Implementation Of Management Performance : SAKIP In Strengthening Bureaucratic Reform (Research on PPPPTK TK and PLB)

This study aimed to prove the significance value of the implementation of SAKIP that occurred in PPPPTK TK and PLB. Furthermore, the urgency to mainstream bureaucratic reform at the work unit level had to be supported by all the pillars of the embodiment of good governance, including the evaluation of bureaucratic reforms that are evaluative in measuring the implementation of the Government Institutions Performance Accountability System (SAKIP), especially in PPPPTK TK and PLB. As a form of an accountable work unit's strategic plan, PPPPTK TK and PLB had to evaluate the extent to which this has been implemented. Unlike previous studies that researched independent variables, this research analyzed descriptively for led and findings to prove the significance value and direct influence of each indicator in the implementation of SAKIP. This research was carried out through participation with 115 people or 89.1% of the population willing to participate by filling out online questionnaires due to the Covid19 pandemic on Google form and analyzed through a semantic differential scale using two models, descriptive analysis and Structural Equation Model (SEM). The results of this study show that the SAKIP implementation variable in HR PPPPTK TK and PLB was influenced by performance planning (32.4%), performance data management (10.6%), performance reporting. (15.3%), performance measurement (13.4%), performance report review (13.4%), and performance evaluation (10.6%). According to these findings, it can be concluded that the performance plan was the dominant factor affecting SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB.


Introduction
In realizing a work unit with good performance accountability, each work unit needs to implement the Government Agency Performance Accountability System (SAKIP), including the work unit of the Center for Development and Empowerment of Educators and Education Personnel (PPPPTK). The research will focus on PPPPTK TK and PLB Bandung, which are the Technical Implementation Unit (UPT) under the Ministry of Education and Culture. This institution has the task of carrying out the development and empowerment of educators and special education personnel in Kindergarten and Special Education.
Normatively, SAKIP is needed for institutions such as PPPPTK TK and PLB to support bureaucratic reform. The purpose of implementing SAKIP is so that the results (outcomes) of

Implementation Of Management Performance : SAKIP In Strengthening Bureaucratic Reform (Research on PPPPTK TK and PLB)
■ 32

Implementation Of Management Performance : SAKIP In Strengthening Bureaucratic Reform (Research on PPPPTK TK and PLB) (Dearni Dewi Hasiany)
in PPPPTK TK and PLB? In this study, it was necessary to find out what causes this by linking the exposure to the above variables to find an intervention strategy to strengthen bureaucratic reform.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Meta Analysis Asumption
In Presidential Regulation No. 29/2014 concerning SAKIP and beside the previous research about SAKIP, a strategic plan to strengthen bureaucratic reform (renstra) is a first step that must be taken by government agencies in order to respond to every demand from the local, national and global strategic environment, and maintain the implementation of strategic plans to strengthen bureaucratic reform. It has to comply with the structure of the Unitary State Administration System of the Republic of Indonesia to support the vision, mission, and opportunities and mitigate the obstacles that will be faced to increase the accountability of government agencies' performance [6]. Even though strategic goals have been set with clear performance targets each year, the work unit will experience difficulties in achieving them if it is not determined how to achieve these strategic goals.
Previous research stated that public accountability's main emphasis is providing information to the public and other constituents who are stakeholders. Public accountability also relates to the obligation to explain and answer questions about what public sector organizations have done, are doing, and are planning to do. SAKIP is basically an instrument used by the government to fulfill its obligations to account for the success and failure of implementing its mission. The elements contained in SAKIP itself consist of strategic plans to strengthen bureaucratic reform, activity plans, performance measurement, performance evaluation, and performance accountability analysis. The accountability of an agency that is manifested through the implementation of SAKIP is vital for applying good governance principles, namely to obtain sufficient confidence that the objectives of a specific business or activity will be achieved and can prevent loss of resources [4].
Previous research demonstrated that in a case of mismatch and inaccuracy in the preparation of LAKIP in the guidelines published by LAN, it would certainly have an impact on the accountability of local government performance as a manifestation [30] of the obligation of a government agency to be accountable for the success and failure of implementing the organization's mission in achieving the goals and objectives that have been established through the accountability system [8].
Others previous research, indicate that the implementation of the performance accountability system can improve better transparency where this system is an integration of the planning system is an integration of the planning system, budgeting system and performance system that is in line with the implementation of the financial accountability system [13]. Also previous research about management performance by SAKIP that can increase the accountability of institution performance and improve service quality. System SAKIP can run according to the targets achieved so that the quality of the performance organization is well measured [22].
Maggio's theory identified three mechanisms for change or organizations' efforts to adapt to the environment (institutional isomorphic). First, coercive isomorphism, i.e., the result of formal and informal pressure exerted on organizations with other organizations where they depend on each other and in which there is an organizational function. Second, mimetic or imitation isomorphism occurs when organizational technology is poorly understood, when goals are ambiguous, or when there is symbolic environmental uncertainty, organizations will tend to make themselves the same model as other organizations and encourage organizations to imitate [9]. The third is normative isomorphism related to professionalism. Implementation of a performance measurement system as regulated in Presidential Instruction No. 7 of 1999, seen from a theoretical perspective, is a form of mimetic isomorphism or an attempt to imitate the Indonesian government against governments in other countries considered more advanced. Civil service reform was adopted because it became symbolic of good governance, not efficiency purposes [10]. Therefore, the imitation that is done can lead the organization to implement a working mechanism that is only formal ceremonial, not substance oriented.
Information contained in performance planning (X1) is performance indicators (X1-1), performance targets according to strategic goals (X1-2), and program activities are based on predetermined performance indicators (X1-3). With performance indicators (X2), performance measurement results can be more objective and accountable. These indicators are complete performance information (X2-1), decisions made by the work unit to fix failures (X2-2), maintain success, and improve performance (X2-3). The performance data management (X3) that is carried out includes establishing baseline data (X3-1), where the data and information that is managed are data and information related to the achievement of organizational performance following the performance agreement document, the provision of data collection instruments. (X3-2) and in the form of data recording (X3-3). Next are the three basic components in the preparation of performance reports (X4), i.e., performance planning (X4-1), work agreements (X2-2), and performance measurement (X4-3). The LAKIP review (X5) is carried out with indicators 1) providing information regarding the completeness, accuracy, and objectivity regarding performance accountability (X5-1); 2) providing limited confidence regarding the accuracy, reliability, and validity of work unit performance data/information to produce quality performance reports (X5-2); 3) assisting the implementation of the performance accountability system in work units within the Ministry of Education and Culture (X5-3). Evaluation of SAKIP (X6) is measured based on systematic analysis activities (X6-1), assignment of values or attributes or appreciation (X6-2), and recognition and provision of solutions to problems found in work units (X6-3).

Frameworks
Based on the previous description, the conceptual framework in this study is as follows : In this framework, several things affect the implementation of SAKIP in strengthening bureaucratic reform (Y), namely 1) performance planning (X1) as measured by performance indicators, performance targets, and programs, activities; 2) performance measurement (X2), which is measured from performance information, work unit decisions and maintaining success; 3) performance data management (X3) as measured by the determination of basic data, provision of instruments, and data recording; 4) performance reporting (X4) performance planning, work agreements, and performance measurement; 5) performance report review (X5), which is measured from the information provided, confidence in the report, and performance accountability; and 6) performance evaluation (X6), which is measured by systematic analysis, scoring and providing solutions to problems.

Research Method
The research design was carried out in a cross-sectional manner, using a quantitative approach. This research was conducted in PPPPTK TK and PLB. This study's population were internal and external parties from all PPPPTK TK and PLB resources to support participatory and objective data. Participants were only limited to being willing to fill out the form through the Google Form application (due to the Covid-19 pandemic period). The population was 129 people, then the population's willingness would be limited as participants for 14 days in filling out the Google Form, then it was discovered that the participants were 115 or as much as 89.1% of the total population. The number of samples was taken according to the sample size rule in the PLS (Partial Least Squares) guidelines [12].
To obtain the necessary data using a questionnaire. The way to measure the implementation of SAKIP, performance planning, performance measurement, performance data management, performance reporting, performance report review, and performance evaluation was using a questionnaire with a semantic differential scale, namely a scale to measure attitudes and others, but the form is not multiple-choice or a checklist [13].
The data obtained from the Questionnaire results were recapitulated using Excel with a CSV extension and then processed using the SmartPLS program. Data analysis used two models, descriptive analysis and Structural Equation Model (SEM). The descriptive analysis model was used to quantify the value of the factors of performance planning, performance measurement, performance data management, performance reporting, performance report review, and performance evaluation of SAKIP implementation, as well as presents a description of the research variables based on the answers to each Questionnaire by providing a score for each answer. The analysis used the average value and a percentage of the respondent's score. Meanwhile, the SEM model was utilized to show the pattern of the relationship between the variables studied and analyze the influence of the variables using the SmartPLS software [14].

Analysis and Discussion
PPPPTK TK and PLB Bandung are the Technical Implementation Units (UPT) under the Ministry of Education and Culture. This institution has the task of carrying out the development and empowerment of educators and special education personnel in Kindergarten and Special Education. Have a vision for shaping human beings and the Education and Culture ecosystem in the Kindergarten and Special Education Sector with characters based on the spirit of mutual cooperation. In line with the above vision, the missions of PPPPTK TK and PLB Bandung are: 1. Increase the availability of education services as an effort to provide human resources for education and to guarantee the quality of education; 2. Expanding the affordability of education services as an effort to reach the education unit by education human resources and to guarantee the quality of education; 3. Improve the quality and relevance of human resources for education and culture and quality assurance; 4. Realizing equality and obtaining educational services for educational and cultural human resources; 5. Increase the certainty that education units receive quality assurance services The study included 115 participants assigned to PPPPTK TK and PLB. The assessment was filled with respondents to assess the direct or indirect influence between performance planning, performance data management, performance measurement, performance reporting, performance report review, and performance evaluation of the implementation of SAKIP in PPPPTK TK and PLB in 2019. Characteristics of respondents, including age, education, and job, are presented as follow: This study's performance planning variable was measured through 15 statement items with an assessment of 1-5. The questionnaire score ranges from 15-75, and the actual score ranges from 48-68. The frequency distribution of respondents' answers to the performance planning variable is as follows: This study's performance measurement variable was measured through 15 statement items with an assessment of 1-5. The questionnaire score ranges from 15-75, and the actual score ranges from 23-43. The frequency distribution of respondents' answers to the performance measurement variable is as follows: 3. Performance data management variables (X3) This study's performance data management variable was measured through 15 statement items with an assessment of 1-5. The questionnaire score ranges from 15-75, and the actual score ranges from 48-68. The frequency distribution of respondents' answers to the performance data management variable is as follows:  This study's performance report review variable was measured through 15 statement items with an assessment of 1-5. The questionnaire score ranges from 15-75, and the actual score ranges from 40-61. The frequency distribution of respondents' answers to the performance report review variable is as follows: This study's performance evaluation variable was measured through 15 statement items with an assessment of 1-5. The questionnaire score ranges from 15-75, and the actual score ranges from 23-43. The frequency distribution of respondents' answers to the performance evaluation variable is as follows: This study's SAKIP implementation variable was measured through 15 statement items with an assessment of 1-5. The questionnaire score ranges from 15-75, and the actual score ranges from 46-67. The frequency distribution of respondents' answers to the SAKIP implementation variable is as follows:

SEM Analysis
The structural model in this study is presented as follows :

Figure 2. Research Structural Model
The data processing analysis results show that the construct used to form a research model in the confirmatory factor analysis process has met the predetermined goodness of fit criteria. The probability value in this analysis shows a value above the significance level of 0.05. From the data processing results above, it is also seen that each indicator or dimension forming latent variables shows good results, namely with a high loading factor value where each indicator is greater than 0.5. With these results, it can be said that the indicators forming the latent variable constructs of performance planning, performance data management, performance reporting, performance report review, performance evaluation, and SAKIP implementation have shown good results. Another way to test discriminant validity is through the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) value. The expected value is above 0.50. The following is below the AVE Table:

Implementation
In this study, several significant findings are discovered to illustrate the association between variables, namely: The study findings are: 1. There are direct effects and the of between performance planning on the SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB of 27.34%, indirect effect of 0.51%, Statistical T value of 11.096286, and significant on alpha 5%. 2. There are direct effects and the of between performance data management availability on the SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB of 9.58%, indirect effect of 0.12%, Statistical T value of 5.626946, and significant on alpha 5%. 3. There are direct effects and the of between performance reporting on the SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB of 16.81%, indirect effect of 0.06%, Statistical T value of 3.876531, and significant on alpha 5%. 4. There are direct effects and the of between performance measurement on the SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB of 9.07%, indirect effect of 0.01%, Statistical T value of 6.264146, and significant on alpha 5%. 5. There are direct effects and the of between performance report review on the SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB of 11.37%, indirect effect of 0.03%, Statistical T value of 4.321863, and significant on alpha 5%. 6. There are direct effects and the of between performance evaluation on the SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB of 8.68%, indirect effect of 0.002%, Statistical T value of 2.152639, and significant on alpha 5%. 7. There are direct effects and the of between performance planning on the performance evaluation in PPPPTK TK and PLB of 7.21, Statistical T value of 3.770339, and significant on alpha 5%. 8. There are direct effects and the of between performance data management availability on the performance evaluation in PPPPTK TK and PLB of 20.22, Statistical T value of 15.234338, and significant on alpha 5%.

Hypothesis Tests
After conducting data analyses, the next step was hypothesis testing of the variable, where the test was carried out by bootstrapping. The statistical test used was the T test. Based on the table above, all variables have statistical T values over 1.96%, that is, the effect of performance planning variable on performance data management of 31.757915. Thus, H0 is rejected because the statistical value is far over the critical value (1.96), and hence, significant on  5%.

The Effect of Direct and Indirect Variables
The percentage of effects between variables are presented as follow: Based on the table above, the performance planning directly and indirectly affected the SAKIP implementation. The parameter coefficient test results between performance planning on SAKIP implementation demonstrate a direct effect of 27.34%, performance data management on SAKIP implementation demonstrate a direct effect of 9.58%, performance reporting on SAKIP implementation demonstrate a direct effect of 16.381%, performance measurement on SAKIP implementation demonstrate a direct effect of 9.07%, performance report review on SAKIP implementation demonstrate a direct effect of 11.37%. Performance evaluation on SAKIP implementation demonstrate a direct effect of 8.68% The direct effect calculation of the performance planning on SAKIP implementation was multiplying the path coefficient from the performance planning on SAKIP implementation with the latent variable. The same method was applied to other variables' path coefficients. The direct effect results are: Therefore, from each exogenous latent variable's direct effect that simultaneously showing a suitability with R square states that performance planning, performance data management, performance reporting, performance measurement, ability, and performance evaluation variables were (27,01% + 9,76% + 10,39% + 16,95% +10,77% + 8.15%) = 80. 8 Meanwhile, the indirect effect of performance planning on SAKIP implementation was 0.51%, performance data management on SAKIP implementation was 0,12%, performance reporting on SAKIP implementation was 0.06%, performance measurement on SAKIP implementation was 0,01%, and ability on SAKIP implementation was 0,003%. Meanwhile, the indirect effect of performance evaluation on SAKIP implementation was 0.00%.

Mathematical Equation
Mathematically, the structural equation form of this study model is : η1 = ξ1 γ1 + 1 Performance data management = 0.435 Performance planning + 0.565 Other factors Performance data management is affected by the performance planning for 0.435, and the 0.565 rest is affected by other factors excluded from the study. That is, there is a direct and positive effect from the performance planning on performance data management. The better the performance planning, the better the performance data management in PPPPTK TK and PLB. η2 = ξ1 γ2 + η1 β1 + 2 Performance reporting = 0.531 Performance planning + 0.212 performance data management + 0.257 Other factors Performance reporting is affected by the performance planning for 0.531, performance data management for 0.212, and the 0.257 rest is affected by other factors excluded from the study. That is, there is a direct and negative effect from the performance planning and performance data management on performance reporting. The better the performance planning and performance data management, the lower the performance reporting in PPPPTK TK and PLB. η3 = ξ1 γ4+ η1 β6 + η2 β2+ 3 Performance measurement = 0.301Performance planning + 0.159 performance data management+ 0.285 Performance reporting + 0.259 Other factors Performance measurement is affected by the performance planning for 0.301, performance data management for 0.159, performance reporting for 0.285, and the 0.259 rest is affected by other factors excluded from the study. That is, there is a direct and positive effect from the performance planning, performance data management, and performance reporting on performance measurement. The better the performance planning, performance data management, and performance reporting, the better the performance measurement in PPPPTK TK and PLB. η4 = ξ1 γ3 + η1 β5 + η2 β3+ η3 β8 + 4 Performance report review = 0.288 Performance planning + 0.159 performance data management + 0.182 Performance reporting + 0.184 Performance measurement +0.186 Other factors Performance report review is affected by the performance planning for 0.288, performance data management for 0.159, performance reporting for 0.182, performance measurement for 0.184, and the 0.186 rest is affected by other factors excluded from the study. That is, there is a direct and positive effect from the performance planning, performance data management, performance reporting, and performance measurement on performance report review. The better the performance planning, performance data management, performance reporting, and performance measurement, the better the performance report review in PPPPTK TK and PLB. η5 = ξ1 γ5 + η1 β7 + η2 β4 + η3 β9 + η4 β10 + 5 Performance evaluation = 0.072 Performance planning + 0.202 performance data management + 0.032 Performance reporting + 0. Performance evaluation is affected by the performance planning for 0.072, performance data management for 0.202, performance reporting for 0.032, performance measurement for 0.404, performance report review for 0.156, and the 0.139 rest is affected by other factors excluded from the study. That is, there is a direct and positive effect from the performance planning, performance data management, performance reporting, performance measurement, and performance report review on performance evaluation. The better the performance planning, performance data management, performance reporting, performance measurement, and performance report review, the better the performance evaluation in PPPPTK TK and PLB. η6 = ξ1 γ6+ η1β7 + η2 β4 + η3 β9 + η4 β10 + 5 +β11 + 6 SAKIP implementation = 0.270 Performance planning + 0.097 performance data management+ 0.104 Performance reporting + 0.169 Performance measurement +0.108 Performance report review + 0.081 Performance evaluation + 0.170 Other factors SAKIP implementation is affected by the performance planning for 0.270, performance data management for 0.097, performance reporting for 0.104, performance measurement for 0.169, performance report review for 0.108, performance evaluation for 0.081, and the 0.170 rest is affected by other factors excluded from the study. That is, there is a direct and positive effect from the performance planning, performance data management, performance reporting, performance measurement, performance report review, and performance evaluation on SAKIP implementation. The better the performance planning, performance data management, performance reporting, performance measurement, performance report review, and performance evaluation, the better the SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB.

Conclusion
The results of hypothesis testing with the Structural Equation Model (SEM) with the smartPLS method found that the SAKIP implementation variable in PPPPTK TK and PLB Bandung is influenced by the influence of Performance planning (32.4%), Performance data management (10.6%), Performance reporting. (15.3%), Performance measurement (13.4%), review of performance reports (13.4%), and Performance evaluation (10.6%) of SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB.
The results of the study concluded an expectation of the implementation of the Government Agency Performance Accountability System (SAKIP) and the implementation of good governance in order to strengthen bureaucratic reforms that would further improve the performance of PPPPTK TK and PLB itself so that progress and benefits would be felt for the community and Government Based on these findings, it can be concluded that performance planning is the dominant factor affecting SAKIP implementation in PPPPTK TK and PLB. Performance planning is one of the indicators with the most significant effect in improving SAKIP implementation. The better the role of performance planning, the more SAKIP implementation will be in the PPPPTK TK and PLB.