Pengaruh Teknologi, Pengadopsian Ukuran-Ukuran Kinerja Keuangan Dan Non Keuangan Terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan (Studi Kasus Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Dikawasan Industri Batam)


  • Yul Emris Yulis


Technology, The adoption of Performance Measures and Company measures.


The purpose of this study is to test empirically the influence of technology, and the adoption measures of financial an non-financial performance measures to company performance. This research was conducted on Batam industrial area. The variables studied are technologies measured by instruments developed by withey et al (1983) with the dimensions of task  variability and problem analyzability, and the adoption measures of proxy performance measures of financial and non-financial measures (Spencer et al, 2009), the two variables are independent variables, the dependent variable is company performance which is measured by profitability ratio.The data used are consist of primary data and secondary data. Secondary data in the form of financial data and primary data collected by using questionnaire. Research respondents are production managers and financial manager. Analysis method by using path analysis.The result of this study indicated that the technology has a positive and significant impact on the adoption measures of financial and non-financial performance, the adoption measures of financial performance and non-financial performance has a positive and significant impact on the company performance, technology has a positive and significant impact on company performance, the company’s performance indirectly has positive and significant impact on the adoption measures of financial and non-financial performance measures.



Anthony and Govindarajan. 2003. Management Control System. Eleventh Edition. McGraw Hill International Edition.

Arimbawa dan Putri. 2014. Analisis Penilaian Kinerja Keuangan dan Non Keuangan. JurnalAkuntansi, ISSN: 2302-8556.

Butcher, P, Lee, G, & Sohal, A. 1999. Lesson For Implementing AMT: Some case Experiences with CNC in Australia, Britain and Canada, International Journal of Production and Operation Management, vol. 19 (5/6), pp. 515-526.

Ciptani, Monika Kussetya. 2000. “Balanced Scorecard sebagai Pengukuran Kinerja Masa Depan: SuatuPengantar”. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan. Vol. 2 No. 1.

Ellitan, L. 2003. Peran Sumber daya Dalam Meningkatkan Peran Teknologi Terhadap Produktivitas, JurnalManajemen, Vol 4 no. 2, pp. 1-16.

Epstein, M.j and Manzoni J.f . 1997. The Balanced Scorecard and Tableau de board: A Global Perpective on Translating Strategy Into Action. INSEAD Working Paper 97/63/AC/SM.

Fitrina, Laila Sari. 2013. Praktik Akuntansi Manajemen Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Implikasinya Terhadap Kinerja. Tesis. UniversitasAndalas.

Fisher, G Joseph, 1998, Contingency Theory, Management Control System and Firm Outcomes: Past Results and Future Directions, Behavioural Research in Accunting Vol. 10.

Hage, Jerald and Aiken, Michael. 1969. Routine Technology, Social Structure, and Organization Goals. Administrative Science Quartely. 366-77

Haldma, Toomas and Laats, Kertu. 2002. Influenting Contingency on Management Accounting Practices in Estonian Manufacturing Companies.

Henry C. Lucas, Jr. And V.K. Spitler. 1999. Technology Use And Performance:A Field Study Of Broker Workstations. Decision Sciences Volume 30 Number 2 Spring 1999 Printed In The U.S.A.

Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F. 2003. Coming up short on nonfinancial performance measurement. Harvard Business Review, 81, 11, 88-95.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2000). Balanced Scorecard. Jakarta, Penerbit Salemba Erlangga.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996). “Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy”. California Management Review, Vol. 39 No.1, pp. 53-79.

Kollinger, Philipp. 2008. The Relationship Between Technology, Innovation, and Firm Performance: Emperical Evidence on E-Business in Erope. Research Policy, DOI: 10.1016.

Nany, Magdalena M, Lyna Raharjo dan Winda Handini K. 2008. Penerapan Balanced Scorecard Sebagai Pengukur Kinerja Manajemen pada Rumah Sakit Umum Daerah Indramayu. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan, Vol. 4, No. 1.

Neely, Andy. Bourne,M. Kinnerly. 2000. Performance Measurement System Design: Developing and testing a Process-Based Approach. International Joural of Operation and Production Management, Vol. 20 No 10, 2000, pp. 1119-1145.

Purwati dan Zulaikha. 2006. Teori Kontinjensi, Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen Dan Utcomes Perusahaan: Implikasinya Dalam Riset Masa Kini Dan Masa Yang Akan Datang. Performance: Vol: 4 No. 1 September 2006 (p.1-11)

Said, A.A., Hassab Elnaby, H.R., Wier, B., 2003. An Empirical Investigation Of The Performance Consequences Of Nonfinancial Measures. Journal of Management Accounting Research 15, 193223

Spencer, X. Sarah Yang et al. (2009). Differentiation Strategy, Performance Measurement Systems and Organizational Performance: Evidence from Australia. International Journal Of Business. Issn: 1083−4346

Stacey, G. & Ashton, W. 1990. A Structure Approach To Corporate Technology Strategy, International Journal Of Technology Management, 5. Pp. 389-407.

Teeratansirikool, Siengthai. 2010. Competitive Strategy, Performance Measurement And Organizational Performance: Empirical Study In Thai Listed Companies. Asian Institute of Technology and a lecturer, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand.

Zahra, Shaker A. Covin, Jeffrey . 1993. Business Strategy, Technology Policy And Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal Vol. 14: 451-478.