Strengthening performance accountability is an important part of building university governance that is effective, measurable, and results-oriented. To support this effort, UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta held an In-House Training on the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Government Agency Performance Accountability System (SAKIP) in the Syaifuddin Zuhri Meeting Room, third floor of the University Administration Center (PAU), on Thursday, October 22, 2026.
The training focused on strengthening understanding and skills in preparing and completing SAKIP worksheets, particularly to address obstacles that often arise in the performance evaluation process. Through this training, UIN Sunan Kalijaga seeks to improve the quality of performance planning, measurement, and reporting so that they align with established indicators and targets.
In his welcome remarks, Dr. Shaleh, Head of the Internal Audit Unit (SPI) at UIN Sunan Kalijaga, said that completing the worksheets is one of the training's main focuses. For this reason, guidance from resource persons of the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) Yogyakarta Representative Office is needed to clarify technical aspects and help overcome obstacles in carrying out the SAKIP evaluation.
The training featured three resource persons from the BPKP DIY Representative Office: Hary Eka Surjanta, S.E., Eko Herman Budi Raharjo, S.E., and Cholifatul Husna. The session was moderated by Mahfud Asyari, S.E., M.M., Coordinator of the Strategic Management System Implementation Support Center at UIN Sunan Kalijaga. Participants included the SPI team, auditors, team leaders, the Coordinator of the Legal and Human Resources Center, the Coordinator of the Financial Audit and Planning Center, and the Coordinator of the Risk Management Center.
In his introduction, Hary Eka Surjanta stressed the importance of alignment among planning, data collection, indicator measurement, and performance reporting. Each indicator should be clearly formulated following the SMART principles (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) so that it has an operational definition and a measurement method that can be understood and applied consistently.
He also highlighted the importance of drafting performance agreements (perjanjian kinerja) that are focused and integrated from the institutional level down to work units. Cascading indicators from the top level to the implementing level must be done systematically so that institutional targets can be translated into more specific and measurable goals.
One example discussed was measuring the time graduates wait to find a job. This indicator requires clarity on the data source, the observation period, and the calculation method so that evaluation results truly reflect performance achievements.
This discussion is relevant for universities in ensuring that the indicators they use not only meet administrative requirements but also show the real results of educational programs.
The next speaker, Eko Herman Budi Raharjo, explained that SAKIP is an important instrument for driving bureaucratic reform and improving accountability in government administration. It must be carried out through a continuous performance management cycle, from planning, measurement, and reporting to review and evaluation, and finally improvement.
In the university context, setting strategic indicators must take into account the challenges and development needs of higher education, including strengthening institutional autonomy, improving infrastructure and research investment, developing innovation, and integrating education with business and industry (DUDI).
He also stressed the need for oversight that is increasingly strategic and priority-based. Using information systems to manage auditor assignments is one way to support more structured monitoring. In this way, oversight is expected to go beyond operational issues and also identify risks and support the achievement of the institution's strategic goals.
Technical discussions during the training also covered several university performance indicators, including growth in new students, institutional accreditation, lecturer certification, graduates' waiting time to find employment, partnerships that support the Tridharma of higher education, and a student diversity index.
The discussion highlighted the importance of setting targets and measurement methods suited to the characteristics of each indicator. For example, measuring graduates' waiting time needs to rely on tracer study data from graduates who completed the instrument within the set observation period. Meanwhile, the institutional accreditation indicator must be adjusted to the period in which the accreditation target applies, and the lecturer certification indicator needs clarity on which certification statuses count toward the achievement.
Participants also discussed using the SAKIP self-assessment, referring to the available guidelines, as a way to keep evaluations continuous, especially when internal assessment results for a given period are not yet available.
Through this event, UIN Sunan Kalijaga reinforces its commitment to building performance governance that is more measurable, transparent, and results-oriented. Strengthening the capacity of the SPI, auditors, and related work units is expected to support higher-quality evaluation and ensure that the institution's program planning and implementation stay aligned with its strategic goals. (humassk)
