DEVELOPING AN ASSET DATA QUALITY INDEX TO STRENGTHEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Hani Fitria Rahmani; Muhammad Alam Mauludina; Delina Herdian Septiani; Iman Firmansyah; Ricky Bryan DP Tampubolon

doi:10.55122/jabisi.v7i2.2376

Authors

Hani Fitria Rahmani IPB University
Muhammad Alam Mauludina IPB University
Delina Herdian Septiani IPB University
Iman Firmansyah IPB University
Ricky Bryan DP Tampubolon IPB University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55122/jabisi.v7i2.2376

Keywords:

Accountability, Asset Management, Data Governance, Data Quality, Higher Education

Abstract

Incomplete, inconsistent, outdated, and untraceable fixed-asset records can weaken financial reporting, asset safeguarding, maintenance decisions, and institutional accountability in higher education. This study aims to develop and conduct a design-stage evaluation of an Asset Data Quality Index (ADQI) for measuring the fitness of fixed-asset master data for accountability purposes. Using Design Science Research, seven dimensions, completeness, accuracy, consistency, timeliness, uniqueness, validity, and traceability were translated into field-level rules, record level scores, organizational unit indicators, classification safeguards, and an exception-management workflow. The artifact was designed for a population of 20,789 fixed-asset records at the College of Vocational Studies, IPB University. At the current stage, evaluation was limited to analytical rule verification and internal-consistency assessment, covering the clarity of dimension definitions, reproducibility of pass/fail rules, consistency of scoring and aggregation procedures, identification of authoritative data sources, and specification of accountability responsibilities. The design-stage findings indicate that the artifact is sufficiently specified for subsequent empirical implementation and that completeness alone is insufficient to represent asset-data quality. Accuracy and traceability require additional documentary and physical evidence. This study does not report empirical ADQI rankings across organizational units because expert review, inter-rater testing, sensitivity analysis, and validation against stocktaking outcomes have not yet been completed. The study contributes an integrated measurement mechanism combining decomposable quality scores, a minimum-dimension safeguard, and an accountable exception-closure process that can initially be implemented in spreadsheets and subsequently integrated into institutional asset information systems.

References

Abraham, R., Schneider, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2019). Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.008

Alhassan, I., Sammon, D., & Daly, M. (2016). Data governance activities: An analysis of the literature. Journal of Decision Systems, 25(S1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2016.1187397

Arena, M., & Azzone, G. (2009). Identifying organizational drivers of internal audit effectiveness. International Journal of Auditing, 13(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2008.00392.x

Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023

Batini, C., Cappiello, C., Francalanci, C., & Maurino, A. (2009). Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(3), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541880.1541883

Brown-Liburd, H., Issa, H., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Behavioral implications of big data's impact on audit judgment and decision making and future research directions. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51023

Castanheira, N., Rodrigues, L. L., & Craig, R. (2010). Factors associated with the adoption of risk-based internal auditing. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901011007315

Cichy, C., & Rass, S. (2019). An overview of data quality frameworks. IEEE Access, 7, 24634–24648. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899751

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748

Earley, C. E. (2015). Data analytics in auditing: Opportunities and challenges. Business Horizons, 58(5), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.05.002

Geerts, G. L. (2011). A design science research methodology and its application to accounting information systems research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 12(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.02.004

Giglio, J. M., Friar, J. H., & Crittenden, W. F. (2018). Integrating lifecycle asset management in the public sector. Business Horizons, 61(4), 511–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.005

Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01

Grover, V., Chiang, R. H. L., Liang, T.-P., & Zhang, D. (2018). Creating strategic business value from big data analytics: A research framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(2), 388–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1451951

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625

Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.004

Kahn, M. G., Callahan, T. J., Barnard, J., Bauck, A. E., Brown, J., Davidson, B. N., ... Schilling, L. M. (2016). A harmonized data quality assessment terminology and framework for the secondary use of electronic health record data. eGEMs, 4(1), 1244. https://doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1244

Khatri, V., & Brown, C. V. (2010). Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629175.1629210

Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The emergence of artificial intelligence: How automation is changing auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-51730

Lenz, R., & Hahn, U. (2015). A synthesis of empirical internal audit effectiveness literature pointing to new research opportunities. Managerial Auditing Journal, 30(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-08-2014-1072

Lin, S., Gao, J., Koronios, A., & Chanana, V. (2007). Developing a data quality framework for asset management in engineering organisations. International Journal of Information Quality, 1(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIQ.2007.013378

March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2

Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., & Krogstie, J. (2019). Big data analytics capabilities and innovation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities and moderating effect of the environment. British Journal of Management, 30(2), 272–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12343

OECD, & European Union. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

Pipino, L. L., Lee, Y. W., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). Data quality assessment. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1145/505248.506010

Quon, T. K., Zéghal, D., & Maingot, M. (2012). Enterprise risk management and firm performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.042

Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8

Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3–5), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590

Sarens, G., & De Beelde, I. (2006). Internal auditors' perception about their role in risk management. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900610634766

Taleb, I., Serhani, M. A., & Dssouli, R. (2021). Big data quality framework: A holistic approach to continuous quality management. Journal of Big Data, 8, 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-021-00468-0

Vasarhelyi, M. A., Kogan, A., & Tuttle, B. M. (2015). Big data in accounting: An overview. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51071

Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: A framework for evaluation in design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36

Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J.-F., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 70, 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009

Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099

Yigitbasioglu, O. M., & Velcu, O. (2012). A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 13(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.08.002