Keywords
population administration
digital divide
process tracing
e-government
How to Cite
Abstract
This study traces information technology policy innovation in a provincial population administration office undergoing institutional transition and identifies the causal mechanisms explaining uneven adoption. A qualitative process-tracing design following Bennett and Checkel was conducted at the Kemendukbangga/BKKBN Provincial Office of Bengkulu, Indonesia, from January to April 2026. Three purposively selected key informants representing strategic, operational and technical perspectives were interviewed. Approximately 45,000 words of verbatim transcripts were analysed through open, axial and selective coding and triangulated with institutional performance reports for 2019-2024. Four interlocking mechanisms emerged: a centralised regulatory mandate as the initiation driver; data exclusivity as coercive enforcement replacing voluntary persuasion; an intergenerational digital divide as the dominant organisational barrier; and single-server instability as the main technical constraint on user satisfaction. The single-case design and three internal informants support analytical rather than statistical generalisation. The study provides process-sensitive guidance for public agencies implementing national information systems during structural reorganisation. It offers a process-tracing account of technology policy innovation in Indonesian population administration during institutional transition.
References
Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2016). Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.003
Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (2014). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858472
BKKBN Provinsi Bengkulu. (2024). Laporan kinerja BKKBN/Kemendukbangga Bengkulu 2024. BKKBN Representative Office of Bengkulu Province.
Criado, J. I., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438-450. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178
Criado, J. I., & Villodre, J. (2021). Public employee knowledge-sharing behaviours in digital government implementations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(9), 2170-2200. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2020-0588
Dada, D. (2006). The failure of e-government in developing countries: A literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 26(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00176.x
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.02.001
Heeks, R. (2012). Implementing and managing eGovernment: An international text. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446220191
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.007
Margetts, H., & Dorobantu, C. (2019). Rethink government with AI. Nature, 568(7751), 163-165. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01099-5
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Social Science Open Access Repository.
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Mergel, I., Gong, Y., & Bertot, J. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 291-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.04.003
Presiden Republik Indonesia. (2018). Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 95 Tahun 2018 tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of e-government: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Vogl, T. M., Seidelin, C., Ganesh, B., & Bright, J. (2020). Smart technology and the emergence of algorithmic bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 946-961. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13286
Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Sobhi, F., Shareef, M. A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2013). Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-government adoption. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 716-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.05.001