CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
6.1.2 Qualitative Findings
New Equation of IBPI
EIB = - 266+.206 CP +.210 CR +.321 DA +.254 NA +.175 LP+.174 MP +.126 LS +.062 PPI
F = .589 P = 0.00 R2 = .819 Adjust R2 = .813
This new finding of a new model, which makes a case for the effectiveness of integrated budget management in Asian nations (EIBT), is essential. It is potentially a different answer for the Budget Bureau and different government agencies. The MLR as a prognostic analysis, multiple statistical regression is employed to clarify the connection between one continuous variable, that is, that the effects of IBP, and eight freelance variables. EIBT is able to forecast the effects or impacts of changes. This analysis helps government to know what proportion the effects of IBP can modify once the new budget policy changes over every twelve months.
The units of study were department high-level managers from selected government agencies in budget design that were directly and indirectly associated with narcotics budget designing activities. In accordance with the visibility of their objectives and their accountable activities, the chosen departments received focus at the director and deputy director levels. Agencies structure varied: some units had a limitation on management and the quantity of workers, whereas others had varied subdivisions with completely different departments. With a range of agency sizes, employees and responsibilities, these approaches were studied through their involvement within the firms’ budgeting activities. This could clarify whether or not there was homogeneity or heterogeneousness in budgeting-related outcomes within the agencies inside the Thai government. However, so as to remain removed from prejudice by solely determinative recognized policy contributors, the choice was made to involve corporations that are recognized as having sturdy IBP implementation.
Through private connections, the study was ready to find 3 high-level executives from selected departments and different units of budget design departments as participants. These high-level executives included Director Level 8, Senior Consultant Level 10, and Deputy Director of Budget Bureau Level 10. Because of analysis scope and constraints, this sampling didn't entirely cover budget involvement within the government, though a trial was created to sample the broadest form of objectives and their responsibilities inside the scope of this analysis. As Donald, Arthur, Glaser and Strauss (1967) explained, “the purposive methodology of sampling is complemented by the comparative methodology of sampling that permits selecting instances representative of various aspects of reality”. Thus, by selecting a range of managers from mixed industries and different stratified levels of agencies, we outlined the persons behind the method of selecting and implementing socially-responsible action who would be ready to facilitate the corporations and their activities as a full review for in-depth information.
Observations were additionally used for qualitative analysis, that is, only the absence or presence of a property was noted, or quantitative if a numerical value was attached to the observed budget phenomenon by counting or measuring. The researcher attempted to produce the most inclusive and attentive discussion of event studies related to the influence on agencies’ and inter-agencies’ values in seminar and training event
announcements, such as annual budget planning seminars arranged by the Budget Bureau for budget personnel training. As a consequence, this study discovered that among ten factor studies, there was a significant relationship between the budget performance factor and the inter-organizational factor toward EIB. This result was confirmed by IBPI, which claimed that by performing these new practices, the department could instantly be more robust in their financial position.
Considering the larger analysis inquiry, the analyses of the participants’
interviews and their individual firms’ documentations indicated relevancy toward their consciousness of how their budgeting activities regarding the firm’s stakeholders had a bearing on their department and money performance, yielding mixed consequences.
There was a growing contradiction between the high-level executives’ perceptions, tips and norms, and therefore an absence of absolute standards for central budgeting. This can be relevant to students of United Nations agencies who believe that these levels of quality are in all probability a total reaction to different moral behaviors, cross cultures, generation teams, and institutional and individual worth systems. Overall, the study found a positive however weak correlation. It was usually determined that budgeting might generate department performance, and therefore, most sizable units were energetically concerned in it, nevertheless some high-level executives were responsive to their involvement during this necessary subject. As may be seen from the analysis section that the challenge of budgeting involvement ranged from not having enough finances, resources, performers, and time, to agencies’ capabilities to participate in a narcotics facet. Above all, whether or not they sincerely tried to be generous to society, or only broadcast their performance so as to strengthen department impressions and eventually publicize their positive name within the money performance, it eventually ought to bring mutual profit in the end. However, IBPI, in all probability, ought to be distinctive for various departments and will be strategic in nature once it results in multiplied gains. As a matter of truth, IBPI is needed in some departments, whereas IBPI may use various budget designs. This difference exists as a result of some departments being required to socialize with sensitive ethical subjects and to suit governmental legal and restrictive frameworks relating to narcotics. As a consequence, before an effort to participate in any IBPI activities, departments ought to painstakingly think over the strengths and weaknesses of such actions.
The study found that the traditional approach to budgeting is an approach that is forced down from the top. The overall reason for an authoritative approach to budgeting is that of control. Control is often defined as how many subordinates a manager can effectively and efficiently impact at the executive level. Dixon (2001) stated that “the upper levels of the agencies needed to control both the work practices of employees and their access to and use of organizational resources”. The findings did not determine if this was a superior budgeting method or not. However, it concluded that the traditional approach to budgeting could lead to game playing. Within the IBP approach to budgeting, as the researcher further discovered in observations, participation is not always evident. The behavior of those involved, directly or not, is predictable and a natural result of a centralized, top-down budget system. Participants did not delve into the merits, or lack thereof, of traditional budgeting. The belief was that this process could work for some agencies depending on the leadership of the agencies. However, the findings concluded that, although executives are not necessarily included in the up-front preparation of the budget document, with a traditional approach the executives become very astute at playing a budget game in order to achieve their own agenda. This study is cautious in suggesting that IBPI is superior to traditional budgeting practices. The skepticism was apparent when the qualitative study concluded that a new management philosophy or management style will not make any difference in agencies with the same negative perspectives toward acquiring new knowledge. The success of the budget process within a government agency will usually depend on management style and the perception of bureaucratic attitudes.