Integrated Interdisciplinary Digital Governance (IIDG): Model Konseptual Reformasi Administrasi Publik di Era Transformasi Digital
Keywords:
Digital governance, public administration reform, digital transformation, interdisciplinary approach, conceptual modelAbstract
Digital transformation has reshaped how governments formulate policies, manage organizations, and deliver public services. However, the literature indicates that digitalization in the public sector continues to face challenges, including system fragmentation, capacity gaps, weak interoperability, and tensions between technological efficiency and core public administration values. This study aims to develop a conceptual model of Integrated Interdisciplinary Digital Governance (IIDG) that explains how technological, social, political, legal, and institutional dimensions interact in public administration reform. The study employs a systematic literature review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 framework and thematic synthesis. The literature was selected from relevant academic publications and institutional reports, with particular emphasis on the 2015–2026 period to capture the development of digital governance scholarship and on 2023–2026 publications to strengthen the contemporary evidence base. A synthesis of 25 core sources identifies four interdisciplinary drivers—technological, social, political, and legal—that operate through a governance core to transform public administration problems into transformation outputs and governance outcomes. The findings indicate that digital transformation cannot be understood merely as a technological project; rather, its success depends on the alignment of organizational capacity, digital leadership, data governance, user participation, and adaptive regulation. Based on this synthesis, the IIDG model integrates five components: Problem Layer, Governance Core, Interdisciplinary Drivers, Transformation Outputs, and Governance Outcomes. The model's novelty lies in explicitly integrating four key drivers into a single conceptual causal chain while linking them to public value, collaboration, and institutional reform.
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Criado, J. I., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2023). Digital government and public sector innovation: Trends and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101914
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117
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
Hadi, I., & Widnyani, I. A. P. S. (2024). Modernization and digitalization of public services: Realizing a Golden Indonesia through harmonization of electronic-based government systems (SPBE). Jurnal Kridatama Sains dan Teknologi, 6(2), 639–658. https://doi.org/10.53863/kst.v6i02.1398
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
Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.
Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30(Suppl. 1), S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001
Kristensen, K., & Andersen, K. N. (2023). C-suite leadership of digital government. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3580000
Lee, J.-Y., Kim, B., & Yoon, S.-H. (2024). A conceptual digital policy framework via mixed-methods approach: Navigating public value for value-driven digital transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3), 101961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101961
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. (2022). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101685
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). OECD digital government index 2023: Results and key findings. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b0f5c0d6-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2026). Digital government outlook 2026: From foundations to transformational impact. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0496b2bc-en
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Røhl, U. B. U., & Hansen, M. B. (2024). Automated, administrative decision-making and good governance: Synergies, trade-offs, and limits. Public Administration Review, 84(6), 1184–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13799
Sugianto, L. P. M., Dahyar, S. S., Saputro, V. S., Aryonindito, S., & Rahmat, K. (2025). Transformasi digital sistem pemerintahan Indonesia: Analisis longitudinal domain SPBE tahun 2018–2024. Journal of Information System, Informatics and Computing, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.52362/jisicom.v9i2.2091
United Nations. (2024). UN e-government survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development. United Nations.
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004
World Bank. (2022). GovTech maturity index 2022: The state of public sector digital transformation. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1897-5
Anjani, R. S., & Abdal, A. (2026). Implementasi kebijakan Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik (SPBE) dalam mendukung transformasi digital pelayanan publik di Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary on Social and Technology, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.69693/ijmst.v4i2.10558
Syam, U. K., Nur’iva, M. I., Rahayu, R., & H. H. (2026). Transformasi New Public Management menuju digital governance: Studi pada Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik. Jurnal Progress Administrasi Publik. https://doi.org/10.37090/73v77r54
OECD. (2024). OECD digital government policy framework and digital government index materials. OECD Publishing.
Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. (2025). Indeks SPBE nasional meningkat: Penguatan integrasi pelayanan publik berbasis digital. Kementerian PANRB.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Niva Sabilah, Afriva Khaidir, M. Fachri Adnan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- Berbagi — menyalin dan menyebarluaskan kembali materi ini dalam bentuk atau format apapun;
- Adaptasi — menggubah, mengubah, dan membuat turunan dari materi ini untuk kepentingan apapun, termasuk kepentingan komersial.




