Published date: Sep 28 2022

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: 4th International Conference on Education and Social Science Research (ICESRE)

Pages: 841–854

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v7i14.12036

Tri Siwi Nugrahanitrisiwi@upy.ac.idFakultas Bisnis, Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta

Ratna Purnama SariFakultas Bisnis, Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta

Faizal ArdiyantoFakultas Bisnis, Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta

M. Sulkhanul UmamFakultas Bisnis, Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta

Higher education institutions are keen to assess their performance. It is important for them to evaluate their outcomes to promote their future performance. The aim of this research was to determine the level of preparation of the faculty of business at Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta for accreditation based on the prism aspects. This study used questionnaires for data collection with a Likert scale split by the prism assessment levels of satisfaction, strategy, process, capability, and contribution, and then grouped into the criteria of high, medium and low levels according to the provisions of OMAX. The results showed that the faculty of business reached less than 100% in all the prism aspects. This was interpreted as inefficiency. The highest achievement was 99.18% in the contribution aspect and the lowest was 84.28% in the capability aspect. It was concluded that the faculty of business of Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta must be even more active in increasing their performance to prepare for accreditation.

Keywords: accreditation, faculty of business performance, OMAX, prism models

[1] S. Aryati, “TANTANGAN PERGURUAN TINGGI DI ERA REVOLUSI INDUSTRI 4.0.,” In: PROSIDING SEMINAR NASIONAL PENDIDIKAN PROGRAM PASCASARJANA UNIVERSITAS PGRI PALEMBANG. pp. 811–818. Universitas PGRI Palembang, Palembang (2019)

[2] A. Primadewi, M. Hanafi, D. Sasongko, et al., “Readiness analysis of accreditation data: a case study for Indonesian higher education.,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series. vol. 1517, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2020.

[3] Hanafi M, Primadewi A, Sunarni S. Pemodelan arsitektur data pada perguruan tinggi (Studi kasus: UMMagelang). Jurnal RESTI (Rekayasa Sistem dan Teknologi Informasi). 2018;2(1):337-344.

[4] S. Bondar, J.C. Hsu, A. Pfouga, and J. Stjepandić, “Agile digital transformation of System-of-Systems architecture models using Zachman framework.,” Journal of Industrial Information Integration. vol. 7, no. September, pp. 33–43, 2017.

[5] Adwan E, Al-Soufi A. Practical EA model development: A case study of an educational institution in Bahrain. International Journal of Computing & Information Sciences. 2016;12(1):105-113.

[6] Soerjaningsih TW. Peningkatan mutu proses Perguruan Tinggi melalui sistem mutu ISO 9000. The Winners. 2004;5(2):79-89.

[7] Ardhiansyah MD, Priyandari Y, Damayanti RW. Implementasi knowledge management (KM) untuk menunjang akreditasi program studi (Studi kasus: Program studi tenik industri, Fak. Teknik, Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta). Paper presented at: Seminar Internasional dan Konferensi Nasional IDEC; Surakarta; 3-4 May 2016.

[8] H. Thamrin and E.W. Pamungkas, “A Rule Based SWOT Analysis Application: A Case Study for Indonesian Higher Education Institution.,” Procedia Computer Science. vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 144–150, 2017.

[9] Republika. Siapkah Indonesia menuju industri 5.0? Republika, Jakarta; 2021.

[10] R.E.E. Freeman and J. McVea, “A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management.,” SSRN Electronic Journal. pp. 1–32, 2001.

[11] Nugrahani TS, Nustini Y, Putri IF, Erawati T, Grediani E. Industry 4.0 and university performace based on prism theory. Journal of Business and Management Review. 2021(2):65-91.

[12] BAN-PT Nomor 4. Peraturan badan akreditasi nasional perguruan tinggi nomor 4 tahun 2017 tentang kebijakan penyusunan instrumen akreditasi. Jakarta, Indonesia; 2017.

[13] Buamonabot I, Nurlaila N, Nurdin N. Pengaruh atribut perguruan tinggi terhadap kepuasan memilih perguruan tinggi. Cakrawala Management Business Journal. 2019;2(1):281-1191.

[14] Budi SS. Pengaruh kualitas pelayanan akademik, kualitas fasilitas kampus dan kualitas dosen terhadap kepuasan mahasiswa Di STIE SBI Yogyakarta. Jurnal Solusi. 2017;12(1);1-12

[15] E. Sahputra Sitepu, A.E. Rangkuti, F. Fachrizal, and P.N. Medan, “ANALYSIS OF THE COMPETENCY OF FRESH GRADUATED HIGHER EDUCATION IN SUPPORTING INDUSTRIAL ERA 4.0.,” IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching). vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 82–101, 2020

[16] M.A. Bora, “Desain Pengukuran Kinerja Jasa Pendidikan Dengan Metode Performace Prism Studi Kasus Pada Perguruan Tinggi STT Ibnu Sina Batam.,” Ilmu Teknik (ILTEK). vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 13014–1313, 2015.

[17] H.M. Al-Fikri, “PELUANG DAN TANTANGAN PERGURUAN TINGGI MENGHADAPI REVOLUSI DIGITAL DI ERA SOCIETY 5.0.,” In: Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan 3. pp. 350–355. Universitas Majalengka, Majalengka (2021).

[18] Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review. 1997;22(4):853-886.

[19] Bryson JM. What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review. 2004;6(1):21-53.

[20] H.A. Pradesa, R. Priatna, and A. Novira, “Perspektif Analisis Stakeholder Pada Perguruan Tinggi : Sebuah Pengalaman Praktis Dari Literatur Terdahulu.,” In: Konferensi Nasional Ilmu Administrasi. pp. 1–5. STIA LAN Bandung, Bandung (2019).

[21] Kaplan RS. Management accounting (1984-1994): Development of new practice and theory. Management Accounting Research. 1994;5(3-4):247-260.

[22] J. Elkington, “Accounting for the Triple Bottom Line.,” Measuring Business Excellence. vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 18–22, 1998.

[23] Neely AD, Adams C, Kennerley M. The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. London: Prentice Hall Financial Times; 2002.

[24] A. Neely, “The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next.,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management. vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1264–1277, 2005

[25] Girikallo AS. Management system performance in private colleges in Indonesia (test of national standard of higher education ’SNPT’). Journal Management Business. 2017;1(1):65–79.

[26] Hardi T, Pudjo WP. Prototype sistem informasi pengukuran kinerja fakultas dengan menggunakan balanced scorecard studi kasus: Fakultas sains dan teknologi UIN Jakarta. Jurnal Teknik Informatika. 2018;11(2):127–138.

[27] S. Smulowitz, “Evidence for the performance prism in higher education.,” Measuring Business Excellence. vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 70–80, 2015.

[28] L. Mardiono, E. Wibisono, and C. Jolanda, “Pengukuran Kinerja Menggunakan Model Performance Prism (Studi Kasus di Perusahaan Makanan).,” In: Proceedings 6th National Industrial Engineering Conference (NIEC-6). pp. 108–115. Universitas Surabaya, Surabaya (2011).

[29] Suliantoro H. Perancangan sistem pengukuran kinerja dengan metode performance prism (Studi Kasus di Plaza Hotel semarang). Jti Undip: Jurnal Teknik Industri. 2007;2(2):49-64.

[30] Putri AR, Mas’ud A, Mayangsari S. Pengukuran kinerja perusahaan menggunakan metode performance prism (Studi kasus di cendana offset fokus intermedia grup). Performa: Media Ilmiah Teknik Industri. 2016;15(2).

[31] A.R. Putri, A. Mas’ud, S. Mayangsari, and Y. -, “Pengukuran Kinerja Perusahaan Menggunakan Metode Performance Prism (Studi Kasus di Cendana Offset Fokus Intermedia Grup).,” PERFORMA : Media Ilmiah Teknik Industri. vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 146– 153, 2016.