Identification Of Key Performance Indicators for Master Management Program of Widyatama University Indonesia

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify key performance indicators (KPI) in the type of private higher education organization. This research is case study research with the object of research, namely the Master of Management Program at Widyatama University Indonesia (MM UTama). The research conducted is qualitative research that aims to identify KPI MM UTama using the latest version of the “key performance indicator― method developed by Parmenter (2015). The results showed that MM UTama had been able to identify the types of KPIs in the form of KRIs, RIs, and PIs. However, MM UTama is still not able to identify the types of KPIs in the form of KPIs. The researcher suggested that MM UTama immediately identify KPIs immediately, because KPIs are the most important key indicators to control so that organizations can achieve success and avoid failure. The researcher also suggested that MM UTama also re-identify KRIs, RIs, PIs and KPIs so that the number of performance indicators each approaches the recommended 10/80/10 rule (Parmenter, 2015). The purpose of this study is to identify key performance indicators (KPI) in the type of private higher education organization. This research is case study research with the object of research, namely the Master of Management Program at Widyatama University Indonesia (MM UTama). The research conducted is qualitative research that aims to identify KPI MM UTama using the latest version of the “key performance indicator” method developed by Parmenter (2015). The results showed that MM UTama had been able to identify the types of KPIs in the form of KRIs, RIs, and PIs. However, MM UTama is still not able to identify the types of KPIs in the form of KPIs. The researcher suggested that MM UTama immediately identify KPIs immediately, because KPIs are the most important key indicators to control so that organizations can achieve success and avoid failure. The researcher also suggested that MM UTama also re-identify KRIs, RIs, PIs and KPIs so that the number of performance indicators each approaches the recommended 10/80/10 rule (Parmenter, 2015).