DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION IN PARLIAMENTARY INSTITUTIONS: A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF SRIKANDI IMPLEMENTATION AND ITS IMPACT ON INFORMATION MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Ariawan Ariawan; Triyuni Soemartono; Khasan Effendy; Pandji Sukmana

doi:10.29062/mahardika.v24i1.1420

Penulis

Ariawan Ariawan Prof. Dr. Moestopo University
Triyuni Soemartono Prof. Dr. Moestopo University
Khasan Effendy Prof. Dr. Moestopo University
Pandji Sukmana Prof. Dr. Moestopo University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29062/mahardika.v24i1.1420

Kata Kunci:

Digital Transformation, Parliamentary Institutions, Information Systems Implementation, E-Governance, SRIKANDI

Abstrak

This study examines the implementation of digital transformation policy through the Integrated Dynamic Archival Information System (SRIKANDI) at Indonesia's House of Representatives (DPR RI), employing a comprehensive multi-dimensional analytical framework. Using qualitative methodology with case study design, data were collected through in-depth interviews with 25 key stakeholders, participatory observation over six months, and extensive documentation analysis. The research applies Edward III's policy implementation model, DeLone and McLean's information systems success model, and Lewin's organizational change theory to analyze the complex dynamics of digital transformation in parliamentary institutions. Findings reveal that SRIKANDI implementation achieved significant improvements in archival efficiency (67% reduction in document retrieval time) and transparency (85% increase in digital document accessibility), while facing substantial challenges in organizational culture adaptation and technical infrastructure limitations. The study identifies four critical success factors: leadership commitment intensity, digital literacy enhancement programs, infrastructure robustness, and change management strategies. Results demonstrate that successful digital transformation in legislative institutions requires synchronized alignment of policy frameworks, technological capabilities, organizational readiness, and human resource development. This research contributes to the growing literature on e-governance in developing countries and provides actionable insights for parliamentary digital transformation initiatives globally.

Unduhan

Data unduhan belum tersedia.

Referensi

Anthes, G. (2015). Estonia: a model for e-government. Communications of the ACM, 58(6), 18–20.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.

Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. (2019). Transitions: Making sense of life’s changes. Balance.

Burton-Jones, A., & Straub Jr, D. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 228–246.

Chadwick, A. (2003). Bringing e-democracy back in: Why it matters for future research on e-governance. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 443–455.

Clarke, A., & Francoli, M. (2014). What’s in a name? A comparison of ‘open government’definitions across seven Open Government Partnership members. JeDEM-EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government, 6(3), 248–266.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.

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, 19(4), 9–30.

Edward III, G. C. (1980). Implementing Public Policy, Congressional. Washinton: Quarterly.

Fountain, J. E. (2004). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Rowman & Littlefield.

Gil-García, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187–216.

Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: how can risks be reduced?

Heeks, R. (2005). Implementing and managing eGovernment: an international text.

Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52–61.

Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. In Government information quarterly (Vol. 32, Issue 3, pp. 221–236). Elsevier.

Klievink, B., Romijn, B.-J., Cunningham, S., & de Bruijn, H. (2017). Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 267–283.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Search In.

Leston-Bandeira, C. (2007). The impact of the internet on parliaments: a legislative studies framework. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4), 655–674.

Leston-Bandeira, C., & Thompson, L. (2017). Integrating the view of the public into the formal legislative process: public reading stage in the UK House of Commons. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 23(4), 508–528.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright.).

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.

Norton, P. (2013). Parliament in British politics. Bloomsbury Publishing.

OECD. (2020). Digital government in Chile Improving public service design and delivery. OECD Publishing.

Parliament, E. (2019). Digital transformation strategy 2019-2024. European Parliament.

Parliament, U. (2018). Digital strategy 2018-2022. UK Parliament.

Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B. (1995). Service quality: a measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 173–187.

Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. John Wiley & Sons.

Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538–560.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Systems Practice, 9(1), 27–47.

Seddon, P. B., Staples, S., Patnayakuni, R., & Bowtell, M. (1999). Dimensions of information systems success. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(1), 20.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478.

Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.

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, 25(4), 717–733.

Weerakkody, V., Irani, Z., Lee, H., Hindi, N., & Osman, I. (2016). Are UK citizens satisfied with e-government services? Identifying and testing antecedents of satisfaction. Information Systems Management, 33(4), 331–343.

Williams, M. D., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443–488.

Williamson, A. (2009). MPs online: Connecting with constituents: A study into how mps use digital media to communicate with their constituents. Hansard Society.

Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.