Stakeholder dynamics in local digital governance: evaluating public complaint system in Pekanbaru, Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26618/7bv5c796Keywords:
stakeholder evaluation, innovation, e-government, public complaintsAbstract
This study evaluates stakeholder dynamics in the implementation of Pekan Kita (PEKA), a digital innovation for public complaints in Pekanbaru City, Indonesia. Using a qualitative approach and a modified Stakeholder Salience Model, the research analyzes the interaction between stakeholder attributes power, legitimacy, and urgency and institutional structures affecting the sustainability of digital public innovations. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, observations, and document analysis involving 16 key informants from policy, operational, and community levels. Findings reveal that although several actors possess formal authority and legitimacy, their sense of urgency remains low due to rigid bureaucratic incentives, sectoral egos, and weak cross-agency coordination. Conversely, citizens demonstrate high urgency but lack institutional power and recognition, marginalizing their role in digital governance. The study identifies seven strategic pillars for sustainable innovation: strengthening cross-agency coordination, redesigning bureaucratic incentives, enhancing citizen co-creation, enabling two-way communication, managing inter-actor conflict, building human capacity and infrastructure, and reformulating the role of the ICT agency as an innovation orchestrator. This research contributes to the theoretical development of stakeholder analysis in e-government by revising the classic salience model to include informal power, bureaucratic incentives, and symbolic local political leadership. The proposed model offers a more contextual and dynamic framework for understanding the complexities of digital transformation in developing-country bureaucracies.
References
Abdullah, A. D. A., Chan, C. M. L., & Lim, S. A. (2016). Developing an E-government training program: A stakeholder approach. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 12(3), 37–54.
Agostino, D., Saliterer, I., & Steccolini, I. (2022). Digitalization, accounting and accountability: A literature review and reflections on future research in public services. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(2), 152–176.
Arduini, D., Belotti, F., Denni, M., Giungato, G., & Zanfei, A. (2010). Technology adoption and innovation in public services the case of e-government in Italy. Information Economics and Policy, 22(3), 257–275.
Ashaye, O. R., & Irani, Z. (2019a). The role of stakeholders in the effective use of e-government resources in public services. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 253–270.
Ashaye, O. R., & Irani, Z. (2019b). The role of stakeholders in the effective use of e-government resources in public services. International Journal of Information Management, 49(April), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.016
Balkin, J. M. (2017). Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society. In Law and Society approaches to cyberspace (pp. 325–382). Routledge.
Balogun, A.-L., Marks, D., Sharma, R., Shekhar, H., Balmes, C., Maheng, D., Arshad, A., & Salehi, P. (2020). Assessing the potentials of digitalization as a tool for climate change adaptation and sustainable development in urban centres. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101888.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
Brewer, B. (2007). Citizen or customer? Complaints handling in the public sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(4), 549–556.
Broekhuis, M., Weering, M. D., Schuit, C., Schürz, S., & van Velsen, L. (2021). Designing a stakeholder-inclusive service model for an eHealth service to support older adults in an active and social life. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 654. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06597-9
Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Battaglio, R. P. (2019). Dispositional and organizational sources of job satisfaction: a cross-national study. Public Management Review, 21(8), 1101–1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1544274
Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2019). Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101409. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
de Magalhães Santos, L. G. (2023). Dynamic Capabilities and Digital Transformation in Public Sector: Evidence from Brazilian Case Study BT - Electronic Government (I. Lindgren, C. Csáki, E. Kalampokis, M. Janssen, G. Viale Pereira, S. Virkar, E. Tambouris, & A. Zuiderwijk (eds.); pp. 365–380). Springer Nature Switzerland.
Do Manh, T., Dang, D., Falch, M., Tran Minh, T., & Vu Phi, T. (2023a). The role of stakeholders and their relationships in the sustainability of telecentres. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance , 25(2), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-05-2022-0042
Do Manh, T., Dang, D., Falch, M., Tran Minh, T., & Vu Phi, T. (2023b). The role of stakeholders and their relationships in the sustainability of telecentres. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 25(2), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-05-2022-0042
Einwiller, S. A., & Steilen, S. (2015). Handling complaints on social network sites–An analysis of complaints and complaint responses on Facebook and Twitter pages of large US companies. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 195–204.
Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114–127.
Fred, Mats, & Mukhtar-Landgren, Dalia. (2024). Promoting public sector innovation: who does what, when and how? Public Policy and Administration, 09520767241271848. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241271848
Greger, V., Balta, D., Wolf, P., & Krcmar, H. (2014). Analyzing stakeholders in complex E-government projects: towards a stakeholder interaction model. Electronic Government: 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2014, Dublin, Ireland, September 1-3, 2014. Proceedings 13, 194–205.
Gupta, A., & Bansal, M. (2022). Evaluation and Ranking of E-Government Websites Using Weighted-Combinative Distance-Based Assessment Approach. International Journal of Software Innovation (IJSI), 10(1), 1–15.
Hardy, K., & Maurushat, A. (2017). Opening up government data for Big Data analysis and public benefit. Computer Law & Security Review, 33(1), 30–37.
Kalbaska, N., Janowski, T., Estevez, E., & Cantoni, L. (2017). When digital government matters for tourism: a stakeholder analysis. Information Technology & Tourism, 17, 315–333.
Kaya, T., Sağsan, M., Medeni, T., Medeni, T., & Yıldız, M. (2020). Qualitative analysis to determine decision-makers’ attitudes towards e-government services in a De-Facto state. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 18(4), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-05-2019-0052
Khan, A., & Krishnan, S. (2019). Conceptualizing the impact of corruption in national institutions and national stakeholder service systems on e-government maturity. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 23–36.
Knox, S., Marin-Cadavid, C., & Oziri, V. (2025). Stakeholder engagement-as-practice in public sector innovation. International Public Management Journal, 28(1), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2024.2423952
Kumar, R., Sachan, A., & Mukherjee, A. (2017). Qualitative approach to determine user experience of e-government services. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.023
Lindquist, E. A., & Huse, I. (2017). Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital‐era governance. Canadian Public Administration, 60(4), 627–656.
Lytras, M. D., & Şerban, A. C. (2020). E-Government Insights to Smart Cities Research: European Union (EU) Study and the Role of Regulations. IEEE Access, 8, 65313–65326. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982737
Manar, Dzunuwanus Ghulam, & Alfirdaus, L. K. (2023). Analisis Kegagalan Inovasi Pemerintah Daerah. POLITIKA" Jurnal Ilmu Politik, 14(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.14710/politika.14.1.2023.18-30
Manar, Dzunuwwanus Ghulam, & Alfirdaus, L. K. (2023). No Title. Politika: Jurnal Ilmu Politik; Vol 14, No 1 (2023)DO - 10.14710/Politika.14.1.2023.18-30 . https://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/politika/article/view/50069
Marche, S., & McNiven, J. D. (2003a). E-government and e-governance: The future isn’t what it used to be. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2003.tb00306.x
Marche, S., & McNiven, J. D. (2003b). E‐government and e‐governance: the future isn’t what it used to be. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 20(1), 74–86.
Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010
Mergel, I., & Desouza, K. C. (2013). Implementing open innovation in the public sector: The case of Challenge. gov. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 882–890.
Midin, M., Joseph, C., & Mohamed, N. (2017). Promoting societal governance: Stakeholders’ engagement disclosure on Malaysian local authorities’ websites. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1672–1683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.122
Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. In The People vs. Democracy. Harvard University Press.
Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005
Ngonzi, T., & Sewchurran, K. (2019). User-stakeholders’ responsiveness: A necessary input for achieving in e-governance transformation in developing countries. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 85(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12107
Nicolaou, C. (2021). Qualitative Methods Research Through the Internet Applications and Services: The Contribution of Audiovisual Media Technology as Technology-Enhanced Research. International Research in Higher Education, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v6n1p1
Pleger, L. E., Mertes, A., Rey, A., & Brüesch, C. (2020). Allowing users to pick and choose: A conjoint analysis of end-user preferences of public e-services. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101473. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101473
Rose, J., Flak, L. S., & Sæbø, Ø. (2018a). Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.06.005
Rose, J., Flak, L. S., & Sæbø, Ø. (2018b). Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 362–374.
Rose, J., Flak, L. S., & Sæbø, Ø. (2018c). Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 362–374. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.06.005
Santarius, T., Dencik, L., Diez, T., Ferreboeuf, H., Jankowski, P., Hankey, S., Hilbeck, A., Hilty, L. M., Höjer, M., & Kleine, D. (2023). Digitalization and sustainability: a call for a digital green deal. Environmental Science & Policy, 147, 11–14.
Saputra, O. A., Nugroho, A., Tholibon, D. A., & Salam, R. (2025). Cross-Institutional Digitalisation and the Digi-Service Bubble Pitfalls in Public Sector Transformation in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy, 6(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.46507/jcgpp.v6i1.682
Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Vecchio, P. Del, & De Pascale, G. (2020). Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119917. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119917
Shareef, M. A., Archer, N., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). An empirical investigation of electronic government service quality: from the demand-side stakeholder perspective. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 26(3–4), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.832477
Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 28–41.
Singh, H., Kar, A. K., & Ilavarasan, P. V. (2017). Performance assessment of e-government projects: a multi-construct, multi-stakeholder perspective. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 558–559.
Singh, H., Vigneswara Ilavarasan, P., & Kar, A. K. (2018). Assessing E-Government Project Outcome: A Service Provider’s Perspective. Digital India: Reflections and Practice, 133–145.
Sontiwanich, P., Boonchai, C., & Beeton, R. J. S. (2022). An Unsustainable Smart City: Lessons from Uneven Citizen Education and Engagement in Thailand. Sustainability, 14(20), 13315.
Sulthani, D. A., & Thoifah, I. (2022). Urgency of Stakeholders in Improving the Quality of Education. Riwayat: Educational Journal of History and Humanities, 5(2), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.24815/jr.v5i2.27600
Sun, Y., Ji, M., Jin, F., & Wang, H. (2021). Public responses to air pollution in Shandong Province using the online complaint data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), 126.
Sundberg, L. (2019a). Electronic government: Towards e-democracy or democracy at risk? Safety Science, 118(April), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.030
Sundberg, L. (2019b). Electronic government: Towards e-democracy or democracy at risk? Safety Science, 118, 22–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.030
Van Kersbergen, K., & Van Waarden, F. (2009). ‘Governance’as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. In European Corporate Governance (pp. 64–80). Routledge.
Wood, D. J., Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Bryan, L. M. (2021). Stakeholder Identification and Salience After 20 Years: Progress, Problems, and Prospects. Business and Society, 60(1), 196–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318816522
Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y.-C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Otoritas : Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Editorial Team of Otoritas: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan reserves the right to transfer the copyright of the article once it has been accepted and a decision has been made to publish it.
Department of Government Studies, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar in collaboration with Muhammadiyah’s College Association of Government Studies (AIPPTM) and Asia Pacific Society for Public Affairs (APSPA) as the publisher of Otoritas: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan holds the copyright of all articles published in this journal.
The Publisher holds the right to reproduce and distribute the article and author is not allowed to publish the same article published in this journal.
Statement of Authenticity and Manuscript Copyright can be downloaded: here
After filling in the statement letter, please send via e-mail: otoritas@unismuh.ac.id
