DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF STATE-OWNED ASSETS IN SOUTH SULAWESI PROVINCE

: In addition to saving great potential if managed properly, State-Owned Assets also saves problems related to its management. For this reason, it is necessary to evaluate the performance of State-Owned Assets so that decision making is carried out appropriately, and Management of State-Owned Assets can run optimally, so as to realize expenditure efficiency and effectiveness of state wealth management. The research method used is a descriptive method with a quantitative approach to 290 performance evaluation data, using the score card method with six performance evaluation measurement indicators, namely public interest, social benefits, user satisfaction levels, potential future use, financial feasibility, and technical conditions. The evaluation of State-Owned Assets performance in South Sulawesi Province predominantly performed well (69.66%). The evaluation results for the indicators of Public Interest, Social Benefits, User Satisfaction Level, Future Use Potential, and Technical Conditions have high scores, while Financial/Economic Feasibility indicators have low scores.

From year to year, the value of State-Owned Assets is increasing.In the last 10 years, the value of State-Owned Assets has increased from Rp2,011 trillion in 2012, to Rp6,656 trillion in 2021.The value of this large asset holds great potential if managed properly (Kwon et al., 2014).But behind the large value of these assets, it also stores problems related to its management, such as not being managed optimally, being used not according to duties and functions, not being used, not maintained, or controlled by other parties illegally.Decision making is also not based on State-Owned Assets performance measurement (Amile et al., 2013).
For this reason, it is necessary to evaluate the performance of State-Owned Assets so that decision making is carried out appropriately, and Management of State-Owned Assets can run optimally, so as to realize expenditure efficiency and effectiveness of state wealth management.
The results of asset performance reports can be used as a basis for decision making to maintain assets, update, maintenance or decisions for write-off and replacement of these assets.Asset performance report information can also be used as a liaison in budgeting planning and the asset strategy development process or asset planning (Boerger, 2021).
Research to measure asset performance evaluation was previously conducted by Lavy et al (2014), namely measurements of physical, functional, financial, and user satisfaction dimensions.Physical dimensions are measured using indicators of the building's physical condition, health and safety, indoor environment quality, security and location.The dimensions used to measure the functional dimension are space utilization and space adequacy.The financial dimension can be measured by indiator operating costs, occupancy costs, utility costs, building maintenance costs, and employee costs.The dimensions of user satisfaction are measured by indicators of user satisfaction with products and services, community participation, suitability of facilities with functions (Ali & Raza, 2017).Nanang analyzed related factors that influence in measuring the performance of land and building assets of Tadulako University (Kamaru, 2019).Evaluation of asset performance of Lamb tourism facilities in Garut (Saefudin et al., 2021), evaluation of asset performance of Cirebon Mall in Cirebon City (Kustandi & Norhan, 2021), evaluation of performance of roadowned space assets on the south ring road of Sukabumi City (Fadjarwati, 2019) The scope of State-Owned Assets performance evaluation should be carried out on all central government assets.However, currently focusing on State-Owned Assets which has a high significance for the proportion of State confidence, namely State-Owned Assets in the form of land and buildings.
Each asset performance indicator has a value/score.Each indicator consists of one or more dimensions that have their own values, and are calculated using the average method.The final score as a measure of asset performance appraisal is made in the form of a score card which is colored green, red, and gray according to the given score limit.

RESEARCH METHODS
The research method used is a descriptive method with a quantitative approach.The data used is secondary data sourced from the Directorate General of State Assets Management, Ministry of Finance.The data consists of asset data and the value of performance evaluation results that have been carried out using the score card method which amounts to 290 State-Owned Assets data, in the form of buildings in South Sulawesi Province until 2022.There

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
After measuring asset performance evaluation on 290 State-Owned Assets data, 28.62% performed very well, 69.66% performed well, and 1.72% performed adequately.So in general, the use of current assets is recommended to be maintained and maintained to provide services to the community.The top 5 assets that perform adequately are recommended to be considered for relocation.In general, the three subindicators showed high social benefits (58.97%) although the results were not very dominant, because 119 units (41.03%) showed low social benefits (red color).

User Satisfaction Level
Based on the measurement results, it is known that 96.90% have the highest score (green color) so that it can be concluded that the existence of assets meets the level of service user satisfaction.

Future Use Potential
Evaluation of the Future Use Potential Indicator is carried out through the analysis of two subindicators, namely the asset category dimension (which reflects the role of assets in service delivery, and the asset signification dimension (which reflects the importance or absence of an asset to the purpose of service delivery).
From the measurement results, it is known that 98.28% have the highest score (green color), which means that the function of assets is very important and closely related to the purpose of service delivery significantly.

Financial/Economic Feasibility
In principle, the evacuation of financial/economic feasibility indicators is influenced by the type of asset being evaluated.Income-generating assets can be analyzed through several dimensions of financial performance.As for assets that are not intended to generate income, the evaluation of their financial performance cannot be calculated (gray color).
Based on financial analysis, 47.24% of assets are low performing (in red) and only 25.17% are high performing (green), and 27.59% are immeasurable (gray).This may be natural for public assets, because in general the goal is not to generate the most optimal income, but to provide services to the community.6. Technical Conditions Dominantly, 95.86% of assets are in good condition (green color), and ready to be used to provide services to the community.

CONCLUSION
The evaluation of State-Owned Assets performance in South Sulawesi province predominantly performed well (69.66%).The evaluation results for indicators of Public Interest, Social Benefits, User Satisfaction Level, Future Use Potential, and Technical Conditions, have high scores.While the Financial/Economic Feasibility indicator has a low score.
Figure 1Financial Report are six assessment indicators and the division of categories from each of these indicators which are determined based on the technical guidelines for State-Owned Assets performance evaluation issued by the Directorate General of State Assets Management of the Ministry of Finance number SE-3 / KN / 2019 concerning the Stages of Implementation and Mechanism for Calculating the Value of Indicators and Technical Number 1 of 2004 concerning State Treasury and Article 1 of Government Regulation Number 27 of 2014 concerning Management of State/Regional Assets states that State-Owned Assets is all goods purchased or obtained at the expense of the State Budget Descriptive Analysis of Performance Evaluation of State-Owned Assets in South Sulawesi Province

Table 2
The evaluation results for each indicator