20758
______________________________________________________________
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v5i3.6095
Evaluation of Quality Control System on Audit Performance (Case Study of BPK Representative of West Sulawesi Province)
Agusmansyah1, Dwi Martani2
1,2Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia agsmansyah@gmail.com,dwimartani@yahoo.com
I. Introduction
Indonesia’s national development aims to realize democratic, just, peaceful, competitive, advanced, and prosperous country. For national development to run well, it needs to be carried out by a good state government. Based on Law (Undang-Undang/ UU) No. 28 of 1999, one of the general principles in the state administration is the principle of accountability. The principle of accountability dictates that every work and its final result must be accountable to the people as the holder of the highest sovereignty of the state following statutory regulations. To ensure good accountability in the administration of the state, it is necessary to examine the management of state finances.
The Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan/ BPK), has to examine the management and responsibilities of State finances. The legal basis for the establishment of the BPK is in the 1945 Constitution Article 23E paragraph (1) which stipulates that to examine the management and responsibilities of state finances, an independent and independent Audit Board is established.
In the 2020-2024 Strategic Plan, BPK sets strategic targets, namely increasing the use of recommendations, opinions, and considerations on the management and responsibility of state finances as well as the settlement of state compensation supported by high-performing organizational governance. Strategic Goals are conditions that BPK wants to achieve for sure during the Strategic Plan period.To implement these strategic goals, BPK sets six strategies, namely(1) increasing the capability of modern and dynamic audit
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the quality control system (SPM) for the performance of the audit carried out at the BPK Representative of West Sulawesi Province. The six components in the audit performance analyzed are audit planning, audit implementation, supervision & review, reporting of audit results, follow-up monitoring of audit results, and audit evaluation to determine its implementation. In addition, this study will also provide recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of SPM. This study used qualitative descriptive analysis by evaluating SPM implementation documents and the results of interviews with SPM implementers and SPM assessors.
The results of this study show that overall, the BPK Representative of West Sulawesi Province has implemented a quality control system but, in its implementation, it is still necessary to consider improving the understanding of SPM for auditors, fulfilling the shortage of auditors in the composition of the Audit Team, proposing a quality management system on the component of monitoring follow-up audit results, and strengthening supervision on the implementation of SPM.
Keywords
quality control system;
BPK RI; audit
Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal) Volume 5, No 3, August 2022, Page: 20758-20768 e-ISSN: 2615-3076 (Online), p-ISSN: 2615-1715 (Print)
www.bircu-journal.com/index.php/birci email: birci.journal@gmail.com
20759
organizations, (2) improving the quality of audits in a strategic, anticipatory, and responsive manner, (3) increasing the effectiveness of supervision of state financial audits, (4) realizing a center of excellence for education and training on state financial audits, (5) strengthen regulations and legal aspects of state financial audits and settlement of state compensation, and (6) optimizing resource management and collaboration with stakeholders. In the third strategy, BPK is committed to ensuring that supervision of state financial audit activities has benefits in improving the quality of audits and institutions for all work units within BPK. This strategy is implemented with the target that it will benefit BPK in terms of performance improvement and optimal organizational governance.
The results of the self-assessment conducted by BPK in 2019 using The Supreme Audit Institutions Performance Measurement Framework (SAI PMF) approach shows that currently there are several areas that BPK must pay attention to, i.e (1) the need to increase the formation and internalization of the Audit Quality Framework and the level of maturity and effectiveness of the Internal Control System of BPK, (2) capacity and capability of internal supervisors that are not yet optimal in providing supervisory results that are useful in improving the quality of institutional performance and audit performance, (3) follow-up on the results of supervision are not yet optimal to improve the quality of institutional performance and audit performance, (4) utilization the results of supervision on institutional performance and audit performance as a continuous improvement of the quality of organizational governance are not yet optimal. From the description of these problems, it can be seen that there are still problems that have a direct impact on the quality of audit performance. In line with the BPK's core business, namely carrying out audits of the management and responsibility of State finances, BPK's auditors are expected to carry out their work as well as possible. Human Resources (HR) is the most important component in a company or organization to run the business it does. Organization must have a goal to be achieved by the organizational members (Niati et al., 2021).
Development is a change towards improvement. Changes towards improvement require the mobilization of all human resources and reason to realize what is aspired (Shah et al, 2020). The development of human resources is a process of changing the human resources who belong to an organization, from one situation to another, which is better to prepare a future responsibility in achieving organizational goals (Werdhiastutie et al, 2020).
One of the efforts made by BPK in providing guarantees for the quality of state financial audits is the establishment and implementation of a Quality Control System (Sistem Penjaminan Mutu/ SPM). SPM is the main component in the activity of obtaining adequate assurance that the audit is following the audit standards and guidelines set by the BPK and complies with the provisions of laws and regulations. As a tool to ensure that SPM has regulated all required quality control elements, BPK establishes and implements a Quality Assurance System (Sistem Penjaminan Kualitas Mutu/ SPKM). In line with the main activity of BPK, namely conducting audits, the element of audit performance has a very important role to increase the confidence of parties who have an interest in the results of BPK's audits. On the performance of quality control audits carried out on audit activities carried out by BPK starting from the audit planning stage up to the audit evaluation stage.
Although the SPKM has been established on March 25, 2009, and must be used as a guideline in implementing a quality control system for the results of the audits carried out for BPK implementers, there are still problems that occur in the BPK Representative Office of West Sulawesi Province, such as (1) Determining the composition of the Audit Team has not taken into account the complexity of the entity being examined; (2) Supervision and review activities have not been maximally carried out; and (3) there is still inconsistency of information in the Audit Result Report (Laporan Hasil Pemeriksaan/
20760
LHP). This study is aimed at evaluating the implementation of a quality control system on the performance of the audit conducted by the BPK Representative of West Sulawesi Province. This research contributes to BPK, especially BPK Representatives of West Sulawesi Province in determining the steps that must be taken to increase the effectiveness of the implementation of a quality control system on audit performance to obtain high- quality audit results.
II. Review of Literature
The Regulation of the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2017 concerning State Financial Audit Standards (Standar Pemeriksaan Keuangan Negara/
SPKN) explains about audit quality control that BPK must establish a quality control standard to ensure the quality of its audit results. Furthermore, in the implementation of quality control standards, a quality control system must be established and developed to ensure that the provisions of laws and regulations and audit standards have been complied with in audit activities. The quality control system is a policy and procedure to ensure that the audit results obtained are of high quality following the provisions of laws and regulations and audit standards.
The BPK SPM is an integral part of the SPKN, while the implementation of the SPM refers to the 2009 BPK SPKM Implementation Guidelines. The SPKM is a system that is implemented to provide stakeholders with sufficient confidence that an audit body has prepared and has adequate and adequate SPMs. implement it effectively. Therefore, SPKM and SPM are two things that are not the same but have a relationship with one another.
SPKM and SPM are indispensable components for the auditing body to obtain adequate assurance that the audit has been carried out following the provisions of laws and regulations and existing standards.
Based on the explanation above, SPKM and SPM have a relationship that can be seen from the purpose of their implementation, namely to find out whether the BPK SPM has covered all forms of control needed, the implementation has been appropriate, has given stakeholders confidence that the quality of the audit is following the audit standards and provisions of laws and regulations and can be identified in the context of improving and perfecting SPM.
III. Research Method
The method used is a qualitative method based on the philosophy of postpositivism, namely to understand the situation in depth regarding the implementation of a quality control system on audit performance. The type of research used is a case study, focused on quality control activities carried out on local government financial reports fiscal year (Laporan Keuangan Pemerintah Daerah Tahun Anggaran/ LKPD TA) 2020 audit activities and information collected from parties directly related to quality control activities in audit activities.
IV. Result and Discussion
4.1 Implementation of Quality Control System on Audit Performance
The process of planning, implementing, and reporting audits in the Audit Management Guidelines is the core process of BPK so that obtaining quality assurance is carried out in layers through the Quality Management System (Sistem Manajemen Mutu
20761
/SMM), namely the quality control process by the Audit Functional Officer (Pejabat Fungsional Pemeriksa /PFP) and the process of obtaining quality assurance by Structural Audit Officer (Pejabat Struktural Pemeriksa /PSP) and by the Main Inspectorate (Inspektorat Utama /Itama) for high-risk audit objects.
PSP is an official who carries out duties in the Audit Work Unit by managing audit resources and providing audit quality assurance based on the audit work area. The PSP at the BPK Representative Office in stages is held by the Head of Representative (Kalan) and Head of the Sub-auditorate (Kasubaud). PFP is the functional executor of the BPK audit who is responsible for carrying out audit assignments given by the Audit Task Provider (Pemberi Tugas Pemeriksaan /PTP). The role of the PFP is given based on the competence of the auditor as proven through the role certification process and formally recognized by the BPK as the Supervisor of the Auditor's Functional Position through the Auditor's Role Determination Letter (Surat Ketetapan Peran / SKP) by the Secretary-General of the BPK.
The role of PFP which is legitimized by SKP in stages consists of Quality Controller, Technical Controller, Team Leader,
The SPM was only developed and implemented after the issuance of the SPKM in 2009. In the 2015 PMP, the institutionalization of the SPKM emphasized the elements of quality control and quality assurance, which are an integral part of the audit process and cannot be separated.
The purpose of quality control is to ensure that the audit has been carried out in compliance with applicable regulations, legal provisions, and professional standards so that the resulting LHP reflects the actual conditions. Meanwhile, the purpose of obtaining quality assurance is to obtain high-quality audit results to comply with laws and regulations and based on international standards and best practices in auditing, as well as being the criteria or basis for assessing quality during the audit process as well as activities before and after conducting the audit.
During the audit stage until before the audit report is issued, in stages, the PFP starting from the Team Leader, Technical Controller to Quality Control is responsible for carrying out quality control.
By referring to the PKP that has been distributed, the Team Leader is responsible for carrying out in-depth quality control of the Team Members. The Team Leader and Team Members concerning the previously determined P2 are carried out quality control of their work by the Technical Controller. Then the Quality Controller carries out its responsibilities by controlling the audit stages carried out by ensuring that the audit is following the SPKN.
Before the LHP is issued, the PSP is responsible for obtaining quality assurance at the audit stage. Obtaining quality assurance is carried out by ensuring that PFP has carried out quality control in stages and has complied with applicable regulations and audit standards. This is carried out as the basis for PTP to sign an Exit Letter at each BPK LHP.
4.2 Audit planning
Audit planning is the first stage of audit activities by taking into account audit strategies and policies as well as BPK audit management risks as the basis for determining the objectives, the scope of audits, and human resources needed in audit activities. The importance of audit planning so that audit planning can be carried out efficiently, and effectively, following the policies, activity plans, and audit standards set by BPK.
The formation of the Audit Planning Team (Tim Perencanaan Pemeriksaan /TPP) is the first step in the audit planning which aims to prepare P2. Following the audit policy and strategy, RKP, Agency directives, and PFP profile data, Kalan determine the TPP in
20762
stages by obtaining input from the PFP with the role of Quality Control. The composition of the TPP consists of PFP with consideration of experience and competence relevant to the entity to be examined. The assignment of TPP is stated in the form of an Audit Planning Order (SP3) or a Letter of Assignment. The formation of the TPP is carried out before the audit begins.
The P2 package is a combination of the Audit Program and Assignment Letter. The steps for preparing the P2 Package are Understanding the Object of the Audit and Preparation of the Audit Program.
Understanding the object of audit in the audit planning by PFP can be carried out by the audit desk or audit field. Kalan issues SP3 as the basis for implementing the audit desk and issues a Letter of Assignment as the basis for implementing field audits in audit planning. At the planning stage, the audit desk is an activity of understanding the object of the audit by using previously owned documents such as the KKP, through communication with the previous auditor, and by utilizing the BPK data center which contains information about the entity being examined and the entity's risk profile database. On the other hand, a field audit is the implementation of audit planning through fieldwork by visiting the audited entity directly.
After producing the LHPP, PFP prepares the P2 concept by taking into account the complexity and types of audits that will be carried out in the audit implementation stage and still refers to the PTP's Assignment Expectations. The PFP preparation process is carried out by PFP in stages according to their responsibilities. P2 components at least include, among others, the legal basis of the audit, the audit standard, the purpose of the audit, the entity being audited, the scope of the audit, the results of the understanding of the SPI, the objectives of the audit, the criteria used, the reason for the audit, the audit methodology, the audit instructions, the audit period, the structure of the audit. and audit fees, LHP framework, delivery time, and distribution of LHP as well as Audit Program approval.
Based on PFP's input by considering the completion status of the previous PFP assignment, Kalan arranged the composition of the Examining Team. Determination of the composition of the Audit Team is presented in the form of a Letter of Assignment concept.
PFP considers Kalan regarding the required collective competencies related to the object of the audit in determining the Audit Team, including educational background and experience, independence, and the results of the Auditor's performance evaluation in previous assignments. Based on the results of interviews with Resource Person B and Resource Person G, there were still some problems in determining the composition of the Audit Team, such as the lack of the number of auditors, both in terms of quality and quantity.
On the other hand, the results of the interviews above are different from the results of the evaluation conducted on the SPM document review sheet, especially the object of Determination of the Examining Team carried out by PSP in the activity of reviewing and approving the proposed composition of the Team. The results of the review conducted by PSP on the seven Audit Teams stated that the composition of the team was following the required competencies without explaining that there was a shortage of inspectors, both in terms of quantity and quality.
Furthermore, to anticipate the problem of the need for the number of auditors, Resource Person B with the role of Technical Controller thinks that it is necessary to evaluate the quantity and quality of the required auditors.
The assignment approval process is carried out in stages by the PSP to be approved by the PTP. Based on P2's consideration, the assignment approval is carried out by signing
20763
the Assignment Letter. The issued Assignment Letter is then forwarded to the head of the entity, relevant BPK internal parties, and other agencies based on need.
Based on the P2 Package that has been approved, a division of tasks for the audit steps contained in the P2 is carried out for each Team Member by the Team Leader. Then the members of the audit team make the drafting of the PKP concept, this PKP concept is a derivative work of the P2 and submits it to the Team Leader for review. Furthermore, the Team Leader approves the PKP concept by taking into account the directions from the Technical Controller.
The implementation of the quality control system in audit planning has been carried out based on the quality management system in the Audit Management Guidelines, however, there are still problems, namely the lack of some auditors both in quality and quantity, given the limited time for field audits.
4.3 Audit Implementation
The audit implementation is the embodiment of the audit planning so that the audit can be carried out efficiently, and effectively, and follow the audit standards set by the BPK.
There are two activities in the implementation of the audit, namely the audit activity and the termination of the audit. Audit activities are activities carried out when the Audit Team is in the field. The audit activity begins with communication with the audited entity's officers and ends with the last communication with the audited entity's officers.
Furthermore, the activity of ending the audit is an activity after the Audit Team returns from the field. In the activity of terminating the audit, the auditor makes a report on the results of the audit when in the field and makes accountable for the administration of the audit.
Based on the P2 Package that has been approved, the Team Leader prepares an audit schedule in the form of tentative time needed to carry out audits on the audited entity. The Team Leader requests initial audit data or information and then submits a Letter of Assignment, audit schedule, and Audit Notification Letter including requests for initial data or information to the head of the audited entity. The deadline for notification of the audit is submitted no later than three working days before the PFP conducts the field audit.
The purpose of the initial communication with the head of the entity being audited is to provide an explanation of the audit carried out, such as the purpose and scope of the audit, the plan and timing of the audit, the required documents, and the composition of the Audit Team based on the Assignment Letter. The implementation of the communication is in the form of an initial meeting between the Audit Team and the head of the entity being audited. As a form of documentation of the meeting, the Audit Team prepares minutes containing information about the initial meeting and then the minutes are signed by the PFP with the highest role who attended the initial meeting and by the entity being examined.
PFP carries out the Audit Program following the tasks that have been divided into the PKP. The Audit Program is carried out to obtain sufficient and competent audit evidence.
Furthermore, the evidence of the audit becomes a supporting document that is compiled in the KKP. The Technical Controller receives a report from the Team Leader on the entire implementation of P2 through a weekly report and then reports to the Quality Controller through a bi-weekly report. KKP is the documentation carried out by the Auditor regarding the audit procedures that have been carried out, the tests carried out, the information obtained, and the conclusions generated relating to the audit activities.
20764
Audit Findings are an indication of problems encountered during the audit process.
Audit Findings relate to material SPI weaknesses; the failure of a program under review;
deviations, non-compliance with the provisions of laws and regulations, and material impropriety as well as non-compliance with conditions with established criteria. Audit Findings contain elements including title, conditions, criteria, consequences, causes, and agency comments.
In the final communication, the Quality Control submits the Audit Findings to the head of the entity which has been attached with comments along with the Audit Finding Submission Letter signed by the Quality Controller. The entity's leadership also signs the Audit Finding Submission Letter as evidence that the Audit Findings have been received by the entity.
Termination of the implementation of the audit is the responsibility of the PFP to the PSP through the submission of the Final Report on the Implementation of the Field Audit (Laporan Akhir Pelaksanaan Pemeriksaan Lapangan/ LAPPL). Submission of this LAPPL is the beginning of the reporting process. Submission of the LAPPL concept is carried out no later than five working days after the end of the field audit by the Team Leader to the Quality Controller through the Technical Controller. Submission of this LAPPL is accompanied by Weekly Progress Reports, Audit Findings, Notes for Submission of Audit Findings, financial accountability, and assessment of team performance.
By using the results of a review of the KKP and observations on the PFP, the PFP based on their level of position evaluates the performance of the PFP who has a role one level below it. Some aspects that are assessed include, among others, work objectives, behavioral competencies, and PFP technical competencies during the implementation of the audit. The nature of the Performance Assessment Sheet is confidential and is used as a reference to determine the Team in the next audit assignment, and a reference in processing the application for rank for PFP.
Based on the above discussion, the implementation of the quality control system in the audit implementation has been carried out based on the quality management system that has been stipulated in the Audit Management Guidelines.
4.4 Supervision & Review
Each process of the audit is carried out by supervision and review including directions on the activities of the auditor as well as other parties who have involvement in planning activities. Not only in planning, supervision and review are also carried out in the implementation of audit activities in the field. The supervision and review are carried out in stages starting from the team leader, technical controller, up to the person in charge of the audit. Furthermore, documentation of the results of supervision and review in the KKP is carried out.
The work of the audit team members in the KKP is carried out by supervision and review by the team leader. The team leader supervises reviews including supervision and review of the implementation of P2, the correctness of mathematical calculations and accuracy of figures, sufficient and competent audit evidence, the accuracy of the preparation of the KKP, and giving direction to the team leader on the results of the work that has been done.
The work of the team leader is carried out by supervision and review by the technical controller including the fulfillment of the elements in the TP and LHP, the fulfillment of the objectives and scope of the audit, as well as linguistic aspects.
Furthermore, the work of the technical controller and the head of the team shall be supervised and reviewed by the person in charge of the audit, including the fulfillment of
20765
things in the audit standard, such as an opinion or audit conclusion, format, and substance;
secret information; and elements of corruption.
The implementation of supervision and review quality control activities has been attached to quality control activities at each stage of the audit, namely in Planning, Implementation, and Reporting of Audit Results, and has been implemented.
4.5 Audit Result Report
Audit reporting is the activity of preparing reports by referring to the results of the analysis of the Audit Findings obtained when carrying out the audit. The final result of the audit reporting activity is the issuance of the LHP. The LHP is submitted to the representative institutions and entities being examined so that follow-up actions are carried out based on their respective authorities.
The LHP concept is prepared by the Team Leader based on the Audit Findings as well as important information that has been found and compiled by the Team Members while taking into account the timeliness of the LHP completion. Furthermore, the LHP concept is submitted to the Technical Controller including indications of state or regional losses, criminal elements as well as proposals for confidential information to be reviewed by ensuring the fulfillment of the elements of the Audit Findings, namely conditions, criteria, consequences, causes, and recommendations and ensuring the accuracy of the language used in the audit. LHP is following the stipulated provisions. The Technical Controller fills out the audit reporting quality control checklist when conducting the review. After the Team Leader follows up on the results of the review by the Technical Controller, Furthermore, the Technical Controller submits the reviewed LHP concept to the Quality Controller. The Quality Controller conducts a review to ensure compliance with the SPKN and also conducts a review if there are indications of state or regional losses, criminal elements, and proposals for confidential information. The Quality Controller fills out the audit reporting quality control checklist when conducting a review.
Furthermore, the LHP concept that has been reviewed is submitted by the Quality Control to the PSP to be submitted to the entity and request a response from the entity.
PSP submits a written cover letter for the LHP concept and the LHP concept in writing to the entity's leadership for feedback. As a form of the entity's follow-up plan, the entity's response will then be included in the Action Plan form. Furthermore, the PSP submits the response that has been received from the entity to the PFP for further review.
The Team Leader reviews the responses to the LHP Concept and action plans from the examined entities. Next, include the responses and action plans in the LHP concept.
Gradually, the LHP concept which has been completed with the responses of the entities being examined is submitted by the Team Leader to the Technical Controller and Quality Controller. The LHP concept that has been received by the Quality Control is then submitted to the PSP to carry out the process of obtaining quality assurance. Obtaining quality assurance is carried out by PSP by ensuring that quality control has been carried out by PFP in stages following the stages in PMP and SPKM by using a checklist for obtaining quality assurance. After carrying out the process of obtaining quality assurance on the LHP concept,
PSP submits the LHP concept to PTP accompanied by the concept of an Exit Letter.
The PTP or PFP who was given the task by PTP as the Person in Charge of the Audit then signed the LHP concept to become LHP. Furthermore, PTP signed the Exit Letter, based on the previously signed LHP.
20766
Thus, the implementation of the quality control system in the reporting of audit results has been carried out concerning the quality management system in the Audit Management Guidelines.
4.6 Follow-up Monitoring of Audit Results
The mechanism for follow-up of audit results (Tindak Lanjut Hasil Pemeriksaan/
TLHP) Monitoring consists of three stages, namely Administration, Review, and Reporting. The follow-up administration stage is a process for administering the follow-up material on the results of the audit submitted by the examined entity until the PFP is assigned to carry out an audit of the follow-up material. The TLHP administration process is carried out using an information system. The follow-up administration stages are inputting BAST LHP and monitoring TLHP, receiving and managing answers or follow-up explanations, and assigning TLHP reviews.
Furthermore, based on the Assignment Letter, the auditor conducts a review of the answers or explanations and supporting documents for the action…further through the information system. Based on the results of the study, the PFP determines the status of the follow-up to the recommendations related to the results of the audit. The information system will automatically generate a follow-up monitoring matrix. The results of the review of the answers or explanations as well as supporting documents for the follow-up results are then determined whether they are appropriate (status 1), not yet appropriate (status 2), not followed up (status 3), or cannot be followed up (status 4).
The results will then be reviewed and approved in stages by the PFP. Next, the PFP submits the approved matrix to the PSP for gradual review. Furthermore, PSP gave final approval for TLHP with statuses 3 and 4 and statuses 1 and 2 which have low materiality.
For findings/recommendations with statuses 1 and 2 which are considered to have high materiality, PSP submits the TLHP review matrix for approval from the Agency.
The results of TLHP monitoring are based on the results of a review of the answers or follow-up explanations, after obtaining approval from Kalan, which will then be submitted to the Head of Ditama Revbang, Dit. EPP, either manually or through the information system. The results of TLHP monitoring are then reviewed and evaluated by the Dit. EPP to ensure coding accuracy, status accuracy, numeric accuracy, and so on.
Based on the results of interviews with Resource Person B and Resource D stated that during the implementation of TLHP monitoring activities, quality control activities had been carried out but did not make implementation documents. This is because the Audit Support Management Guidelines have not regulated SMM on TLHP monitoring activities so there is no special form that must be made as a form of quality control.
In terms of obstacles that are often faced by entities in carrying out TLHP, the interviewees mentioned that the recommendations could not be implemented, errors in providing recommendations, existing recommendations were no longer relevant to the latest conditions, and there was disagreement over the results of the audit, and the recommendations made were not understood by the entity.
From these obstacles, it can be seen that all of them came from the internal BPK Representative of West Sulawesi Province as the giver of recommendations. The inaccuracy and ambiguity of giving recommendations is one indication that there are weaknesses in the recommendation preparation process, which is caused by the weak implementation of quality control.
In addition, the SMM has not been regulated in the Audit Support Management Guidelines, causing it to be unclear who is involved and the responsibilities that must be
20767
carried out in implementing the quality control system in monitoring follow-up audit results.
4.7 Audit Evaluation
The audit evaluation is carried out independently by the auditor team at each audit carried out. Internally, the audit team evaluates the audit in stages starting from the team leader, and technical controller, to the person in charge. The team then documented the results of the evaluation in the audit work paper.
In addition, if necessary, an audit evaluation is also carried out by the head of the BPK implementing a stake in the field of cross-review. The evaluation was carried out by another auditor who was not involved in the audit of the work units.
The head of the work units in the field of audit and Itama also conducts regular audit performance assessments. Assessment of audit performance is carried out not only to assess audit performance but also to assess the extent to which the objectives and expectations of the assignment are achieved as well as conformity with established standards and guidelines. However, the audit performance assessment has never been carried out by the head of the work units in the field of audit at the West Sulawesi Province Representative BPK, and the audit performance assessment conducted by Itama at the West Sulawesi Province Representative BPK has not been carried out for a long time, the last being carried out in 2016, based on the results of interviews with Resource Person J which is the SPM Assessment Team.
The length of the audit performance assessment period carried out by Itama occurred due to the process of determining the sampling unit, which was assessed based on the results of the initial information and data analysis and identification of the working units at risk based on the explanation of Resource Person J.
The effectiveness of the implementation of the quality control system certainly requires periodic supervision from parties outside the implementer of the system. So it needs to be a serious concern for the SPM Assessor to carry out periodic supervision.
V. Conclusion
From the results of the analysis and discussion of the implementation of a quality control system on audit performance at the BPK Representative for West Sulawesi Province, it can be concluded that the BPK Representative for West Sulawesi Province has the task of examining the management and responsibility of regional finances in the Provincial and Regency Governments of West Sulawesi Province. In addition to audits, the BPK Representative of West Sulawesi Province also evaluates audit activities, and monitors the implementation of TLHP. To ensure that the audit has been carried out in compliance with professional standards as well as applicable legal and regulatory provisions and that the LHP issued is following the conditions, it is necessary to carry out quality control on the audits carried out by the Auditor starting from the planning stage to the evaluation of the audit.
In SPKN, BPK has established one of the principles of state financial audit, namely quality control. Furthermore, as a form of quality control implementation, BPK has established a Quality Management System at the stages of Planning, Implementation, and Reporting of Audit Results as contained in the Audit Management Guidelines. To obtain adequate assurance that SPM has regulated all required quality control elements and has been implemented consistently, BPK has also established and implemented a Quality Assurance System (SPKM) or quality assurance system. As a system, SPKM includes
20768
structures, policies, and procedures for assessing the arrangement and implementation of SPM.
In its overall application, the BPK Representative of West Sulawesi Province has implemented a quality control system on audit performance based on the BPK SPKMbut there are still things that need to be considered by the BPK Representative of West Sulawesi Province as a form of improvement in implementation including 1) Lack of understanding of the control system quality of audit performance; 2) an Insufficient number of Examining Teams, both in terms of quantity and quality; 3) The quality management system has not yet been established for the component Follow-up Monitoring of the Audit Results, and 4) The need to strengthen supervision on the implementation of the quality control system on audit performance.
References
Decree of The Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia a Number 03/K/I-XIII.2/03/2009 concerning Guidelines for the Implementation of the Quality Assurance System Decree of The Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5/K/I-XIII.2/10/2015
concerning Audit Management Guidelines
Decree of The Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5/K/I-XIII.2/5/2016 concerning Audit Support Management Guidelines
Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning State Administrators that are Clean and Free from Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism
Niati, D. R., Siregar, Z. M. E., & Prayoga, Y. (2021). The Effect of Training on Work Performance and Career Development: The Role of Motivation as Intervening Variable. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal):
Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 2385–2393.
https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v4i2.1940
Regulation of The Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia Number 01 of 2017 concerning State Audit Standards
Regulation of The Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 2020 concerning the Strategic Plan of the State Audit Board of the Year 2020-2024
Shah, M. M., et al. (2020). The Development Impact of PT. Medco E & P Malaka on Economic Aspects in East Aceh Regency. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal) Volume 3, No 1, Page: 276-286.
Werdhiastutie, A. et al. (2020). Achievement Motivation as Antecedents of Quality Improvement of Organizational Human Resources. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal) Volume 3, No 2, Page: 747-752.
