Human-machine Dynamics in Local Digital Governance: Evidence from North Kalimantan's SPBE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v10i18.19470Keywords:
electronik-based government system, human resources, technology, organizationvAbstract
One of the efforts to improve the quality of public services is the implementation of the electronic-based government system (SPBE). However, in its implementation, various regions experienced different obstacles, including North Kalimantan Province. This obstacle is primarily related to the capacity of employees in the government and the community in adapting to and adopting technology, which tends to indicate that there is still resistance to the use of digital systems in public service processes. The lack of human resources with technological capacity also remains an obstacle in the implementation of the SPBE in North Kalimantan. This situation causes government agencies to prefer collaborating with third parties for the preparation and development of related applications. In addition, the quality of technological infrastructure is also not yet adequate, with only 65% of the areas in North Kalimantan Province having stable internet access.
References
[1] Dunleavy P, Margetts H, Bastow S, Tinkler J. Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press; 2006. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296194.001.0001.
[2] OECD. Governance for digital government. OECD Digital Government Studies; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/ffd9aa57-.
[3] Fountain JE. Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press; 2001.
[4] Kumari NK, Naidu D, Ramakanth S. Digital governance and service delivery: Transforming public administration with technology. In Digital Administration and Governance (pp. 144–152). https://doi.org/10.48001/978-81-966500-8-7-15. 2024.
[5] Ministry of Empowerment State Apparatus and Reform Bureaucracy. Report national SPBE index 2022. Jakarta: KemenPANRB; 2023.
[6] Mutiarin, D., Lawelai, H., Sadat, A., Wijaya, AAM, & Sa’ban, LMA. Interoperability governance: An analysis of the impact of digitization of public services on local government. Journal of Local Government Issues, 2(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25077/j.
[7] Aryatama, S., Miswan, M., Fahriyah, F., Pribadi, T., & Suacana, IWG. Enhancing governance efficiency through digital transformation in public services: Lessons from global practices. Global International Journal of Innovative Research, 2(5), 1019–102.
[8] Heeks R. Implementing and managing eGovernment: An international text. SAGE Publications; 2006. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446220191.
[9] Meijer AJ. E-Governance innovation: barriers and strategies. Gov Inf Q. 2015;32(2):198–206.
[10] Layne K, Lee J. Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Gov Inf Q. 2001;18(2):122–36.
[11] Rooy D. Human–machine collaboration for enhanced decision-making in governance. Data Policy. 2024;:6.
[12] Vigoda-Gadot E, Mizrahi S. The digital governance puzzle: towards integrative theory of humans, machines, and organizations in public management. Technol Soc. 2024;77:102530.
[13] Reid, E., & Gilbert. Human-machine interaction and the future of digital bureaucracy. Public Adm Rev. 2023;83(2):215–28.
[14] Jain AK, Anand A, Mahajan I. Digital governance. In Digital transformation in public administration (pp. 15–42). Informa UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003433194-2. 2023.
[15] Chen Y, Ye Q. The impact of digital governance on the health of rural residents: the mediating role of governance efficiency and access to information. Front Public Health. 2024 Jul;12:1419629.
[16] Li L, Lin X, Yang X, Luo Z, Wang M. Digital governance and urban government service spaces: understanding resident interaction and perception in Chinese cities. Land (Basel). 2024;13(9):1403.
[17] Gomez A, Whyte C. Understanding digital transformation through behavioral insights: evidence from public sector experimentation. Int J Public Sector Management. 2023;36(8):1125–42.
[18] Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. SAGE Publications; 2014.
[19] Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manage Inf Syst Q. 1989;13(3):319–40.
[20] Picard RW. Affective computing. MIT Press; 1997. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001.
[21] Janssen M, Kuk G, Wagenaar RW. Institutional and regulatory frameworks for digital governance. Gov Inf Q. 2012;29 S1:S1–9.
[22] Cordella A, Tempini N. E-government and organizational change: reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Gov Inf Q. 2015;32(3):279–86.
[23] Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Manage Inf Syst Q. 2003;27(3):425–78.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ilham Zain, Muhammad Yunus, Syahribulan, Muhammad Akmal Ibrahim, Mohamad Tahir Haning, Amril Hans
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
