Keywords
street-level bureaucracy
administrative burden
data governance
workaround
How to Cite
Abstract
This study examines how the gradual accumulation of digital systems, or digital layering, shapes frontline bureaucratic work in family data governance and explains why formal achievement can coexist with a heavy operational burden. A descriptive qualitative case study was conducted at the Kemendukbangga/BKKBN Provincial Office of Bengkulu, Indonesia. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with three purposively selected informants representing leadership, technical implementation, and coordination levels, supported by non-participant observation and analysis of performance accountability documents for 2023-2025. Thematic analysis focused on complexity, fragmentation, and instability. The Family Information System operates within more than twenty digital systems and nine regulatory layers. Complexity creates different perceptions between leaders and implementers; fragmentation requires repeated data matching and tiered coordination; and instability generates digital repair work and informal coping strategies. The single-organisation design and three key informants limit transferability. The study offers governance insights for agencies operating multiple non-integrated digital systems. It applies digital layering to a developing-country public organisation and shows that digitalisation can generate additional administrative burden.
References
Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Bengkulu. (2024). Provinsi Bengkulu dalam angka 2024. Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Bengkulu.
BKKBN Perwakilan Provinsi Bengkulu. (2025). Laporan akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah tahun 2025. Perwakilan BKKBN Provinsi Bengkulu.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity, 23(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170050
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Grøn, C., & Møller, A. M. (2024). Public bureaucracy and digital transformation: Structures, practices and values. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67864-6
Hansen, H. T., Lundberg, K., & Syltevik, L. J. (2018). Digitalization, street-level bureaucracy and welfare users’ experiences. Social Policy and Administration, 52(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12283
Haug, N., Dan, S., & Mergel, I. (2024). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963-1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
Johansson, J. (2025). Research on digital discretion: The subjectification of street-level work in public administration. Review of Policy Research, 42(1), 122-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12637
Kasim, Z. N. R., Aneta, Y., & Mozin, S. Y. (2025). Penerapan e-government melalui aplikasi Sistem Informasi Keluarga (SIGA) di BKKBN Provinsi Gorontalo. Jurnal Riset Rumpun Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Humaniora, 4(1), 633-640. https://doi.org/10.55606/jurrish.v4i1.5161
Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. (2024). Laporan hasil evaluasi Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik tahun 2024. Kementerian PANRB.
Kencono, B. D., Putri, H. H., & Handoko, T. W. (2024). Transformasi pemerintahan digital: Tantangan dalam perkembangan sistem pemerintahan berbasis elektronik di Indonesia. JIIP - Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 7(2), 1498-1506. https://doi.org/10.54371/jiip.v7i2.3519
Landsbergen, D. (2004). Screen level bureaucracy: Databases as public records. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 24-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2003.12.009
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
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Marienfeldt, J. (2024). Does digital government hollow out the essence of street-level bureaucracy? A systematic literature review. Social Policy and Administration, 58(5), 831-855. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12991
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
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Møller, A. M. (2025). Inside the digital state: Frontline work in the context of digital layering. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35(2), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf001
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022
Peeters, R. (2023). Digital administrative burdens: An agenda for analyzing the citizen experience of digital bureaucratic encounters. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 6(1), 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac024
Peeters, R., & Widlak, A. (2018). The digital cage: Administrative exclusion through information architecture. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.02.003
Schou, J., & Hjelholt, M. (2018). Digitalization and public sector transformations. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76291-3
Schou, J., & Pors, A. S. (2019). Digital by default? A qualitative study of exclusion in digitalised welfare. Social Policy and Administration, 53(3), 464-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12470
Tummers, L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099-1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056