RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AUDITOR TEAM SATISFACTION UNIT TECHNICAL UNIT INSPECTORATE GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH
Idah Herliah* Diah Ekawati** Faculty of Public Health University of Indonesia; corespondence :
[email protected]
Introduction • BPKP survey in 2010-2011, about 94% of APIP are at the beginner level of ability that is not able to detect potential corruption of government budgets • Number of auditors in the Inspector General, 109 auditors (March, 2013) by the 1279 working unit of Ministry of Health • PKPT only taken 20 %. • In addition, there are efficiency budget guidance and supervision 2012-2013 about 10%, as a result the tasks and functions of IG is not ideal. • Schedule fact denseness cause auditors only get socialization so understanding of the program a priority less.
Objective : • Getting the relationship of the performs of the team the auditors and the level of satisfaction work unit on implement of an audit Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Health
Methodology: • Using a method of cross-sectional. • Source of research data obtained from the Inspector General's satisfaction survey. • Population and sample of this research is the entire Technical Implementation Unit (Technical Implementation Unit) / Vertical in the Ministry of Health as many as 172 work units. • Selection of Technical Implementation Unit as samples for technical implementation unit definitely get its budget will be audited every year.
Result:
Overview Satisfaction Unit Technical Implementation Unit not satisfied 11%
• Overview Satisfaction Unit Technical Implementation Unit • Overview Performance Auditor General Inspectorate Team
satisfied 89% Overview Performance Auditor General Inspectorate Team not good 12%
good 88%
• Relations Auditor Team Performance and Satisfaction Unit Technical Implementation Unit of the Audit • The relationship between the position with satisfaction Unit Technical Implementation Unit
Relations Auditor Team Performance and Satisfaction Unit Technical Implementation Unit of the Audit Not Good team performance and not satisfied. 7%
Good team performance and satisfied. 93% The relationship between the position with satisfaction Unit Technical Implementation Unit Units / respondent authorities is not satisfied. 8% Units / respondents that officials were satisfied. 92%
Result: • Satisfaction working unit Technical Implementation Unit of overall respondents who were satisfied about 153 work units (89.0%). Good performance in IG audit team MoH were 151 work units (87.8%) where that is not good as 21 work units (12.2%). • Based on the analysis of performance and satisfaction obtained by value p 0.001 there is a relationship between performance, position and satisfaction working unit Technical Implementation Unit, while the results of the analysis of positions and performance values obtained p 0.001 there is a relationship between positions and satisfaction.
Conclusion: • Based on the results of research and discussion as well as referring to the formulation of the problem, research questions and research objectives, it can be some conclusions as follows • a. The level of satisfaction has been good, with an average value of 2.8 (scale of 4) highest satisfaction value on grain competence of auditors, and the lowest satisfaction scores for the recommendation. • b. Auditor Team performance is good, based on the perception of the work force, with a mean of 7 (scale 8) the highest value on the item never get gratification, while the lowest value on the recommendations that can be acted upon. • c. Performance and positions related to the satisfaction of the Technical Implementation Unit work unit, where performance is the most dominant variable.
Reference •
Abimanyu, Rinto. 2007. “Pengaruh Lingkungan Kerja, Motivasi Kerja Dan Kepuasan Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Perawat di RSIA Hermina Bogor tahun 2007.” FKM UI.
•
Achmad,S, Ruky. 2004. Sistem Manajemen Kinerja. Gramedia Pustaka Karya Jakarta.
•
Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan. 2005. Pengawasan Dan Organisasi Pengawasan. Pusat Pendidikan dan Latihan Pengawasan.
•
———. 2011. “Peraturan Kepala BPKP No: PER-1633/K/JF/2011. Pedoman teknis Peningkatan Kapabilitas APIP.” BPKP.
•
Emi, Trimahanani. 2009. “Mengenali Faktor-Faktor Kepuasan Pelanggan.” www.managementfile.com/journal.php.
•
Gerson, Richard, F,. 2002. Mengukur Kepuasan Pelanggan. Cetakan kedua. Jakarta: PPM.
•
Gibson, J.L, J.M, Ivancevich, and J.H Donnelly. 1994. Organisasi Dan Manajemen (Perilaku, Struktur, Proses). Jakarta: Erlangga.
•
Hafizurrachman, HM. 2009. Manjemen Pendidikan Dan Kesehatan. Jakarta: Segung Seto.
•
Ilyas, Yaslis. 2001. “Kinerja : Teori, Penilaian dan Penelitian.” Pusat Kajian Ekonomi Kesehatan FKM UI. Depok.
•
Inspektorat Jenderal. 2012. “Pedoman Audit Kinerja Inspektorat Jenderal Kementerian Kesehatan Tahun 2011.” Inspektorat Jenderal Kementerian Kesehatan.
•
Inspektorat Jenderal Kementerian Kesehatan. 2013. “Kebijakan Pengawasan Tahun 2013 Inspektorat Jenderal Kementerian Kesehatan.” Inspektorat Jenderal Kementerian Kesehatan.
•
Inspektorat Jenderal Kementerian Pertanian. 2013. “Media Manajemen dan Pengawasan” Edisi 32 (April).
•
Kementerian kesehatan. 2010. “Permenkes No. 1144 Tahun 2010 tentang Organisasi Dan Tata Kerja Kementerian Kesehatan.”
•
Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara. 2008. “Permenpan No. 04 Tahun 2008 tentang Kode Etik APIP.”
•
Kessler, Robin. 2011. Competency-Based Performance Reviews. Jakarta: PPM Manajemen.
•
Mardiasmo, and Sidik Wiyoto. 2012. “Mengapa Korupsi Marak? Sekitar 94% Auditor Pemerintah Tidak Mampu Deteksi Korupsi.” http:/www.media Indonesia.com/read/2….deteksi-korupsi.
•
Moon, Philip, and terjemahan Hari Wahyudi. 1994. Penilaian Karyawan. Jakarta: PT Pustaka Binaman Pressindo.
•
Notoatmodjo, S. 2009. Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia. Rineka Cipta.
•
Phillip, Kottler. 2013. “Cara Menilai Tingkat Kepuasan Pelanggan.” http://wartawirausaha.com/2013/03/cara-menilai-tingkat-kepuasanpelanggan/.
•
Priansa, Suwatno, and Donni. 2011. Manajemen SDM dalam Organisasi Publik dan Bisnis. Bandung: Alfabeta.
•
Robbins, Stephen P. 2001. Perilaku Organisasi. Klaten: Intan Sejati Klaten.
•
Sari, Ayu. 2007. “Hubungan Kepuasan Kerja dan Kinerja Karyawan Rumah Sakit Islam Jakarta.” FKM UI.
•
Sedarmayati. 2010. Manajemn Sumber Daya Manusia (Reformasi Birokrasi dan Manajemen Pegawai Negeri Sipil). Refika Aditama.
•
Siagian, S. 1998. Manajemen Modern. Cetakan keempat. Rineka Cipta Jakarta.
•
Sugiono. 2010. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
•
Supranto, J. 2000. Pengukuran Tingkat Kepuasan Pelanggan Untuk Menaikan Pangsa Pasar. Cetakan II. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
•
Suryadharma. 2011. Manajemen Kinerja. Cetakan IV. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
•
Timpe, Dale. 1992. Seri manajemen Sumber Daya manusia, Produktivitas. Jakarta: PT. Elex Media Komputindo.
•
Tjiptono, F., and Anastasia. 1995. Total Quality Control. Cetak pertama. Yogyakarta: Andi.
•
Ulfah, Umami. 2005. “Hubungan Antara Kepuasan Kerja dengan Kinerja Pegawai Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Tangerang Tahun 2005.” FKM UI.
•
Wibisono, A. 2001. “Hubungan Kepuasan Pegawai dengan Kinerja Pegawai Struktural di RSUD Sanggau Kalbar 2000.” FKM UI.
