The Evaluation of Policy Implementation on ASN Performance Appraisal System

Bandung Regency Government has implemented an information technology-based State Civil Servant (ASN) Performance Appraisal System, namely: Sabilulungan Employee Performance Appraisal System (SASIKAP) since 2018. This article aims to evaluate the implementation of SASIKAP in the last three years. The author uses the theory of policy implementation evaluation from William N. Dunn and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis. The results of this evaluation find that the implementation of SASIKAP policy has been effective; efficient; good enough in achieving goals and solving problems; rational alignment, responsive to developments, and appropriate in overcoming employee performance problems in Bandung Regency Government. ARTICLE HISTORY Submited: 10/12/2020 Accepted: 02/02/2021 Published: 27/02/2021 KATA KUNCI Aparatur Sipil Negara, Evaluasi Kebijakan Publik, Sistem Penilaian Kinerja


INTRODUCTION
The provisions of article 51 of Law Number 5 of 2014 concerning State Civil Servants mandate every government agency to organize a merit system on managing ASN. The Merit System is ASN management policy based on qualifications, competence and performance which is enforced fairly without discrimination. One of the objectives of merit system is to place professional, integrity and well-performing ASNs in the right position according to their competencies and to provide appropriate and fair compensation. This is in line with Woodard's view in Daryanto (2007) which states that the main focus of the merit system is to improve or increase work performance. This means that the ultimate goal of implementing this merit system is to produce qualified, competitive, professional employees who are able to encourage increased public service performance and realize the organization's vision and mission.
The merit system is one of the demands that must be applied to all government agencies, especially with the target of reforming the Indonesian bureaucracy to realize world-class government by 2024. This condition has created a logical consequence that the bureaucrats in it must be able to compete with the global world. To be able to produce quality ASN, of course, cannot be separated from ASN governance starting from recruitment, career development, competency development, performance management and the provision of clear and measurable rewards and punishments. Through the merit system, every government agency is also required to be able to implement ASN management in a more transparent and objective manner. The importance of openness in ASN management was stated by Simangunsong (2020) that the ASN career pattern as part of ASN management must be carried out more openly through an open carrier system, so as to create a competitive and healthy competition in an effort to produce superior seeds bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the urgency of implementing a merit system in Bandung Regency Government is inseparable from the vision of Bandung Regency for 2016-2021, namely "Strengthening a Advanced, Independent and Competitive Bandung Regency, through Good Governance and the Synergy of Rural Development, Based on Religion, Culture and Environmental Insights". This vision shows that there is a goal to build a good and clean bureaucracy, where one of the efforts that can be made is through the merit-based management of ASN.
To ensure the realization and implementation of merit system in government agencies, a State Civil Apparatus Commission (KASN) was formed which is independent and free from political intervention. This institution functions to oversee the implementation of basic norms, code of ethics and behavior of ASN, as well as to implement the Merit System in ASN policy and management in Government Agencies. As stated in Article 32 of Law Number 5 of 2014, KASN also has the authority to evaluate the application of the principles, basic values as well as the code of ethics and code of conduct for ASN employees, in addition to the supervisory function of each stage of the process for filling the positions of high leadership.
As a guideline for the implementation of merit system carried out by government agencies, then on 2019 has been published KASN Regulation Number 9 of 2019 which contains the assessment procedures and evaluation mechanisms carried out by KASN to assess the extent to which government agencies have implemented a merit system according to the provisions through the self-assessment method. This regulation serves as an objective and uniform measurement tool in all government agencies so as to produce a picture or condition of the application of merit system in Indonesia. In accordance with the provisions referred to, there are 8 (eight) criteria, each of which is translated into indicators describing conditions at the level of merit system. The criteria and weight for the merit system self-assessment can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Merit System Self-Assessment Criteria
Source: compiled by the author (2020) From Figure 1, it can be seen that the aspect of merit system assessment that has the highest score is the career development criteria, which is 25%. This is followed by planning criteria of 20% and performance management of 15%, so that protection, services and information systems have the lowest score, namely 5%. When observed, there is a common thread that connects career development criteria, mutation rotation and awarding with the context of performance management. Because according to the mandate of Law Number 5 of 2014 states that career development is carried out by considering qualifications, competencies and performance. The importance of employee performance data in the management aspect of ASN has made performance management as a vital object in supporting the implementation of merit system in government agencies. Performance appraisal is basically a key factor in developing an organization effectively and efficiently, because individual performance appraisal is very useful for the dynamics of overall organizational growth (Wahyu Lestari, 2015). Accountability of performance data is important because it is one of the references in determining career development, competency development and giving rewards and punishments to civil servants. Therefore, in order to produce valid performance data, it is necessary to conduct a transparent performance appraisal with the same standards. The idea of the importance of effectiveness and efficiency in employee performance appraisal has given birth to innovative performance appraisals based on the use of information technology in Bandung Regency Government through the implementation of Sabilulungan Policy Employee Performance Asppraisal System (SASIKAP).
SASIKAP is an employee performance appraisal instrument in the Bandung Regency Government which has been in effect since 2018. The policy referred to is further regulated in Regent Regulation Number 87 of 2017 concerning Civil Servant Performance Assessment which has been amended several times, most recently by Regent Regulation Number 109 of 2020 concerning Amendments Regarding Regent Regulation Number 111 of 2019 concerning the Civil Servant Performance Assessment System. This policy regulates performance planning in the form of Employee Performance Targets (SKP), performance appraisals, performance awards to assessment mechanisms and the use of the SASIKAP application. The purpose of implementing SASIKAP policy is to implement an ASN Performance Appraisal System that is objective, measurable, accountable, participatory and transparent by taking into account work objectives, work outcomes and work behavior. Meanwhile, the policy targets are all civil servants within the Bandung Regency Government, except for functional positions of teachers, school principals and health workers who are in the scope of regional hospital (RSUD) and Puskesmas.
Performance management policies for civil servants within the Bandung Regency Government have been enforced since 2018 as stated in Regent Regulation Number 87 of 2017 concerning Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants which has been amended several times, most recently by Regent Regulation Number 109 of 2020 concerning Amendments to Regent Regulation Number 111 of 2019 concerning the Civil Servant Performance Appraisal System. This policy regulates performance planning in the form of Employee Performance Targets (SKP), performance appraisals, performance awards to assessment mechanisms and the use of SASIKAP application as the only instrument for assessing the performance of civil servants in the Bandung Regency Government. The purpose of implementing the policy is to implement an ASN Performance Appraisal System that is objective, measurable, accountable, participatory and transparent with attention to work objectives, work outcomes and work behavior. Meanwhile, the policy targets are all civil servants in Bandung Regency Government, except for functional positions of teachers, school principals and health workers who are in the scope of regional hospital (RSUD) and Puskesmas.
Through SASIKAP, employees are required to compile a work plan on time, namely at the beginning of the current year. Delays in preparing a work plan in the form of an SKP can have an impact on daily activity reporting to reporting on monthly performance realization. Where the delay in reporting is related to punishment which will be given in the form of a reduction in the value of performance achievements and punishment in the form of finance, namely a reduction in additional employee income. This condition is very different when the SASIKAP policy has not been implemented in the Bandung Regency Government where employees tend to prepare work plans and report performance only when needed and not on time. As further research, through work activity data and employee performance realization, it can also be used as a database for analysis of workloads and evaluation of existing institutions. In addition, it is a special strength for the government because it has real-time performance data and employee activities and the performance monitoring process can be done anytime and anywhere through the application system.
In the course of the implementation of the SASIKAP policy, changing the performance appraisal pattern from manual to application system is not an easy thing for employees to accept. Within two years of implementing SASIKAP, there were many challenges and obstacles faced by the Bandung Regency Government, starting from the technical side of the application, system, adaptation process, and user behavior patterns. Such as the condition of bugs / disruptions in data and systems, limited server capacity, changes in job nomenclature and employee understanding of the technical operation of the system. Then entering its third year, the SASIKAP application has experienced improvements to application features that are prone to causing controversy, namely the work behavior assessment pattern which is carried out in 360 degrees (mixed rating), where behavioral assessments are carried out on superiors, subordinates and colleagues. On the other hand, there has also been a change in the performance calculation pattern which is regulated based on the employee's level and rank. In fact, the controversy over the application of 360 degrees work behavior assessment has actually occurred in the implementation of the e-performance policy (Suhardoyo, 2018) which was first adopted by the Surabaya City Government. There was a reluctance to assess the work behavior of superiors and subordinates, because employees felt that behavior assessment was only commonly done by superiors to subordinates.
In order to monitor the implementation of SASIKAP, the Personnel and Human Resources Development Agency (BKPSDM) in February 2020 conducted a survey on the implementation of SASIKAP which was conducted on 461 correspondents, with the following results:

Graph 1. Results of The SASIKAP Implementation Survey
Source: BKPSDM Bandung Regency (2020) Graph 1 shows some positive responses from employees to the SASIKAP application, namely 51.41% of employees agree that the SASIKAP application is easy to use, although 45.34% of employees have not considered it attractive in terms of appearance. Meanwhile, in terms of accuracy and validity of employee performance data, there are still 30% of employees who have not acknowledged that SASIKAP has been able to describe employee performance. This is in line with previous research conducted by Marlian and Sari (2020) which states that SASIKAP is able to have a positive impact on increasing work productivity and timeliness in performance reporting, but the validity of the current data is not able to describe employee performance in its entirety due to limited dictionaries. work activities or there are still unclear performance measures or performance descriptions. The same thing happened to the Yogyakarta City Government, which showed a lack of clear job descriptions which made it difficult for employees to submit their performance contracts (Satlita, Yanuardi, & Ahdiyana, 2015). This condition is of course a bit contradicting the goals to be achieved by SASIKAP's policy which seeks to produce an objective performance assessment. How can the objectivity of performance appraisal be realized if the performance report data that is reported through SASIKAP currently does not yet fully show the real performance of employees. Furthermore, it was also stated that the obstacles and obstacles in the implementation of SASIKAP policies are still faced with problems of work behavior and compliance of implementers in implementing policies in addition to the unconformity of the results of individual performance assessment and organizational performance.
Based on some of the phenomenas above and the limited research on performance appraisal systems in Bandung Regency, the authors are interested in conducting more in-depth research on how to evaluate the implementation of the civil servant performance appraisal system policy in Bandung Regency Government.

Public Policy
One of the popular definitions of public policy was put forward by Thomas R. Dye (Agustino, 2017) which mentions public policy as "Anything a government choose to do or not to do". This opinion shows that all the choices of the government to act or neither is public policy. Other definitions regarding public policy put forward by Woll (Taufiqurakhman, 2014) that mentions.public policy as government action at resolving .problems that exist in society directly or. not straight through agency or organization who is able influence community life. From some of the opinions above, it can be concluded that public policy is a series of actions carried out or not carried out by the government aimed at regulating life together and solving public problems as an effort to achieve common goals. Public policy is usually outlined in the form of provisions or regulations that are binding for people in certain jurisdictions. William Dunn (2003) divide the policy process into several stages including agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption / legitimacy, policy implementation and policy evaluation.

Evaluation of Public Implementation
The term evaluation can be identified by making an assessment or measurement of an object. Nugroho (2004) argued that evaluation is needed to see the gap between "expectations" and "reality". The main purpose of the evaluation is not to blame one party, but to see how big the gap is between the achievement of policy performance and the expectations of a political policy. After identifying the gaps, the next task is how to make efforts to penetrate or cover the existing gaps. While Lester and Swart in Agustino (2017) argued that evaluation is aimed at seeing some of the failures of a policy and to find out whether the policies that have been formulated and implemented can produce the desired impact. From these definitions, it can be concluded that policy evaluation is an activity carried out to assess the performance and benefits / impacts of policies and is also carried out to measure the gap between the expectations to be achieved and the facts that occur in the field. Policy evaluation is one of the most important stages in the public policy process.
Policy evaluation has three spheres of meaning, namely evaluation of policy formulation, evaluation of policy implementation and evaluation of the policy environment (Nugroho D, 2004). From this statement, policy evaluation is not only carried out when the policy is implemented, but policy evaluation can also be carried out at the policy formulation stage. The scope of policy evaluation can be classified into 3 types, namely: a. Ex-ante evaluation, namely evaluations carried out at the stage of formulation or formulation of policies.
In other words, this evaluation is carried out before the policy is decided / stipulated. At this stage an evaluation is carried out to determine the extent of the impact of the stipulation of a policy, so that policy-making actors need to consider policy alternatives that have been prepared. b. On Going Evaluation, namely evaluation that is carried out when an activity or policy is being implemented. The evaluation referred to at this stage is to determine the suitability of the implementation with existing policies. Whether the policy has been implemented according to policy principles or has there been some deviation. c. Ex-post evaluation, that is, the evaluation is carried out when the policy has been implemented, so that it can be seen to what extent the success of the policy on the objectives or results to be achieved and what are the impacts of implementing the said policy.
Based on the above criteria, the SASIKAP policy evaluation is part of an ongoing evaluation where the evaluation is carried out while the policy is still being applied. Dunn (2003) suggests 6 (six) criteria's that can be used to measure the performance of public policies, namely: a. Effectiveness; aIn essence, effectiveness is used to measure the extent to which the policies implemented are effective with the objectives to be achieved. b. Efficiency; namely show much effort is required to achieve the desired result. The policy that achieves the highest effectiveness at the least cost is called efficient. c. Adequacy; the meaning is how sufficient the policy objectives have been achieved and able to solve various existing problems. Adequacy refers to the extent to which a certain level of effectiveness satisfies the needs, values, or opportunities that give rise to problems. d. Leveling; it can be said to have meaning with the justice that is given and obtained by the target of public policy (Winarno 2002). The equality criterion is closely related to legal and social rationality and refers to the distribution of consequences and efforts between different groups in society. Policies that are oriented towards equity are policies whose consequences or efforts are fairly distributed. e. Responsiveness; can be interpreted as a response to an activity (Winarno 2002, p.189). Which means the response of public policy targets on the implementation of a policy. Responsiveness refers to the extent to which policies can satisfy the needs, preferences or values of certain groups of society. The success of the policy can be seen through the responses of the public who respond to implementation after predicting the effect that will occur if the policy is to be implemented, as well as the community's response after the impact of the policy can be felt. f. Accuracy; namely to find out whether the policies implemented are really useful and appropriate in overcoming the existing problems.

Evaluation of Policy Implementation
Performance appraisal is a system of assessing the work results of employees to determine the level of productivity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. Veithzal Rivai in Suwatno and Donni (2013) states that performance appraisal is a structured system that has been formalized and used to assess or measure employee behavior related to their duties and work output, including attendance levels. Assessment or performance measurement is needed in an organization, so that the results of the assessment can be used as a reference and consideration in providing measurable rewards and punishments for employees. In order to produce an updated performance appraisal data, it is necessary to periodically evaluate employee performance. Mahmudi (2015) states that the purpose of measuring / assessing work in the public sector includes: knowing the level of achievement of organizational goals, provide employee learning facilities, improving the performance of subsequent periods, providing systematic consideration in making decisions regarding reward and punishment, motivate employees and creating public accountability.
Ideally, performance appraisal is carried out objectively and transparently, but in practice it is not as easy as imagined, because it often conflicts with interests and circumstances that force the performance appraisal to be carried out purely objectively. The obstacles that can affect the objectivity of work performance appraisals according to Hasibuan (2012) : a. Hello Efect; generally, a boss will give good value to employees he knows, and vice versa. b. Leniency; that is, appraisal officials tend to give too high an assessment of the employees they judge, even though these employees are not doing their job properly and have not met the set work standards. c. Strictness; appraisal officials tend to rate employees with scores that are too low. d. Central Tendency; appraisal officers usually tend to give an average or relatively equal rating between one employee and another. e. Personal Bias; performance appraisals are carried out with an emphasis on the element of subjectivity rather than objectivity that is in line with real employee performance.
In measuring performance, it needs to be supported by clarity of information on the things to be measured, because it will affect the motivation and behavior of each individual in the organization (Sembiring, 2012). Therefore, performance appraisal can be carried out ideally and objectively if it is supported by employees' understanding of performance success measures and there is a need for leadership commitment to be able to assess performance and behavior according to real conditions. So that the process of giving rewards and punishments to employees can be carried out appropriately and fairly.

RESEARCH METHODS
Authors use qualitative method to analyze the evaluation of policy implementation on ASN Appraisal Performance System by SASIKAP at Bandung regency government. We collect data with techniques: literature study, observation, and semi-structured interview. In a literature study, the authors review laws and regulations, official reports, journals, books, and other relevant sources. Author also observes the activities and behavior patterns of policy implementers, SASIKAP applications and employee performance appraisals. Authors conducted interviews purposively and snowball sampling on several regional instruments with different characteristics and conditions. Observations were made on the activities and behavior patterns of policy implementors, SASIKAP applications and the results of employee performance appraisals. Data validation is used by triangulation method. Data analysis was carried out referring to the views of Miles and Huberman (Sugiyono, 2012) which includes: data reduction, data presentation and conclusion and data verification.

The Implementation Policy of ASN Appraisal Performance System
The civil servant performance appraisal system in Bandung Regency as regulated in Regent Regulation Number 109 of 2020, divides the civil servant performance appraisal system into several parts, including performance planning, performance appraisal, performance awards and performance reporting mechanisms through SASIKAP. ASN performance planning in the form of Employee Performance Targets (SKP) is prepared at the beginning of the current year as part of the performance contract between superiors and subordinates. In preparing SKP, ideally based onstrategic planning, performance agreement, organization and work procedures, job descriptions, and / or SKP of direct supervisor. The SKP is used as a reference in dividing employees' monthly performance targets and it is hoped that there will be harmony between organizational performance targets and individual performance targets. Meanwhile, in terms of performance appraisal, it is divided into annual performance assessments and monthly performance assessments. Monthly performance appraisal considers monthly performance achievement in the form of performance output (OK), work processes or daily activities (AH) and subordinate performance achievement (CKB) for structural officials and takes into account employee work behavior assessments that have been carried out 360 degrees or known as mix ratings. The mix rating behavior assessment pattern is carried out in private and is randomized by the system every month, thus allowing employees to conduct assessments of different colleagues every month.
In each element of the monthly performance appraisal, the weight of the assessment is set according to the level of position of the employee, as illustrated as follows:

Figure 2. Monthly Performance Appraisal Weight According to Position
Source : BKPSDM of Bandung Regency (2020) Meanwhile, the annual performance appraisal in the form of civil servant work performance appraisal consists of 2 elements of assessment, namely SKP achievement and work behavior. The work behavior assessment consists of 6 assessment indicators including service orientation, commitment, work initiative, cooperation and special leadership for structural officials. In the annual performance appraisal, it is possible to carry out additional performance as long as the said performance is not related to the duties and functions of the position, but is still correlated with the achievement of the organization's vision and mission. Furthermore, in the aspect of performance awards, civil servants who have shown a performance appraisal with the predicate Very Good for 2 years consecutively can be considered to get priority in the succession planning group program (talent pool). On the other hand, the results of monthly performance appraisals can be used as one of the bases for awarding ASN in the form of Additional Employee Income (TPP). With this performance award, SASIKAP becomes primadonna in Bandung Regency, because it is closely related to the monthly TPP payment process.
Furthermore, with regard to the performance appraisal mechanism through SASIKAP, it is further regulated in Regent Regulation Number 109 of 2020 that the time for daily activity reporting can be carried out from 15.00 WIB to 7.30 WIB the next day with the consideration that employees can report daily performance after completing the work done. As for the limit of filling in daily activities, a maximum of 5 days is set from the implementation of the activity. Meanwhile, regarding the minimum effective time standard for employees per month, it is set at 7000 minutes with the assumption that the average employee work effectively per day is 350 minutes.The policy also regulates the obligations performed by employees, namely preparing SKP, reporting and performance appraisals. Then the appraisal officer is required to carry out a periodic validation process of each performance report that is included in the SASIKAP application as a form of monitoring of the performance of the subordinates.
Several provisions and mechanisms as stipulated in the provisions above are arranged in such a way as to realize the policy objectives, namely implementing a transparent, objective, accountable, measurable and participatory performance appraisal system. To achieve policy objectives is inseparable from the success of policy implementation which in fact is influenced by 3 elements, namely the policy itself, conditions of implementation and environmental support for the conduciveness and stability of policy implementation. It is almost in line with the opinion of Dye concept on Yogyandaru & Mayasari (2020, p. 39) which stated the important correlative matters in policy system consist of 3 elements, namely : public policy, policy maker and political environtment.
In the course of implementing the performance appraisal policy through SASIKAP, it does not always run smoothly. Various challenges and obstacles have also been faced by the Bandung Regency Government, starting from the occurrence of employee resistance at the beginning of the implementation of the policy which led to the need for a massive adaptation and socialization process for all employees, technical obstacles such as errors or bugs in the application, the lack of support for supporting infrastructure for applications. such as adequate systems and servers, lack of employee understanding of SKP preparation, long process of knowledge transfer related to application operationalization, not optimal monitoring processes carried out by appraisers, and lack of mutual commitment in implementing SASIKAP policies. Responding to this, the government did not remain silent and made various efforts. Starting from disseminating guidelines or procedures for using applications to accelerate knowledge transfer, placing implementing agents in the form of admin on each regional apparatus, opening consulting and assistance services related to performance appraisal systems, increasing support for system infrastructure, refining policies through several regulatory changes, forming The monitoring and evaluation team of the system and consistently strive to increase the objectivity and accountability of the civil servant performance appraisal system.
Entering the third year there is a shift in the challenges facing the government. As stated by the Head of the career development sector, there are only 2 obstacles faced in implementing the SASIKAP policy, namely human resources and systems (Interview, December 2, 2020). In terms of human resources, it is more about the commitment of employees in the process of filling out the application, both in terms of the conformity of performance reporting with the work done, the commitment of the assessment officials to carry out optimal supervision and the mindset of employees in viewing the SASIKAP application. For some people, they still prioritize economic motives in implementing policies because SASIKAP is closely related to providing additional employee income, so the meaning of SASIKAP as an objective, transparent and accountable performance appraisal instrument can lose its essence. Furthermore, in terms of employees' understanding of the setting of performance targets, it is still a homework to be done. Meanwhile, from a system perspective, it is recognized that there are still many things that need to be addressed and refined in the SASIKAP application, because it seems that there are never enough words to continue to improve in realizing an ideal and adaptable performance appraisal system for civil servants in Bandung Regency government.

The Evaluation of Policy Implementation of ASN Appraisal Performance System
Policy evaluation is one of the stages in the public policy process, one of which aims to measure policy performance. So that based on the results of the evaluation, a more in-depth study can be carried out whether the policy in question has been properly implemented or still requires some refinement. The policy evaluation carried out on the policy of the performance appraisal system for civil servants in Bandung district is included in the category of implementation evaluation (on going evaluation). Associated with Dunn's view (2003, p.610) which classifies policy evaluation into 6 criterias, including: effectiveness, efficiency, sufficiency, leveling, responsiveness and accuracy, then the results of the research on the evaluation of the implementation of the civil servant performance appraisal system policy will be described as follows:

Effectiveness
A policy is considered effective if it is able to show useful results and is in line with policy objectives. As stated in the Bandung Regent Regulation Number 109 of 2020, the purpose of this performance appraisal is to create a transparent, objective, accountable, measurable and participatory employee performance appraisal. Transparent means that nothing is covered up in the employee performance appraisal process. Performance appraisal through SASIKAP encourages every employee to find out how much their performance has been achieved every month and year, as well as how many points of assessment are given by superiors to the work achieved by an employee. Objective means that every employee needs to make a professional assessment by ignoring the element of subjectivity. A clear example of this objectivity is that an appraisal official must validate the activities and the monthly performance achievements of his subordinates in accordance with the activities carried out. So that if his subordinates do not report in accordance with reality, then an appraisal official has the right not to validate what is reported. However, based on the results of the interviews, the authors still find appraisal officials who tend to validate the performance of subordinates at the end of the month. This means that the validation process is carried out at one time and is not carried out regularly, thus allowing the validation process to not be carried out optimally and it seems that it is not validated according to reality. Furthermore, there was also a statement from one of the informants who said there were still appraisers in their work environment who did not personally validate (Interview, 17 November 2020). This condition indicates that the supervisory process is not running properly and is vulnerable to manipulation of performance reporting by subordinates. This means that weak supervision can result in a non-objective performance appraisal which is of course very contrary to the spirit of performance appraisal through SASIKAP.
Accountability in performance appraisal means that every assessment made must be accounted for. Through SASIKAP, every employee has the obligation to report daily, monthly and annual performance. So that the performance data contained in the application can be used as a form of accountability for performance reporting. Based on the results of the author's investigation, it was found that the reporting as referred to was unfortunately not equipped with a feature of reporting evidence of work or evidence, so that it was still possible for performance reporting to be inconsistent with reality. For example, when an employee reports the completion of work, when it is not attached with supporting evidence, it is possible that the claim for performance cannot be accounted for, especially with the still weak supervision carried out by an appraisal official. Furthermore, performance reporting through SASIKAP has not been integrated with the presence system. So that it is still possible to manipulate performance reporting, meaning that when an employee does not come to work for reasons of leave or other reasons, it is still possible to report performance through SASIKAP because it has not been filtered by the system.
In the context of measurable performance appraisal, the authors view that performance appraisal through SASIKAP already has a clear measure and weight of performance appraisal in terms of calculations because it is systemized and standardized in both application and regulation. Meanwhile, in the participatory aspect, performance appraisal through SASIKAP has been able to increase employee engagement to perform personal performance reporting. Although as the results of previous research conducted by Marlian and Sari (2020) said that there are still 1.08% of employees who have not filled out SASIKAP personally by reason of their proficiency in technology operationalization. In addition to increasing employee participation, SASIKAP also provides logical consequences for increasing employee compliance in reporting performance.

Effeciency
SASIKAP has been able to show efficiency in reporting the performance of civil servants. From the results of interviews with informants, it was acknowledged that the SASIKAP became more disciplined in preparing SKP and reporting on performance. Because prior to the existence of SASIKAP, the concerned tended to prepare SKP when needed for promotion (Interview, 5 December 2020). This condition often occurs in other government agencies. Such as the results of research conducted by Juari & Johannes (2018, p.82) It is said that there are a small number of employees who still think that the Employee Performance Target is the same as the DP3 which is only a formality, there are employees who fill in the Employee Performance Targets at the time of promotion, because it is a condition for promotion. Drafting of SKP in line with the performance appraisal process causes the work performance appraisal of civil servants not to be carried out in real terms (Hendi et al., 2019). Because ideally the drafting of SKP should be done at the beginning of the year as a measure the success of an employee's performance. Through SASIKAP, this condition will not happen again, because indirectly employees are forced to compile SKP and report their performance on time. Because when there is a delay, it will be detrimental to the person concerned in the form of not paying the TPP in the current month.
Prior to the implementation of SASIKAP, civil servants in Bandung Regency did the compilation and performance reporting manually. However, the fact is that the format of performance reporting documents prepared by employees is still varied, even though BKPSDM has disseminated a standard excel format that can be used as a guide for the preparation of ASN Work Performance Assessment document. This can be seen from the P2KP documents that employees have submitted to BKPSDM. From 4,687 P2KP documents in 2017 that have been submitted, there are approximately 15.1% of documents whose format is not suitable, (Interview, 2 July 2020). But with performance reporting through SASIKAP, it is certain that there will be no more wrong civil servants in terms of reporting formats because the standard format has been standardized through the system.
Then in terms of monitoring reporting and employee performance achievements, BKPSDM can now monitor employee performance which can be accessed anytime, anywhere and in real time. Unlike the case before the implementation of SASIKAP, BKPSDM is difficult to analyze performance data because it does not have a complete performance database that is used as a benchmark for performance evaluation. The following is a portrait of performance data recapitulation that can be accessed through the BKPSDM admin account:

Figure 3. Portrait of ASN Performance Data Recapitulation
Source: https://sasikapevo.bandungkab.go.id/admin/dashboard From the presentation of the performance data that is presented in the system, of course it becomes a strength for BKPSDM to be able to carry out various data analyzes needed, such as data analysis on trends in filling and reporting patterns as well as data analysis on the results of performance appraisals and employee work behavior.

Adequacy
Referring to the results of a survey conducted by BKPSDM, it is found that most of the employees admit that SASIKAP is now able to describe and provide information related to their performance. However, there are also many employees who think that SASIKAP is currently not able to represent its performance in full and real terms. The author tries to explore these reasons by conducting interviews with several informants. From the results of the interview, it was found that an informant complained that SASIKAP had not yet captured its overall performance. There are several factors that cause this, including, not all daily activities are listed in the system and are able to support the achievement of monthly performance.
Responding to this, the author tries to study some examples of employee performance targets through SASIKAP. Based on the results of the study, the authors found that there were still no clear employee performance targets for the measure of success. Because the listed performance targets are not resulting oriented and tend to still measure processes or activities. As the statement made by the Head of the Career Development Division, which stated that SASIKAP currently still tends to measure the process and has not yet fully shown performance results in the form of outputs and outcomes (Interview, 5 December 2020). Therefore, it is not surprising that the employee performance scores in all Regional Apparatus are in the average assessment of 90 percent and above. (Inspektorat, 2020).
Referring to the spirit of Government Regulation Number 30 of 2019 with the preparation of performance targets that pay attention to strategic plans and performance agreements, it requires a common thread of alignment between the organization's performance targets and the set individual performance targets. So that it will produce a performance measure that is clear, measurable and resultsoriented. As organizational theory where individual performance will support the achievement of organizational performance. To be able to make this happen, of course there needs to be an understanding and a common perception for all employees. That now is the time for a transformation to the employee performance appraisal which was originally still oriented to the process to be oriented towards reliable output or outcome. When one has created the same mind set, Although substantially, the performance targets are not entirely in accordance with statutory rules, but in the current business process SASIKAP has made efforts to refer to the alignment of employee performance targets with their superiors and organizational performance, as evidenced by the obligation of employees to include the relationship between their SKP and their supervisor's SKP as contained in the application as follows: shows that each employee is required to link the performance goals made with the performance goals of his / her supervisor. This is done by the Bandung district government as an effort to habituate the ideal performance alignment. On the other hand, the performance appraisal pattern that is related to one another is expected to be able to increase cooperation and teamwork collaboration. Because when the performance of an employee is not achieved, it can affect the achievement of his superior's performance. This pattern has been implemented through the calculation of Subordinate Performance Achievement (CKB) which is one of the points of monthly performance evaluation for structural officials, so that it is also hoped that it will be able to increase the supervision exercised by a superior over his subordinates. However, if it is related to adequacy, of course the current performance appraisal system is not sufficient to realize the objectives of the policy. Because there are still some assessment substances and application features that need to be improved, so that they are able to present performance analysis data that is truly valid and useful for policy making purposes.

Leveling
The provisions of Article 15 of Regent Regulation Number 109 of 2020 state that all civil servants in the Bandung Regency Government are required to carry out monthly performance reports and assessments through SASIKAP, except for functional positions of Teachers, School Principals and Functional Positions of Health Workers who are in the scope of regional hospital (RSUD) and Puskesmas. With this exception, it indicates a dichotomy in policy enforcement. This is of course contrary to the spirit of implementing a merit system that prioritizes the principles of justice and is not discriminatory in the management of civil servants. On the other hand, as mandated in Government Regulation Number 30 of 2019 that all civil servants have the obligation to periodically report and evaluate performance.
The author conducted interviews with several informants who were in the work unit who experienced differences in policy enforcement. According to Enceng, an employee at one of the health centers, he did not object to the differentiation of the application of the policy, because for functional positions there are separate rules governing the reporting of performance activities (Interview, 7 September 2020). Furthermore, according to Yanti, an employee at the Education Office said that even though teachers do not fill out SASIKAP, currently they have to make a performance report with a specified format. So that it does not question the difference in the treatment of SASIKAP policies (Interview, 8 September 2020).
The author believes that this cannot be allowed to continue for too long. Because it is against the principle of equity and justice in the implementation of a policy. Therefore, the authors confirm further the reasons for the exclusion of policy enforcement to the Head of the Career Development Sector as a policy maker as well as the leading sector for managing performance appraisal applications. He said that currently the system has not been able to accommodate performance appraisals for functional positions of teachers, school principals and health workers because they have their own reporting format. So that it is still excluded from filling in the monthly performance report. However, the annual performance appraisal will come into effect this year because previously they have never been required at all (Interview, 22 October 2020).
From these conditions, the authors view that there have been attempts to implement policies for all employees, even though the weight of their responsibilities and obligations is still different. However, it would be better if the Government immediately responds to this by making improvements to the features and harmonizing performance appraisal regulations in Bandung Regency so that they are able to accommodate various performance appraisal formats for functional officials. It would be better if the performance appraisal of civil servants in Bandung Regency could be integrated with the calculation of credit figures for functional officials. Because if the author observes in terms of the content of the performance appraisal and the format for calculating the credit score is not so much different because it uses the same rules of activity items.

Responsiveness
Since the implementation of the civil servant performance appraisal policy through SASIKAP, it has certainly caused a variety of different responses among employees. There are pros and cons to the implementation of this policy. Those who are pro will give a positive response and feel that the performance appraisal system through SASIKAP provides convenience and guidance in working, because it is clear that there are performance targets that must be achieved every month. Meanwhile, those who contravene the implementation of the policy tend to feel burdened by the existence of this application because there are new activity demands that must be met, namely the daily activity reporting of employees. With the provision of charging 7000 minutes per month some employees have objections.
Based on the results of research and interviews, it can be seen that most of them gave positive responses to the implementation of policies, apart from several conditions that still needed to be improved in terms of systems and policies. The author also found that employees are still confused with performance measures and job descriptions, because the tendency of the work done every day is not so correlated with the current position. If the employee is only doing work that is in accordance with his / her job duties, then the possibility of reaching 7000 minutes per month is relatively difficult. Therefore, the authors feel it is necessary to evaluate the workload analysis in a particular position, so as to realize a lean organization structure but rich in functions.
The author also tries to explore the employee's response to the 360-degree work behavior assessment pattern or mix rating that will take effect in 2020. According to Dudu, he has a little objection if he has to conduct a behavioral assessment of colleagues because he feels that his subjectivity will be very high.
Especially if the coworker is not in the same work unit environment (Interview Results, November 25, 2020). Furthermore, Titin feels bad if he has to evaluate his superiors, because this is not a common practice (Interview, 24 November 2020). This statement implies a rejection of the behavior assessment policies that are currently being implemented. However, when referring to existing policies, the purpose of the mixed rating behavior assessment is none other than to be able to describe the work behavior of employees holistically as well as to provide opportunities for employees to assess their superiors, subordinates and colleagues objectively without the need to be afraid because the assessment process is carried out in a closed manner.
The author considers that this pattern of assessment is good to apply because the assessment made from several points of view will produce a more real assessment. Evidenced by the assessment of behavior patterns like this, it is found that there are employees who are evaluated as good by their superiors every month, but are always considered poorly by their subordinates and co-workers, and vice versa. From this condition, SASIKAP has slowly begun to be able to present a portrait of the actual work behavior of employees.
Furthermore, the responsiveness and compliance of employees in terms of performance reporting. As previously discussed, there are still employees who have not personally reported their performance or appraisers who have not performed validation and monitored their performance optimally. In overcoming this condition, one of the efforts that can be made by the Bandung Regency Government is to strengthen the system and features of the SASIKAP application. Furthermore, it can also be strengthened by imposing sanctions for employees who do not seriously report their performance through SASIKAP. This is not an exaggeration, considering that SASIKAP is now used as a database in policy making and is also used as one of the bases for TPP payments which has a logical consequence that accountability must be clear.

Accuracy
The use of application systems for reporting and appraising employee performance is appropriate. This is because the application system requires employees to carry out a series of performance appraisals, starting from compiling to reporting on time performance in accordance with the mechanisms set out in the ASN performance appraisal system policy. This can answer various obstacles in the performance appraisal that was previously done manually. However, based on some of the previous explanations, there are still a number of shortcomings that must be corrected and perfected immediately, both in terms of policies and in terms of systems and application features. So that SASIKAP in the future is truly capable of realizing an objective, transparent, accountable, participatory, measurable and also able to represent employee performance data in a valid manner as the objective of policy enforcement.

CONCLUSIONS
The ASN performance appraisal system policy in Bandung Regency Government through SASIKAP has been implemented for 3 years, namely since 2018. This policy has been properly implemented as an instrument capable of regularly capturing employee performance and work behavior. Performance appraisal through SASIKAP is able to improve the effectiveness of performance appraisals and show efficiency in terms of time and employee compliance in performance reporting and performance monitoring carried out by the government. The development and improvement of the system gradually and periodically is carried out by the Bandung Regency government as a form of responsiveness to the various challenges and problems faced as well as answers to development needs in ASN management. Although along the way there are still some shortcomings such as: the performance appraisal system has not been integrated with the employee attendance system, there is still insufficient supervision of appraisers, not all employee performance targets have been able to show clear and measurable performance measures, there are still exceptions in the application of policies.
Based on that condition, There are several things that Bandung Regency Government can do to increase the objectivity and accountability of civil servant performance appraisals are as follows: 1. Improving the performance appraisal system in terms of features and application security as well as integrating with the employee attendance system. 2. Improve performance monitoring and provide sanctions for employees who do not heed the performance appraisal policy. 3. Increase employees' understanding of the setting of individual performance targets that are aligned with organizational performance targets through socialization, technical guidance, coaching and assistance in drafting SKP. 4. Considering the implementation of policies for all employees, including functional officers who are still exempt, through the preparation of facilities and infrastructure as well as developing an integrated performance appraisal application with the credit score calculation system.