Institutional Preparedness for Cyberocracy: Digital Capability Transformation in Indonesia's Public Sector

Steven Anthony; Atrika Iriani; Doris Febriyanti; Siti Zubaidah

doi:10.62503/gr.v4i2.91

Authors

Steven Anthony Department of Public Administration, Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia
Atrika Iriani Department of Public Administration, Universitas Sriwijaya, Indonesia
Doris Febriyanti Department of Government Studies, Universitas Indo Global Mandiri, Indonesia
Siti Zubaidah Department of Public Administration, STIA Bala Putra Dewa, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62503/gr.v4i2.91

Keywords:

Cyberocracy, Institutional Preparedness, Digital Capability Transformation, Bureaucratic Fragmentation, Digital Governance

Abstract

This study examines how institutional preparedness facilitates digital capability transformation toward cyberocracy in Indonesia's regional public sector, focusing on the Dinas Komunikasi dan Informatika (Diskominfo) of South Sumatra Province. A qualitative single-case study was conducted. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 purposively selected informants and a systematic analysis of four national and provincial policy and performance documents. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis; NVivo 12 Pro was used to organise and code the data and to produce query-based visualisations of the document corpus. The findings show that cyberocratic transformation is shaped by the interaction between institutional preparedness (leadership commitment, institutional coordination, regulatory support, and institutional adaptation) and digital capability transformation (digital literacy, data governance, technological infrastructure, information governance, and innovation culture). Bureaucratic fragmentation emerged as the most consequential constraint: sectoral data ownership, siloed systems, and unclear mandates turn data integration into a negotiation over authority rather than a technical task. Unequal digital competencies, infrastructure gaps, and governance risks reinforce this constraint. The study conceptualises cyberocracy as an institutional and political transformation rather than a technological advancement and identifies institutional preparedness as the enabling mechanism that links digital capability development with data-driven governance. It contributes empirical evidence from a regional government in a developing country and offers practical implications for strengthening data authority, inter-agency coordination, and regulatory coherence.

References

Adewusi, B. A., Adekunle, B. I., Mustapha, S. D., & Uzoka, A. C. (2024). A conceptual model for responsible AI integration in public-facing digital services and platform governance. International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 10(3), 735–767. https://doi.org/10.32628/cseit2425416

Aminah, S., & Saksono, H. (2021). Digital transformation of the government: A case study in Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 37(2), 272–288. https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2021-3702-17

Anggara, S. (2025). Public policy reform in Indonesia: Navigating bureaucratic culture in the age of disruption. Tec Empresarial, 20(2), 716–728. https://doi.org/10.1229/tecempresarialjournal.v20i2.637

Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Management Review, 23(7), 949–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272

Batara, E., Nurmandi, A., Warsito, T., & Pribadi, U. (2017). Are government employees adopting local e-government transformation? The need for having the right attitude, facilitating conditions and performance expectations. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(4), 612–638. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-09-2017-0056

Bhimavarapu, U. (2025). Smart digital literacy: AI-powered solutions for skill development. In A. Diogo, A. F. Joaquim, & C. V. Almeida (Eds.), Rethinking literacy in the era of sustainability and artificial intelligence (pp. 161–186). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-0725-1.ch006

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021a). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021b). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846

Cyfert, S., Dyduch, W., Szumowski, W., & Prause, G. (2025). Are we ready for digital transformation? The role of organizational culture, leadership and competence in building digital advantage. Central European Management Journal, 33(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-11-2024-0346

Dias, G. P. (2020). Determinants of e-government implementation at the local level: An empirical model. Online Information Review, 44(7), 1307–1326. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2020-0148

Diskominfo Provinsi Sumatera Selatan. (2026). Laporan kinerja instansi pemerintah Dinas Komunikasi dan Informatika Provinsi Sumatera Selatan tahun 2025. Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Selatan. https://esakip.sumselprov.go.id/storage/Files/lainnya_2026_dinas_komunikasi_dan_informatika_v29.pdf

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057

Frandell, A., & Feeney, M. K. (2022). Cybersecurity threats in local government: A sociotechnical perspective. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(8), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740221125432

Franklin, C., & Ballan, M. (2001). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. In B. A. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (pp. 273–292). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986182.n15

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181

Gupta, R., & Pal, S. K. (2021). Introduction to algorithmic government. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0282-5

Hadiz, V. R. (2010). Localising power in post-authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia perspective. Stanford University Press.

Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, Article 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

Kelder, J.-A., Crawford, J., Al Naabi, I., & To, L. (2025). Enhancing digital productivity and capability in higher education through authentic leader behaviors: A cross-cultural structural equation model. Education and Information Technologies, 30(12), 17751–17767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13422-x

Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1987), Article 20120382. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382

Martín, A. G., & Palomo Zurdo, R. J. (2021). Digital inability and social sustainability in the face of the fourth industrial revolution: A proposal of new non-financial indicators. Sustainability, 13(24), Article 13958. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413958

Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002

Nurdin, N., Stockdale, R., & Scheepers, H. (2014). Coordination and cooperation in e-government: An Indonesian local e-government case. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 61(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2014.tb00432.x

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 39 Tahun 2019 tentang Satu Data Indonesia. (2019). Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2019 Nomor 112.

Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 82 Tahun 2023 tentang Percepatan Transformasi Digital dan Keterpaduan Layanan Digital Nasional. (2023). Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2023 Nomor 159.

Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 95 Tahun 2018 tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik. (2018). Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2018 Nomor 182.

Ronfeldt, D. (1992). Cyberocracy is coming. The Information Society, 8(4), 243–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.1992.9960123

Ronfeldt, D., & Varda, D. (2018). The prospects for cyberocracy (revisited). In G. R. Ricci (Ed.), Culture and civilization (Vol. 1, pp. 130–146). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351319720-7

Sahibzada, U. F., Aslam, N., Muavia, M., Shujahat, M., & Rafi-ul-Shan, P. M. (2025). Navigating digital waves: Unveiling entrepreneurial leadership toward digital innovation and sustainable performance in the Chinese IT industry. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 38(2), 474–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2024-0023

Sharmin, S., & Chowdhury, R. H. (2025). Digital transformation in governance: The impact of e-governance on public administration and transparency. Journal of Computer Science and Technology Studies, 7(1), 362–379. https://doi.org/10.32996/jcsts.2025.7.1.27

Sofyani, H., Riyadh, H. A., & Fahlevi, H. (2020). Improving service quality, accountability and transparency of local government: The intervening role of information technology governance. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), Article 1735690. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1735690

Wagola, R., Nurmandi, A., Misran, & Subekti, D. (2023). Government digital transformation in Indonesia. In C. Stephanidis, M. Antona, S. Ntoa, & G. Salvendy (Eds.), HCI International 2023 Posters (Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1836, pp. 286–296). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36001-5_37

Wilson, C., & Mergel, I. (2022). Overcoming barriers to digital government: Mapping the strategies of digital champions. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), Article 101681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101681

Wirtz, B. W., Becker, M., & Langer, P. F. (2023). An integrated model of digital open government. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(13), 951–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2022.2050386

Xing, Q., Miranda, S. M., & Singh, R. (2020). Resource utilization uncertainty reduction in hospitals: The role of digital capability and governance structure. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2020). AIS eLibrary. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2020/is_health/is_health/12

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Yulianto, T., Saleh, C., Noor, I., & Suryadi, S. (2026). Policy implementation in the digital era: A comprehensive analysis of the Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE) in Indonesia. F1000Research, 15, Article 523. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.175463.1