Factors Affecting the Operational Efficiency of Administrative officers of the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office Under the Office of the Prosecutor Region 4 DOI:

Abstract

There are three objectives of this research. The first is to educate a level of operational efficiency of administrative officials of the office of Public prosecution Region 4. The second is to educate a level of factors affecting on operational efficiency of administrative officials of the office of Public prosecution Region 4. Finally, there is to educate factors affecting on operational efficiency of administrative officials of the office of Public prosecution Region 4. This research emphasizes on quantitative research by using a survey research. A group of example of quantitative research is administrative officials of the Office of Provincial Public Prosecution within the office of Public prosecution Region 4. There are 153 people.  Obtained using the sample size calculation formula of Yumane Taro, a equipment used for collecting. Aggregate data into questionnaires. Statistics used in data analysis include frequency distribution, percentage, mean, standard deviation and multiple regression analysis.

The results demonstrated that 1) the highest average result of a level of operational efficiency of administrative officials of the office of Public prosecution Region 4 is (  = 4.24).  As mentioned above, the highest aspect is time (  = 4.30).     The second is workload (  = 4.25). The expense is a lowest (  = 4.20)  2) a level of factors affecting on operational efficiency is (  = 4.07). As mentioned above, achievement of work performance is highest (  = 4.28). The second is a relationship with colleagues (  = 4.18). Finally, it is a progression of occupation (  = 3.91).             
3) Factors affecting work efficiency include being accepted and respected, work environment. and success in operations Statistically significant All three independent variables were able to predict the performance of administrative officials in the Provincial Attorney's Office. Under the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor's Office Region 4, the score was 52.40 percent (R² = 0.524), significant at the 0.05 level, with a multiple correlation coefficient equal to 0.740 (R = 0.740).

By displaying the decay equation in the form of raw scores and standard scores, as follows:

Ŷ = 1.541 + .227 (X1) + .225 (X2) + .212 (X3)

Ẑ = .320 (Z1) + .311 (Z2) + .220 (Z3)