a case study of lapor!

M-GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION IN
ENCOURAGING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN INDONESIA:
A CASE STUDY OF LAPOR!
A Dissertation Submitted to the University of Manchester for the Degree of Master of
Science Faculty of Humanities
2014
DINUR RAHMANI SADAT
Institute for Development Policy and Management
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ......................................................................................................... 5
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 5
List of Figure ............................................................................................................................. 5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 6
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 8
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................... 9
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STATEMENT .......................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 11
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 11
1.2 Research Objective and Questions..................................................................................... 15
1.3 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................. 15
1.4 Chapter Outline .................................................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 17
2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 17
2.2 From E-Government to M-Government ............................................................................ 17
2.2.1 E-Government ............................................................................................................. 17
2.2.2 M-Government ............................................................................................................ 20
2.3 Citizen Participation .......................................................................................................... 24
2.3.1 Good Governance ....................................................................................................... 24
2.3.2 Participation as a Central Foundation of Good Governance ....................................... 25
2.4 M-Government and Participation ...................................................................................... 26
2.5 Evaluating IS Success and Citizens Perceived Benefits .................................................... 30
2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 34
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 34
3.2 Research Purpose and Questions ....................................................................................... 34
3.3 Research Design ................................................................................................................ 34
2
3.4 Research Methods .............................................................................................................. 36
3.4.1 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 36
3.4.2 Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................... 40
3.5 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 42
3.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER 4 – FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 44
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 44
4.2 M-Government in Indonesia .............................................................................................. 44
4.3 M-Government for Participation: LAPOR! ....................................................................... 49
4.4 Respondents’ Demographic ............................................................................................... 51
4.5 LAPOR! Success in Encouraging Participation................................................................. 53
4.5.1 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................... 53
4.5.2 Spearman Correlation ................................................................................................. 59
4.6 Citizens Perceived Benefits ............................................................................................... 60
4.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 63
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 65
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 65
5.2 Current State of M-Government for Participation ............................................................. 65
5.3 M-Government Success in Encouraging Participation ...................................................... 67
5.3.1 System Quality ............................................................................................................ 68
5.3.2 Information Quality .................................................................................................... 69
5.3.3 Service Quality............................................................................................................ 70
5.3.4 User Satisfaction ......................................................................................................... 70
5.3.5 Use/Intention to Continual Use ................................................................................... 71
5.4 M-Government Benefits for Citizens................................................................................. 71
5.4.1 Convenience................................................................................................................ 72
5.4.2 Cost ............................................................................................................................. 72
5.4.3 Communication ........................................................................................................... 72
5.4.4 Time ............................................................................................................................ 73
5.4.5 Participation in Decision Making ............................................................................... 73
5.4.6 Personalisation ............................................................................................................ 74
5.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 74
3
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 75
6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 75
6.2 Concluding Remarks .......................................................................................................... 75
6.3 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 76
6.4 Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 77
6.5 Future Research Suggestions ............................................................................................. 78
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 79
APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX B – MAIN INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................................. 98
APPENDIX C – LIST OF INTERVIEWEE ............................................................................... 99
APPENDIX D - LIST OF POLICIES AND REGULATIONS ................................................. 100
Text Word Count
: 16,496
Annexes Word Count: 1,144
4
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
List of Tables
Table 1 M-Government Benefits ................................................................................................. 23
Table 2 The Ladder of (e-)Participation Maturity Summary ....................................................... 27
Table 3 Characterising Participation Level.................................................................................. 29
Table 4 Data Collection Methods Summary ................................................................................ 36
Table 5 Measurement Indicators .................................................................................................. 38
Table 6 Perceived Benefits Measures .......................................................................................... 39
Table 7 Reliability Test................................................................................................................ 41
Table 8 Spearman's Correlation Coefficient ................................................................................ 43
Table 9 Initiatives of mG2C and mG2B in Indonesia ................................................................. 48
Table 10 Respondent's Demographic........................................................................................... 52
Table 11 LAPOR! Success Measurement Results ....................................................................... 53
Table 12 Spearman Correlation Result ........................................................................................ 59
Table 13 Citizens Perceived Benefits Results.............................................................................. 61
Table 14 Benefits Classification .................................................................................................. 63
List of Figure
Figure 1 Domains for E-Government Systems ............................................................................ 18
Figure 2 M-Government Delivery Models .................................................................................. 21
Figure 3 D&M IS Success Model ................................................................................................ 30
Figure 4 Updated D&M IS Success Model ................................................................................ 31
Figure 5 M-Government Success and Perceived Benefits Measurement Model ......................... 32
Figure 6 Guiding Framework....................................................................................................... 35
Figure 8 System Quality .............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 9 Information Quality ....................................................................................................... 55
Figure 10 Service Quality ............................................................................................................ 56
Figure 11 User Satisfaction.......................................................................................................... 57
Figure 12 Use/Intention to Continual Use ................................................................................... 58
5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BIDIKMISI
Tuition Assistance for Disadvantaged and Excellent Students
BTS
Base Transceiver Station
D&M
DeLone & McLean
E-
Electronic-
E-KTP
Electronic Identity Card
G2B
Government-to-Business
G2C
Government-to-Citizen
G2E
Government-to-Employee
G2G
Government-to-Government
G2N
Government-to-Non-Profits
GoI
Government of Indonesia
ICT
Information and Communication Technology
IS
Information Systems
KPK
Corruption Eradication Commission
KRL
Electric Train
LAPOR!
Online Citizen’s Aspirations and Complaints Services
M-
Mobile-
MCIT
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology
MPLIK
Mobile Center for Internet Service District
Musrenbang
Multi Stakeholder Consultation Forum for Development Planning
NPM
New Public Management
PDA
Personal Data Assistance
PLIK
Center for Internet Service District
PLN
National Electricity Company
RSS
Real Simple Syndication
RW
Rukun Warga (neighborhood)
TKTI
Indonesian Telematics Coordinating Team
UKP4
Presidential Work Unit for Development Monitoring and Control
6
ABSTRACT
The fast growing of internet technology in public sector has introduced a term of egovernment. Many countries have implemented this initiative since it is deemed as a
fundamental element in reinventing government, particularly in support of
democratisation (Bekkers 2003; Chan et al. 2003; Chan et al. 2008). However, in recent
years the penetration of wireless and mobile technologies are increasing even faster than
that of landline connection which causes citizens prefer to mobile usage, especially
mobile phone, and creates “always-on” society phenomenon. In view of this,
governments found a way to encounter new challenges on how improve its functions in
more innovative ways and to more involve citizens in government activities by
exploiting mobile technology, which is called m-government.
The mobility characteristics of m-governmentare deemed able to offer real-time,
personalised, and convenient access to information and services to wider citizens,
including those in rural areas. These benefits are therefore expected to advance egovernment adoption (Kim et al. 2004), and to improve citizen participation as well as
strengthen the government-citizens relationship to support democratic government
practice. However, despite of the increasing m-government adoption, mobile extensions
to participation focus solutions are still lacking, particularly in developing countries (de
Reuver et al. 2010). The potential of m-government in improving citizen participation
remains considerably unexploited, including in Indonesia. Thus, this research aims to
explore m-government implementation in Indonesia, specifically focusing on mgovernment ability to improve citizen participation in governance and its perceived
benefits for citizens.
This research was conducted by taking a case study of m-government for participation
in Indonesia, called LAPOR! Qualitative and quantitative approaches were applied by
performing document investigation, interviews to LAPOR! team, and survey to
LAPOR! users. A developed participation level characterization, success measurement
model (DeLone & McLean 2003), and net benefits measures (Scott et al. 2011) were
used as a guide to conduct this research. The findings in the forms of description,
descriptive statistics, and Spearman correlation were then analysed. The findings show
that participation level on m-government initiative in Indonesia is at the early
consulting/interacting stage. Its implementation has been supported by some policies
and regulations, sufficient but impartial ICT deployment across regions, and services
that allow input provision related to national development and public service delivery
from citizens. Its success evaluation also shows that this initiative has moderate success
rate to increase participation with some issues identified. Furthermore, the impact
evaluation shows some benefits for citizens in terms of convenience, cost,
communication, time, participation in decsision making, and personalisation. Overall,
m-government is possible to increase citizens’ participation supported by appropriate
policies/regulations, technologies, good quality services and applications.
Key words: citizen participation, e-government, governance, m-government, perceived
benefits, Spearman correlation
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Allah SWT for His grace and blessing in granting me the finest
opportunities for pursuing and gaining more knowledge through this whole year. This
dissertation is also dedicated to my beloved parents who endlessly support, encourage,
and pray for me, my oldest sister Dea and my younger sister Dafi’ who unceasingly
encourage and cheer me up, and my grandma who keeps praying for my success. My
biggest acknowledgement also goes to Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education
(LPDP), Ministry of Finance, The Republic of Indonesia, for giving me the opportunity
to achieve Master Degree in University of Manchester.
I express my earnest gratitude to Dr. Melanie Lombard, as my supervisor, who provided
countless valuable knowledge, feedbacks, and advices and guided me throughout my
dissertation completion. My sincere gratitude is also conveyed to my personal tutors and
programme director, Dr. Richard Duncombe and Dr. Ping Gao, for their guidance
during my study in this course. I also would like to say many thanks to all of my fellow
students in Development Informatics Group and IDPM for giving me such wonderful
friendships. Lastly, special thanks go to all LAPOR! team for their assistance during my
data collection and Kak Ayash for all her advices during the past year.
8
DECLARATION
I declare that no portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in
support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other
university or other institute of learning.
9
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STATEMENT
I.
The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or schedules to this
dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and
s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such
Copyright, including for administrative purposes.
II.
Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or
electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where
appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has
entered into. This page must form part of any such copies made.
III.
The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other
intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of
copyright works in the dissertation, for example graphs and tables
(“Reproductions”), which may be described in this dissertation, may not be
owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual
Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use
without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual
Property and/or Reproductions.
IV.
Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any Intellectual
Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the
University
IP
Policy
(see
http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant
Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The
University
Library’s
regulations
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations)
(see
and
in
The
University’s Guidance for the Presentation of Dissertations.
10
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The use of information and communication technology (ICT), particularly internet, in
government has gained recognition for the past decades and has been regarded as a
fundamental component in reinventing government, particularly in support of
democratisation (Bekkers 2003; Chan et al. 2003; Chan et al. 2008). Many new
terminologies correlated with this phenomenon have been introduced, including the
most widely accepted term – e-government (Kumar & Sinha 2007; Chan et al. 2008).
Heeks (2013) defines e-government as the use of ICT in the public sector, aimed at
improving the access to and delivery of public services by citizens, businesses, and
societies.
E-government is argued as an essential component in overall reform agendas since it can
be used as a tool to reform and renew interest in public management, and points out the
commitment to good governance objectives (OECD 2003). It can improve efficiency;
provide greater opportunities for citizens to participate in government activities and
decisions democratically; and build trust between government and citizens (Fang 2002;
OECD 2003a; Alshehri & Drew 2010). In view of this, it is well-acknowledged fact that
many countries, including developing countries, have implemented e-government
initiatives to replace the functions performed by traditional government (Alrazooqi &
De Silva 2010).
Along with that fast emerging of internet technology and so e-government, the
penetration of mobile technologies is also increasing even faster, especially in
developing countries, which causes people to be more inclined to mobile usage than
landline connections (Alrazooqi & De Silva 2010). ITU (2014) predicts by the end of
2014 the mobile cellular subscriptions worldwide will reach about 7 billion, two times
greater than internet users. In developing countries, these numbers have been massively
increasing in five years, from 3.3 billion to 5.4 billion for mobile cellular subscriptions
and from 974 million to 1.9 billion for internet users (ITU 2014a).
11
Meanwhile, the mobile-broadband uptake remains the fastest growing market segment
in developing countries, while fixed-broadband growth rate is slowing down and
expected to decline by half in 2011 to 2014, even though its penetration keeps going up
but slowly (ITU 2014). Thus, government is then faced with new challenges and
opportunities on how to reshape the government activities in this “always-on” society
that the conventional e-government fail to deliver so far, to more closely involve
citizens and to improve the fundamental functions of government in more innovative
ways, which then opens up a new direction of m-government (Kushchu & Kuscu 2003;
Song 2005; Alrazooqi & De Silva 2010).
M-government refers to the use of all kinds of wireless and mobile technologies,
applications and devices (e.g. internet-enabled mobile phones, PDAs, mobile
applications, etc.) in government (Kushchu & Kuscu 2003; El-Kiki et al. 2005; Song
2005). It is designed as innovative ICT applications which allow broader information
and services available to a wider audience; assure mobility and flexibility in delivering
information and services; and offer more accessible, real-time, and transparent public
information and services for citizens, businesses, and government institutions (Moon
2004; Macintosh 2004; Amailef & Lu 2008; Mengistu et al. 2009). M-government may
provide convenient and personalised access to information that can help advance egovernment adoption (Kim et al. 2004). With these benefits, m-government is expected
to improve citizen participation in governmental activities and strengthen the
government-citizens relationship which, in turn, may support democratic governance
practice.
However, until now many researches about m-government adoption (Kushchu &
Borucki 2004; El-Kiki et al. 2005; Kumar & Sinha 2007; Amailef & Lu 2008; Mengistu
et al. 2009; Al-Khouri 2013) remain discussing around trends, building framework and
technical considerations in implementing m-government which emphasise on
government services provision orientation with one-way interaction between citizens
and government. M-government is commonly identified as innovative technology for
information availability channel which enables citizens to access information passively
and/or as transformation means for more efficient and effective administrative
12
government (Kushchu & Borucki 2004; Islam 2008). There are still limited mgovernment adoption practices which focus on connecting citizens and government with
two-way interaction where citizens are not only the ones who ‘get’ something from
government but also the ones who ‘provide’ something to government. de Reuver et al.
(2010) also argue that mobile extensions to e-participation solutions are still lacking.
Thus, the great potential of m-government, particularly in improving citizen
participation as part of democratization initiatives, in developing countries remains
considerably unexploited in spite of their continuous efforts in developing mobile and
network infrastructure (Mengistu et al. 2009), including Indonesia.
The significant changes in Indonesian political system lead to the implementation of egovernment and m-government in Indonesia. Since the reformation movement to bring
down new order regime in 1998, the ideal democracy, referred to people’s power and
freedom to take roles in political practices, have begun to be implemented (Rose 2004).
Before, democracy was only a tool of rhetorical politics where the real political system
was executed with authoritarianism practices by restricting, or even omitting, public
information access and citizen participation in governmental activities (Rose 2004).
Now, after the wave of democratic reform, the real democracy is recognised where
citizens can get balanced and transparent information from and communicate with
government, voice their opinions and criticisms, and participate in policy process or
other public interest-oriented political decisions (Rose 2004).
However, providing balanced servives is challenging for Indonesia due to its geographic
characteristics. The adoption of ICT is then deemed necessary as an efficient and
effective medium to deliver information and services to public. The government of
Indonesia (GoI) started incorporating ICT into government organisational structure by
releasing e-governance policy (Mirchandani et al. 2008). Two years later, with the goals
of accelerating the democratic process and establishing good governance, transparency,
accountability, intra-government communications, citizen participation, and more
efficient administration, the national strategy and policy on e-government was also
released (Mirchandani et al. 2008; Kemenkumham 2011). Since then, GoI continues to
improve service- and technology-based e-government infrastructure that are accessible
13
to all citizens, by taking advantage of the advancement of internet and mobile
technologies.
The percentage of individuals using the internet in Indonesia has almost tripled in five
year (ITU 2014b). This massively increasing of internet usage was expected to also
increase citizen participation as the potential of e-government adoption which was
proven by the increasing e-participation index from 0.0455 in 2008 to 0.1286 in 2010 to
0.2105 in 2012 (UN 2008; UN 2010; UN 2012). However, its growth rate is not quite
significant which made Indonesia lack behind, even below world average (0.268) (UN
2014). In other words, along with its increment e-participation index, other countries’
index is also growing even faster. Meanwhile, the number of mobile subscriptions in
Indonesia has almost doubled in three year (from 163.7 million in 2009 to 282 million in
2012) (ITU 2014c). Looking at this potential and the continuously growing demand to
more involve citizens in governmental activities, there is an opportunity to better engage
citizens in more innovative way by adopting m-government, which is expected to
provide faster and more reachable services, and increase citizens participation.
The number of m-government initiatives in Indonesia is still limited compare to that of
web-based services. Referring to satulayanan.net, portal providing information for all
online services administered by government, from 299 online public services, only
approximately 5% of them are available on mobile (e.g. online service for train
reservation, electricity, electronic identity card, etc.). Moreover, most of them are
simply SMS-based services with one-way interaction and e-service focus, which are
provided only to deliver information to citizens. The only m-government services which
are provided in several channels, two-ways interaction and transactional service-based
apparently are just three, mobile-based train reservation, BIDIKMISI scholarship, and
Online Citizen’s Aspirations and Complaints Services (LAPOR!).
Within this context, this research aims to explore m-government adoption in Indonesia,
which focuses on citizen participation in governance. A case study of LAPOR! is
analysed in order to get comprehensive understanding about this practice-based issue.
Unlike mobile-based train reservation and BIDIKMISI scholarship which focus on eservice domain, LAPOR! is developed with e-citizens orientation which concentrates on
14
citizen participation in controlling government performance on national development
and public services delivery, and on connecting citizens and government. It covers both
e-citizens reform objectives which are ‘talking to citizens’ and ‘listening to citizens’
(Heeks 2013a). Lastly, LAPOR! is also chosen based on consideration of its service type
and channel, which is not only provided as an SMS-based service but also in the form of
an internet-enabled mobile application.
1.2 Research Objective and Questions
As explained previously, this research aims to explore m-government adoption in
Indonesia, specifically focusing on m-government ability to improve citizen
participation in governance. In order to realise this research objective, the main research
questions are constructed as follows:
1. What is the current state of m-government adoption, particularly for participation,
in Indonesia?
2. How successful is m-government in encouraging citizen participation?
3. What are the citizens perceived benefits of using m-government?
1.3 Scope of the Study
This research is conducted within three limited scope of study. First, this research is
limited to m-government adoption in Indonesian context, especially the LAPOR! case
study where, as a consequence, the result of this study might be restricted for
generalisation in other country contexts or even other m-government services. Second,
as defined by Kushchu & Kuscu (2003), m-government is differentiated from egovernment only in terms of mobile phone usage thus this research is only carried out
by analysing SMS-based and mobile application-based LAPOR! services. Third,
LAPOR! is seen as a government service which facilitates citizens to actively participate
and interact with government in supervising national development and public services.
1.4 Chapter Outline
Overall, the proposed dissertation will consist of the following six main chapters.
15
Chapter one introduces the background of the research including the rationale of
selecting this topic, the research questions that is going to be addressed, the objectives
of the research, the research scope, and the research structure overview.
Chapter two provides the review of some literatures showing the theoretical
perspectives of m-Government and how it impacts on citizen participation and public
services improvement.
Chapter three presents the research methodology that is being used to answer the
research questions. It explains the research approach and methods for gathering and
analysing the data.
Chapter four describes the findings from the data that were collected. It consists of the
findings for each research question.
Chapter five attempts to address the research questions by discussing them based on the
findings. It includes discussion on the current state of m-government, its success, and its
benefits.
Chapter six restates the research questions and their answers as the final finding
remarks. It also provides the recommendations for the case study, the limitations of this
research and some suggestions for future research.
16
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to review current literatures about the key issues around mgovernment and participation areas within the context of developing countries. Firstly, it
begins with the concept of e-government and m-government. Secondly, it provides
understanding about citizen participation, including the concept of good governance as
the background knowledge in understanding citizen participation. Thirdly, it discusses
the link between m-government and participation. Fourthly, it describes information
systems (IS) success assessment model to analyse the case study. Lastly, it provides the
summary of the whole chapter.
2.2 From E-Government to M-Government
As pointed out by many researchers (Cilingir & Kushchu 2004; El-Kiki et al. 2005;
Kumar & Sinha 2007; Mengistu et al. 2009), the concept of m-government is highly
related to e-government. It is argued to be the subset of e-government efforts. Thus,
before explaining about m-government, it is essential to understand e-government as the
background of m-government initiatives, especially in a developing country context to
make it relevant to the case study.
2.2.1 E-Government
The fast growing of ICTs, especially internet and mobile technologies, has not only
revolutionized the way business operated but has also transformed the delivery
mechanism of public services offered by government (Trimi & Sheng 2008). The new
concept of New Public Management (NPM) has been evoked to explain the
phenomenon whereby government has tried to shift private sector operations’
techniques to public sector operations, to be more responsive to the public’s needs and
to improve its functions in terms of cost, service and national development (society)
goals, including by the ICTs exploitation (Bovaird 2007; Heeks 2013). ICTs are deemed
to possess catalytic features to transform government capabilities to improve services
provision to and engaging with citizens as well as improving the public services quality,
17
which is now widely known as e-government (Bekkers 2003; Chan et al. 2003; Lee et
al. 2005; Trimi & Sheng 2008; Chan et al. 2008).
The World Bank (2011) stresses e-government as the use of ICT which transforms
government relationships with citizens, businesses, and/or other government institutions
in order to promote citizen empowerment; enhance service delivery; and increase
transparency, accountability, and government efficiency. Thus, ultimately there are two
main transformation areas or objectives of e-government, internal operations-focused
(i.e. processes in government activities) and external services-focused (e.g. delivering
online services, enhancing citizen participation) (Basu 2004; Ndou 2004; Heeks 2013).
According to Heeks (2013), e-government can be classified based on its segment-served
into government-to-government (G2G), government-to-business (G2B), government-tocitizens (G2C), and government-to-non-profits (G2N) which results four application
domains for e-government as seen in Figure 1. In addition to this classification, some
researchers also add government-to-employee (G2E) (Kim et al. 2004; Amailef & Lu
2008).
Figure 1 Domains for E-Government Systems (Heeks 2013)
As depicted in Figure 1, there are four domains of e-government: e-administration, eservices, e-citizens, and e-society. According to Heeks (2001), e-administration focuses
on the improvement of internal processes/workings of public sector, including cutting
cost, managing performance, etc. E-services aim to improve public services delivery,
18
particularly dealing with government relationship with its service consumers (i.e.
citizens as customers and businesses). E-citizens focuses on connecting citizens,
particularly dealing with the government-citizens relationship where citizens are seen as
stakeholders from whom government derives its legitimacy, including talking to citizens
and listening to citizens initiatives. E-society addresses building external interactions,
particularly dealing with the relationship between government and other institutions (i.e.
other
government
institutions,
private
sectors,
non-profit,
and
community
organisations).
E-Government in Developing Countries
It is a well-acknowledged fact that e-government adoption in developing countries is
increasing even though it is still lagging behind that in developed countries. It is still
regarded as an answer to the problems faced by the government in serving their
constituencies efficiently and effectively (i.e. resource constraint in delivering services
to citizens and improving their operations) (Kumar & Best 2006). Furthermore, it is also
believed to be a good enabling tool in addressing some key challenges for future growth
potential and entering the global economy (Ndou 2004). In developing countries, egovernment are seen as a ‘leapfrog’ technology that has potential to reach their national
development goals faster and more cheaply compared to previous traditional approaches
(Basu 2004).
As mentioned by many literatures, e-government may provide many significant benefits
for developing countries. E-government has opportunities to promote efficiency,
improve service quality, reduce response times, increase citizen opportunities to
strengthen their legitimacy, and emphasize reforms such as increased transparency,
accountability, citizen participation, trust building with the government, better processes
of democratic governance, and affirm the commitment to good governance objectives
(Bonham & Seifert 2003; OECD 2003; Kumar & Best 2006; Kumar & Sinha 2007;
Furuholt & Wahid 2008). Overall, e-government may offer great potentials and
opportunities to improve governance, citizen satisfaction level, and democratization in
term of greater citizen participation for developing countries (Ndou 2004; Yanqing
2010). However, besides those benefits, e-government is considered failed to live up the
19
expectations (Song & Cornford 2006; Al-Thunibat et al. 2010). Since e-government
commonly refers to online services through wired network and computer (Kushchu &
Kuscu 2003), there is therefore a challenge of fair access for all citizens, particularly for
those in financial disadvantaged and/or in rural areas. In view of this, mobile phone,
whose penetration is growing faster than that of landline connection, is deemed having
opportunity to give wider access to citizens.
2.2.2 M-Government
M-government is widely accepted as a new innovative way of e-government initiative
that may offer opportunities to more involve citizens and to improve the fundamental
functions of government, particularly in providing good services to its citizens (Kushchu
& Kuscu 2003; Song 2005; Alrazooqi & De Silva 2010). The massive adoption of mgovernment in many countries, particularly developing countries, is commonly driven
by major technological changes, including improvement to infrastructure and the range
of mobile services available (Kushchu & Kuscu 2003; El-Kiki & Lawrence 2006;
OECD & ITU 2011). Those changes include the penetration of wireless and mobile
technologies that are larger than the penetration of internet, the convergence of mobile
internet/broadband, and mobile-net applications and services, which, in turn, has created
a phenomenon of “always-on” society (Kushchu & Kuscu 2003; Abanumy & Mayhew
2005).
Generally, m-government is defined as the use of mobile wireless communication
technology, devices and applications, i.e. Personal Digital Aassistance (PDA), internetenabled mobile phones, mobile applications, etc., in governmental activities (Kushchu
& Kuscu 2003; Östberg 2003 in El-Kiki et al. 2005; Song 2005). It is developed to
deliver personalised and context-aware services to its mobile citizens through wireless
networks; provide multi-channel services delivery that support mobility and flexibility;
and enable anytime and anywhere access to government services (Kwon 2004 in Nava
& Dávila 2005; Song 2005). Thus, as pointed by Nava & Dávila (2005), the general
goals of m-government are to improve e-government services by adding mobile value
(i.e. personalization, timeliness, convenience, affordable, etc.) and to integrate all e-
20
government services over wired and wireless internet that can be accessed anywhere and
anytime.
M-Government Categorisations
Similar to e-government, m-government is classified into four types of services as seen
in Figure 2.
Figure 2 M-Government Delivery Models (Oui-Suk 2010 in OECD & ITU 2011)
As illustrated in Figure 2, each domain represents government interaction with different
segment served. mG2B services accommodate information provision regarding
regulations, policies, applications for procurement, licensing, tax, etc. via mobile
technologies. As for mG2G services, government transforms themselves into a
connected entity in order to be more effective and efficient in running their operations
and providing services to citizens. In mG2E services, government provides training,
data access, and tools to the employees, especially for field staff who work in remote
locations, in order to assist them in their daily operations, improve governmental
efficiencies and accountability, and improve public services quality. Lastly, mG2C
enables citizens to interact with government with regards to services provision or citizen
involvement in government activities.
Karadimas et al. (2008) also classify two types of m-government services based on its
content characteristic. The first one is known as push-service where citizens only get
21
information without any interactions, such as reminders/alerts. The second one is
characterized as interactive-service which allows two-way communication between
government and citizens, such as provision of suggestions to authority. Furthermore,
according to its main purposes in the governmental sector, Zalesak (2003 in Al-Thunibat
et al. 2010) also divides m-government into four areas: mCommunication, mServices,
mDemocracy, and mAdministration. First, mCommunication focuses on improving
communication between citizens and government to promote citizen encouragement,
transparency, and accountability. Second, mServices include enabling transactional
interactions between government and citizens as part of public services provision. Third,
mDemocracy concerns mobile voting and citizen input/comment/aspiration to political
decision-making to promote democratic participation. Fourth, mAdministration deals
with services to improve internal operations (El-Kiki & Lawrence 2006).
In the case study context, LAPOR! can be included into mG2C which provides
interactive services for citizens to give complaints or aspirations related to national
development and public services provision. In term of area of services, LAPOR!
includes mCommunication which enables two-way communication with government
and mDemocracy which enables citizens participation in democratic processes, for
example by giving inputs to government related to governmental activities.
Why M-Government?
In term of the unique characteristics of going mobile, m-government can provide many
benefits and opportunities, not only for government but also for citizens, businesses and
economic growth in general as summarised in Table 1. In developing countries context,
m-government is arguably able to extend e-government benefits in rural/remote areas
since it makes public services more accessible (Mengistu et al. 2009; Shareef et al.
2012). However, despite of those benefits, there are also some challenges that needs to
be noted, such as security and privacy, responsiveness, trust, data actuality, and
infrastructure availability (Welch & Hinnant 2003; UN 2008; Scott et al. 2011; OECD
& ITU 2011).
22
Table 1 M-Government Benefits
23
2.3 Citizen Participation
As argued by Punyaratabandhu (2004) and Rose (2004), the concept of citizen
participation in democratisation context cannot be separated from the concept of good
governance. Thus, it is essential to get understanding about the broader theoretical
perspective by explaining good governance as a background of citizen participation,
particularly in developing countries context.
2.3.1 Good Governance
The concept of good governance is increasingly used in many development literatures
(Punyaratabandhu 2004; UNESCAP 2009). Governance is defined as ‘a complex system
of interactions among structures, traditions, functions (responsibilities) and processes
(practices) characterized by three key values of accountabilities, transparency and
participation’ (Punyaratabandhu 2004:1) or ‘exercise of authority and control in a
society in relation to the management of its resources for social and economic
development’ (Schneider 1999:7).
As declared by Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, good
governance is essential for protecting citizens’ rights and advancing both economic and
social development (Kim et al. 2005 in Waheduzzaman 2008). Furthermore, good
governance assures that minorities’ views are taken into account; the most vulnerable
voices to be heard in decision-making, and corruption to be minimised (UNESCAP
2009). In view of this, some scholars define good governance in a simple way as the
level of quality of government performance, good public engagement, and good
outcomes (Hye 2000 in Waheduzzaman 2008; OPM & CIPFA 2004; Arko-cobbah
2006).
The United Nations Development Program, Overseas Development Administration and
Asian Development Bank have all identified four main components of good governance
which are considered major principles to ensure good governance: participation,
highlighting the citizen involvement in decision-making; accountability, referring to
making public officials answerable for government behavior and responsive to public’s
needs;
transparency,
suggesting
free
flow
of
information;
and
rule
of
law/legitimacy/predictability, impliying the existence of fair and impartially enforced
24
legal framework (Turner & Hulme 1997; Waheduzzaman 2007 in Waheduzzaman 2008;
Uddin & Joya 2007).
2.3.2 Participation as a Central Foundation of Good Governance
As mentioned in section 2.3.1, there are four major components of good governance
which, conceptually, tend to be mutually supportive (Waheduzzaman 2008). However,
as argued by Schneider (1999) and Rahman (2005 in Waheduzzaman 2008), citizen
participation is the central element government activities among other elements since it
can assure more transparent, accountable, and predictable government for the citizens.
Citizen participation, as an essential right, is defined as the capabilities of citizens to
help themselves in specifying their needs and discovering solutions, and act as the actors
instead of the objects of development (Neras 2001 in Rose 2004; UN 2007). Some
scholars define citizen participation by focusing on democratising and increasing the
quality and support for policy making by taking into account the potential contribution
from citizens (i.e. ideas, comments, solutions) in national development (Arnstein 1969;
Lourenço & Costa 2007). It can take forms of public hearings, public survey, citizen
review panel, or negotiated rule-making (Arnstein 1969; Fiorino 1990). Meanwhile,
other scholars define it in term of citizen’s coproduction by interacting and negotiating
with government service providers (Whitaker 1980; Pestoff 2009). In other words,
citizen participation is also regarded as involvement in government’s daily processes in
providing public services. In this research, a broad view on participation is taken,
including both involvements in national development policy-making and in
government’s services delivery, in order to make it relevant with the case study context.
UNUSCAP (2009) argues that public participation is a fundamental cornerstone of good
governance. The concept of good governance should be realised as more than just
people-oriented, but it should be ‘owned by people’ (Waheduzzaman 2008). In view of
this, it can be understood that the level of good governance can be improved through the
high citizen participation in development programs and that active participation of
citizens, as one of stakeholders, in the decision-making process is becoming the
hallmark of participatory governance (Schneider 1999; Waheduzzaman 2008). Despite
of some debates on participatory governance denying the value of a people-centred
25
orientation in development in terms of efficiency, empowerment, and prevalent benefits
(Cleaver 2001), the conviction in the sense of encouraging citizens to provide their
opinion or deliberation on policy-making process is argued to be part of solution in
improving sustainable development outcome (Gbikpi & Grote 2002).
2.4 M-Government and Participation
As explained in the previous sections, governments keep putting efforts to encourage
participation since citizen participation is indeed imperative for the establishment of
democratisation and good governance as well as improving legitimacy of political
processes and enabling public services improvement (Sanford & Rose 2007). In view of
this, governments need to provide communication channel that can be accessed easily,
quickly and cheaply by wider citizens. Governments also need to ensure information
openness in order to meet public demands. If information is readily accessible and
channel is well-established, it is possible for the public to discover more information
about policy decisions and governmental processes that interest them, which, in turn,
may enable active participation in the processes (UN 2007).
Given the fact that governments in most developing countries have faced pressures to
govern in a more participatory way while the penetration of mobile technologies,
particularly mobile phone, is greater than that of internet; mobile phone can be used as
an alternative channel for e-government initiatives which focus on participation
purposes (also known as e-participation). Mobile phone provides new ways to meet
good governance goals because of its mobile characteristics (UN 2007). It can reach
further to the marginalised populations so they can easily interact with the government,
quickly provide feedbacks and aspirations, and actively participate in decision-making
and other governmental activities in cost effective manner. Mobile device that is
becoming common in daily life makes citizens easier and faster in providing opinions,
ideas, and other inputs to government just in their fingertips. Those inputs then can be
used to monitor and control national development programs as well as to improve the
quality of public services.
26
Characterising Participation Level of M-Government
Some (e-)Participation stage models can be used to know participation level of mgovernment initiative. Generally, those models, as summarised in Table 2, have the
same underlying concept but slightly different number of levels.
Table 2 The Ladder of (e-)Participation Maturity Summary (OECD 2001; UN 2005; Heeks 2013a)
1. Stage 0 and Stage 1: Informing
As depicted in
Table 2,
all
models
have the same concept
which is
information/informing stage. This level refers to one-way relationship between
government and citizens where government plays an active role in producing and
disseminating information for use by citizens, such as through static fact websites,
mobile application or SMS. In other words, the focus of this level is to enable
participation through ICT (Macintosh 2004).
2. Stage 2: Consulting/Interacting
This stage highlights two-way interaction with the involvement of citizens in
discussions about particular topics or public decisions with decision makers. In other
words, government encourages active interaction from citizens in online discussions
where government defines the issues, sets the questions, manages the processes, and
invites citizens to contribute their views/opinions. Thus, this level emphasises on
engaging citizens to governmental activities through ICT (Macintosh 2004). For
example, citizens give general comments/suggestions about particular policy, public
dialog sessions, public opinion survey or online group discussions.
27
3. Stage 3: Decision Making
In the third stage, each framework has different name but with the same meaning, which
is a partnership-based relation between citizens and government where citizens are
actively engaged in defining the content and process of policy-making. In other words,
citizens are collectively given the right to make decision-making and the government
takes citizens’ input into decision-making. Citizens is deemed have equal standing in
setting agenda, suggest policy options and shaping the policy dialog. Thus, this level
focuses on empowering citizens to actively participate in governmental activities
(Macintosh 2004). For example, citizens’ juries, consensus conference, etc.
In order to measure the state of participation of m-government, this study focuses on
three elements obtained from several literatures which are: policies and regulations to
know how m-government for participation is legally well-supported, ICT deployment to
assess how m-government for participation is technically facilitated, and applications
and services to measure to what extent citizens are being engaged as shown in Table 3.
28
Table 3 Characterising Participation Level (adapted from Macintosh 2004; Ferguson et al. 2006 in
Veenstra et al. 2011; Bannister 2007; Li & Bernoff 2008; Albrecht et al. 2008; Loukis & Xenakis
2008; Islam 2008; Maranny 2011; UNDESA 2013)
29
2.5 Evaluating IS Success and Citizens Perceived Benefits
This research attempts to analyse how the quality/performance of LAPOR! as an IS can
facilitate and encourage more participation as intended by evaluating LAPOR! success
from citizens’ perspective, by adopting DeLone & McLean (D&M) IS Success Model
(2003). Generally, this model is seen as relevant to the purpose of this research because
D&M model is a widely used model for measuring system success in IS research area
(Kronbichler et al. 2010) and argued to be a useful choice for success assessment. Some
researchers have attempted to validate D&M model to e-government context which
resulted into some e-government success models (Wang & Liao 2008; Sun 2009; Nayan
et al. 2011; Rana et al. 2014). However, those models mostly provide no or slight
changes on the D&M model, meaning D&M model is proven suitable for assessing egovernment system success. Furthermore, there is currently no particular framework
which assesses m-government system success which, consequently, a general IS success
model is deemed more suitable for success assessment in this research.
In 1992, DeLone & McLean proposed their first model for conceptualising and
operationalising IS success. After doing intensive synthesis towards theoretical and
empirical IS researches, they proposed six interdependent dimensions of IS success as
seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3 D&M IS Success Model (DeLone & McLean 1992:12)
In 2003, they revised their prior model into updated D&M IS Success Model as depicted
in Figure 4. Compared to the prior D&M IS Success Model, there are some changes
30
made to evaluate its usefulness considering the dramatic changes in IS practice (Wang
& Liao 2008). Firstly, DeLone & McLean (2003) adds ‘service quality’ as a new
dimension of IS success measurement. This new dimension is argued essential to
measure IS effectiveness since the role and management of IS over the last decade have
changed, where IS are not only used as information provider which provides only
information product but also as service provider which also provides support to users.
Secondly, there is a debate over the previous dimension ‘use’ which is argued to be
confusing whether the system usage is mandatory or voluntary. Thus, they make an
alternative dimension ‘intention to use’ or ‘use’ which can be adapted according to the
research context. Lastly, they combined the previous dimensions ‘individual impact’
and ‘organisational impact’ into one dimension ‘net benefits’ because they think the
impacts of IS are not only perceived by immediate users but also could be by work
group impacts, industry impacts, societal impacts, etc. The measurement of the
perceived impacts will depend on the type and the purpose of the system to be
evaluated. Thus, in order to avoid complicating the model with many impact measures,
they group the impact measures into single net benefits dimension.
Figure 4 Updated D&M IS Success Model (DeLone & McLean 2003:24)
As illustrated above, D&M IS Success Model consists of six dimensions:
1) Information quality, referring to the quality of information as the output of the
systems
31
2) System quality, indicating the desired characteristics of system which are
measured from its performance of information processing and delivery.
3) Service quality, representing the overall support delivered by the government as
service provider of LAPOR!
4) Use satisfaction, referring to the citizens response to the IS output usage
5) Intention to use/use, measuring citizens consumption of the IS output (i.e.
information) and their intention to continue consuming the IS output
6) Net benefits, which are the overall impacts resulted from the system to the users.
Measurement Model for Evaluating LAPOR! Success and Perceived Benefits
In this research, D&M IS Success Model (2003) is adopted to assess LAPOR! success in
encouraging participation and to analyse citizens perceived benefits. Since the
goal/objective of LAPOR! is to improve citizens participation as well as their interaction
with government in national development and public services supervision/control, it is
assumed that the use/intention to continual use from citizens indicates the success of
LAPOR! itself. The success level of m-government initiatives are argued to be
determined by citizens’ usage and intention to continue using the system as a form of
citizens’ acceptance and engagement towards the initiative and their active contributions
to democracy. Thus, in this research, use/intention to continual use serves as an
objective measurement as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5 M-Government Success and Perceived Benefits Measurement Model
As depicted above, there are three qualities that are measured. The quality attributes are
identified as measurement variable which lead to effectiveness and performance
32
improvement of ICT systems (Ifinendo & Nahar 2006). As argued by Teo et al. (2008),
since the quality perceptions are formed from the previous experiences with the system,
citizens’ belief whether the system is qualified to facilitate their participation
willingness will influence the continuance decision.
Meanwhile, some researches argue about user satisfaction as dimension in IS success
model since user satisfaction has been measured indirectly through the other dimensions
(Rai et al. 2002; Sedera & Tan 2005; Wang & Liao 2008). However, as pointed out by
Wang & Liao (2008), in the e-government success context, which is assumed to be also
applicable in m-government context, it is also important to measure the overall level of
user satisfaction to see its causal relationship with the indirect measures of user
satisfaction in other dimensions. Thus, the user satisfaction dimension is also employed
to assess LAPOR! success in encouraging participation.
Further, as stressed by DeLone & McLean (2003), the end result of the overall model
will generate certain net benefits which depend on the stakeholders and context in which
benefits are to be measured. This research adopts Net Benefits measures developed by
Scott et al. (2011) which focus on public value approach. According to them, in the area
of e-government, including m-government, the intention by designers and policy makers
is not only for process efficiency but also for greater participation and engagement.
Thus, it is important to conform to this environment in order to accurately capture the
perceived benefits on the side of citizens. The complete instrument, including the items
in each dimension, can be seen in chapter 3.4.1.
2.6 Summary
This chapter has discussed the theoretical perspectives about e-government, mgovernment, and participation to give understanding about the topic being studied.
Furthermore, the conceptual model to assess m-government success in encouraging
participation and citizen’s perceived benefits is also explained as a guideline in
analysing the case study through research methodology explained in the next chapter.
33
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to explain how this research is undertaken. It begins with the
explanation of research purpose and questions. The second section presents the research
design consisting research approach and strategy. Next, the appropriate research
methods, including how to collect data and validate instrument, are discussed. The
following section presents how to analyse the data and the last section concludes overall
chapter.
3.2 Research Purpose and Questions
According to its purpose, this research is classified as exploratory research. It aims to
generate and explore ideas and understanding about m-government adoption in
Indonesia, specifically focusing on m-government capability in improving citizen
participation in governance, where no or few studies about the issue being investigated
are found, particularly in Indonesia context (Collis & Hussey 2014). This research has
three research questions: what is the current state of m-government adoption,
particularly for participation, in Indonesia?; how successful is m-government in
encouraging citizen participation?; and what are the perceived benefits of using mgovernment for citizens?
3.3 Research Design
This research was performed by utilising qualitative and quantitative approaches. As
defined by Myers & Avison (2002), qualitative approach is designed to assist researcher
getting understanding about people and its cultural and social context where they live in.
It can be used for research with non-statistical analysis and findings in natural settings to
get adequate comprehension about the object being observed (Patton 2002; Bryman
2012; Kothari 2004; Robson 2011). In this research, qualitative approach was
undertaken to collect and analyse descriptive data for mainly answering the first
research question and supplementary answering the second and third research questions.
On the other hand, quantitative approach is mainly used to answer the second research
question to see how success m-government application is in encouraging participation
34
from citizen point of view and the third research question to know citizens perceived
benefits of m-government. Quantitative approach turns data collected into numbers (i.e.
measurement and quantification) and uses statistical way in interpreting and analysing
the data (Creswell 2003; Robson 2011). The summary can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Guiding Framework
As for research strategy, this research uses case study to explore detailed knowledge
about how and why particular contemporary phenomenon happens in one or more reallife contexts by using various tools (Yin 2003; Myers & Avison 2002; Bryman 2012).
As argued by Yin (2003) and Benbasat et al. (1987), this strategy is massively used in
social science research and suitable for practiced-based issues where the context of the
action and the experiences of the actors are critical. With regard to this definition and
the research context, a case study is deemed appropriate to conduct this research.
A case study of an m-government application supported by the Presidential Work Unit
for Development Monitoring and Control (UKP4), named LAPOR!, was then chosen for
three particular reasons. Firstly, among m-government initiatives in Indonesia, LAPOR!
is one of two initiatives available that is provided via multi-channel (i.e. web, mobile
application, and SMS) providing two-way interaction. Secondly, LAPOR! is developed
with regard to increasing citizen participation as well as citizen-government relationship
in order to monitor and control national development program and public services. This
orientation of LAPOR! is indeed relevant with the purpose of this study. Lastly, even
though LAPOR! has been running for just three year, there are 22,954 users and 62,527
incoming reports so the data is quite enough for data sample (LAPOR! 2013).
35
3.4 Research Methods
As mentioned in previous section, this research is based on qualitative and quantitative
approaches by mainly doing document analysis, interview, and survey. Document
analysis and interview were performed to get data about policy/regulation, ICT
deployment, and application and services regarding e-government, m-government and
LAPOR! implementation in Indonesia. Survey was performed by distributing
questionnaire to LAPOR! users which was constructed from conceptual model.
3.4.1 Data Collection
Data collection consists of two parts according to the method used that are summarized
in Table 4. This research uses triangulation to ensure data reliability by incorporating
different sources and methods. In term of sources, this research consulted some
documents and LAPOR! staffs. In terms of methods, this research performed document
investigation and questionnaire for main gathering method and semi-structured
interview for triangulation.
Table 4 Data Collection Methods Summary
a. Analysis of Current State of M-Government Implementation
In-depth document analysis and interview were used to get data and information about
current condition of m-government implementation in Indonesia. The documents being
36
investigated were mainly from published and unpublished documents related to egovernment, m-government, LAPOR! and participation in Indonesia, which were
ranging from government policies, regulations, standardisations, guidelines, white
paper, and previous researches about m-government. The information being investigated
was based on the author’s understanding from literature study about the current practice
of m-government in terms of policies/regulations (see Appendix D), technology, and
application and services, with emphasis on mobile phone as one of most used channel
for m-government and LAPOR! as the only suitable case study for this research’s topic.
b. Analysis of LAPOR! Success and Citizens Perceived Benefits
Measures/Constructs
The questionnaire to evaluate LAPOR! success in encouraging participation was
designed based on D&M IS Success Model explained in chapter 2.5 while the indicators
of the constructs were mainly adapted from prior studies to assure the content validity
(Wang & Liao 2008). On the other hand, the questionnaire to analyse citizen’s perceived
benefits adopted Net Benefits measures developed by Scott et al. (2011). The indicators
that were operationalised into statements rated by using ‘1-6’ Likert scales, which is a
technique to measure respondent’s agreement or disagreement towards each statement
in the questionnaire (Noor 2011), where ‘1’ indicates strongly disagree and ‘6’ indicates
strongly agree. This even scale was determined with consideration from LAPOR!
experts’ suggestion since there is high possibility that the respondents will choose
neutral option. Furthermore, there is also one open-ended question for each dimension
to ask further comment about the dimensions being assessed.
There are five dimensions used to measure LAPOR! success in encouraging citizens to
use the systems: system quality, information quality, service quality, user satisfaction,
use/intention to continual use. The measures and indicators are summarised in Table 5.
37
Table 5 Measurement Indicators
38
As for the measures/constructs of citizen’s perceived benefits, this research adopts Net
Benefits measures (Scott et al. 2011) which highlight three e-government goals. There
are nine measures as recapped in Table 6 and 25 items in total1.
Table 6 Perceived Benefits Measures (Scott et al. 2011)
Procedure
LAPOR! success assessment in encouraging citizens’ use of system and citizens
perceived benefits were performed by distributing questionnaire with the help from
LAPOR! team. Questionnaire is used to elicit reliable responses with regard to what
users think and feel about the issue being brought up (Collis & Hussey 2014). This
method can provide benefits in terms of minimum cost, shorter data collection period,
and access to wider range of audiences (Robson 2011; Collis & Hussey 2014).
The population of the study is LAPOR! users whose mobile phone number and/or user
account are currently registered in LAPOR! system while sample was generated
differently between prospective respondents with mobile phone number and with user
account. The prospective respondents with mobile phone number were selected up to
300 users to be sent a SMS containing link to the online questionnaire with
consideration of SMS sending cost by LAPOR! Meanwhile, around 5000 prospective
1
The items can be seen in the full questionnaire in Appendix A due to space limitations
39
respondents with user account were given the questionnaire’s link by email. The
questionnaires were distributed from 16th July-28th July 2014 and 118 responses were
collected.
On the other hand, informal semi-structured interview was used to guide data collection
for triangulation to ensure information reliability gathered from various perspectives.
The interviews consisted of six open-ended questions (see Appendix B) and were
performed via e-mail and Skype to save time and resources (Robson 2011; Collis &
Hussey 2014). Data were gathered from two key persons in LAPOR! team who know
best about LAPOR!
3.4.2 Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability test is important to ensure the extent to which the questionnaire
can measure what it should be and the extent to which the questionnaire gives consistent
results on repeated survey (Malhotra & Birks 2007). Validity was assessed by
examining content validation while reliability was performed by comparing cronbach’s
alpha.
Content validation procedure was performed by two experts in LAPOR! team who are
knowledgeable about the constructs to make sure they are appropriate to be used in case
study context (Straub 1989). They were asked to review whether there is any
inconsistency
between
items
and
conceptual
definition,
and
evaluated
the
representativeness and adequacy of the dimensions (Lynn 1986) and readability of the
questionnaire. There were some key points from experts’ review (see Appendix A for
full questionnaire):
1. According to them, the information provided by SMS channel just includes
simple report and its automatic feedback which is limited only up to 160
characters while the full report and its follow-up are sent in the form of link.
Thus, in order to prevent bias perception from respondent, items SQ6 and IQ3
were removed.
2. Item IQ4 were changed into ‘Sufficiency’ since, as previous reason, there is
concern about the character limitation on SMS-based service.
40
3. Items UIU1 and UIU2 were removed since they do not differentiate between
report/critique and aspiration/idea/input on national development/public
services delivery issues. Furthermore, they are similar to UIU3 since it is
assumed that user access LAPOR! for the purpose of reporting only, not for
reading other people’s reports and doing nothing, especially for SMS-based
service.
4. Item UIU3 also needs to be explained clearly especially for SMS-based service
case.
The reliability test was conducted by comparing cronbach’s alpha for each component
measures. The measure is considered reliable if its cronbach’s alpha is greater than 0.7
(Hair et al. 2006). As summarised in Table 7, the result shows that all measures are
reliable.
Table 7 Reliability Test
41
3.5 Data Analysis
Data analysis was carried out three times based on research questions. All analyses used
conceptual frameworks explained in section 2.4 and 2.5 as a guideline. The documents
listed in Appendix D and some interviews were analysed to get better understanding
about the current condition of m-government implementation for the first analysis.
Further, since LAPOR! is a m-government initiative which focus on increasing
participation, the evaluation of its participation level is also discussed by matching the
gathered information with participation level characterisation explained in chapter 2.4.1.
The findings were analysed qualitatively and presented in the form of description.
As for the second analysis, the quantitative data from questionnaire were tabulated and
interpreted by using descriptive statistics (i.e. mean and standard deviation) to describe
some crucial aspects of a set of data as a group by using SPSS 20.0 (Wiersma & Jurs
2009; Robson 2011). The mean and standard deviation of each indicator, dimension and
the overall success were calculated to help interpretation. Mean determines the success
range of the indicator, dimension and overall system success while standard deviation
shows how the data disperse around mean. The overall evaluation was then performed
based on the success category made by the author adapted from Heeks (2002): total
success (5-6), moderate success/failure (3-4), and total failure (1-2). This evaluation was
enriched by interview findings for triangulation of the questionnaire results.
Furthermore, Spearman correlation was used to see whether quality dimensions and user
satisfaction are correlated with use/intention to continual use which is inferred as further
participation expectation, and to see the correlation between quality dimensions and user
satisfaction as intermediary to use/continual usage. All assumptions for Spearman
correlation had been met: the data used are continuous and non-parametric variables and
there was monotonic relationship between two variables. The interpretation for
Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ) has value -1, +1, and 0 indicating strong negative,
strong positive, and no correlation, respectively (see Table 8).
42
Table 8 Spearman's Correlation Coefficient (Statstutor 2014)
The third analysis also used descriptive statistics where mean determines the most and
least benefits perceived by citizens while standard deviation shows how the data
disperse around mean. Moreover, some comments from citizens and interviews from
LAPOR! interviewees were also analysed to supplement the questionnaire results.
3.6 Summary
This research aims to explore m-government adoption in Indonesia. In order to achieve
this objective, qualitative and quantitative approaches with a case study were used. The
data were collected through document investigation, interviews, and questionnaire. The
findings from document investigation and interviews were then analysed qualitatively
while questionnaire result was analysed quantitatively by using descriptive statistic and
Spearman correlation. The next chapter presents the findings of this study.
43
CHAPTER 4 – FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to provide findings of the study. The first two sections provide the
overview of m-government implementation and m-government for participation
implementation in Indonesia by focusing on the policy and regulation, ICT deployment,
and application and services aspects to answer the first research question. The third
section presents the findings of. The next three sections provide findings of the second
and third research questions, consisting of respondents’ demographic, LAPOR! success
in encouraging participation, and citizens perceived benefits. The last section
summarises the whole findings.
4.2 M-Government in Indonesia
As mentioned previously in chapter 2.2.2, m-government is part of e-government which
focuses on the utilization of particularly mobile phone. The implementation of mgovernment in Indonesia also cannot be separated from e-government and is regulated
under the umbrella of e-government implementation.
Policy and Regulation
At national level, several policies and regulations were established to support the
implementation of e-government. E-government was officially introduced in
Presidential Instruction No.6/2001 on the ICT development and usability in Indonesia
governance. Through this policy, central government (i.e. departmental institutions,
ministry institutions, non-departmental institutions, and ministerial-level institutions)
and regional/district government (i.e. province and regency) are instructed to
incorporate ICT as “an essential prerequisite of good governance in order to increase
transparency, accountability, and citizen participation in governmental activities” (GoI
2001:10). Indonesian Telematics Coordinating Team (TKTI 2011) then established
Five-Year Action Plan consisting of 71 programs to address four main issues: policy and
legal framework, human capacity, infrastructure access and coverage, and applications
for government activities.
44
In 2003, GoI released Presidential Instruction No.3/2003 to further regulate national
policy and strategy for e-government development, stating four aims of e-government
(GoI 2003):

Providing public services that are in accordance with public interests,
interactively reachable anywhere and at any time, and affordable,

Forming relationship with businesses,

Providing communication channel with all government institutions as well as
facilitating public dialog for citizens to participate in policy-making,

Supporting transparent and efficient management system and work processes
among government institutions.
Thus, all government institutions are instructed to implement e-government initiatives
by all means/channels (e.g. computer, mobile phone, etc.) that are considered suitable to
the needs, regulations, communication network infrastructure, and government-citizen
readiness in their regions (MCIT 2003).
Further, in 2004, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT)
established an implementation guideline known as E-Government Blueprint. This
blueprint aims to equate understanding and implementation of e-government and
contains more detailed explanations as referrals for e-government application
development in order to ensure integration and interoperability among applications.
In support of those previous policies, some other policies, regulations, legislations, and
guidelines are also established, including policy/regulation related to mobile
technologies usage as alternative channel for e-government initiatives. MCIT released
Ministerial Decree No.55/2003 which regulates the infrastructure of electronic
information, including the utilization of mobile phone as one of advanced access
channels, the use of radio frequency (i.e. fixed wireless, mobile wireless, broadband
wireless), network security, etc. MCIT also established Ministerial Decree No.56/2003
which regulates electronic document management, migration, and extermination;
metadata and format access standardization as well as regulation on domain name .go.id
for official websites of central and regional governments in ministerial. The
45
implementation of e-government is also supported by some cyber laws for electronic
means, such as Law No.11/2008 and Government Regulation No.82/2012 which protect
personal data/information via electronic means.
ICT Deployment
In accordance with the aim of e-government, the mobile phone is considered as a new
innovative channel which is interactively reachable at any time and affordable for
citizens to access e-government initiatives. Besides more extensive mobile network that
can reach remote areas because of continuous Base Transceiver Station (BTS)
construction, mobile phone also requires cheaper cost than that of computers or other
devices.
According to MCIT (2012), as of 2012, the development of optical fiber network has
reached 41,151.6 km with capacity of 2,071.18 Gbps. The total of approximately
100,000 BTS 2G and 3G has also been developed from Sumatera to Papua, even though
it mostly concentrates in Java and Sumatera due to their population density. Moreover,
until now GoI has developed broadband infrastructure which allows always-onguaranteed internet access for mobile with access speed of 512 kbps and access
distribution of 80% to all regions. In order to minimize the ICT gap in rural areas, MCIT
also built Center for Internet Service District (PLIK) that provides shared internet access
space and productive and useful push content portals. They also provide Mobile PLIK
(MPLIK) that was designed to provide easy and cheap internet access to villagers.
Referring to Ministerial Decree No.56/2003, infrastructure components of mgovernment includes physical channels consisting mobile wireless, broadband wireless,
and narrowband mobile; government secured intranet for data communication intragovernment; government data management center for managing connectedness and
interoperability of government information; basic applications for front- and back-office
(i.e. database, search engine); and internet. Some related technologies used for mgovernment are also available: wireless internet platforms which include integrated
wireless internet gateway, e.g. Wireless Access protocol (WAP) proxy and integrated
messaging gateway that enables SMS service.
46
Application and Services
E-government application systems are designed based on three main government
functions: support/service function inter- and intra-government, governance function for
national development, and public information-service delivery function. Considering
those functions, e-government applications are grouped based on segment-served:
citizen-, business-, and government-oriented, which also introduces mG2G, mG2B, and
mG2C (Depkominfo 2004).
Applications mG2G vary in each government institutions since the need of mG2G
initiatives depends on the central or regional governments’ authority. For example,
Balikpapan government, in collaboration with PT Indosat, developed person-to-machine
SMS-based services named M-Balikpapan. It provides information update around
government agenda and Balikpapan news to citizens (Suara Merdeka 2006). As for
mG2B and mG2C, generally GoI develops nation-wide applications that provide
services for businesses and citizens. Some regional governments might develop other
mG2B and mG2C initiatives adjusted to their needs but they are not commonly found.
Examples of mG2C, which become the focus of this study, and mG2B are summarised
in Table 9.
47
Table 9 Initiatives of mG2C and mG2B in Indonesia (OGI 2014)
4.3 M-Government for Participation: LAPOR!
LAPOR! is an e-/m-government initiative that focuses on participation. There is also egovernment initiatives with e-participation focus besides LAPOR! called e-Musrenbang
(Multi Stakeholder Consultation Forum for Development Planning) where citizens can
provide ideas for regional development plan and any input regarding current regional
development (LGSP 2007). However, LAPOR! is currently the only e-government with
participation focus that can also be accessed via mobile phone. Furthermore, unlike eMusrenbang that can be accessed only by Rukun Warga (RW) Head in neighborhoods
level after discussion with citizens, LAPOR! can be accessed by all citizens as long as
they have mobile phone and/or internet connection.
Policy and Regulation
LAPOR! is a m-government initiative with two-way interaction and involves citizen
participation to supervise national development and public services delivery. LAPOR!
was established by UKP4 under Deputy III mainly in relation to its functions on
monitoring national development progress, assisting president in counter-measuring
issues related to government’s programs, and accommodating suggestions and
complaints as well as conducting the analysis of the slowness of government’s programs
as regulated in Government Regulation No.54/2009 and its changes in Government
Regulation No.10/2012. Furthermore, LAPOR! was established related to open
government and good governance practice, in accordance with Law No.14/2008 on
Public Information Disclosure, Information Commission Regulation No.1/2010 on
Public Information Service Standard, and policy about citizens participation and
transparency in public services delivery (Law No.25/2009). Other policy on National
Development Planning System (Law No.25/2004) which emphasises citizen’s
involvement in development planning, Long-term National Development Plan (Law
No.17/207) which aims to optimalise citizens participation, and some local regulatory
for citizens participation in regional development plan (e.g. Government Regulation
No.8/2008) also underlying LAPOR! besides policies/regulations mentioned in section
4.2.1.
49
ICT Deployment
LAPOR! is developed by exploiting the existing infrastructure and technology explained
previously to provide aspiration channel that is easily and affordably developed and
accessed by government and citizens (LAPOR! 2014). SMS-based service is developed
in forms of formatted message to short number 1708 and targeted survey about prepolicy ratification. In preparing SMS gateway, LAPOR! collaborates with MCIT and
National Crypto Agency to allocate the number and provide the infrastructure needed to
give the cheapest price for citizens by not cooperating with content provider. As for
mobile application, LAPOR! developed it separately for each mobile platform (i.e.
Android and Blackberry). This application is developed with social-media type in the
forms of online input form and online survey. It also enables document, photo and video
attachments, links to Facebook and Twitter account, RSS feed.
Applications and Services
As the aim of LAPOR! is to connect government and citizens and to increase more
citizens participation in governmental activities, it allows citizens to report complaints,
aspirations, or any inputs concerning government with direct feedback. LAPOR! can
connect citizens with 80 government institutions, including ministries, non-ministerial
institutions, and some regional governments which ensure transparency, enable active
interaction, and promote supervision consistency from all related stakeholders (LAPOR!
2014).
Citizens can access LAPOR! via mobile application or SMS, conform to the
message/report format. LAPOR! administrators then evaluate the message to see
whether the content is complete and understandable enough before forward it to the
relevant government institutions. All reports from citizens are published in LAPOR!
newsfeed as that in Facebook via mobile application or website, except those who want
to conceal their report contents, where the reporter and related government institution
can interact via ‘follow-up’ menu while other users may comment and give support to
the related report or rate the follow-up. On the other hand, citizens who report via SMS
will only get short notification for the follow-up including the link for the complete
feedback.
50
Another feature that is developed is Policy Opinion. Currently, this feature is available
via website and SMS. It aims to collect public opinion about the policies that will be
issued by government in the form of survey. The survey is sent to the targeted users
based on the topic that is relevant to their interest by using data mining technique. For
example, UKP4 set issue regarding the planning to implement new education
curriculum to adjust the current education practice.
Users who are interested on
educational issue, such as those who have sent inputs related to educational topic before,
are invited to give their opinion by sending SMS including the issue code.
4.4 Respondents’ Demographic
As seen in Table 10, the questionnaire results show the demographic distribution of the
respondents where 85.6% of respondents are male and 14.4% are female. Most of the
respondents (about 51.7%) are from 31 to 45 years old and the majority has education of
undergraduate (59.3%). The respondents are mostly located in Java with 85.6%
followed by Sumatera and Sulawesi with 5.9% each then Kalimantan with 1.7% and
Nusa Tenggara-Bali with 0.9%. The respondents work in various occupations: 46.6%
work in private sector, 16.1% work as public official, 8.5% are student, and 28.8% work
as social or religious activist, entrepreneur, unemployed, etc. Most of them have
monthly salary from 1 to 7 million (55.1%).
As for respondents’ experience in using online or SMS-based e-government, 59.3% of
them just have used it for the past year. This also applies to the experience of using
LAPOR! where 80.5% of the respondents have just used it for one year. Furthermore,
only 10.2% of them who regularly use LAPOR! to report issues related to national
development or public services and only 4.2% who regularly provide aspiration/idea
related to government policy. The majority use LAPOR! at least once until now to
provide complaint or idea to government.
51
Table 10 Respondent's Demographic
52
4.5 LAPOR! Success in Encouraging Participation
4.5.1 Descriptive Statistics
The results of LAPOR! success assessment are shown in the form of mean and standard
deviation (see Table 11) and enriched by interview results as triangulation.
Table 11 LAPOR! Success Measurement Results
53
As depicted in Table 11, the overall success has score 4.28 and all dimensions have
mean scores greater than 4.0 where SQ dimension (4.44) has the greatest score and US
dimension (4.16) has the least score. In view of indicators, there are two indicators that
has mean scores below 4.0 which are UIU1 (3.68) and SvQ3 (3.83) while SQ1 and
SvQ1 have the highest score with 4.73 each. As for the spread of data, all of them are
not too disperse from the mean which shows that, on average, the individual responses
are just slightly over one point away from mean. Even though all of the scale point can
be found in the questionnaire results, the majority answers are still around the mean.
System Quality
The responses distribution from respondents for system quality is shown in Figure 8.
140
120
100
25
17
80
60
61
0
15
43
45
57
35
15
18
60
40
20
15
12
11
2
2
3
3
Ease of use Friendliness
19
3
3
System
Reliability
9
3
4
Security
47
28
42
25
16
11
42
37
22
18
14
1
4
8
3
Functionality Response
time
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Quite Disagree (3)
Quite Agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly Agree (6)
21
3
4
Feedback
mechanism
Figure 7 System Quality
As seen above, the majority of respondents state their agreement to all indicators
representing System Quality dimension. Looking at the high-agreement-scale (scale ‘56’), it suggests that LAPOR! system is considered good particularly for Ease of Use
(86), Friendliness (77), and Functionality (75) indicators. However, according to some
users, LAPOR! system still lacks on Feedback Mechanism (28), Response Time (27),
and System Reliability (25) shown by the responses from scale ‘1-3’.
54
In view of this, some of respondents stressed about the unclear, rigid, and normative
feedback mechanism. A respondent also commented about unsynchronised SMS short
number for complaint and follow-up. Furthermore, some respondents said that they
found access difficulty and system error while accessing the system. There is also
security issue where a respondent mentioned that he got problem after he reported
wrongdoing happened in his working place.
According to LAPOR! interviewees, access difficulty issues may be caused by abundant
users who accessed the system at the same time, poor signal from the mobile phone in
particular regions, or poor service from telecommunication provider. As for the security
issue, LAPOR! has made mechanism to protect user security/privacy where user
identification is not given to the related institution for follow-up. For the comment about
feedback mechanism, it is actually the official mechanism where two different number
for first complaint and its follow-up.
Information Quality
The responses distribution from respondents for information quality is illustrated in
Figure 9.
140
120
15
16
13
14
51
49
52
42
40
26
26
21
20
16
7
3
15
11
1
Up-to-date
(currency)
16
13
3
Sufficiency
100
80
60
0
Accuracy
21
25
13
3
Timeliness
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Quite Disagree (3)
Quite Agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly Agree (6)
Figure 8 Information Quality
As depicted above, most of respondents state their agreement to all indicators
representing Information Quality dimension. According to respondents, LAPOR!
system produces accurate, up-to-date, and sufficient information to users shown by
55
many agreement responses for those indicators. However, majority think that LAPOR!
still does not provide information in timely manner characterised by many disagreement
responses (scale ‘1-3’) for Timeliness indicator (41).
As mentioned by some respondents, the accuracy of the message they sent sometimes
different from what they intended to say. The content revision by LAPOR! administrator
before being published is considered eliminate the real meaning of the message.
LAPOR! interviewees explained that the content revision is intended to make the
message clearer for other people since many messages are incomplete, unclear, or even
using local language. There is a complaint mechanism if the message is considered out
of its real meaning but not many citizens know. As for timeliness, LAPOR! interviewees
explained that in time information delivery depends on the related institutions being
consulted since LAPOR! is only an intermediary. Furthermore, as already mentioned in
previous section, personal data security is also the issue that needs extra attention.
Service Quality
The responses distribution from respondents for service quality is depicted in Figure 10.
140
120
100
34
80
60
49
55
27
40
20
0
13
18
27
21
21
9
4
2
Tangible
18
15
9
6
Service
reliability
16
10
Responsiveness
14
22
46
42
22
24
19
10
7
Assurance
21
5
4
Empathy
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Quite Disagree (3)
Quite Agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly Agree (6)
Figure 9 Service Quality
As illustrated above, most of respondents state their agreement to all indicators
representing Service Quality dimension. Among other indicators, respondents show
most agreements for the readiness of LAPOR! to help citizens who want to report
56
problems or provide aspirations for government, shown by high agreement (scale ‘5-6’)
on Tangible (82) indicator. However, LAPOR! is still considered having poor
responsiveness shown by the disagreement responses for responsiveness indicator (44).
As mentioned by many respondents, the responses from government are slow or even
not given. LAPOR! team clarified that LAPOR! is like an intermediary public centre
which receives input from citizen then forwards it to the concerned institutions. Thus,
the response slowness is because some related government institutions do not have good
commitment for this initiative. Furthermore, there is also possibility of rare cases where
immediate response cannot be attained.
User Satisfaction
The responses distribution of respondents for user satisfaction is shown below.
140
120
18
19
42
43
40
29
28
20
12
7
10
13
7
8
Interaction needs
fulfilment
Participation needs
fulfilment
100
80
13
43
60
0
27
16
9
10
Overall satisfaction
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Quite Disagree (3)
Quite Agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly Agree (6)
Figure 10 User Satisfaction
As illustrated in Figure 11, all indicators representing User Satisfaction dimension have
almost the same score. Most of respondents are satisfied with LAPOR! particularly
because it fulfills users’ participation and interaction needs with government, shown by
many ‘Strongly Agree’ responses for those indicators. On the other hand, Overall
Satisfaction only has slightly different score which means that the majority is satisfied
with LAPOR! even though there are 35 respondents who are not satisfied with LAPOR!
57
According to LAPOR! interviewees, on May 2013 LAPOR! has 22,954 users and
62,527 reports. However, as of August 2014 it has 257,013 users and 525.177 reports
and, among those, there are around 43% of users who provided inputs twice where their
inputs have been approved and forwarded to the relevant government institutions. These
high increment rates of users and reports recorded in the system can direct to the
assumption of increasing participation by the citizens only in a year. There are also
5,398 likes and 2,779 comments which can be assumed that the interaction needs to
government, or even with other citizens, are facilitated by LAPOR! Despite of some
satisfaction comments, some respondents also declared their unsatisfaction towards
LAPOR!, particularly related to poor responses and follow-up from the government
institutions, technical problems (e.g. error, ‘heavy’ application), and security/privacy
issues.
Use/Intention to Continual Use
The responses distribution from respondents for use/intention to continual usage is
shown below.
140
120
100
8
27
29
32
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
49
34
50
29
22
23
14
11
7
7
5
Frequency of access Intention to continual
use
19
5
7
5
Intention to
recommendation
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Quite Disagree
Quite Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
8
10
11
Dependency
Figure 11 Use/Intention to Continual Use
As illustrated in Figure 12, most of respondents especially state their agreement (scale
‘4-6’) to Intention to Recommendation (101) and Intention to Continual Use (99)
indicators where only 12 respondents who will not recommend and/or continue to use
58
LAPOR! However, until the study been taken place, the frequency of use of LAPOR! is
not as high as expected, proven by highest disagreement score (scale ‘1-3’) for
Frequency of Access (47).
Some respondents gave positive comments about LAPOR! and said they will keep using
LAPOR! to provide input to government and recommend it to other people. Many of
them also suggested massive socialisation to wider citizens so that LAPOR! adoption
can be increased. However, there are few respondents who are disappointed and will not
use it anymore, particularly because their inputs are slow or not responded by the related
government institutions. A respondent even said prefer to just directly contact the
concerned government institution via its channel. Furthermore, there is also issue of
privacy leakage and performance problems which cause them unsure about the continual
usage.
4.5.2 Spearman Correlation
In order to see how quality dimensions are correlated with user satisfaction and
use/continual usage, the result of Spearman correlation is presented in Table 12.
Table 12 Spearman Correlation Result
As seen above, the correlation coefficient of SQ-UIU and SQ-US is 0.655 and 0.725,
respectively. It suggests that there is a positive correlation for SQ-UIU and SQ-US
relationship, where increasing value of system quality associates to the increasing value
of use/intention to continual use and user satisfaction. Both values of ρ also indicate that
59
SQ-UIU and SQ-US have a strong relationship where SQ-US has stronger relationship
than SQ-UIU.
The correlation coefficient of IQ-UIU and IQ-US is 0.469 and 0.690, respectively. It
suggests that there is a positive correlation for IQ-UIU and IQ-US relationship, where
increasing value of information quality corresponds to the increasing value of
use/intention to continual use as well as user satisfaction. However, the value of ρ for
IQ-UIU is lower than that for IQ-US. It indicates that IQ-UIU has a moderate
relationship while IQ-US has a strong relationship.
As summarised above, the correlation coefficient of SvQ-UIU and SvQ-US is 0.573 and
0.821, respectively. It suggests that there is a positive correlation between SvQ and UIU
as well as between SvQ and US, where increasing value of service quality associates
with the increasing value of use/intention to continual use and user satisfaction. The
value of ρ for both relationships implies that SvQ-UIU have a moderate relationship
while SvQ-UIU has a very strong relationship.
In order to see how user satisfaction is correlated with use/continual usage which are
suggested as further participation expectation, the result of Spearman correlation is also
presented. The correlation coefficient of 0.655 suggests that there is a positive
correlation between SQ and UIU, where increasing value of user satisfaction associates
with the increasing value of use/continual use. Furthermore, the value of ρ indicates that
both dimensions have a strong relationship.
4.6 Citizens Perceived Benefits
This section presents the findings of citizens’ perceived benefits from questionnaire,
which was enriched by some comments from respondents and confirmation of intended
benefits from LAPOR! team.
60
Table 13 Citizens Perceived Benefits Results
As seen in Table 13, the benefit dimension that has the highest score is Convenience
(4.95). It suggests that the majority of respondents agree, also firmed by small standard
deviation, that they can get benefits from the convenience of m-government which
allows them to report problems/aspirations anywhere and anytime (CV2 and CV1). A
respondent stated, “According to my experience, the important benefit of LAPOR! is the
convenience for reporting problems related to services involving bureaucracy.”
Furthermore, there are also benefits in terms of Cost (4.81) and Time (4.72), particularly
providing cost savings and enabling them to avoid directly dealing with public officials
61
and providing time saving (TM3 and TM1) as comment from a respondent, “I think it is
very useful since it can save my time and money...”
This benefit is also confirmed by LAPOR! interviewees saying that there are cost
savings for citizens because of LAPOR!, such as cost spent to come to the government
complaint service. Furthermore, since LAPOR! team provides their own infrastructure
for SMS-based service, the cost spent for one SMS can be reduced until Rp250/SMS
where normally Rp2000/SMS via content providers. However, the result also shows that
there is no significant benefit in terms of quicker response time compare to other means.
In view of this, LAPOR! team explained that the response fully depends on the
institution being consulted by the citizen. They said that not all institutions have good
performance in responding the reports.
As for Communication dimension, it results quite high score (4.76), particularly for
CM1 but not CM2, which suggests that LAPOR! provides an efficient but not quite
effective way to communicate with government. Some of respondents also underlined
this by saying that LAPOR! is only beneficial for efficient communication, particularly
for accommodating inputs, but not effective to finalise the problems. As from LAPOR!
interviewees’ perspective, they said that LAPOR! is indeed advantageous to facilitate
government-citizens interaction.
Next, for Participate in Decision Making dimension, LAPOR! gives benefits for citizens
to have their say about issues around governmental activities and lifting their feeling of
having role in active democracy but not to be listened and consulted by government. It
is showed by high score for PDM1 and PDM2 but not PDM3 and PDM4. This
participation benefit is confirmed by LAPOR! interviewees. Some respondents also
said, “It is very helpful in supervising and providing inputs to government and public
services” and “Never be consulted, even my idea is not implemented.”
Personalisation dimension has an overall score below overall mean (4.65) but P2
indicator (4.75) which suggests that the majority of respondent value the personalized
services offered by LAPOR! On the other hand, P1 indicator has score below overall
mean (4.54) which implies that the majority are unable to personalise the services.
62
On the other hand, the benefit with the lowest score is Trust indicator (4.62). It suggests
that even though the respondents realise LAPOR! focus in citizens’ best interests, they
are still not fully confident and comfortable relying on LAPOR! to relay their
reports/aspirations to government and to interact via LAPOR! (see T3, T4, and T2). A
respondent emphasised, “LAPOR! is a good initiative, but users can, on the contrary,
lose confidence if there are reports that are not followed-up or responses that does not
make sense or satisfy the user from the related government institutions.”
The findings also suggest that only few respondents get benefits in terms of increased
knowledge and ease of getting information, shown by dimension and all indicators’
scores below overall mean on Well-informedness and Ease of Information Retrieval
dimension. According to the score, the benefits can be classified into: major, moderate
and minor benefit as summarised in Table 14.
Table 14 Benefits Classification
4.7 Summary
The findings show that the implementation of m-government, particularly for
participation, has been supported by policies and regulations, appropriate infrastructure
and technologies, and application content development that can facilitate citizens’
participation in government activities. As for the questionnaire results, it presents that
most respondents are male, concentrate on Java, have experience of using online or
SMS-based government service and LAPOR! for less than a year. It also shows that the
63
overall evaluation rate of LAPOR! is 4.28 from scale 1-6 with major, moderate, and
minor benefits for citizens. The discussion of these findings is explained in the next
chapter.
64
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to discuss all of the findings to answer the research questions. It starts
by discussing the first research question which is the current state of m-government,
particularly for participation, in Indonesia. The second and third sections present the
discussion of m-government success in encouraging participation and citizens’
perceived benefits, respectively. The last section summarises the whole chapter.
5.2 Current State of M-Government for Participation
Indonesia has recognized the importance of e-government to realise good governance.
However, like other developing countries, Indonesia faces a critical challenge which is
enabling easy access for all citizens to e-government initiatives. Its geographic
characteristics offer high degree of diversity particularly on level of access and internet
awareness in rural areas (Harijadi & Satriya 2000). In order to minimise this access gap,
e-government initiatives should be made available through all means of access,
including via mobile phone. This consideration then made government began to
implement some m-government initiatives in order to support the whole e-government
implementation.
The findings show that the implementation of m-government for participation in
Indonesia has been established and are being advanced. Referring to participation level
characterisation in section 2.4, m-government for participation in Indonesia, particularly
LAPOR!, is still at the beginning stage of consulting/interacting level. It can be seen
from three key points. First, the adequate policies, regulations, legislations, and
guidelines have been set to support its implementation, such as about open government,
citizens’ participation on national development, electronic security/privacy, etc. As
mentioned by Islam (2008), initialing project by establishing concrete national planning
and policy agenda is an important step for sustainability, and further for advancing its
maturity level. However, even though national planning and some policies have been
established, there is still a need for citizens to be consulted by the government about mgovernment practices by providing formal guideline or legislation (Mengistu et al.
65
2009), particularly for quality standard that involves citizens participation in public
affairs. As electronic means are more gaining recognition from citizens as a way to be
more involved in government activities and to interact with government, it is important
to more engage them and assure social accountability by providing a common standard
for quality principles and rules of engagement (Macintosh 2004; Poelmans 2014). For
example, there is such instrument called e-Citizen Charter that is adopted by Netherland
government and other European countries. Furthermore, some other legal framework
concerning m-government should also be formally established, for example mobile
documents recognition and mobile security/privacy particularly that involves citizens’
involvement on risky issues.
Second, both standard and interactive media types that particularly contain Web 2.0
aspects have been adopted, such as social media-based and SMS-based service to the
extent to which inputs, opinions and/or polling can be facilitated (Albrecht et al. 2008;
Veenstra et al. 2011). ICT infrastructure and mobile technologies/tools are also available
to sufficiently support m-government initiative. However, there are still efforts to
improve ICT infrastructure in rural areas, particularly in east Indonesia regions, in order
to confidently stating that m-government initiative has been used to increase fully
participation from all Indonesian citizens. The government might also need to
collaborate with MCIT to formally socialise the use of LAPOR! through PLIK and
MPLIK in rural areas to give access to citizens who do not have mobile device and/or
internet access. Furthermore, government needs to always keep up with the
advancement of mobile technologies in order to provide easier, more varied and
efficient channel, particularly to accommodate those who are in disadvantaged (e.g.
disabilities, financially underprivileged).
Third, according to the theory explained in section 2.4, applications/services provided
by LAPOR! enables not only government-citizens one-way interaction but also enables
two-way interaction where citizens can take role as ‘joiners’ and/or ‘critics’ by
participating in the governmental activities and providing inputs particularly comments
or complaints (Li & Bernoff 2008; Veenstra et al. 2011). As explained in section 4.3,
LAPOR! is developed as social-media based service which enables citizens to not only
66
read information but also provide or review ideas, comment complaints, or any other
inputs to government. However, even though LAPOR! has enabled two-way
government-citizens interaction, the interaction is still not massively visible, flexible
and interactive enough, seen by the feedback column that are barely used. Furthermore,
Policy Opinion feature is also still limited to simple SMS-based and online survey
which does not enable active online discussions for the issues being set so citizens are
not being fully consulted for the public decisions. This is maybe because government
has not put strategies for more complex two-way interaction as the main priority yet,
similar to that in United States (Welch et al. 2007).
In view of this, to advance the m-government service, particularly for participation,
government may continuously improve the legal framework underlying mobile
participation; equitable distribution of infrastructure and technology across regions; and
enhanced application and content development facilitating active participation (Ghyasi
& Khuschu 2004; Islam 2008).
5.3 M-Government Success in Encouraging Participation
As explained in the findings, the overall evaluation scores of LAPOR! is 4.28. Referring
to the IS outcomes evaluation adapted from Heeks (2002) (see section 3.5); this score
suggests that overall LAPOR! has a moderate success rate. It implies that LAPOR! has
not fully attained its major goals, which are to increase citizen participation and improve
government-citizen
interaction
in
national
development
and
public
service
improvement, and there are still some undesirable outcomes encountered, particularly
by the citizens.
Considerable citizens feel that LAPOR! facilitates them to be actively involved in
governmental activities and provides good channel to connect with government. This
success is particularly caused by its ease of use, user friendly, and service availability
for almost all citizens, including those in rural/remote areas. M-government, particularly
SMS-based service, is easier to use since it does not require password. The interface of
mobile application is also user friendly which makes it convenient to use. As argued by
Kwon (2004 in Nava & Dávila 2005), the mobility of m-government indeed enables
more access coverage for citizens shown in this study.
67
However, despite of success outcomes for some citizens, there are also some citizens
who think that LAPOR! is still not a good solution for their need to be heard and
consulted in governmental matters as what is expected from LAPOR! This is probably
caused by the low responsiveness of its service. It has not fully provided service at times
it promises which causes user unsatisfaction. Even though there are around 39% of
respondents who are satisfied with its responsiveness, the rest citizens who undoubted it
should not be ignored. Some comments also show that many citizens put a great
expectation on LAPOR! without knowing its real function, mechanism, and limitation
maybe caused by lack of socialisation. There is even citizen who got an undesirable
outcome, such as being mistreated by the related institution due to being a
whistleblower. Despite of good score for its security, this issue still cannot be seen
lightheartedly since it may cause their intention to more participate in governmental
activities. As OECD & ITU (2011) argue, security and privacy has always been a
challenge for m-government implementation.
Furthermore, user satisfaction and system quality have a substantial relationship with
the increasing of use/intention to continual usage which is argued that good system
quality and user satisfaction may increase citizens’ participation particularly by using mgovernment. On the other hand, the other dimensions have strong relationship with user
satisfaction instead. It implies that the further participation by the citizens depends on
user satisfaction on the quality perceptions from the previous experiences, which
decides whether the system is qualified to facilitate their participation and influence the
continuance decision (Teo et al. 2008). In other words, good m-government qualities
have potential to increase citizens’ participation especially through a great deal of user
satisfaction towards the system.
5.3.1 System Quality
GoI is argued to have ability to develop a good quality of m-government system for any
purpose, including for participation purpose. As explained above, this is particularly
because of ease of use of m-government system that is developed. This is in accordance
with the m-government and e-government evaluation results from Abanumy & Mayhew
(2005) and Wahid (2008) where ease of use criteria gives the opportunity to attract
68
citizens in using m-government. As DeLone & McLean (2003), OECD & ITU (2011),
and Susanto & Goowin (2010) argue, ease of use is indeed important for the acceptance
and continual usage of mobile technology and SMS-based government service.
However, there are some issues to be noted in order to more increase the likelihood of
participation, such as feedback mechanism and security. Feedback mechanism is still
considered rigid and slow. As for security issue, the protection mechanism must be
maintained across borders to all government institutions systems which connected to
LAPOR! system (OECD & ITU 2011). This has been established but still needs to be
monitored or even further protection mechanism development in order to prevent
information leaking. Furthermore, the issues relating response time and system
reliability show the need for infrastructure improvement, particularly in rural areas.
System performance should also be improved to provide a light and bug-free system.
5.3.2 Information Quality
The quality of information is not strongly correlated with the increasing participation by
using m-government service. However, information quality cannot be disregarded since
it still may influence participation through the increasing user satisfaction. In view of
this, some aspects that may contribute to the success are information up-to-date,
sufficiency, and accuracy.
However, there are some points that need more attention: data accuracy (i.e. actuality)
and protection. Data actuality concerns message changes when administrator has to
revise the content before being displayed on the newsfeed, since the message context
could differ quite substantially among parties (OECD & ITU 2011). Even though there
is already a mechanism for that, it seems not many citizens know about that which
means government should not expect citizens surely know all mechanisms published in
LAPOR! website since most of them only access LAPOR! via SMS. As for data
protection, it should not only be limited to data protection regulatory compliance but
also continuous control across borders to safeguard information privacy and security
(i.e. anonymity, undetectability, identifiability) which correlated with technical
challenges as explained in previous section (OECD & ITU 2011).
69
5.3.3 Service Quality
LAPOR! is considered dependable by providing consistent services and always ready to
facilitate citizens’ needs to connect with government. However, the service quality is
not strongly correlated with the increasing participation of citizens by using the mgovernment service. Instead, it has a significant relationship with user satisfaction which
implies that the increasing quality of service corresponds to the increasing user
satisfaction (Xiaoni & Prybutok 2005; Teo et al. 2008) which may then related to the
increasing participation through more service usage/continual use. As suggested by
DeLone & McLean (2003), IS has a role not only as information provider but also
service provider which can influence user satisfaction towards the m-government
service, further system usage, and overall success. It includes the attitude and degree of
professionalism, competency in handling problems, and responsiveness to them
(Prybutok et al. 2008).
However, responsiveness seems to be the main issue that may affect service quality,
user satisfaction, and even overall participation. As Scott et al. (2011) suggests,
responsiveness is a critical determinant for continual usage. This responsiveness
problem seems rely on each government institutions’ commitment towards other
government institution’s initiative. There seems no strong shared vision and maybe even
e-leadership in some government institutions, whereas the change management to any egovernment initiatives must be simultaneous with commitment foundation to eleadership and the appropriate composition of organizational mindset, culture, and
structure (Symonds 2000 in Clark 2003).
5.3.4 User Satisfaction
The major goals of LAPOR! have been moderately achieved, shown by moderate
success of LAPOR! in facilitating citizens participation and interaction with
government. It also can be assumed that the massive increases on users, inputs, likes and
comments numbers indicate an increase on citizens’ participation in governmental
activities and on government-citizens interaction. As argued by the study about egovernance and e-government from Kolsaker & Lee-Kelley (2008), the ability of mgovernment to satisfy personal needs indeed influence the service usage and even
70
further continual use. Lee & Kim (2012) also argue that citizens-government or even
citizens-citizens interaction by posting or replying to citizens’ ideas or comments may
give social reward (i.e. recognition) for citizens to actively use m-government for
participation.
However, the overall satisfaction almost has an unsatisfactory result, when in fact user
satisfaction has the strongest correlation with more participation by using m-government
service. This may relate to the indirect measures of user satisfaction in other dimensions
as argued by (Rai et al. 2002; Sedera & Tan 2005; Wang & Liao 2008). Thus, even
though most of citizens quite satisfy with the participation and interaction needs
fulfillment, the overall satisfaction is also influenced by the other quality measures.
5.3.5 Use/Intention to Continual Use
The mobile participation access has the lowest rate which direct to the assumption that
the current citizens participation by using m-government initiative still needs to be
improved. There may be some causes from effects of unsatisfied system, information
and service qualities; lack of satisfaction; less experience of citizens on using online or
SMS-base government services; or maybe lack of socialisation. These issues may affect
trust and the further m-government usage whereas trust is the crucial point for citizens
to continuous use of m-government (Welch & Hinnant 2003; UN 2008).
However, despite of those issues, the eagerness of citizens to be more involved in
government activities seem still quite high. They even have intention to recommend this
m-government initiative to other people. It can be assumed that the participation
willingness of citizens by using m-government system can be improved, particularly by
addressing some issues related to m-government qualities and user satisfaction.
5.4 M-Government Benefits for Citizens
Kushchu and Borucki (2004a in Kushchu et al. 2007) argue that m-government is
considered have immediate and significant benefits for end-users, including citizens. In
developing countries, m-government is arguably able to extend e-government benefits
particularly in rural areas (Mengistu et al. 2009; Shareef et al. 2012). There are six main
benefits mostly and moderately perceived by the citizens, categorised in terms of
71
convenience, cost, communication, time, participation in decision making, and
personalisation.
5.4.1 Convenience
The convenience of m-government allows citizens to report problems/aspirations
anywhere and anytime. Due to the fact that Indonesia’s geographic characteristics offer
access gap particularly in rural areas (Harijadi & Satriya 2000), this benefit is indeed in
accordance with what is expected from m-government as a new channel of egovernment in Indonesia. This is also justified by several researchers (Khuschu &
Kuscu 2003; Sharma & Gupta 2004; Casalo et al. 2007) saying that the main objective
of m-government is to enable citizens to access public information and services
whenever and wherever they might be. It can facilitate more e-government adoption
through the convenient accessibility and availability offered by its mobile value (Nava
& Dávila 2005; Khuschu et al. 2007).
5.4.2 Cost
According to citizens, there is cost reductions resulted from using m-government
service, both via SMS or mobile application, to connect with public officials and
governmental activities. Cost saving is indeed benefit expected by LAPOR! team to
increase LAPOR! adoption and to improve their participation in controlling government
development programs and public services with consideration of those in rural areas.
Besides the cost savings caused by cheaper mobile phone’s price compare to other
electronic device, for example computer, cost saving is also resulted from minimised
SMS’ rate due to internal SMS gateway provision which generates 87.5% cost saving
per SMS compare to rate from content provider. There are also other cost savings since,
for example, citizens no longer need to go directly to government or make a phone call
whose rate is higher than SMS’ or even internet’s rates. This benefit is also justified by
some researchers mentioned in section 2.2.2 and deemed as one of most significant
benefit (Gilbert et al. 2004).
5.4.3 Communication
Communication benefit has the third highest score, particularly for providing efficient
communication channel to government. It is beneficial particularly for those in rural
72
areas who find it difficult to communicate with government. This efficiency might be
related to cost and time saving benefitted from the adoption of m-government. Referring
to m-government success assessment, it can be assumed that the communication benefit
probably also related to the good system quality, particularly because m-government
system is easy and friendly to use so citizens find it efficient to communicate with
government. This result is also supported by Kushchu et al. (2007) that m-government
can facilitate and/or improve government-citizens relationship.
5.4.4 Time
The findings also show that there is citizens’ perceived benefit in terms of time. Even
though there might be no considerable benefit in term of quicker response time, mgovernment still provides time saving when interacting with government and enables
citizens to avoid direct dealing with public officials, particularly for those in rural areas
where access to government is quite difficult. It is also confirmed by several researchers
(Sharma & Gupta 2004; Kushchu et al. 2007) who suggest that m-government allows
smooth transactions without face-to-face interaction so the time needed could be
reduced. Time savings and interaction avoidance are considered two of most compelling
benefit of e-government, and so m-government (Gilbert et al. 2004).
5.4.5 Participation in Decision Making
Even though the overall score of this dimension is below overall mean, half of its
indicators have quite high scores. This benefit is in accordance with what suggested by
Scott et al. (2011) in their work that e-government initiatives, in this case is mgovernment for participation, allow them to have a say about issues around
governmental activities. M-government indeed gives opportunity to citizens to give their
opinion to the public sector and promotes citizen activism in governmental activities
(Sharma & Gupta 2004; Casalo et al. 2007; OECD & ITU 2011). Furthermore, they also
get acknowledged for their role as a part of active democracy which can reinforce the
intrinsic value of citizen participation: to promote self-esteem and self-fulfillment (King
& Stivers 1998). On the other hand, the other two benefits have not been realised maybe
because they can only be obtained if the participation level of m-government initiatives
is higher than that now, as discussed in section 5.2.
73
5.4.6 Personalisation
The last benefit of m-government for citizens is personalization which suggests that
citizens value the personalized services offered by m-government initiative. This
personalization value is deemed as benefit of m-government as mobile devices are
indeed intended for personal use by one individual so that personalised information can
be delivered to the same user at any time via one specific device (Kim et al. 2004;
Khuschu et al. 2007). One example is the notification or feedback sent to the citizens via
SMS or notification on mobile application so that they can check the information any
time.
5.5 Summary
This
chapter
discussed
the
exploration
of
m-government
for
participation
implementation in Indonesia. The current state evaluation shows that m-government for
participation is in the early consulting/interacting stage. Some policy/regulation, ICT
deployment, application and services are available and can be improved to achieve
higher participation level. As for success assessment, the outcome was identified as
moderate success with some issues highlighted (i.e. responsiveness, security/privacy,
feedback mechanism, data actuality, e-leadership, etc.). M-government also gives many
benefits to citizens in terms of convenience, cost, communication, time, participation in
decision making, and personalisation. Overall, m-government is possible to increase
citizens’ participation supported by appropriate policies/regulations, technologies, good
quality services and applications. The conclusion of this study is presented in the next
chapter.
74
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION
6.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the conclusion of the overall study. It starts by revisiting the
research questions as concluding remarks which is followed by some recommendations
to government, particularly LAPOR! The next two sections explain the research
limitations and future research suggestions.
6.2 Concluding Remarks
This study aims to explore m-government implementation in Indonesia, particularly
focusing on m-government ability in improving citizen participation in governance, by
answering three research questions.
First, what is the current state of m-government adoption, particularly for participation,
in Indonesia? There has been m-government initiative focusing on increasing citizen
participation
in
Indonesia,
where
its
participation
level
is
at
the
early
consulting/interacting stage. National planning on e-government and fair policies and
regulations have been established to support m-government implementation, such as
about information disclosure, citizen involvement in government activities, open
government, and electronic security/privacy. There are also available technologies
needed for m-government development which enable citizens to interactively
communicate with government and participate in providing inputs to government. In
order to improve the participation level on m-government service, government may
continuously suffice the required legal framework underlying mobile participation; build
impartial infrastructure and technology across regions; and develop applications and
services facilitating active individual participation on policy-making.
Second, how successful is m-government in encouraging citizen participation? Mgovernment for participation has moderate success rate in facilitating citizens’
participation and interaction with government. It suggests that the major goals are only
moderately attained and some undesirable outcomes are found. In view of this, citizen
participation is likely more increased with the increments on user satisfaction and
75
system quality and may have unsuccessful result because of its service quality,
particularly responsiveness. Furthermore, there are some issues and undesirable
outcomes which correspond to the likelihood of increased participation. They are
responsiveness, e-leadership and unshared objectives and values, feedback mechanism,
security, data actuality and protection, which are likely to influence user satisfaction and
further citizens’ participation by using m-government system. However, despite of those
issues, the good system quality, particularly the ease of use and friendliness, and the
service availability may corresponds to participation encouragement for citizens to be
more involved in government activities by exploiting m-government initiative.
Third, what are the citizens perceived benefits of using m-government? M-government
for participation indeed gives benefits for citizens in terms of convenience, cost,
communication, time, participation in decision making, and personalization. It enables
anywhere and anytime access, cost reduction, efficient communication with
government, time saving, direct dealing avoidance with public officials, and
personalized service. Importantly, it also gives opportunity for citizens to give their
opinion to government and lifting their feelings as part of active democracy in
Indonesia, which may promote more citizens advocacy in government activities.
In conclusion, m-government has the potential to increase citizens’ participation in
government activities. The available policies and regulations, mobile infrastructure and
technologies, and applications and content development can support participation by
using m-government. Its success rate and positive impacts/benefits also indicates its
potential in encouraging more participation, particularly by addressing some identified
challenges.
6.3 Recommendations
There are three recommendations for government, particularly LAPOR! team, with
regards to the result of this study. First, government may mainly focus on improving
equitable infrastructure and sophisticated technologies particularly in rural areas. Since
m-government initiatives are involving technology exploitation, its uptake thus depends
on technology availability itself. It is also to assure that “m-government does not
become one more way in which the haves benefit at the expense of the have-nots”
76
(OECD & ITU 2011:68). Thus, improvement on bandwidth, reduction on SMS and
internet cost on mobile, and establishment of participation mechanism for those who are
in disadvantaged could be taken into consideration.
Second, since government has responsibility to provide secure, qualified services and
engage citizens (Scott et al. 2011), they need to improve quality dimensions. Even
though system quality has the highest score, government still needs to maintain and
enhance it since it has more tendency on the increasing of user satisfaction and further
participation, particularly for feedback mechanism and security aspects. Information
quality might also be improved, especially for data actuality and protection. Importantly,
government should improve service quality, particularly responsiveness, since citizens
indeed place high expectation on quality services which, as consequence, must be met to
achieve total success (Scott et al. 2011). This responsiveness issue relates to
commitment of all government institutions. Thus, strong e-leadership, shared objectives
and values with citizens’ best interest consciousness, as well as rigorous and continuous
control on government institutions’ follow-up might be needed.
Third, as suggested by some respondents, government needs to socialize and promote
LAPOR! initiative to wider citizens via all means of media. Massive sosialisation on
how to use LAPOR! and all its related mechanisms is also needed since some of them
seem do not really understand about LAPOR!-related mechanisms/procedures. This
socialisation might be useful to improve citizens’ awareness on their role in governance
and then might create culture of participation as a whole.
6.4 Limitations
This research has several limitations that should be considered in making generalisation
to different context:
1. This research is limited to m-government adoption in Indonesian context,
especially LAPOR! case study where, as a consequence, the result of this study
might be restricted for generalisation in other country contexts or even other mgovernment services.
77
2. Since there is no study with similar purpose, this study used success
measurement model that are generally used in IS researches. Thus, it still needs
empirical study in order to get more convincing result, especially when used in
m-government for participation context.
3. There was limited number of interviewees for data collection due to time and
resources constraints, particularly for triangulation data needed in evaluating mgovernment success. Interviewing all LAPOR! team members (4 people in total)
might be useful to get wider insight.
4. Sampling technique used in this research was convenience sampling due to lack
of access to the population, where LAPOR! team choose sample based on users
who are the easiest to access.
5. Spearman correlation does not explain causality relationship between two
variables being investigated but only gives insight of increment trend between
them. More thorough causality analysis might be needed to give more accurate
result.
6.5 Future Research Suggestions
Besides above key limitations that might bring opportunities for future researches, this
study also suggests future research discussing on how to make m-government for
participation sustainable for the establishment of good governance across government
institutions at all levels. The sustainability of an initiative is argued to be an essential but
difficult work in order to assure overall success and increase more benefits to all
stakeholders. Furthermore, further impact analysis on social, economic, and political
aspects could be performed to understand wider impact of m-government on
participation.
78
REFERENCES
Abanumy, A. & Mayhew, P. (2005) ‘M-Government Implications for E-Government in
Developing Countries: The Case of Saudi Arabia’, EURO mGOV, pp. 1 – 6.
Albrecht, S., Kohlrausch, N., Kubicek, H., Lippa, B., Märker, O., Trénel, M., Vorwerk,
V., Westholm, H., Wiedwald, C. (2008) ‘eParticipation - Electronic Participation of
Citizens and the Business Community in eGovernment’, in Study on Behalf of the
Federal Ministry of the Interior (Germany), Division IT 1 (January).
Al-khamayseh, S., Lawrence, E. & Zmijewska, A. (2006) ‘Towards Understanding
Success Factors in Interactive Mobile Government’, in the Proceedings of EURO mGov,
pp. 3 – 5.
Al-Khouri, A.M. (2013) ‘Technological and Mobility Trends in E-Government’,
Business and Management Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 90 – 112.
Alrazooqi, M. & De Silva, R. (2010) ‘Mobile and Wireless Services and Technologies
for M-Government Solution Proposal for Dubai Government’, WSEAS Transactions on
Information Science and Applications, Vol. 7, No. 8, pp. 1037 – 1047.
Alshehri, M. & Drew, S. (2010) ‘E-Government Fundamentals’, in Proceeding of IADIS
International Conference ICT, Society and Human Beings, pp. 35 – 42, Griffith
Research [Online], Available:
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/37709/67525_1.pdf?seque
nce=1 [ Accessed: 15 May 2014].
Al-Thunibat, A., Zin, N. A. M., & Ashaari, N. S. (2010) ‘Mobile Government Services
in Malaysia: Challenges and Opportunities’, in International Symposium in Information
Technology (ITSim), Vol. 3, pp. 1244-1249).
Amailef, K. & Lu, J. (2008) ‘m-Government: A Framework of Mobile-based
Emergency Response Systems’, in 3rd International Conference on Intelligent System
and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 1398 – 1403.
79
Andersen, K. N., Henriksen, H. Z., Medaglia, R., Danziger, J. N., Sannarnes, M. K., &
Enemærke, M. (2010) ‘Fads and Facts of E-Government: A Review of Impacts of EGovernment (2003–2009)’, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 33, No.
11, pp. 564-579.
Arko-cobbah, A. (2006) ‘Civil Society and Good Governance: Challenges for Public
Libraries in South Africa’, Library Review, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 349 – 362.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216 – 224.
Ayyash, M.M., Ahmad, K. & Singh, D. (2012) ‘A Questionnaire Approach for User
Trust Adoption in Palestinian E-Government Initiative’, American Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 40 – 46.
Bannister, F. (2007) ‘The Curse of the Benchmark: An Assessment of the Validity and
Value of E-Government Comparisons’, International Review of Administrative
Sciences, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 171–188
Basu, S. (2004) ‘E-Government and Developing Countries: An Overview’,
International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Vol.18, No.1, pp.109-132.
Bekkers, V. (2003) ‘E-Government and the Emergence of Virtual Organizations in the
Public Sector’, Information Polity, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 89 – 101.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K. & Mead, M. (1987) ‘The Case Research Strategy in
Studies of Information Systems’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 369 – 386.
Bonham, G.M. & Seifert, J.W. (2003) ‘The Transformative Potential of E-Government
in Transitional Democracies’, Public Management, Vol. 2, pp. 1 – 8.
Bovaird, T. (2007) ‘Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community
Coproduction of Public Services’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 67, No. 5, pp.
846 – 860.
80
Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th ed., New York: Oxford University
Press.
Casalo, L.V., Flavián, C. & Guinaliu, M. (2007) ‘M-Government Initiatives at the Local
Level: The Case of Zaragoza’, in M-Government: An Emerging Direction in EGovernment, I. Kushchu (ed.), Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishers, pp. 233 - 251.
Chan, C.M.L., Pan, S.L. & Tan, C.W. (2003) ‘Managing Stakeholder Relationships in
an E-Government Project’, in Proceedings of the 9th AMCIS, pp. 783 – 791.
Chan, C.M.L., Lau, Y. & Pan, S.L. (2008) ‘E-government Implementation: A Macro
Analysis of Singapore’s E-government Initiatives’, Government Information Quarterly,
Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 239 – 255.
Cilingir, D. & Kushchu, I. (2004) ‘E-Government and M-Government: Concurrent
Leaps by Turkey’, in Proceeding of the 4th Europian Conference on e-Government.
Clark, E. (2003) ‘Managing the Transformation to E-Government: An Australian
Perspective’, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 377-397.
Cleaver, F. (2001) ‘Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory
Approaches to Development’, in Participation: The New Tyranny?, B. Cooke & U.
Kothari (eds.), London: Zed Books, pp. 36 – 55.
Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2014) Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate
and Postgraduate Students, 4th edn., Cornwall: Palgrave.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, 2nd ed., United States of America: Sage Publications, Inc.
DeLone, W.H., & McLean, E.R. (1992) ‘Information Systems Success: The Quest for
the Dependent Variable’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 60 – 95.
DeLone, W.H., & McLean, E.R. (2003) ‘The DeLone and McLean Model of
Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update’, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 9 – 30.
81
Depkominfo (2004) E-Government Blueprint Plan, Communication and Information
Technology Department, Jakarta, Indonesia.
de Reuver, M., Stein, S., Hampe, F. & Bouwman, H. (2010) ‘Towards a Service
Platform and Business Model for Mobile Participation’, in 2010 Ninth International
Conference on Mobile Business and 2010 Ninth Global Mobility Roundtable (ICMBGMR), pp. 305 – 311.
El-Kiki, T., Lawrence, E. & Steele, R. (2005) ‘A Management Framework for Mobile
Government Services’, in Proceedings of CollECTeR, Sydney, Australia.
El-Kiki, T. & Lawrence, E. (2006) ‘Government as a Mobile Enterprise: Real-time,
Ubiquitous Government’, in Third International Conference on Information
Technology: New Generations, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 320 - 327.
Fang, Z. (2002) ‘E-Government in Digital Era: Concept, Practice, and Development’,
International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, Vol. 10, No. 2,
pp. 1 – 22.
Ferguson, R., Griffiths, B. & Miller, L. (2006) Digital Dialogues, Second Phase Report,
August 2006 – August 2007: An Independent Investigation into the Use of Online
Technologies to Promote Dialogue between Central Government and the Public,
Hansard Society.
Fiorino, D.J. (1990) ‘Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of
Institutional Mechanisms’, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.
226–243.
Furuholt, B. & Wahid, F. (2008) ‘E-Government Challenges and the Role of Political
Leasdership in Indonesia: The Case of Sragen’, in Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Gbikpi, B., & Grote, J. R. (2002) ‘From Democratic Government to Participatory
Governance’, In Participatory governance: Political and Societal Implications, J. Grote
& B. Gbikpi (eds.), VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 17-34.
82
Ghyasi, A.F. & Kushchu, I. (2004) ‘M-Government: Cases of Developing Countries’,
M-GovLab, International University of Japan.
Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P., & Littleboy, D. (2004) ‘Barriers and Benefits in the Adoption
of E-Government’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17, No. 4,
pp. 286-301.
GoI (2001) Presidential Instruction Number 6 of 2001 on Telematics Development and
Usability in Indonesia, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
GoI (2003) Presidential Instruction Number 3 of 2003 on National Policy and Strategy
for E-Government Development, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Hair, J.F., Tatham, R.L. & Anderson, R.E. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, London:
Prentice Hall.
Harijadi, D.A. & Satriya, E. (2000) ‘Indonesia’s Roadmap to E-Government:
Opportunities and Challenges’, presented at APEC High-Level Symposium on EGovernment, Seoul, Korea, 2-5 July.
Heeks, R. (2001) Understanding e-Government for Development, i-Government
Working Paper no. 11, Centre for Development Informatics, IDPM, University of
Manchester, UK [Online], Available:
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publications/wp/igovernment/igov_wp
11.htm [Accessed: 6 June 2014].
Heeks, R. (2002) ‘Information Systems and Developing Countries: Failure, Success and
Local Improvisations’, the Information Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 101 – 112.
Heeks, R. (2013) Understanding e-Government, e-Government course unit handout,
IDPM, University of Manchester, Manchester, 27 September.
Heeks, R. (2013a) e-Citizens: Connecting Citizens and Government, e-Government
course unit handout, IDPM, University of Manchester, Manchester, 11 and 18 Oct.
83
Hye, H.A. (2000) ‘Good Governance: A Social Contract for the New Millennium’, in
Governance-South Asian Perspectives, Dhaka: The University Press Limited.
Islam, M.S. (2008) ‘Towards a Sustainable e-Participation Implementation Model’,
European Journal of ePractice, Vol. 5, No. 10, pp. 1 – 12.
ITU (2014) ICT Facts and Figures, Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.
ITU (2014a) Key ICT Indicators for Developed and Developing Countries and the
World (Totals and Penetration Rates), International Telecommunication Union
[Online], Available: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx
[Accessed: 23 May 2014].
ITU (2014b) Percentage of Individuals Using the Internet (excel), International
Telecommunication Union [Online], Available: http://www.itu.int/en/ITUD/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx [Accessed: 23 May 2014].
ITU (2014c) Mobile Cellular Subscriptions (excel), International Telecommunication
Union [Online], Available: http://www.itu.int/en/ITUD/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx [Accessed: 23 May 2014].
Karadimas, N.V., Papatzelou, K. & Papantoniou, A.N. (2008) ‘M-Government Services
in Greece’ in Proceedings of 22nd European Conference on Modelling and Simulation,
Vol. 135, pp. 71-74.
Kemenkumham (2011) Presidential Decree 3/2003 Policy and National Strategy for eGovernment Development, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights[Online], Available:
www.kemenkumham.go.id/attachments/article/140/Inpres-03-03.pdf [Accessed: 4 May
2014].
Kim, Y., Yoon, J., Park, S. & Han, J. (2004) ‘Architecture for Implementing the Mobile
Government Services in Korea’, in Conceptual Modelling for Advanced Application
Domains, Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 601 – 612.
84
Kim, P.S., Halligan, J, Cho, N, Oh, C.H. & Eikenberry, A.M. (2005) ‘Forward
Participatory and Transparent Governance: Report on the Sixth Global Forum on
Reinventing Government’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 65, No. 6, pp. 646 – 54.
King, C. & Stivers, C. (1998) Government is US: Public Administration in an AntiGovernment Era, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kolsaker, A. & Lee-Kelley, L. (2008) ‘Citizens' Attitudes Towards E-Government and
E-Governance: A UK Study’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol.
21, No. 7, pp. 723-738.
Komiak, S. (2010) ‘The Effects of Perceived Information Quality and Perceived System
Quality on Trust and Adoption of Online Reputation Systems’, in the Proceedings of
AMCIS 2010, Paper 343.
Kothari, C.R. (2004) Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, New Age
International, New Delhi.
Kronbichler, S.A., Ostermann, H. & Staudinger, R. (2010) ‘A Comparison of ERPSuccess Measurement Approaches’, Journal of Information Systems and Technology
Management, Vol. 7, No.2, pp. 281-310.
Kumar, R. & Best, M.L. (2006) ‘Impact and Sustainability of E-Government Services in
Developing Countries: Lessons Learned from Tamil Nadu, India’, The Information
Society: An International Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1 – 12.
Kumar, M. & Sinha, O.P. (2007) ‘M-Government – Mobile technology for EGovernment’, in International Conference on E-Government, Hyderabad, India, 28 – 30
December, pp. 294 – 301.
Kushchu, I. & Kuscu, M. H. (2003) ‘From E-government to M-government: Facing the
Inevitable’, in the 3rd European Conference on e-Government, Ireland, pp. 253 – 260.
Kushchu, I. & Borucki, C. (2004) ‘Impact of Mobile Technologies on Government’, in
the Proceedings of European Conference on E-Government, Trinity College, Dublin.
85
Kushchu, I. & Borucki, C. (2004a) ‘A Mobility Response Model for Government’,
mGovLab, International University of Japan.
Kushchu, I., Arat, S., & Borucki, C. (2007) ‘The Impact of M-Government on
Organisations: A Mobility Response Model’, in M-Government: An Emerging Direction
in E-Government, I. Kushchu (ed.), Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishers, pp. 134 - 153.
Kwon, Y.I. (2004) ‘Challenge to the Mobile Government’, in National Computerization
Agency.
LAPOR! (2013) LAPOR! Progress, LAPOR! [Online], Available:
https://lapor.ukp.go.id/assets/images/Infografis_02.jpg [Accessed: 18 May 2014].
LAPOR! (2014) LAPOR! Background, LAPOR!, UKP4.
Lee, J., & Rao, H. (2005) ‘Risk of Terrorism, Trust in Government, and e-Government
Services: An Exploratory Study of Citizens’ Intention to use e-Government Services in
a Turbulent Environment’, YCISS Working Paper 30.
Lee S., Tang X. & Trimi S. (2005) ‘Current Practices of Leading E-Government
Countries’, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48, No. 10, pp. 99 – 104.
Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2012) ‘E-participation in the Era of Web 2.0: Factors Affecting
Citizens' Active E-Participation in Local Governance’, In Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 44-47.
LGSP (2007) Musrenbang as a Key Driver in Effective Participatory Budgeting: Key
Issues and Perspectives for Improvements, The Local Governance Support Program,
USAID, June, Volume 1.
Li, C., Bernoff, J. (2008) Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social
Technologies, Forrester Research Inc., Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Loukis, E. & Xenakis, A. (2008) ‘Evaluating Parliamentary e-Participation’, Paper
presented at the Third International Conference on Digital Information Management,
London, November 13-16, pp. 806–812.
86
Lourenço, R.P. & Costa, J.P. (2007) ‘Incorporating Citizens’ Views in Local Policy
Decision Making Processes’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 1499 –
1511.
Lynn, M. (1986) ‘Determination and Quantification of Content Validity’, Nursing
Research, Vol. 35, pp. 382-385.
Macintosh, A. (2004) ‘Characterizing E-Participation in Policy-Making’, in Proceedings
of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 1 - 10.
Malhotra, N.K. & Birks, D.F. (2007) Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, 3rd
edn., United Kingdom: Prentice Hall.
Maranny, E.A. (2011) Stage Maturity Model of E-Government (SMM m-Gov):
Improving e-Government Performance by Utilizing m-Government Features, Master,
University of Twente.
MCIT (2003) Ministerial Decree Number 55 of 2003 on Infrastructure Development for
Government Portal Guideline, Ministry of Communication and Information
Technology, Jakarta, Indonesia.
MCIT (2004) E-Government Blueprint, Ministry of Communication and Information
Technology, Jakarta, Indonesia.
MCIT (2012) ICT White Paper Indonesia 2012, Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Mengistu, D., Zo, H. & Rho, J.J. (2009) ‘M-Government: Opportunities and Challenges
to Deliver Mobile Government Services in Developing Countries’, in Fourth
International Conference on Computer Science and Convergence Information
Technology, pp. 1445 – 1450.
Mirchandani, D.A., Johnson, J.H. Jr. & Joshi, K. (2008) ‘Perspectives of Citizens
Toward E-government in Thailand and Indonesia: A Multigroup Analysis’, Information
Systems Frontiers, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 483 – 497.
87
Moon, M.J. (2004) ‘From E-Government to M-Government? Emerging Practices in the
Use of Mobile Technology by State Governments’, IBM Center for the Business of
Government, Washington, November.
Myers, M.D., Avison, D. (2002) Qualitative research in Information System, London:
SAGE.
Nayan, N.M., Zaman, H.B. & Sembok, T.M.T. (2011) ‘Measurement Model to Evaluate
Success of E-Government Applications through Visual Relationship’, in Visual
Informatics: Sustaining Research and Innovations, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 295
– 304.
Nava, A.S. & Dávila, I.L. (2005) ‘M-Government for Digital Cities: Value Added
Public Services’, in the Proceedings of the First European Mobile Government
Conference, Brighton, UK, pp. 304 – 312.
Ndou, V. (2004) ‘E-government for Developing Countries: Opportunities and
Challenges’, Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, Vol. 18, No.1,
pp.1-24.
Neras, R. M. (2001) ‘Making Participatory Planning in Good Local Governance
Happen’, Presentation at Logolink International Workshop, Bandung.
Noor, J. (2011), Metodologi Penelitian, Jakarta: Kencana.
Ntaliani, M., Costopoulou, C. & Karetsos, S. (2008) ‘Mobile Government: A Challenge
for Agriculture’, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 699 – 716.
OECD Development Assistance Committee (1997) Final Report of the Ad Hoc Group
on Participatory Development and Good Governance, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001) Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation
in Policymaking, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2003) The E-Government Imperative, in OECD E-Government Studies, Paris:
OECD.
88
OECD (2003a) The E-Government Imperative: Main Findings, in OECD Policy Brief,
Paris: OECD.
OECD & ITU (2011) M-Government: Mobile Technologies for Responsive
Governments and Connected Societies, OECD Publishing [Online], Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118706-en [Accessed: 10 June 2014].
OGI (2014) Services Module, Open Government Indonesia [Online], Available:
http://satulayanan.net/informasi/layanan [Accessed: 29 July 2014].
OPM & CIPFA (2004) The Good Governance Standard for Public Services, Office for
Public Management Ltd. and The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy, London: Hackney Press Ltd.
Oui-Suk, U. (2010) ‘Introduction of m.Government & IT Convergence Technology’,
working document, KAIST Institute for IT Convergence, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Östberg, O. (2003) ‘A Swedish View on Mobile Government’, in Proceedings of
International Symposium on E- & M-Government.
Papadomichelaki, X., Magoutas, B., Halaris, C. Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. (2006)
‘A Review of Quality Dimensions in E-government Services’, in Electronic
Government, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 128–138.
Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, United States of
America: SAGE.
Pestoff, V. (2009) ‘Towards a Paradigm of Democratic Participation: Citizen
Participation and Co-production of Personal Social Services in Sweden’, Annals of
Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 197–224.
Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T. & Kavan, C.B. (1995) ‘Service Quality: A Measure of
Information Systems Effectiveness’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 173 – 188.
89
Poelmans, M. (2014) The eCitizen Charter as a Tool for Public Sector Innovation
through Citizen Engagement and Social Accountability, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe.
Prybutok, V. R., Zhang, X., & Ryan, S. D. (2008) ‘Evaluating Leadership, IT Quality,
and Net Benefits in An E-Government Environment’, Information & Management, Vol.
45, No. 3, pp. 143-152.
Punyaratabandhu, S. (2004) Commitment to Good Governance, Development, and
Poverty Reduction: Methodological Issues in the Evaluation of Progress at National
and Local Levels, Sixth Session of the Committee on Development Policy, March-April,
Thailand, United Nations [Online], Available at:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp2004_4.
pdf [Accessed: 16 June 2014].
Rahman, A. (2005) ‘Effective Participation: Community Engagement in Participatory
Budgeting in Bangladesh’, paper presented in International Conference on Engaging
Communities, Brisbane, Australia.
Rai, A., Lang, S.S. & Welker, R.B. (2002) ‘Assessing the Validity of IS Success
Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis’, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 50 – 69.
Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Williams, M.D. & Weerakkody, V. (2014) ‘Investigating
Success of an E-Government Initiative: Validation of an Integrated IS Success Model’,
Information Systems Frontiers, pp. 1 – 16.
Robson, C. (2011) Real World Research, 3rd edn., Cornwall: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Rose, M. (2004) ‘Democratizing Information and Communication by Implementing EGovernment in Indonesian Regional Government’, The International Information, Vol.
36, No. 3, pp. 219 – 226.
Sanford, C. & Rose, J. (2007) ‘Characterizing eParticipation’, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 406 – 421.
90
Schneider, H. (1999) ‘Participator Governance: The Missing Link for Poverty
Reduction’, in Policy Brief No. 17, OECD Development Centre, Paris.
Scott, M., DeLone, W. & Golden, W. (2011) ‘IT Quality and E-Government Net
Benefits: A Citizen Perspective’, in ECIS 2011 Proceedings, Paper 87.
Sedera, D. & Tan, F. (2005) ‘User Satisfaction: An Overarching Measure of Enterprise
System Success’, in the Proceedings of PACIS 2005, pp. 963-976.
Shareef, M.A., Archer, N. & Dwivedi, Y.K. (2012) ‘Examining Adoption Behavior of
Mobile Government’, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 39
– 49.
Sharma, S.K. & Gupta, J.N.D. (2004) ‘Web Services Architecture for M-Government:
Issues and Challenges’, Electronic Government, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 462 – 474.
Snellen, I. & Thaens, M. (2008) ‘From E-Government to M-Government: Towards a
New Paradigm in Public Administration?’ in Administrative Innovation, International
Context and Growth, Formez, Gianni Reasearch, pp. 1 – 33.
Song, G. (2005) ‘Transcending e-Government: A Case of Mobile Government in
Beijing’, in The First European Conference on Mobile Government, Sussex, July.
Song, G., & Cornford, T. (2006) ‘Mobile Government: Towards a Service Paradigm’,
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on e-Government, University of
Pittsburgh, USA, pp. 208-218.
Statstutor (2014) Spearman’s Correlation, Loughborough University, Coventry
University, Sigma Networks [Online], Available:
http://www.statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/spearmans.pdf [Access: 24 August
2014].
Straub, D.W. (1989) ‘Validating Instruments in MIS Research’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13,
No. 2, pp. 147-169.
91
Suara Merdeka. (2006) Indosat Launch the First Mobile Government in Balikpapan,
Suara Merdeka [Online], Available:
http://www.suaramerdeka.com/cybernews/harian/0603/10/nas4.htm [Accessed: 30 July
2014].
Sun, L. (2009) ‘A Study on E-Government Success Framework Based on IS Success
Model’, in the 1st International Conference on Information Science and Engineering,
pp. 2255 – 2258.
Susanto, T. D. & Goodwin, R. (2010) ‘Factors Influencing Citizen Adoption of SMSbased eGovernment Services’, Electronic Journal of E-Government, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.
55-71.
Symonds, M. (2000) ‘Survey: Government and the Internet: The next revolution: After
E-Commerce Get Ready for E-Government’, The Economist, 24 June.
Teo, T. S., Srivastava, S., & Jiang, L. (2008) ‘Trust and Electronic Government
Success: An Empirical Study’, Journal of Management Information System, Vol. 25,
No. 3, pp. 99 – 131.
The World Bank (1996) Government that Works: Reforming the Public Sector,
Bangladesh, South Asia Region, World Bank.
The World Bank (2011) Definition of E-Government, The World Bank Group [Online],
Available:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDC
OMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/EXTEGOVERNMENT/0,,contentMDK:20
507153~menuPK:702592~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:702586,00.html
[Accessed: 15 May 2014].
The World Bank (2013) What is Demand For Good Governance (DFGG)? The World
Bank Group [Online], Available:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORAND
GOVERNANCE/0,,contentMDK:23379111~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:
286305,00.html [Accessed: 18 June 2014].
92
TKTI (2001) Five-year Action Plan for the Development and Implementation of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Indonesia, Indonesian
Telematics Coordinating Team, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Trimi, S. & Sheng, H. (2008) ‘Emerging Trends in M-Government’, Communications of
the ACM, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 53 – 58.
Turner, M. & Hulme, D. (1997) Governance, Administration and Development: Making
the State Work, London: Macmillan Press Limited.
Uddin, M.J. & Joya, L.A. (2007) ‘Development Through Good Governance: Lessons
for Developing Countries’, Asian Affairs, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 1 – 28.
UN (2005) Global E-Government Readiness Report 2005: From E-Government to
Inclusion, New York: United Nations Publication.
UN (2007) Towards Participatory and Transparent Governance: Reinventing
Government, New York: United Nations Publication.
UN (2008) UN E-Government Survey 2008: From E-Government to Connected
Governance, New York: United Nations Publication.
UN (2010) United Nations E-Government Survey 2010: Leveraging E-Government at a
Time of Financial and Economic Crisis, New York: United Nations Publication.
UN (2012) United Nations E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People,
New York: United Nations Publication.
UN (2014) Indonesia e-Government Development Index, United Nations [Online],
Available: http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/ProfileCountry.aspx?ID=78 [Accessed: 26 May
2014].
UNDESA (2013) Measuring and Evaluating e-Participation (METEP): Assessment of
Readiness at the Country Level, United Nations Development of Economics and Social
Affairs [Online], Available:
93
http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/METEP%20framework_18%20Jul
_MOST%20LATEST%20Version.pdf [Accessed: 23 June 2014].
UNESCAP (2009) What is Good Governance, United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Thailand.
Veenstra, A.F., Janssen, M. & Boon, A. (2011) ‘Measure to Improve: A Study of
eParticipation in Fontrunner Dutch Municipalities’, in Electronic Participation,
Efthimios T., Ann M., Hans de B. (eds.), Springer, Netherland, pp. 157 – 168.
Waheduzzaman (2007) 'Conceptualising People’s Participation for Good Governance',
paper presented in 21st ANZAM (Australia New Zealand Academy of Management)
Conference, Sydney, Australia, 4-7 December 2007.
Waheduzzaman (2008) ‘Good Governance in Democratic Developing Countries: A
Paradox’, University of Management, Melbourne, Australia.
Wahid, F. (2008) ‘Evaluating Focus and Quality of Indonesian e-Government
Websites’, in Proceedings of the National Seminar on Application of Information
Technology, Yogyakarta, pp. 39-43.
Wang, Y.S. & Liao, Y.W. (2008) ‘Assessing eGovernment Systems Success: A
Validation of the DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success’,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 717 – 733.
Welch, E. W., & Hinnant, C. C. (2003), ‘Internet Use, Transparency, and Interactivity
Effects on Trust in Government’, in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 7-13.
Welch, E. W., & Pandey, S. K. (2007) ‘E-government and Bureaucracy: Toward a
Better Understanding of Intranet Implementation and Its Effect on Red Tape’, Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 379-404.
Whitaker, G.P. (1980) ‘Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery’, Public
Administration Review, pp. 240–246.
94
Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S.G. (2009) Research Methods in Education, 9th edn., United
State of America: Pearson.
Xiaoni, Z., & Prybutok, V. (2005) ‘A Consumer Perspective of E-Service Quality’,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 461-477.
Yanqing, G. (2010) ‘E-Government: Definition, Goals, Benefits and Risks’, in
International Conference on Management and Service Science, pp. 1 – 4.
Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., United States of
America: SAGE.
Zalesak, M. (2004) ‘M-Government: More Than a Mobilized Government’, Web
Project Ltd.
95
APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRE
Item
Code
SQ
SQ1
SQ2
SQ3
SQ4
SQ5
SQ6
Questions
System Quality
LAPOR! is easy to use
LAPOR! is user-friendly
LAPOR! less likely to have problems or fail to use
LAPOR! has good security mechanism (i.e. privacy
and personal data protection)
LAPOR! has good functionalities in facilitating
problems or aspirations reporting to government
S
D
D
Q
D
Q
A
A
S
A
Item
Code
C
C1
C2
TM
TM1
TM2
LAPOR! has fast response time (i.e. SMS sending
time/loading time)
LAPOR! has good feedback mechanism
Further Comment on System Quality
TM3
IQ
Information Quality
CV2
IQ1
Information provided by LAPOR! is accurate
CV3
IQ2
IQ3
Information provided by LAPOR! is up-to-date
LAPOR! provides sufficient information
P
P1
IQ4
Through LAPOR!, I get the information I need in
time
Further Comment on Information Quality
Service Quality
P2
SQ7
SvQ
SvQ1
CV
CV1
CM
CM1
Cost
Using LAPOR! saves me money
I value the cost savings from using LAPOR!
Time
Using LAPOR! saves me time
LAPOR! provides a quicker response to my
report/question/request than other means (e.g. offline
interaction)
Using LAPOR! enables me to avoid having to deal
directly with government staff
Convenience
It is important that I can report problems or
aspirations around the clock by using LAPOR!
It is important that I can report problems or
aspirations from a number of different locations by
using LAPOR!
LAPOR! allows me to terminate what I am doing at
any time
Personalisation
I am able to personalise the services offered by
LAPOR!
I value the personalised services offered by LAPOR!
Communication
Using LAPOR! is an efficient way of
communicating with government
Using LAPOR! is an effective way of
communicating with government
EIR
Ease of Information Retrieval
SvQ3
Every time I want to report problems or provide
aspirations to government, LAPOR! is always
ready to help me
LAPOR! is dependable by giving accurate and
consistent services in the process of reporting
problems or providing aspirations to government
LAPOR! provides services at the times it promises
EIR1
SvQ4
LAPOR! assures me for its services (facilitating
EIR2
LAPOR! contains a lot of useful information about
issues around national development/public services
LAPOR! helps me to understand more about issues
SvQ2
CM2
Questions
S
D
D
Q
D
Q
A
A
S
A
SvQ5
US
US1
US2
problems or aspirations reporting to government)
LAPOR! is designed with citizens’ best interests at
heart
Further Comment on Service Quality
User Satisfaction
I am satisfied with LAPOR! in facilitating my need
to interact with government
I am satisfied with LAPOR! in facilitating my need
to participate in government activities
EIR3
T
T1
T2
T3
US3
Overall, I am satisfied with LAPOR!
T4
UIU
Further Comment on User Satisfaction
Use/Intention to Continual Use
WI
W1
The frequency of use with LAPOR! is high (it is
considered high if your frequency of access is
‘weekly’ for each reporting activity and not
included access for checking feedback)
I intend continue to use LAPOR! for reporting any
problems or aspirations to government
I intend to recommend LAPOR! to my
friends/family so that they can also participate to
report problems or aspirations related to national
development/public services to government
I am dependent on LAPOR! every time I want to
report problems or provide aspirations to
government
Further Comment on Use/Intention to Continual
Use
SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, QD=Quite Disagree, QA=Quite Agree
A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree
W2
UIU1
UIU2
UIU3
UIU4
around national development/public services
LAPOR! answers any queries I might have about
issues around national development/public services
Trust
I feel that LAPOR! acts in citizens’ best interests
I feel comfortable interacting with LAPOR! since it
generally fulfills its duties efficiently
I always feel confident that I can rely on LAPOR! to
do its part on relaying my reports/aspirations to
government
I am comfortable relying on LAPOR! to report
problems/aspirations to government
Well-informedness
LAPOR! increases my understanding of issues
around national development/public services
LAPOR! enables me to build up knowledge about
issues that are important to me
PDM
Participate in Decision Making
PDM1
LAPOR! allows me to have my say about issues
around national development/public services
PDM2
LAPOR! enhances my feeling of being part of an
active democracy in Indonesia
PDM3
LAPOR! makes me feel that government listens to
me
LAPOR! makes me feel that I am being consulted
about important issues around national
development/public services
Further Comment on Perceived Benefits
PDM4
97
APPENDIX B – MAIN INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
System Quality
1. What do you think about system quality of LAPOR! (SMS and/or mobile
application) in terms of ease of use, friendliness, system reliability, security,
functionality, response time, or feedback mechanism?
2. In your opinion, what needs to be improved in terms of system quality?
Information Quality
1. What do you think about information quality of LAPOR! (SMS and/or mobile
application) in terms of accuracy, currency, content relevance, completeness, or
timeliness?
2. In your opinion, what needs to be improved in terms of information quality?
Service Quality
1. What do you think about service quality of LAPOR! (SMS and/or mobile
application) in terms of tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, or
empathy?
2. In your opinion, what needs to be improved in terms of service quality?
User Satisfaction
1. Has LAPOR! been able to meet your needs, as a government employee, to
interact with the citizens?
2. Has LAPOR! been able to increase citizen participation in government activities
to establish good governance as expected?
3. Overall, are you satisfied with LAPOR!?
Benefits
1. What are benefits gained from LAPOR! for citizens?
APPENDIX C – LIST OF INTERVIEWEE
No
Date
Role
Activity
Media
1.
11/07/2014 LAPOR! Manager A Content validity and readability
Email
2.
11/07/2014 LAPOR! Developer
Content validity and readability
Email
3.
15/07/2014 LAPOR! Manager A Content validity and readability
Email
4.
17/07/2014 LAPOR! Manager A Interview about LAPOR!
Email
5.
12/08/2014 LAPOR! Manager B Interview about LAPOR!
Skype
Main Interview Questions
6.
12/08/2014 LAPOR! Developer
Interview about LAPOR!
Skype
Main Interview Questions
99
APPENDIX D - LIST OF POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Policy/Regulation
Presidential Instruction
Institution
GoI
No.6/2001
Description
ICT development and usability in Indonesia
governance
Five-Year Action Plan 2001
TKTI
ICT action plan
Presidential Instruction
GoI
National policy and strategy for e-government
No.3/2003
development
E-Government Blueprint 2004
MCIT
Blueprint for central and regional government
Ministerial Decree
MCIT
Infrastructure development for government
No.55/2003
Ministerial Decree
portal guideline
MCIT
No.56/2003
Ministerial Regulation
Electronic document management system
guideline
MCIT
No.23/2006
Domain name .go.id for official websites of
central and regional governments
Law No.11/2008
GoI
Electronic information and transaction
Government Regulation
GoI
Systems and electronic transaction management
GoI
UKP4 and its functions
GoI
Changes of Government Regulation
No.82/2012
Government Regulation
No.54/2009
Government Regulation
No.10/2012
No.54/2009
Law No.14/2008
GoI
Public information disclosure
Information Commission
Information
Public information service standard
Regulation No.1/2010
Commission
Law No.25/2009
GoI
Public services
Law No.25/2004
GoI
National Development Planning System
Law No.17/207
GoI
Long-term National Development Plan
Government Regulation
GoI
Implementation stages, compilation procedure,
No.8/2008
control, and evaluation of regional development
plan
100