JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No.

1, May 2023

Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers Using

Behaviorally Anchor Rating Scale and Management
by Objectives Method
Muhammad Sabiq Dzakwan1, Sunardi2, Anton Yudhana3
1,2,3
Ahmad Dahlan University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
1muhammad1907048009@[Link], 2sunardi@[Link]
3eyudhana@[Link]

Abstract - Mutiara Mahakam Samarinda Institute of health education sector, has two study programs: the
Health Sciences (STIKES-MM Samarinda) has a system Bachelor of Hospital Administration and the Diploma of
for monitoring and evaluating the performance of Midwifery [1]- [3]. It is a health education institution that
lecturers or education staff. This system measures has the good achievements that show the progress of the
performance achievements in terms of teaching, research,
institution in the last decade as the first health institution
and community service. . Nevertheless, since every segment
of the system is not yet fully computerized, this then raises
in East Kalimantan and North Kalimantan to achieve B
several obstacles in the process of monitoring and accreditation from BAN-PT (National Accreditation
evaluating the performance, length of time to obtain the Agency of Higher Education, while Lembaga Akreditasi
final assessment results and the low accuracy level of the Mandiri Perguruan Tinggi kesehatan is the institute that
assessment. This study aims to seeks solutions to these assesses accreditation within the scope of health
obstacles and offers an educator performance monitoring institutions LAM-PTKes [4].
system that combines the Behaviorally Anchor Rating Human Resources (HR) of universities continue to
Scale (BARS) and Management by Objectives (MBO) develop technology that previously used paper in the
methods to be assessed quantitatively based on the rating form of questionnaire that lacked of real-time data,
scores in measuring the two methods. The BARS method
especially from manual systems and then, is gradually
was focused on evaluating behaviour that would affect
overall performance with an average score of 4.14%, while
changed with technology by creating an integrated
the MBO method was focused on evaluating according to information system [5]-[6]. The information system at
Tri Dharma of higher education, namely teaching, STIKES-MM has been implemented well, showing
research and community service. The assessment system campus profiles and attractive website designs as the
was then implemented to evaluate the performance of main attraction for users or prospective students [7]- [9].
lecturers and education staff. Subsequently, the data Several systems that have been running until now still
obtained were analyzed to get the final result of the use the manual method using Excel, one of which is the
assessment. In particular for data from the MBO method, monitoring system for data on the performance of
the analysis was carried out using step with and without lecturers or lecturers[10]. The data recapitulation system
KRA. This exploratory research succeeded in presenting
has weaknesses or risks including redundancy, corrupt
the final results of the performance assessment of each
lecturer who was assessed for both the value of the BARS
file, and cannot process real time data in assessing
and MBO methods. Data analysis from the MBO method , performance aspects [11]-[12].
when calculated with and without KRA and KRA, showed STIKES-MM has SPMI (Internal Quality Assurance
some significant differences in MBO. For all lecturers, the System), a systemic activity of development of quality
difference in scores, if the average was 3.48%, then this assurance taken out independently by each institution to
assessment was more inclined to the BARS assessment, manage and enhance higher education implementation in
which had a better rating than MBO. a planned and reliable manner as a part of quality
assurance in managing HR performance in terms of
Keywords: Evaluation, data monitoring, performance, processing data on the performance of lecturers. HR data
management by objectives can be used as an indicator of overall work results that
become achievements in work and workplace [7], [13]-
I. INTRODUCTION [14].
Mutiara Mahakam Samarinda Institute of Health Some of the performance measures include discipline,
Sciences (STIKES-MM Samarinda) a university in responsibility, teamwork, planning, leadership, ability,

Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45 37

JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

problem solving and retrieval ability, obedience, honesty, the responsibilities and authorities of personnel must also
initiative, motivation, analytical thinking, refers to be clearly defined. However, MBO concept also has
orientation, and innovation [15]. The monitoring of the many drawbacks. To be successful, MBO as a
achievement of these performance measures is used as a management concept must be supported by top
reference to develop an information system so that it can management. Employees do not prefer MBO, as they are
always be monitored by the leadership in conducting HR under pressure to associate with management when the
assessments that have an impact on the progress of the goals and objectives are set unrealistically high. MBO is
institution. Ideally, this system application can usually be just a way for management to make the employees work
monitored by the management, namely the director, harder and become more dedicated and engaged.
SPMI, and administrators [16]-[17]. The emphasis in the MBO system is on the
The Behaviorally Anchor Rating Scale (BARS) is quantification of goals and objectives. It leaves no basis
based upon the development of crucial behaviors from for subjective purposes. Some areas are difficult to
the individual's position that can affect the success or measure and even more difficult to evaluate. The
failure of a job. Management by Objectives (MBO) solution is expected to help the SPMI section and the
methods collaborate the emergence of behaviors and the director in seeing HR achievements so that they can work
emergence of attitude with MBO partnership based on an well based upon the standards [20] .
institution's goal to well enhance the teaching area and
determine individual success that will be judged good or II. METHOD
bad according to the ranking of several aspects as the This study, discusses about the implementation of the
indicators of the assessment of the rating scale. BARS BARS and MBO methods to assess the performance of
can overcome a performance scaling problem that tends lecturers or teaching staff that is descriptive,
to be exclusive to lecturers, while the MBO method is a understandable, and table 1, 2 and 3 present the
structured strategy that prioritizes the acceptance of implementation. for performance evaluation at STIKES-
useful goals for improving performance between MM Samarinda. In this study, there were 18 lecturers
lecturers and directors. These two methods are critical were involved as the objects with the performance to be
since because they can help to assess lecturer assessed using the BARS and MBO methods.
performance as a standardization of assessment for Meanwhile, the respondents assessing the performance
lecturers both of the goals to be achieved with an attitude of lecturers were obtained using random sampling
when conducting education [1] and [18]. To be consisting of 46 respondents, namely 9 students of the
successful, MBO as a concept must be supported by Hospital Administration Undergraduate Study Program,
senior management. Employees do not prefer MBO 36 students of the Midwifery D3 Study Program, and 1
because they are pressured to partner with management director.
when goals and objectives are set at an unrealistic level
[19]. A. Combination Design of BARS and MBO Methods
This study aims to monitor the performance data of The study combined the BARS and MBO methods
lecturers at STIKES-MM using the BARS carried out in several stages by researching BARS
advantageously, behavior-based management enables methods for behavior and MBO for target achievement
behavior to be objectively observed and evaluated. in performance appraisal. The determination of objects,
BARS assesses behaviors that are relevant to important respondents, and questionnaires for the design of the
and specialized job. assessment is deemed important [19]. Table 1 presents
The downsides of behavior-based performance, the list of assessment categories used in the MBO
nevertheless, are that are BARS does not directly assessment parameters.
measure outcomes and it will take time to formulate This stage is to determine the parameters of the BARS
rating scales for diverse jobs. It can only be used for research performance assessment and focus on the
behaviors and is difficult to detect traits such as
lecturers’ behavior. This research used the BARS
innovation or leadership, while MBO methods are
method and these steps on BARS:
results-oriented process, and focuses on setting and
controlling goals, thereby encouraging managers to do 1) Collect critical incidents. This situation talked
detailed planning. Both managers and employees must with the experts in the job holders to explain the technical
know their roles in order to prevent any, role ambiguity aspects of effective performance in detail and not by
or confusion. Managers are required to set measurable means of job rank analysis.
targets, priorities and performance standards. In addition,

38 Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45

 JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

2) Identify performance dimensions. These Following the completion of the prior explanation,
conditions were grouped within a small set of work the next step was to define the parameters for the
dimensions described in each dimension. evaluation of the bars method, which would be
implemented in 13 parameters in this analysis, as
3) Reclassify the incidents. Other groups of people
represented in Table I. These variables generate a
knew and redistributed the important event. At first, it
parameter for evaluating the BARS method. The
was necessary to identify important groups and events
assessment predicate as shown in Table I was
and do the following. Reassigning each event to the
implemented for this BARS parameter assessment.
group the object became the most important thing.
4) Assign scale values to the incidents. Performing B. The Determination of MBO Method Parameter
the ranking of attitudes shown based on events in the To assess the performance of the teaching staff, this
field was effectively and efficiently to explain research used the MBO method [20]. These MBO steps :
performance of its dimensions.
1) Set Corporate Objectives. The concept level of
5) Develop a final instrument. The final output was the whole institution for the next several years and
a selection of five to thirteen instruments as validate the specific goals of the institution based on the
standardization of attitudes on the dimensions. strategic plan of the industry.

TABLE I
PARAMETERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BARS METHOD
No BARS Method Assesment Description
Parameter
1 Discipline The field in consideration is to offer timely education, research, and
voluntary work.
2 Responsibility The duty is to achieve a specified goal as a lecturer while remaining
connected to the duties being occupied.
3 Teamwork Teamwork seems to be the capability to assist lecturers in their
activity by doing research into educating team and collaborating with
other lecturers in community service.
4 Planning Planning to design a teaching syllabus, doing research in its field,
and spreading its insights via relevant community service.
5 Leadership ability Leadership ability to coordinate when delegated as coordinator of
both educational teams and research and community service.
6 Problem Solving and Retrieval Issues in teaching, research, and community service can act consign
Ability individually or in teams.
7 Obedience Obedience means that lecturers rarely break the rules as lecturers.
8 Honesty Honesty is teaching, research, and public service without any
plagiarism and lies.
9 Initiative Initiatives find learning ideas, management research, and carry out
specific implementations of community service.
10 Motivation Motivation refer to what we have seen in the assessment of the BARS
method. Mainly, as long as it is seen when doing work that admit to
already be given and completed on time.
11 Analytical Thinking A thought process by collection information to definitely solve a
problem. Analytical thinking is similar in definition and is often
combined with critical thinking because it requires good analytical
skills by influencing the areas of teaching, research and community
service.
12 Refers to Orientation This means that capability views are even alongside the vision and
mission of the institution and existing regulations.
13 Innovation Innovation is a key to bring about extraordinary improvement in
education, research and community service.

Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45 39

JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

2) Set and Align Employee Objectives. The director and Community Service.
takes the plan and carries out the strategic goals of the
institution in improving quality and legitimizing
As displayed in Table III, these parameters obtained
together.
a measure of the evaluation of the MBO method and the
3) Monitor Performance. The directors and heads weight of the values settled in the assessment of the
of fields as well as lecturers conduct negotiations agreed MBO and KRA MBO parameters utilizing the
upon by the group and legalize common goals according assessment predicate.
to the target section of the field.
C. Monitoring System Application Design
4) Evaluate Performance. The director and head of
the field consider the concrete performance and goals of Monitoring Application Design creates a design
each lecturers. application beginning with the flow system. The design
of inputs and outputs, as well as other components was
5) Reward Employee. The Director and the Head of necessary for the application's construction. The design
the Division make a consensus, evaluate the results of of the application would be negotiated with institutional
this latest progress and give reward to lecturers. stakeholders. The author will supplied input and output
Table II shows 11 research parameters were used as designs in which the institution would authorize and
assessment measure for the MBO method. The MBO execute operationally.
data parameter describes the Key Result Areas (KRA) The monitoring system application design refers to a
used as parameter elements in the MBO evaluation. KRA system design plan for building a system applied to the
plays an important role in the assessment as it serves as outcomes of the BARS and MBO methodologies for
a reference for the evaluation from Table II. Next is lecturers' performance results at STIKES-MM as shown
Table III. KRA MBO for determining parameters in in Fig 1.
three KRAs such as Education and Learning , Research

TABLE II
MBO METHOD ASSESSMENT PARAMETER
No. Assesment Category
1 Can the implementation of lectures be carried out effectively?
2 How does the lecturer guide the student’s seminar?
3 Does this lecturer guide students in real work lectures, real work practices, field work practices?
4 Does this Lecturer direct and co-guide in order to create the final project?
5 Is the lecturer an examiner both as chairman and as a member of the congregation?
6 How is the Lecturer's Performance in fostering student activities in the academic and student
affairs division?
7 How do Lecturers explain the lecture materials?
8 Do active lecturers produce scientific papers in unaccredited national journals?
9 How do lecturers have a synergy in building a scientific work?
10 Do lecturers provide training / counseling / upgrading / lectures to the community?
11 Do lecturers actively participate in scientific activities as participants?

TABLE III This system flow is an explain how the processes for
KRA MBO the BARS and MBO methods were implemented by
Relevant MBO Weight performing an introduction, Design a Performance
KRA-n KRA Name
Parameter Score Appraisal System Using a Combination of BARS &
1 Education and 1, 7 20% MBO, Monitoring System Application Design ,Data
Learning collection and data analysis in sequence.
2 Research 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 60% The process to build the system in this research
3 Community service 3, 6, 10 20% required data building.

40 Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45

 JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

that would be implemented according to the equation

referred of the journal citation [17], the first is used the
BARS (1).
Total score
BARS score = total Critical Incident
(1)
Total score = the value given by the respondent
Critical incident = performance appraisals that need the
evaluation of written materials
related to the acts of lecturers that are
both positive and negative
As for the MBO method, researchers referred to be
more flexible assessment model, namely from journals
[16] that are appropriate and the step appraisal system
carried out by researchers and the condition in the
environment . The MBO data analyst's calculation step is
shown here, with three steps. The first step, the MBO
value was calculated directly on the average of the 11
categories of MBO from each lecturer (2).
MBO category
MBO category score = ∑ total score
(2)
The mean value of the MBO category was divided by
the number of KRA MBO means in the second and third
steps, respectively. MBO values were computed by
categorizing 11 MBO types into three KRAs from Tables
Fig 1. The flow system 2 and 3. The average of the MBO category input into the
relevant KRA in Table 3 is used to calculate the value of
each KRA. and the outcome of this formula as displayed
D. Data Collection and Data Analysis in (3).
Data collection became the final stage of Application The third step calculated the MBO value by involving
that was carried out online without time constraints in the the weighting of the KRA by referring to Table III. The
assessment input process for both students and directors. MBO value was obtained by first calculating the
Data were collected within a few days from May 01 to contribution of each KRA according to its weight in (4).
June 01, 2021. During the assessment, it was expected Equation(5) with the value of KRA MBO value divided
that a good internet connection would be easier for the by the number of categories. Equation(6) with unweight
data input process. Data analysis was carried out using MBO value. The mean value of the MBO category was
the BARS and MBO methods with (1) for each method divided by the mean number of KRA.

Mean of MBO category score

𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑀𝐵𝑂 𝑊𝐼𝑇𝐻 𝐾𝑅𝐴 𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 = ∑ Total KRA Mean
(3)
(20/100 ×𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐾𝑅𝐴 1)+(60/100 ×𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐾𝑅𝐴 2)+(20/100 ×𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐾𝑅𝐴 3)
MBO score with weighing = ∑ total KRA mean
(4)
category score
KRA MBO score = ∑ total category (5)
Mean of MBO category score
Mean of MBO WITH KRA Without Weighing = ∑ total KRA Mean
(6)

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION stage was calculated with a value of 1-5 in each
parameter, and the last stage was divided by the number
A. Data BARS Analysis of parameters to get the results of the BARS method. The
BARS data analysis was to measure the BARS calculation of the BARS data analysis in Table IV.
Method (Behavior) by making 13 parameters, the second required an anchor rating for the BARS ranking with one
respondent, namely the director. It is exemplified in

Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45 41

JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

Table IV. with the shaded blue. Assessments C1, C2, C3, value 4 stated that the anchor rating referred to
C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, and C13 orientation by improving work performance. C13 value
represented the assessment parameters for the BARS 5 stated that the anchor rating of innovation by
method. The parameter for C1 value 5 stated that the performing new things at the organizational level caused
anchor rating was discipline, by always being on time the company to have better performance. This analysis
with 0% absenteeism. C2 value 5 stated that the anchor was for a lecturer named NH. and shaded in blue. The
rating was Responsibility by always doing tasks output parameters of the BARS method were referenced
according to the instructions given and collecting them from Table IV showing 5of 18 lecturers who were
on time. C3 value 5 stated that the anchor rating was assessed by the Director. The five lecturers included
teamwork, being able to coordinate and communicate NH,[Link],RY, and NI.
with various parties and appreciate proposals. C4 value The BARS value for NH was 4.76 as the result of the
5 stated that the anchor rating was planning by always sum of all the BARS parameter values divided by 13
making plans before working and monitoring to ensure parameters (the number of BARS parameters).
the plan goes well. C5 value 5 stated that the anchor
B. MBO Data Analysis
rating was an ability to lead by acting decisively and
impartially and being an example. C6 value 5 stated that The MBO technique (objective) data analysis has
the anchor rating was an ability to solve problems and been completed. The MBO method analysis of data
took decisions by being able to formulate relevant (objective) was to assemble the outcomes of the MBO
alternative solutions to solve problems. C7 with a value design that evaluated the performance achievements,
of 5 stated that the anchor rating was compliance by where this evaluation design was created, and these
always obeying the rules and work procedures and outputs are shown in this part.
following instructions given by superiors. C8 value 5 Table V shows the mapping of respondents who gave
stated that the anchor rating was honesty by always the MBO value to the object of research (lecturer). In this
reporting the results of their work to their superiors table, six students evaluated the lecturer on behalf of RY.
according to the actual situation. C9 value of 4 stated that showed the calculation of the value of 11 MBO
the anchor rating of the initiative, in the midst of an categories from 6 students in the order of 1 (AA), 2
urgent situation, considers the decision to be taken or the FGH), 3 (KL), 4 (AT), 5 (FHL), 6 (MKR) to the lecturer
action to be taken in carrying out the task. C10 a value of on behalf of RY. The value of each category was
4 stated that the anchor rating of motivation by doing the calculated based on the average (mean) of the scores
task was more than expected. C11 score 5 stated that the given by the students.
anchor rating thinks analytically by making complex
analysis or plans with institutional regulations. C12

TABLE IV
BARS ANALYSIS OUTPUT
# Name C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
1 NH 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5

2 SN 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
3 DRA 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5
4 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 4
4 RY
5 NI 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

BARS score =(5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+4+4+5+4+5)/13 = TABLE V

(62 )/13 = 4,76 MAPPING OF RESPONDENT TO THE LECTURER
Student NIM Student Lecturer
The first step, the MBO score was calculated directly 1 191326110001 AA
name Lecturer
name
on average from 11 categories of MBO from each 2 191326110004 FGH 1:RY
lecturer who was assessed by six students for one lecturer 3 191326110007 KL
on behalf of RY. In the second and third step, the MBO 4 201326110015 AT
5 201326110019 FHL
value was calculated by grouping 11 categories of MBO
6 201326110024 MK

42 Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45

 JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

into three KRAs for one lecturer on behalf of RY. The for three lecturers, namely RY, SN, and NH. The nalysis
value of each KRA was calculated by finding the average of the MBO data in this study calculated the MBO value
value of the MBO category that was incorporated into for each lecturer with three step. The first step was s to
the relevant KRA, namely KRA-1, KRA-2, and KRA-3. calculate the mean of 11 MBO categories directly. The
The second step, the MBO value was obtained by example of calculating the MBO value for a lecturer on
averaging the three KRA scores from each lecturer. The behalf of RY with this first step is presented as follows.
third step calculates the MBO value by involving the MBO scores for three lecturers are shown at the end of
weighting of KRA with the weight of KRA-1 20%, Table VII.
KRA-2 60%, and KRA-3 20% the MBO value was In the second and third STEP, the MBO value for
obtained by first calculating the contribution of each each lecturer was calculated by considering the grouping
KRA according to the weight mentioned in eq.(2) Table of 11 MBO categories into three KRAs. For this reason,
VI. it is important to first calculate the value of each KRA.
The explanation in Table VII showed results of the The value of each KRA was obtained by calculating the
calculation refers to eq (2) with the following mean of all MBO categories for the respective KRA.
calculations: table VII. for a lecturer on behalf of Restu Yunus, the
KRA-1 value was calculated from the mean value of the
MBO-1 catgeory value :(3+3+3+3+4+4)/6=3,33 1st MBO category and the 7th MBO category value, as
MBO-1 category scores from six students on behalf of follows:
RY. with a value of 3.33. 3,33 + 2,83
Table VII means KRA lecturer scores were taken 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐾𝑅𝐴 − 1 = ∑
2
from Table VII on the mean value for a lecturer named Then, the score of KRA-2 was :
RY This colored column was used as an example of 3,17+2,83+3,33+3,50+3,83+3,67
assessment for the lecturer's KRA mean. After the value 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐾𝑅𝐴 − 2 = ∑ 6
=
of the MBO category for all 18 lecturers who became the 3,39
object of this research was obtained, then the KRA value
was calculated which was a combination of several MBO and the KRA-3 was :
categories. Of the 11 MBO categories, they were 3,17+3,67+3,33
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐾𝑅𝐴 − 3 = ∑ = 3,39
combined into three KRA. Table VII. shows a snapshot 3
of the merging of the MBO categories into three KRAs

3,33 + 2,83 + 3,17 + 2,83 + 3,33 + 3,50 + 3,83 + 3,67 + 3,17 + 3,67 + 3,33
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑀𝐵𝑂 𝑊𝐼𝑇𝐻 𝐾𝑅𝐴 = ∑
11
= 𝟑, 𝟑𝟑

TABLE VI
MBO CATEGORY IN KRA LECTURER ON BEHALF OF RY
Category
MHS 1 MHS 2 MHS 3 MHS 4 MHS 5 MHS 6 Mean
MBO
1 3 3 3 3 4 4 3,33
2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3,17
3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3,17
4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2,83
5 3 4 3 3 3 4 3,33
6 4 3 4 3 4 4 3,67
7 2 3 3 3 3 3 2,83
8 4 3 4 2 4 4 3,50
9 4 3 4 4 4 4 3,83
10 2 3 4 3 4 4 3,33
11 4 4 3 4 4 3 3,67

Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45 43

JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

TABLE VII TABLE VIII

MERGER OF 11 MBO CATEGORIES INTO 3 KRA MBO DATA ANALYSIS OUTPUT WITH THREE
MEAN CATEGORIES MBO WITH KRA STEP
Lecturer 1: RY MBO Lecturer Score
MBO # Lecturer
KRA-n MBO Category KRA Step I Step II Step III
Category
Score Score 1 RNM 3,53 3,45 3,54
KRA-1 1 3,33 3,08 2 BL 3,52 3,53 3,51
7 2,83
3 DH 3,51 3,50 3,51
KRA-2 2 3,17 3,39
4 2,83 4 NI 3,48 3,50 3,48
5 3,33 5 PH 3,47 3,46 3,47
8 3,50 6 WA 3,45 3,48 3,44
9 3,83 7 MA 3,44 3,44 3,43
11 3,67 8 RY 3,53 3,45 3,54
KRA-3 3 3,17 3,39
6 3,67 Based on the results of MBO with KRA with
10 3,33 weighing from eq.(4). KRA 1 was multiplied by a weight
Mean ∑ KRA 3,29 of 20%, KRA 2 was multiplied by a weight of 60%, and
KRA 3 was multiplied by 20% and then added and
For example, calculating the mean value of KRA 1 divided by the number of KRAs with the result of 3.33.
for lecturer named RY with a result of 3.33. Table VII is The result of the comparison of MBO with KRA without
about The output of the Mean KRA analysis for the MBO weighing with MBO with KRA with weighing was 3 .29
method that was assessed by six students with the and 3.33 with this result of slight difference of 0.4, the
lecturer assessed was RY taken from KRA 1, 2, and 3 performance achievement with the predicate was
equations from the assessment category referred to in (2) satisfactory.
and Table III and IV KRA by dividing three categories,
namely KRA 1 education and teaching, KRA 2 research, IV. CONCLUSION
and KRA 3 community service, with a total of 11 mean
values. The use of the calculation data formulas with and It can be concluded that this research seeks solutions
without weighing is presented as follows. to these obstacles and offers an educator performance
The result of Mean KRA 3 was a reference from monitoring system that combines the Behavioral Anchor
Table V where the total mean was divided by the number Rating Scale (BARS) and Management by Objectives
of three categories. The next stage was to divide the (MBO) methods to be assessed quantitatively based on
assessment (without weighing) and (with weighing). The the rating scores in measuring the two methods. The
equation was referred to in (3) and (5) and referred to BARS method focused on evaluating behavior that
Table III and IV. would affect overall performance with an average while
3,08+3,39+3,39 the MBO method focuses on evaluating according
𝑀𝐵𝑂 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐾𝑅𝐴 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 = ∑ =
3 education, namely teaching, research and community
3,29 service performance, and discovered a solution to the
In the third step, the MBO KRA value was weighted. achievement element that the BARS method, which
The value of each KRA was given weight first for the became (behavioral) value 4.14%, still did not support
values of KRA-1, KRA-2, and KRA-3 with the values of with the MBO step, which became (goal) value 3.48%.
20%, 60%, and 20%, respectively. Then, it was divided The application of the combination design of the BARS
by the number of KRAs, with the three KRAs. Based on and MBO methods was in the form of designing and
the result of MBO without KRA with weighing from creating a monitoring application for lecturers at
eq.(3). KRA 1, 2, and 3 were added up divided by the STIKES Mutiara Mahakam.
number of KRAs with the result of 3.29.
REFERENCES
𝑀𝐵𝑂 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ KRA 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 =
(20/100 ×3,08)+(60/100 ×3,39)+(20/100 ×3,39) [1] I. A. Permana, “Analisis Penilaian Kinerja Dosen
∑ =3,33 Menggunakan Metode Balance Scorecard (Studi Kasus
3
Stt Sangkakala),” J. Ris. Ekon. dan Bisnis, vol. 13, no. 2,
Table VIII shows the result of the MBO data analysis pp. 89–99, 2020, doi: 10.26623/jreb.v13i2.2437.
output with three STEP as described previously in Table [2] S. Sandiwarno, “Developing an E-Forum to Universitas
VI and VII. Mercu Buana Alumni ’ s to Improve Effective

44 Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45

 JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

Communication and Educative by Technology [12] D. A. Pramudita and R. Christy, “Sistem Pendukung
Multimedia Acceptance Model,” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Keputusan Untuk Penilaian Rumah Sakit Terbaik Di
Mob. Comput., vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 113–122, 2018. Lampung Tengah Menggunakan Metode Ahp,” J. Data
[3] A. Yudhana, A. Fadlil, and L. Prianto, Eko Teori, Min. dan Sist. Inf., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 10, 2020, doi:
“Kepegawaian Dan Kegiatan Berbasis Android,” Pros. 10.33365/jdmsi.v1i1.800.
Semin. Nas. MULTI DISIPLIN ILMU CALL PAPAERS [13] F. M. Ayudewi, A. Yudhana, and R. Umar, “Monitoring
UNISBANK KE-3(SENDI _U 3) 2017, vol. 3, no. ISBN- Pertumbuhan Kecambah Kacang Hijau Menggunakan
9-789-7936-499-93, pp. 63–68, 2017. Region Growing,” J. Repos., vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 1–9, 2020,
[4] M. Guntur and R. Yanto, “Penerapan Metode SMART doi: 10.22219/repositor.v2i9.992.
untuk Seleksi Kelayakan Penerima Bantuan [14] Evayani and U. Utamy, “Perancangan Database Sistem
Pengembangan Usaha Pangan Masyarakat,” Telematika, Informasi Akuntansi Siklus Penjualan Dengan
vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 149–159, 2019. Menggunakan Model REA (Studi Kasus pada PT Yudi
[5] M. F. Hasa, A. Yudhana, and A. Fadlil, “Analisis Tata Putra, Medan),” J. Ilm. Mhs. Ekon. Akunt., vol. 1, no. 2,
Kelola Sitem Informasi Akademik Universitas pp. 16–29, 2016.
Muhammadiyah Sorong,” J. Tek. Unkris, vol. 1, pp. 529– [15] A. A. Mahmudi, “Sistem informasi penilaian kinerja
535, 2019. dosen dan karyawan berbasis web,” Surya Inform., vol.
[6] A. Rohman and P. Mauliana, “Aplikasi Diagnosis 1, no. 1, pp. 55–60, 2015.
Penyakit Ibu Hamil Menggunakan Certainty Faktor [16] M. S. Dzakwan, S. S. Sunardi, and A. Yudhana,
Berbasis Android,” E-Prosiding Tek. Inform., vol. 3, no. “Monitoring Data Pendidik Menggunakan Metode Web
1, 2022. Engineering,” Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 01, p. 19, 2020,
[7] A. Yudhana, A. Fadlil, and M. Rosidin, “Indonesian doi: 10.29406/cbn.v4i01.2096.
words error detection system using nazief adriani [17] C. Triwibisono, F. N. Nugraha, P. Studi, T. Industri, F.
stemmer algorithm,” Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., vol. R. Industri, and U. Telkom, “Perancangan Penilaian
10, no. 12, pp. 219–225, 2019, doi: Kinerja Karyawan Menggunakan Metode Behaviorally
10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0101231. Anchored Rating Scales ( Bars ) Di Pt Widya Trans
[8] R. Umar, A. Yudhana, and M. N. Faiz, “Experimental Cargo Designing Performance Appraisal Using the
analysis of web browser sessions using live forensics Behaviorally,” e-Proceeding Eng. Vol.8, vol. 8, pp.
method,” Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2253–2261, 2021.
2951–2958, 2018, doi: 10.11591/[Link].2951- [18] Y. Dharma Putra, I. N. S. Kumara, N. W. S. Ariyani, and
2958. I. B. A. Swamardika, “Literature Review Analisis
[9] F. Alameka, “Sistem Manajemen Data Monografi Di Kinerja SDM Menggunakan Metode Behaviorally
Kelurahan Sidodadi,” Ilk. J. Ilm., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 167– Anchored Rating Scale (BARS),” Maj. Ilm. Teknol.
173, 2016, doi: 10.33096/ilkom.v8i3.67.167-173. Elektro, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 103, 2021, doi:
10.24843/mite.2021.v20i01.p12.
[10] S. Hidayatulloh, N. R. Hidayati, S. Nita, and K. Pos,
“Rancang Bangun Sistem Informasi Pick Up Kiriman [19] A. L. Harahap and S. Perdana, “Analisis Penilaian
Pos Berbasis Web,” Semin. Nas. Teknol. Inf. dan Komun. Kinerja Karyawan Menggunakan Metode Behaviorally
Literasi Digit. pada Era Revolusi Ind. 4.0 Senat., pp. Anchor Rating Scale ( BARS ) Dan Management By
366–373, 2018. Objctives ( MBO ) Di CV BRILLIANT,” J. IKRAITH-
HUMANIORA, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 18–26, 2019.
[11] H. E. Saputra, “Membangun Web Engineering Puzzle
Research Data Mining Menggunakan Model [20] S. N. Evita, W. O. Z. Muizu, and Raden Tri Wayu
Navigational Development Technique,” J. Rekayasa dan Atmojo, “Penilaian Kinerja Karyawan Dengan
Manaj. Sist. Inf., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2016. Menggunakan Metode Behaviorally Anchor Rating
Scale dan Management By Objectives (Studi kasus pada
PT Qwords Company International),” Pekbis J., vol. 9,
no. 1, pp. 18–32, 2017.

Monitoring the Performance of Lecturers … | Dzakwan, M.S., Sunardi, Yudhana, A., 37 – 45 45

JUITA: Jurnal Informatika e-ISSN: 2579-8901; Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2023

46