PENGEVALUASIAN KOMPARASI DARI EFEK SISTEM KONTROL MANAJEMEN MANUFAKTUR KINERJA SAAT OPERASIONAL DENGAN PROGRAM AUDITAN BERBASIS HISTORICAL COST BERPOSTULAT GOING CONCERN: MODEL PATH ANALITIS

Authors

  • Petrolis Nusa Perdana Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Negeri Jakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21009/econosains.0151.06

Keywords:

Management Control Systems, Manufacturing Performance, Program Audit, Historical Cost Basis, Going Concern, Path Analytic Model.

Abstract

Comparison of the Effects Evaluating Management Control System Manufacturing Current Performance Based Operational Program Audited Historical Cost that postuled Going Concern: Path Analytic Model. Faculty of Economics, University of Jakarta. 2016 This study uses a linear model of structural relations (LISREL) to investigate the influence of management control system (that is the objectives associated with quality, quality feedback and incentive-compensation) on the suitability of the quality and suistainability influence on the quality of customer satisfaction. Comparison management control on the spot with the results of normative audited based on historical cost with going concern postulated where the results show support for the theoretical framework that links objectives, feedback and incentives for quality conformance which is more optimal than the evaluation of past or simultaneously with current implementation. The results also demonstrate the suitability of which has a significant impact on customer satisfaction and also mediates the relationship between the management control system, audit results and customer satisfaction.

Keywords: Management Control Systems, Manufacturing Performance, Program Audit, Historical Cost Basis, Going Concern, Path Analytic Model.

Published

2017-03-29

How to Cite

Perdana, P. N. (2017). PENGEVALUASIAN KOMPARASI DARI EFEK SISTEM KONTROL MANAJEMEN MANUFAKTUR KINERJA SAAT OPERASIONAL DENGAN PROGRAM AUDITAN BERBASIS HISTORICAL COST BERPOSTULAT GOING CONCERN: MODEL PATH ANALITIS. Jurnal Ilmiah Econosains, 15(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.21009/econosains.0151.06