Organizational Capabilities Model for Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus in Financial Audit Implementation: A Case Study of South Sulawesi Province
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v10i18.19581Keywords:
organizational capabilities, Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (APIP), financial audit, public sector accountability, regional governanceAbstract
This research examines the organizational capabilities of the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (APIP) in conducting financial audits within South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. The study identifies significant limitations in APIP’s effectiveness across three dimensions of organizational capability—routines, resources, and resilience—as conceptualized in dynamic governance frameworks. Through a qualitative case study approach utilizing in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and comprehensive document analysis, the research reveals systemic challenges including technological deficiencies, data access constraints, human resource limitations, compromised independence, and inadequate legal standing of audit findings. The study’s theoretical contribution lies in proposing an enhanced organizational capabilities model that introduces authority as a critical fourth dimension. This expanded framework addresses five essential components: quality assurance and consulting functions, auditor immunity protections, audit result legitimacy, data access privileges, and accelerated career advancement pathways. The research demonstrates that strengthening APIP’s formal authority through regulatory reforms at national and local levels would significantly enhance its capacity to ensure financial accountability within regional governments. The findings have important implications for policy development in Indonesia’s decentralized governance structure, particularly concerning the coordination between internal audit institutions and law enforcement agencies. The proposed model offers a comprehensive framework for improving financial governance and corruption prevention mechanisms throughout South Sulawesi Province, and potentially across similar regional contexts in Indonesia.
References
[1] Hu G, Sun W, Xu Y, Mao HA. Executive accountability systems and the financial investments of state-owned enterprises in China. Pac Basin Finance J. 2025;102702:102702.
[2] Kaur A, D’Andreamatteo A. Accounting, auditing and accountability for urban food policy governance: insights from a structured literature review. Cities. 2025;158:105656.
[3] Bentia DC. Accountability beyond measurement. The role of meetings in shaping governance instruments and governance outcomes in food systems through the lens of the Donau Soja organisation. J Rural Stud. 2021;88:50–9.
[4] Mustaufiq M, Sultan L, Ridwan MS, Hasan H. The supervision of the internal government internal supervisory apparatus (APIP) on the abuse of authority in governmental positions in Jeneponto Regency. ANAYASA: Journal of Legal Studies. 2024;2(1):56–74.
[5] Rizaldi A. Control environment analysis at government internal control system: indonesia case. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015;211:844–50.
[6] Zou Q, Mao Z, Yan R, Liu S, Duan Z. Vision and reality of e-government for governance improvement: evidence from global cross-country panel data. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2023;194:122667.
[7] Thiéry S, Lhuillery S, Tellechea M. How can governance, human capital, and communication practices enhance internal audit quality? J Int Account Audit Tax. 2023;52:100566.
[8] Hidayat F. The Impact Of Bureaucratic Reform On Indonesian Governance: A Perspective Review Of Academic Literature. Jurnal Politik Pemerintahan Dharma Praja. 2023;16(2):169–96.
[9] Indriani D, Tinangon JJ, Budiarso NS. The impact of audit findings and follow-up actions on audit recommendations on audit opinions of financial statements with APIP capabilities as a moderating variable (A study on provincial/regencies/cities governments in Suluttenggo Region). The Contrarian: finance. Account Bus Res. 2024;3(2):113–24.
[10] Walangitan SN, Masengi EE, Mamonto FH. (2024). Performance of the Regional Inspectorate of North Sulawesi Province. Technium Soc. Sci. J., 66, 50. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/techssj66&div= 7&id=&page=
[11] Surya I, Ritonga S, Batubara BM. Inhibiting Factors of the Performance of Internal Government Supervisory Apparatus in Realizing Good Governance at the Regional Inspectorate of Mandailing Natal Regency. Journal of Public Representative and Society Provision. 2025;5(1):19–30.
[12]
[12] Suharyanto, A. R. Y., Mahullete, Y., & Meiria, E. (2018). Internal control and accountability of local government performance in Indonesia. KnE Social Sciences, 538-559. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i8.2531.
[13] Suryani P, Gaol LL. Integritas Sebagai Kunci: Menilai Peran Audit APIP Dalam Deteksi Fraud [ Jurnal Ekonomi dan Ekonomi Syariah]. Jesya. 2025;8(1):513–25.
[14] Masdar R, Furqan AC, Masruddin M, Meldawaty L. The role of transparency and professional assistance in regional financial management in the Indonesian regional governments. J Public Aff. 2021;21(3):e2666.
[15] Neo BS, Chen G. Dynamic governance: Embedding culture, capabilities and change in Singapore (English version). World Scientific; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1142/6458.
[16] Mikhaeil CA, Robey D. When is enough enough? A critical assessment of data adequacy in IS qualitative research. Inf Organ. 2024;34(4):100540.
[17] Cheema GS, Rondinelli DA, editors. (2007). Decentralizing governance: Emerging concepts and practices.
[18] Zafimahatradraibe JA, Ranaivomanana LN, Rakotomahazo C, Randriamanantsoa B, Hartmann AC, Todinanahary GG. Authority, capacity, and power to govern: three marine protected areas co-managed by resource users and non-governmental organizations. Mar Policy. 2025;177:106647.
[19] Zhang C, Tao R, Su F. Legislative decentralization and regulatory dilution: evidence from air pollution control in China. World Dev. 2025;191:107002.
[20] Mai W, Mai L, Chen Y. Assessing the expenditure decentralization in enhancing public service quality: evidence from 29 province in China. Eval Program Plann. 2025 Jun;110:102551.
[21] Osborne D, Gaebler T, editors. Reinventing Government. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc.; 1992.
[22] Emma GM, Emiliano RB, Jennifer MF. High-quality assurance, ESG legitimacy threats and board effectiveness. Br Account Rev. 2024;101385:101385.
[23] Sumarauw DC, Manossoh H, Wokas HR. Analisis Peran APIP Terhadap Program Monitoring Centre for Prevention Koordinasi Supervisi Pencegahan Korupsi (MCP KORSUPGAH) KPK Dalam Pencegahan Korupsi. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Dan Auditing. Goodwill. 2023;14(1):25–36.
[24] Keller SA. Qualified and absolute immunity at common law. Stanford Law Rev. 2021;73:1337.
[25] Indrayana D. Jangan bunuh KPK. Adamssein Media; 2017.
[26] Breakey H, Wood G, Sampford C. Understanding and defining the social license to operate: social acceptance, local values, overall moral legitimacy, and ‘moral authority’. Resour Policy. 2025;102:105488.
[27] Jones KK, Baskerville RL, Sriram RS, Ramesh B. The impact of legislation on the internal audit function. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change. 2017;13(4):450–70.
[28] Westermann KD, Bedard JC, Earley CE. Learning the “craft” of auditing: A dynamic view of auditors’ on-the-job learning. Contemp Account Res. 2015;32(3):864–96.
[29] Hoogeveen L. Academic Acceleration as an Educational Adaptation of the Curriculum. Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022. pp. 1–6.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hendrawan Agustian Nugraha, Muh. Akmal Ibrahim, Badu, Sukri, Pauzi Rizal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
