The Application of Risk Management as A Predictor of Performance Planning Quality at the Ministry of Home Affairs

Nadya Nastiti; Henryanto Wijaya

doi:10.59141/jiss.v7i6.2400

Authors

Nadya Nastiti Universitas Tarumanagara
Henryanto Wijaya Universitas Tarumanagara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59141/jiss.v7i6.2400

Keywords:

Risk Management, Performance Planning Quality, Ministry of Home Affairs, Risk-Based Planning

Abstract

This research aims to analyze the implementation of risk management as a predictor of performance planning quality at the Ministry of Home Affairs. The study is motivated by the low Risk Management Index (RMI) score within the Ministry, which indicates that risk management implementation has not yet run effectively and has not been consistently integrated into organizational management processes. The paradox between the low Risk Management Index (RMI) and the relatively high performance planning score at the Ministry of Home Affairs reveals a gap between the normative condition that requires the integration of risk management into performance planning and the empirical reality observed in the field, a condition worthy of further examination. This research employs a quantitative explanatory approach, with purposive sampling used to select 66 Civil Servants (Aparatur Sipil Negara/ASN) who are directly involved in performance planning and/or risk management processes within the Ministry of Home Affairs. The findings indicate that risk management implementation at the Ministry of Home Affairs has not yet been fully integrated into organizational management processes. On the other hand, the quality of performance planning is perceived to be relatively good based on the perceptions of civil servants. The study reveals a paradox between the low Risk Management Index (RMI) score and the high achievement of the Government Agency Performance Accountability System (AKIP).

References

Ashby, Simon. (2025). Fundamentals of operational risk management: understanding and implementing effective tools, policies and frameworks. Kogan Page Publishers.

Bastian, I. (2010). Akuntansi sektor publik: Suatu pengantar. Erlangga.

Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan. (2021). Peraturan BPKP Nomor 5 Tahun 2021.

Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan. (2025). Laporan hasil evaluasi atas penilaian maturitas penyelenggaraan SPIP terintegrasi tahun 2025 pada Kementerian Dalam Negeri (Nomor PE.09.03/LHP-21/D4/04/2025).

Cavalluzzo, K. S., & Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3–4), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00013-8

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2017). Enterprise risk management: Integrating with strategy and performance.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289629101600103

Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2012). Dasar-dasar ekonometrika (5th ed.). Salemba Empat.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Hubbard, D. W. (2020). The failure of risk management: Why it’s broken and how to fix it. John Wiley & Sons.

Indrijantoro, W., & Irwansyah, I. (2023). Strategi penerapan manajemen risiko dalam rangka peningkatan kinerja instansi pemerintah di Kota Bekasi. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Administrasi, 6(1).

International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000: Risk management—Guidelines.

Islami, N. A., Furqan, A. C., & Kamase, H. P. (2025). Risk management and government internal control system (SPIP) on government financial performance. Amkop Management Accounting Review (AMAR), 5(2), 1442–1456. https://doi.org/10.37531/amar.v5i2.3352

Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi Republik Indonesia. (2021). Peraturan Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi Republik Indonesia Nomor 88 Tahun 2021 tentang evaluasi akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah.

Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi Republik Indonesia. (2025). Laporan hasil evaluasi akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah (AKIP) tahun 2025 pada Kementerian Dalam Negeri.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Columbia University Press.

Mahmudi. (2019). Manajemen kinerja sektor publik. UPP STIM YKPN.

Mardiasmo. (2018). Akuntansi sektor publik. Andi.

Naibaho, R. E., Madya, F., & Yuliana, E. (2025). Effect of risk management and effectiveness of its implementation on performance of Riau High Court. AIJMS, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.54099/aijms.v4i2.1342

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (7th ed.). Wiley.

Sugiyono. (2022). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.

Wahyunurani, V. (2026). Urgensi integrasi manajemen risiko dalam perencanaan kinerja dan anggaran sektor publik di Indonesia: Kajian literatur komparatif. Jurnal Sosial dan Teknologi (SOSTECH), 6(3).

Wulandari, S. P., Din, M., & Masdar, R. (2024). The effect of maturity of government internal control system and capabilities of government internal supervisory apparatus on the government performance accountability system.

Yudanto, L. A., & Pesudo, D. A. A. (2020). Perception of civil servants on APIP capability as moderating variable on the relationship between the implementation of SPIP and SAKIP (Study on Salatiga City Government). The Indonesian Accounting Review, 10(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.14414/tiar.v10i2.2140