Good University Governance: Budgeting Participation and Internal Control

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the simultaneous and partial effects of budgeting participation and internal control on good university governance at Bangka Belitung University and State Manufacturing Polytechnic of Bangka Belitung Islands, Indonesia. Data collection used a saturated sampling method of 485 consisting of all employees and lecturers at the two colleges. Estimation models were built based on previous research studies and the Agency Theory. Data analysis techniques used multiple regression analysis along with testing classical assumptions using a Likert scale on primary data. The results of the study showed that budgetary participation and internal control have a positive and significant effect on good university governance both simultaneously and partially, where internal control is the dominant variable influencing good university governance. This illustrates the alignment of findings with the Agency Theory. The implications for the future are that the Bangka Belitung University and the State Manufacturing Polytechnic continue to pay attention to internal control to create a resonance of good university governance towards the internationalization of higher education. In this study only two variables were used that affect good university governance. Other influences also play a role in the improvement including audit committees, organizational culture, and organizational communication climate that can be addressed by future researchers. Keywords: good university governance, budgeting participation, internal control

Analisis Penerapan Sistem Manajemen Pendidikan Tinggi Untuk Mewujudkan Good University Governance

“…Implementasi Good University Governance (tata kelola universitas yang baik) merupakan implementasi nilai prinsip-prinsip dari good corporate governance pada perguruan tinggi. Salah satu alasan pelaksanaan tata kelola Universitas yang baik akan mampu melindungi lembaga dari penipuan atau salah urus oleh pemegang hak otonomi dan mampu memberikan saran untuk perbaikan (Hénard & Mitterle, 2010;Wardhani, Taufiq, Fuadah, Siddik, & Awaluddin, 2019). Prinsip GUG adalah struktur tata kelola, otonomi, akuntabilitas, kepemimpinan, transparansi (Wardhani et al, 2019)…”

Analysis of the Principles of Good University Governance at the University of Indonesia as a State University with Legal Entity (PTN-BH) in 2014-2019

“…Numerous previous studies have addressed the topic of university (Agyeman, Tamanja, & Bingab, 2021;Bian, 2021;Burns, 2020;Carson, 2020;Croucher et al, 2020;Crow et al, 2020;de Boer & Maassen, 2020;Facchini & Fia, 2021;Gu, Feng, & Huang, 2020;Hai & Anh, 2022;Halalu, 2023;Huang et al, 2020;Jiang & Xue, 2021;Lo, 2021;Mai et al, 2022;Nurlatifah & Ahmar, 2022;Rymarzak et al, 2020;Shattock, 2021;Shaw, 2014;Staples et al, 2021;Xue, Cornelis, & Zhu, 2022;Yadessa, Bekabil, & Fetene, 2022;Yao, Weng, & Ye, 2019). However, studies specifically addressing the theme of good university governance namely, Blackmore & Lund (2022); Christina & Brahmana (2021); Mutiarin, Suswanta, & Darumurti (2019); Nurhayati & Ahmar (2022); Rahayu, Subagiyo, & Rahayu (2018); Wardhani et al (2019) have primarily focused on examining its influence on various aspects of university governance. Notably, there is a gap in research specifically evaluating the implementation of good university governance at a university, particularly Universitas Indonesia, across five dimensions: context, mission, and overall goals; management orientation; autonomy; accountability; and participation.…”

Kaizen internal quality assurance adoption and quality performance improvement in Indonesian higher education institutions: The moderating role of IT development

“…On the other hand, the majority of studies on HEI quality assurance focused on the following issues: quality measurement model and framework (Ashraf et al, 2016;Tsinidou et al, 2010), the history of HEI quality assessment approach and its development (Chu & Westerheijden, 2018), stakeholders' perceptions toward HEI quality (Dicker et al, 2019;Lapina et al, 2016;Pham & Starkey, 2016), and the HEI quality improvement model with specific analytical techniques (Das & Mukherjee, 2017;Noaman et al, 2017;Venkatraman, 2007). Meanwhile, prior studies on HEI management and governance change issues have discussed more the political, historical, and principle aspects (see Kretek et al, 2013;Wardhani et al, 2019) rather than how the changes contribute to HEI quality improvement. Today, changes in HEI governance policies, such as the new framework of internal quality assurance, performance measurement systems, and IT development, have become current research areas.…”