Digital Transformation in Service Performance Evaluation: A Study of the Public Satisfaction Index at the Medan Baru Sub-district Office
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61455/sicopus.v3i02.327Keywords:
public satisfaction index, public services, digital form, performance, evaluationAbstract
Objective: The importance of digital transformation in public bureaucracy to improve the quality of fast, transparent, and participatory services. This study aims to analyze the level of public satisfaction with public services at the Medan Baru Sub-district Office through the use of digital forms as the main instrument for measuring the Public Satisfaction Index (IKM) during the period 2022 to 2024. Theoretical framework: The theoretical framework in this study is based on the concept of public service, measuring the Public Satisfaction Index (IKM), and the use of digital technology as a form of transformation of responsive and participatory service governance. Literature review: Public Satisfaction Index (IKM), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Digitalization of Public Services. Methods: This study uses a descriptive quantitative approach with a survey technique through a digital form (Google Form) distributed to service users. The data collected is analyzed to see the trend of changes in IKM values and identify factors driving the increase or obstacles faced in service. Results: The results of the study show a positive trend in the average IKM from year to year, namely 3.45 in 2022, increasing to 3.60 in 2023, and reaching 3.72 in 2024, all of which are in the "Very Good" category. This increase was driven by improvements in service speed, ease of digital procedures, quality of officers, and strengthening of facilities and infrastructure that are responsive to community aspirations. However, there are still some notes for improvement such as limited supporting facilities and the need for further digital innovation. Implications: This study provides a practical contribution for sub-district-level policymakers in designing more adaptive service strategies based on community needs, and opens up space for further research related to sustainable technology-based public performance measurement. Novelty: This finding is reinforced by the theory of digital public services and the principles of good governance, and shows that community participation and bureaucratic responsiveness play an important role in increasing satisfaction.
References
D. Lanin and N. Hermanto, “The effect of service quality toward public satisfaction and public trust on local government in Indonesia,” Int. J. Soc. Econ., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 377–392, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-04-2017-0151.
I. Beeri, U. Anna, and E. and Vigoda-Gadot, “Does Performance Management Relate to Good Governance? A Study of Its Relationship with Citizens’ Satisfaction with and Trust in Israeli Local Government,” Public Perform. Manag. Rev., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 241–279, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1436074.
S. S. Krisno, “Transformation of Bureaucratic Digital Services Through the Salaman Application At the Bandung City Population and Civil Registration Office,” J. Ilm. Wahana Bhakti Praja, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 113–127, 2023, https://doi.org/10.33701/jiwbp.v13i2.3714.
A. Haleem, M. Javaid, M. A. Qadri, and R. Suman, “Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review,” Sustain. Oper. Comput., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 275–285, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004.
D. Choukaier, “Enhancing English As A Foreign Language ( EFL ) Instruction Through Digital Teaching Platforms : Analyzing The Impact Of Microsoft Teams, Zoom, And Google Meet On Communication And Participation,” Educ. Adm. Theory Pract., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 2404–2418, 2024, https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i6.5748.
Jihan, B. Ismaya, M. S. Kurdi, N. Sudarwati, and M. S. Kurdi, “Permasalahan dan Tantangan Pendidikan Islam Modern di Tengah Era Digitalisasi,” Edukasi Islam. J. Pendidik. Islam, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2131–2140, 2023, https://doi.org/10.30868/ei.v12i03.4472.
M. R. Amalia, “The Impact of Digital Era 4.0 Transformation on Human Resources Management,” Manag. Stud. Bus. J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 89–98, 2024, https://doi.org/10.62207/9btfqx28.
N. Marangunić and A. Granić, “Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013,” Univers. Access Inf. Soc., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 81–95, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.
V. Braun, C. Victoria, B. Elicia, D. Louise, and C. and McEvoy, “The online survey as a qualitative research tool,” Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 641–654, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550.
M. P. Rodríguez Bolívar, “User-Centric Services Under the Web 2.0 Era. Coproduction, Execution, and Efficiency of Public Services,” in User Centric E-Government: Challenges and Opportunities, S. Saeed, T. Ramayah, and Z. Mahmood, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59442-2_8.
A. A. Odebode and O. T. Ogunbayo, “The potential of digital-based technology in improving organizational performance,” J. Manag. Dev., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 96–106, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-04-2024-0145.
W. Sardjono, Maryani, Sarim, and I. Kusumawardhana, “Digital Literacy Performance Measurement Model for Developing Tourism Potential of Pramuka Island Seribu Islands - DKI Jakarta,” in 2024 10th International Conference on Smart Computing and Communication (ICSCC), 2024, pp. 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSCC62041.2024.10690599.
S. Colbran, A. Gilding, and S. Colbran, “The role of digital flashcards in legal education: theory and potential,” Eur. J. Law Technol., vol. 5, no. 1, 2014.
A. M. Amiri, B. P. Kushwaha, and R. Singh, “Visualisation of global research trends and future research directions of digital marketing in small and medium enterprises using bibliometric analysis,” J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 621–641, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-04-2022-0206.
I. P. P. Salmon, M. Tawil, Y. P. Tawil, and G. M. Rahmarini, “Public Services, Public Acceptance, and Satisfaction: Macro Evaluation of Government Services in Sigi Regency,” J. Gov., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 117–134, 2021, https://doi.org/10.31506/jog.v6i1.10831.
B. A. Cigler, “Government Reinvention,” in Public Productivity Handbook, CRC Press, 2004.
P. Fehér and Z. Szabó, “Digitalization in the Public Sector Findings of a Hungarian Survey,” in 2018 12th International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information Management & Applications (SKIMA), 2018, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/SKIMA.2018.8631534.
B. C. Crosby, ‘t Hart Paul, and J. and Torfing, “Public value creation through collaborative innovation,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 655–669, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192165.
R. Gruenbichler, J. Klucka, K. Haviernikova, and S. Strelcova, “Business performance management in small and medium-sized enterprises in the Slovak republic: An integrated three-phase-framework for implementation,” J. Compet., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 42–58, 2021, https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2021.01.03.
S. R. Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” J. Am. Plan. Assoc., vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 24–34, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388.
Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta, 2017.
J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. California: Sage Publications, 2017.
I. Waris, “Quality of Basic Education Services in Donggala Regency, Central Sulawesi Province,” J. Public Adm. Gov., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 130–139, 2022, https://doi.org/10.22487/jpag.v4i2.477.
D. Radovanović et al., “Digital literacy key performance indicators for sustainable development,” Soc. Incl., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 151–167, 2020, https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i2.2587.
J. Trischler and J. and Westman Trischler, “Experience design – a public service design approach in the age of digitalization,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1251–1270, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1899272.
O. Ebhote and O. J. A. Nkebem, “Service delivery and customer satisfaction in the Nigerian shipping industry,” Int. J. Bus. Forecast. Mark. Intell., vol. 5, no. 4, p. 450, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBFMI.2019.105344.
G. Misuraca, C. Codagnone, and P. Rossel, “From Practice to Theory and Back to Practice: Reflexivity in Measurement and Evaluation for Evidence-based Policy Making in the Information Society,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 30, pp. S68–S82, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.011.
S. C. Goh, “Making performance measurement systems more effective in public sector organizations,” Meas. Bus. Excell., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 31–42, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041211204653.
A. I. Melo and L. F. Mota, “Public sector reform and the state of performance management in Portugal: is there a gap between performance measurement and its use?,” Int. J. Public Sect. Manag., vol. 33, no. 6/7, pp. 613–627, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-12-2019-0325.
M. Kuziemski and G. Misuraca, “AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings,” Telecomm. Policy, vol. 44, no. 6, p. 101976, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101976.
A. Jääskeläinen et al., “Designing a maturity model for analyzing information and knowledge management in the public sector,” VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 120–140, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-01-2020-0017.
H. Sofyani, R. Hosam Alden, and H. and Fahlevi, “Improving service quality, accountability and transparency of local government: The intervening role of information technology governance,” Cogent Bus. Manag., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 1735690, Jan. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1735690.
S. Saxena, “Factors influencing perceptions on corruption in public service delivery via e-government platform,” Foresight, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 628–646, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-05-2017-0013.
J. R. Gil-Garcia and M. Á. Flores-Zúñiga, “Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital government success: Integrating implementation and adoption factors,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 37, no. 4, p. 101518, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101518.
M. Talwar, L. Corazza, R. Bodhi, and A. Malibari, “Why do consumers resist digital innovations? An innovation resistance theory perspective,” Int. J. Emerg. Mark., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 4327–4342, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-03-2022-0529.
A. Ferrari et al., “Drivers, barriers and impacts of digitalization in rural areas from the viewpoint of experts,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 145, p. 106816, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106816.
B. Kiyak and N. and Karkin, “Job characteristics and public service motivation among highly-qualified public employees,” Asia Pacific J. Public Adm., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 316–333, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2022.2118801.
F. Stalde, Manuel Castells: The Theory of the Network Society. Malden: Polity Press, 2006.
W. M. Al-Rahmi et al., “Integrating Technology Acceptance Model With Innovation Diffusion Theory: An Empirical Investigation on Students’ Intention to Use E-Learning Systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 26797–26809, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899368.
J. V. Denhardt and R. B. Denhardt, “The new public service revisited,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 664–672, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12347.
B. Yoon, “The Role of Civil Service and the Human Resource Management Policies Required for the Government of the Future,” in Public Service Excellence in the 21st Century, A. Baimenov and P. Liverakos, Eds., Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 169–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3215-9_6.
