asian countries, in Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (Eds),
The Ashgate Research Companian to NPM, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 131-44.
Chin, W.W. (1998), Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 22 No. 1, p. 1.
Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using partial least squares, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-41.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo
simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-217.
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
283
PAR
24,3
284
Collin, S.O.Y., Tagesson, T., Andersson, A., Cato, J. and Hansson, K. (2009), Explaining the
choice of accounting standards in municipal corporations: positive accounting theory and
institutional theory as competitive or concurrent theories, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, Vol. 20, pp. 141-74.
de Lancer Julnes, P. and Holzer, M. (2001), Promoting the utilization of performance measures in
public organizations: an empirical study of factors affecting adoption and
implementation, Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 693-708.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48,
pp. 147-60.
Falkman, P. and Tagesson, T. (2008), Accrual accounting does not necessarily mean accrual
accounting: factors that counteract compliance with accounting standards in Swedish
municipal accounting, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp. 271-83.
Fernandez, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2006), Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 168-76.
Field, A. (2009), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage, London.
Fornell, C. (1982), A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis, Praeger, New York, NY.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000), Structural equation modeling and
regression: guidelines for research practice, Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 2-76.
Gianakis, G.A. (2002), The promise of public sector performance measurement: anodyne or
placebo?, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 34-64.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. and Mena, J. (2012), An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40, pp. 414-33.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hall, M. (2008), The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity,
psychological empowerment and managerial performance, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 141-63.
Hood, C. (1991), A public management for all seasons, Public Administration, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 3-19.
Hood, C. (1995), New public management in the 1980s: variation and a theme, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 20, pp. 93-109.
Hood, C., James, O., Jones, G., Scott, C. and Travers, T. (1998), Regulation inside government:
where new public management meets the audit explosion, Public Money & Management,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 61-8.
Igbaria, M., Zinatelly, N., Cragg, P. and Cavaye, A.L.M. (1997), Personal computing acceptance
factors in small firms: a structural equation model, MIS Quarterly, September, pp. 279-305.
Indonesian Bureau of Statistics (2011), Badan pusat statistik republik Indonesia, available at:
www.bps.go.id (accessed 3 February).
Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan, R.S. (1987), Relevance Lost The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S. (1983), Measuring manufacturing performance: a new challenge for managerial
accounting research, The Accounting Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-9.
Kihn, L.-A. (2010), Performance outcomes in empirical management accounting research: recent
developments and implications for future research, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 468-92.
Kim, S., Kim, H.K. and Lee, H. (2009), An institutional analysis of an e-government system for
anti-corruption: the case of OPEN, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 42-50.
Kline, J.P., Schwartz, G.E., Allen, J.J.B. and Dikman, Z.V. (1998), Perceptual and
electroencephalographic registration of masked emotional words in defensiveness:
an exploratory study, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 499-512.
Lapsley, I. (2008), The NPM agenda: back to the future, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 77-96.
Lapsley, I. and Pallot, J. (2000), Accounting, management and organizational change:
a comparative study of local government, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 213-29.
Laurensius, F. and Halim, A. (2005), Pengaruh Faktor-Faktor Rasional, Politik dan Kultur
Organisasi terhadap Pemanfaatan Informasi Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah Daerah,
Proceedings of the 8th National Accounting Symposium in SNA VIII, Solo,
15-16 September, 2013, pp. 774-90, available at: http://blog.umy.ac.id/akbar/2010/12/02/
simposium-nasional-akuntansi-sna-ke-8/ (accessed 20 August 2011).
LOGOTRI (2003), Performance Measurement and Management in Asian-Pasific
Local Government, a Discussion Paper and Investigation into Future Directions, Centre
for Local Government at the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, 23 September.
Lounsbury, M. (2008), Institutional rationality and practice variation: new directions in the
institutional analysis of practice, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33,
pp. 349-61.
McLeod, R. (2005), Private sector lessons for public sector reform in Indonesia, working paper,
Australian National University, Canberra, 6 December.
Mahmudi, A. (2003), Pengukuran Kinerja di Instansi Pemerintah Daerah, Universitas Gadjah
Mada, Yogyakarta.
Mahsun, M. (2005), Analisis performance expectation gap antara public servants dengan direct
users kantor pemadam kebakaran di daerah istimewa Yogyakarta, Jurnal Akuntansi dan
Keuangan Sektor Publik, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 156-84.
Meier, K.J., OToole, L.J. Jr, Boyne, G.A. and Walker, R.M. (2006), Strategic management and the
performance of public organizations: testing venerable ideas against recent theories,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 17, pp. 357-77.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-63.
Micheli, P. and Neely, A. (2010), Performance measurement in the public sector in England:
searching for the golden thread, Public Administration Review, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 591-600.
Modell, S. (2004), Performance measurement myths in the public sector: a research note,
Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Modell, S. (2005), Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management
accounting research: an assessment of validity implications, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 231-54.
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
285
PAR
24,3
286
Neely, A. (1999), The performance measurement revolution: why now and where next,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205-28.
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Pilcher, R. (2011), Implementing IFRS in local government institutional isomorphism as NPM
goes mad?, Local Government Studies, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 367-89.
Pilcher, R. and Dean, G. (2009), Consequences and costs of financial reporting compliance for
local government, European Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 725-44.
Rahaman, A.S., Lawrence, S. and Roper, J. (2004), Social and environmental reporting at
the VRA: institutionalised legitimacy or legitimation crisis?, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Rahim, M.S., Antonioni, D. and Psenicka, C. (2001), A structural equations model of leader
power, subordinates styles of handling conflict, and job performance, The International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 191-211.
Riandi, P. (2003), Faktor-faktor Penghambat Implementasi SAKIP di Lingkungan Propinsi
Kalimantan Timur, available at: www.bpkp.go.id (accessed 11 March 2006).
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta, available at: www.
smartpls.de (accessed 28 January 2009).
Romzek, B. and Dubnick, M. (1998), Accountability, in Shafritz, J.M. (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, Westview Press, New York, NY, pp. 6-11.
Santosa, P.I., Wei, K.-K. and Chan, C.C. (2005), User involvement and user satisfaction with
information-seeking activity, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 361-70.
Schneiberg, M. and Soule, S.A. (2005), Institutionalization as a contested, multilevel process: the
case of rate regulation in American Fire Insurance, in Davis, G.F., McAdam, D.,
Scott, W.R. and Zald, M.N. (Eds), Social Movements and Organization Theory, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 122-60.
Scott, R.W. (1987), The adolescence of institutional theory, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 493-511.
Selznick, P. (1949), TVA and the Grass Roots, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Selznick, P. (1996), Institutionalism old and new, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 270-7.
Shields, M.D. (1995), An empirical analysis of firms implementation experiences with
activity-based costing, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7, pp. 140-66.
Silverman, D. (1971), The Theory of Organizations: A Sociological Framework, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
Sukarno (2006), Akuntabilitas Kinerja: Sebuah Harapan?, available at: www.bpkp.go.id/warta/
index.php? view721 (accessed 28 August).
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed., Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
ter Bogt, H.J. (2004), Politicians in search of performance information? Survey research on Dutch
aldermens use of performance information, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 221-52.
Thornton, P. and Ocasio, W. (2008), Institutional logics, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K.
and Suddaby, R. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tsamenyi, M., Cullen, J. and Gonzalez, J.M.G. (2006), Changes in accounting and financial
information system in a Spanish electricity company: a new institutional theory analysis,
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 409-32.
Tuttle, B. and Dillard, J. (2007), Beyond competition: institutional isomorphism in US accounting
research, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 387-409.
Usunier, J.C. (1998), International and Cross-cultural Management Research, Sage, London.
van Dooren, W. (2005), What makes organizations measure? Hypotheses on the causes and
conditions for performance measurement, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 363-83.
Wang, X.H. (2002), Assessing administrative accountability, American Review of Public
Administration, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 350-70.
Wang, X.H. and Berman, E. (2001), Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties:
findings from a survey, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 403-28.
Zucker, L.G. (1977), The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 42, pp. 726-43.
Further reading
de Lancer Julnes, P. (2006), Performance measurement: an effective tool for government
accountability? The debate goes on, Evaluation, Vol. 12, p. 219.
Drucker, P.F. (1999), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Indonesian Government (1999), Laporan Akuntabilitas Kinerja Institusi Pemerintah/Government
Institution Accountability of Performance Report (LAKIP ) Presidential Instruction Inpres
No. 7/1999, Indonesian Government, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Wang, J. (2007), An alternative approach to conceptualizing interviews in HRD research,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 179.
(The Appendices follow overleaf.)
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
287
Table AI.
Constructs used
in the model
Dev1: input (i.e. labour, material)

Dev2: output (i.e. quantity of products or services provided)
Dev3: outcome (i.e. customer satisfaction)
Dev4: operating efficiency (i.e. cost/unit)
Dev5: benefit (i.e. public/citizen satisfaction)
Dev6: impact (i.e. achievement of social objectives)
Dev7: process (i.e. narrative analysis of performance)
Managerial use of
Muse1: setting strategy and program priorities
indicators
Muse2: allocating resources
Muse3: adopting new program approaches or changing work processes
Muse4: coordinating program efforts with other internal or external organisations
Muse5: refining program performance measures
Muse6: setting new or revising existing performance goals
Muse7: setting individual job expectations for government employees I manage or supervise
Muse8: rewarding government employees I manage or supervise
Higher use of
Huse1: performance measures from my activities are used to develop my LGs budget
indicators
Huse2: funding decisions for my activities are based on performance measures
Huse3: changes by management above my level are based on performance measures
Internal accountability IAcc1: officials at my level are held accountable for the results of their activities
IAcc2: employees in my LG receive positive recognition for helping the LG accomplish strategic goals
IAcc3: the individual I report to periodically reviews my activitys results with me
IAcc4: lack of incentives (e.g. reward, positive recognition) has hindered using performance information
External
EAcc1: organisation-wide policy priorities/goals
accountability
EAcc2: program goals and objectives
EAcc3: program functions and activities
EAcc4: program output measures
EAcc5: program outcome measures
EAcc6: program narrative performance information
EAcc7: trends of performance measures
EAcc8: comparisons of performance measures
(continued)
Development of
indicators
Items
288
No. Construct
PAR
24,3
Appendix 1
10
Legislative
requirements
Organisational
capacity
Management
commitment
Technical knowledge
Metric difficulties
No. Construct
Met1: difficulty determining meaningful measures

Met2: results of our program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) occurring too far in the future to be measured
Met3: difficulty distinguishing between the results produced by the program and results caused by other
factors
Met4: difficulty determining how to use performance information to improve the program
Met5: difficulty determining how to use performance information to set new or revise existing performance
goals
Kno1: I receive training on development and use of performance measures
Kno2: my staff receive training on development and use of performance measures
Kno3: I receive published information on how to develop performance measures
Kno4: my staff receive published information on how to develop performance measures
Kno5: my LG involve external experts or consultants in developing performance measures
Com1: my institutions top leadership demonstrate a strong commitment to achieving results
Com2: the lack of ongoing top executive commitment or support for using performance information to make
program/funding decisions hindered measuring performance or using performance information?
Com3: the lack of ongoing congressional commitment or support for using performance information to make
program/funding decisions hindered measuring performance or using performance information?
Leg1: I have been involved in my local authoritys effort in implementing LAKIP
Leg2: my staff has been involved in my local authoritys effort in implementing LAKIP
Cap1: management information systems
Cap2: performance-based budgeting
Cap3: capable staffs
Cap4: budgetary surplus
Items
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
289
Table AI.
PAR
24,3
Appendix 2
Characteristics
Gender
290
Age group
Education level
Field background
Work experience
Type
Table AII.
Demographic information
of respondents (n 98)
Location
Female
Male
Missing
,30
30-40
41-50
.50
Missing
Undergraduate
Post-graduate
Missing
Accounting
Others
Missing
,2
2-5
6-10
11-15
.15
Missing
District
City
In-Java
Outer-Java
Frequency
Percentage
9
87
2
1
12
36
44
5
33
63
2
2
87
9
1
3
6
32
43
13
76
22
43
55
9.2
98.8
2.0
1.0
12.2
36.7
44.9
5.1
33.7
64.3
2.0
2.0
88.8
9.2
1.0
3.1
6.1
32.7
43.9
13.3
77.6
22.4
43.9
56.1
Appendix 3. List of acronyms

AVE
average variance extracted
ILG
Indonesian local government
Inpres
Instruksi Presiden/Presidential Instruction
LAKIP
Laporan Akuntabilitas Kinerja Institusi Pemerintah/Government Institution
Accountability of Performance Report
LOGOTRI Local Government Training and Research Institute
NGO
non-government organisation
NPM
new public management
OLS
ordinary least squares
PLS
partial least squares
PMS
perforance measurement systems
SEM
structural equation modelling
Research model variables short codes
Dev development of indicator
Muse managerial use of indicator
Huse
IAcc
EAcc
Met
Kno
Com
Leg
Cap
higher use of indicator

internal accountability
external accountability
metric difficulties
technical knowledge
management commitment
legislative mandates
organisational capacity
About the authors

Dr Rusdi Akbar is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Economics at the Universitas Gadjah Mada
in Indonesia.
Dr Robyn Pilcher is an Associate Professor in the School of Accounting at Curtin University,
Australia. Robyn Pilcher is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: r.pilcher@curtin.
edu.au
Dr Brian Perrin is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Accounting at Curtin University,
Australia.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Performance
measurement in
Indonesia
291
This article has been cited by:
1. Rusdi Akbar, Robyn Ann Pilcher, Brian Perrin. 2015. Implementing performance measurement systems.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 12:1, 3-33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4 - Pengukuran Kinerja Sektor Publik

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

4 - Pengukuran Kinerja Sektor Publik

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pacific Accounting Review

Performance measurement in Indonesia: the case of local government

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Robyn Pilcher and Brian Perrin

School of Accounting, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

an individual or an agency is held to answer for performance that involves some

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Hence, in a decentralised government, such as Indonesia, the central authority normally

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

P < 0.001 and P < 0.01;

In this study, development, accountability and use of performance indicators are

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Management commitment. Implementation of PMS in government requires changes

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

H3a. Development of performance indicators is positively associated with

Organizational capacity. The final factor employed considers the impact of

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

H5d. Internal accountability is positively associated with organizational capacity.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

6. PLS analysis and results

Response rate (21.9%) (%)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Note: aPresented only for comparative purposes

Note: Italicised diagonal are the square root of AVE

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Structural model assessment

Development of indicator (Dev)

Notes: a0.67 substantial, 0.33 moderate and 0.19 weak

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

improvement of external accountability of ILG. Finally, and contrary to the finding in

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

the relationship between organisational capacity and accountability was consequently

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Arnaboldi, M., Azzone, G. and Palermo, T. (2010), Managerial innovations in central

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Dev1: input (i.e. labour, material)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Met1: difficulty determining meaningful measures

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

Appendix 3. List of acronyms

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 17:45 26 August 2015 (PT)

higher use of indicator

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Notes: Significant at: p , 0.05, p , 0.01 and * *p , 0.001