MAKASSAR, Indonesia — Strong budgetary control and careful management of production assets are closely linked to manufacturing cost efficiency, according to research by Khaerun Nisa SH, Irene Ipal Parinding, and Aisyah Zarkasi from the State University of Makassar. Published in 2026 in the International Journal of Finance and Business Management (IJFBM), the research examined employees at PT Semen Tonasa and found that financial discipline and asset management both have significant relationships with production cost inefficiency.
The findings are relevant to large-scale manufacturing companies, where production depends on substantial investments in machinery, facilities, labor, materials, and energy. The study indicates that managing costs effectively requires more than controlling spending. Companies also need to ensure that production assets remain functional, properly maintained, and compatible with the people who operate them.
Why Budget Control and Production Assets Matter
Manufacturing companies operate within complex financial and operational environments. Production costs can change because of material consumption, equipment downtime, labor requirements, maintenance needs, and other operational factors.
The research by Khaerun Nisa SH, Irene Ipal Parinding, and Aisyah Zarkasi brings two areas together: budgetary control rigor and ergonomic asset integrity.
Budgetary control rigor refers to how consistently an organization monitors and manages its spending. It includes employee participation in budgeting, regular monitoring of differences between planned and actual spending, and management accountability for costs.
Ergonomic asset integrity refers to the physical and functional condition of production facilities while also considering how comfortably and effectively workers interact with those facilities. In a manufacturing environment, equipment maintenance, workplace design, safety, and operational reliability can all influence production performance.
The researchers argue that these two areas should not be viewed separately. Financial decisions can influence maintenance and asset investment, while the condition of production assets can affect operational costs.
Research Involved 85 Employees
The research used a quantitative approach and collected data from 85 employees at PT Semen Tonasa. The respondents came from the Finance, Human Resources, and Production departments and were selected because of their involvement in cost monitoring.
The researchers examined three main variables:
- Budgetary Control Rigor, measuring the intensity of financial oversight and accountability.
- Ergonomic Asset Integrity, measuring the condition, maintenance, safety, and ergonomic aspects of production facilities.
- Production Cost Inefficiency, covering indicators such as material waste, unplanned downtime, and differences in labor hours.
Before analyzing the relationships between these variables, the researchers tested the quality of their questionnaire. All 45 measurement items met the validity criteria. Reliability testing also produced values above the reference threshold, indicating that the measurement instruments were considered consistent for the analysis.
Tighter Budget Control Is Associated With Lower Cost Inefficiency
One of the clearest results concerns budgetary control.
The regression analysis produced a coefficient of -0.451 for budgetary control rigor. In practical terms, the negative direction indicates that stronger budgetary control was associated with lower production cost inefficiency within the model.
The relationship was statistically significant, with a significance value of 0.000, below the 0.05 threshold used by the researchers. This means budgetary control made a statistically meaningful contribution to explaining variations in production cost inefficiency.
For manufacturing management, the finding highlights the importance of monitoring expenditure rather than relying solely on budgets as planning documents. Regular cost reviews and clear accountability can help management identify deviations and respond before they become larger operational issues.
Asset Integrity Reveals a More Complex Relationship
The results for ergonomic asset integrity present a more nuanced picture.
The variable produced a coefficient of 0.548 and a significance value of 0.000. The positive coefficient means that higher scores on ergonomic asset integrity were associated with higher measured production cost inefficiency in the statistical model.
The authors do not frame this result as evidence that maintaining or improving production assets is inherently harmful to efficiency. Instead, their discussion points to a possible gap between technological improvements and organizational readiness.
New or upgraded equipment can require employee training, adjustments to operating procedures, and time for workers to adapt. If technical improvements move faster than workforce preparation, companies may temporarily experience additional operational costs or friction.
This interpretation places an important emphasis on people alongside technology. Asset investment may deliver stronger benefits when it is accompanied by appropriate training and changes in work practices.
Both Factors Explain 37.5% of Cost Variation
When budgetary control rigor and ergonomic asset integrity were considered together, the statistical model showed a significant relationship with production cost inefficiency. The joint test produced a significance value of 0.000.
The model recorded an Adjusted R Square of 0.375, meaning the two variables accounted for approximately 37.5% of the variation in production cost inefficiency among the observations analyzed.
The remaining 62.5% was associated with other factors outside the model. The authors note that these could include external market conditions, raw-material price changes, supply-chain disruptions, organizational culture, energy-market conditions, and other factors not examined in the research.
The figure is important because it places the findings in context: budget control and asset integrity matter, but they are not the only factors determining production efficiency.
A More Integrated Approach to Manufacturing Management
The researchers from the State University of Makassar recommend combining financial oversight with asset management rather than treating them as independent responsibilities.
Their recommendations include strengthening cost accountability, synchronizing maintenance schedules with workforce training, and developing a centralized digital dashboard that can monitor financial compliance and physical asset conditions. They also propose using data analytics to anticipate potential cost increases and adjust management decisions based on asset performance.
As Khaerun Nisa SH, Irene Ipal Parinding, and Aisyah Zarkasi explain through their analysis, sustainable cost efficiency depends on the alignment of financial governance with operational conditions. In practical terms, a company needs to understand not only how much it spends, but also where the money is going, how its assets are performing, and whether employees are prepared to use those assets effectively.
The research therefore offers a management perspective that connects accounting decisions with conditions on the production floor. For large manufacturing organizations, this integrated approach can provide a clearer basis for planning maintenance, controlling expenditure, managing resources, and improving operational decision-making.
Author Profile
Khaerun Nisa SH, Irene Ipal Parinding, and Aisyah Zarkasi are affiliated with the Accounting Study Program, Faculty of Economics and Business, State University of Makassar. Their research focuses on issues related to management accounting, budgetary control, asset integrity, and production cost efficiency in manufacturing organizations.
Research Source
Article Title: The Algorithmic Synergy of Budgetary Control Rigor and Ergonomic Asset Integrity in Mitigating Production Cost Inefficiency
Authors: Khaerun Nisa SH, Irene Ipal Parinding, Aisyah Zarkasi
Journal: International Journal of Finance and Business Management (IJFBM)
Publication: 2026, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 271–288
DOI: 10.59890/ijfbm.v4i3.4
0 Komentar