Article Sidebar

Download
PDF

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study develops an innovative hybrid evaluation model that integrates COBIT 5.0 and Fuzzy Logic to analyze CoreTax performance. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 10 respondents through surveys, interviews, and observations, with triangulation to validate the results. The results show a system performance score of 68.5 with a disparity between technical aspects (75.2) and user satisfaction (62.3). The original contribution lies in the development of an Extended Technology Acceptance Model for the mandatory system and a Fuzzy-COBIT integration algorithm that overcomes the limitations of conventional evaluation methods. This model provides a basis for continuous improvement of the CoreTax system.

Keywords

System Evaluation COBIT 5.0 Fuzzy Logic System Performance Coretax

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Pracita, S., Nichen, N., & Sahlan, F. (2025). Development of a System Evaluation Model Based on CobiT 5.0 and Fuzzy Logic to Improve Coretax Performance. Amkop Management Accounting Review (AMAR), 5(2), 1552–1567. https://doi.org/10.37531/amar.v5i2.3370
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adriani, N. (2018). Electronic copy available at : Electronic copy available at : Grou, 23529(2), 1–45.
  2. Ajismanto, F. (2018). Analisis Domain Proses COBIT Framework 5 Pada Sistem Informasi Worksheet (Studi Kasus: Perguruan Tinggi STMIK, Politeknik Palcomtech) Domain Analysis of COBIT Process Framework 5 In Worksheet Information System (Case Study: STMIK College, Palcomtech Polyt. CogITo Smart Journal, 3(2), 207–221. http://www.euniversity.palcomtech.com
  3. Alon, U., Adler, M., Ziglio, E., Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Bruyneel, L., Van den Heede, K., Griffiths, P., Busse, R., Diomidous, M., Kinnunen, J., Kózka, M., Lesaffre, E., McHugh, M. D., Moreno-Casbas, M. T., Rafferty, A. M., Schwendimann, R., Scott, P. A., Tishelman, C., … Oehlmann, J. (2014). BiB – Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung – Startseite. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 14(3), 175. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=potter+AND+learning+needs+of+cancer+patients%5Cnhttp://www.rehabmeasures.org/Lists/RehabMeasures/DispForm.aspx?ID=938%5Cnhttps://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-2012-journal
  4. Amalia Priyantina, R., & Sarno, R. (2018). Measuring Maturity Index of Risk Management for IT-Governance Using Fuzzy Ahp and Fuzzy Topsis. Proceedings - 2018 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication: Creative Technology for Human Life, ISemantic 2018, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEMANTIC.2018.8549732
  5. Azhari, D. S., Afif, Z., Kustati, M., & Sepriyanti, N. (2023). Penelitian Mixed Method Research untuk Disertasi. INNOVATIVE: Journal Social Science Research, 3(2), 8010–8025.
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological., 2, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
  7. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x
  8. Cobo, A., Vanti, A. A., & Blanco, R. R. (2014). A Fuzzy Multicriteria Approach for IT Governance Evaluation. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 11(2), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.4301/s1807-17752014000200003
  9. Collins, S. P., Storrow, A., Liu, D., Jenkins, C. A., Miller, K. F., Kampe, C., & Butler, J. (2021).
  10. Daud, Y. E., Rindengan, Y., & Sentinuwo, S. R. (2021). Penerapan Cobit5 Build, Acquire and Implement Untuk Mengukur Kematangan Dinas Komunikasi Dan Informatika Kota Manado. Jurnal Teknik Elektro Dan Komputer, 1–8.
  11. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use: A Predictive Model for Computer Technology Acceptance.
  12. Direktorat Jendral Pajak. (2023). Laporan Kinerja Direktorat Jendral Pajak Tahun 2023. https://www.pajak.go.id/id/laporan-kinerja-djp-tahun-2023
  13. Dzitac, I., Filip, F. G., & Manolescu, M. J. (2017). Fuzzy logic is not fuzzy: World-renowned computer scientist Lotfi A. Zadeh. International Journal of Computers, Communications and Control, 12(6), 748–789. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2017.6.3111
  14. Fadhilatunisa, D., Fakhri, M. M., Rosidah, Radhiah, & Jannah Raodahtul. (2022). Analisis Aplikasi Pajak (E-Filling Dan E-Billing) Berbasis Technology Acceptance Model (Tam). Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Peradaban, 1(1), 100–120. https://doi.org/10.24252/jiap.v8i1.28714
  15. Fahmi. (2015). Assessment tingkat kapabilitas sumber daya layanan akademik menggunakna kerangka kerja (framework) Cobit 5 Process assessment Model (PAM) : (studi kasus : STIKOM Poltek Cirebon). 64–104.
  16. Gani, B. K., Wahyuni, E. D., & Marthasari, G. I. (2020). Analisis Perilaku Penerimaan Penggunaan E-Filing Menggunakan Pendekatan Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Dan Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Jurnal Repositor, 2(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.22219/repositor.v2i1.378
  17. Garcia, A. R., Filipe, S. B., Fernandes, C., Estevão, C., & Ramos, G. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
  18. Gil-García, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.02.001
  19. Heeks, R. (2011). Implementing and Managing E-Government. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 11(3), 277–278.
  20. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  21. Hudaya, F. (2022). Evaluasi IT Governance Menggunakan Framework COBIT 5 pada KPP Pratama Tasikmalaya. Information System Research Journal, 2(1), 1–8. https://djponline.pajak.go.id
  22. ISACA. (2025). Resilience and Security in Critical Sectors : Navigating NIS2 and DORA Requirements. 17. https://www.isaca.org/resources/white-papers/2025/resilience-and-security-in-critical-sectors-navigating-nis2-and-dora-requirements
  23. Kementerian Keuangan. (2024). Saat ini, Laporan Keuangan Kementerian Keuangan Tahun 2024 masih dalam proses audit keuangan oleh Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan RI. 2024.
  24. Kementrian PANRB. (2023). Peraturan Menteri PANRB Nomor 9 Tahun 2023 tentang Evaluasi Reformasi Birokrasi. 3, 1–41.
  25. Korat, C., & Munandar, A. (2025). Penerapan Core Tax Administration System (Ctas) Langkah Meningkatkan Kepatuhan Perpajakan di Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Politala, 8(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.34128/jra.v8i1.453
  26. Larckel, D., & Fornell, C. (2016). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research This, 18(1), 39–50.
  27. Louis, A. A., & Fianty, M. I. (2023). Evaluation of the Human Resources Information System Using the COBIT 5 Framework in a Technology Insurance Company. G-Tech: Jurnal Teknologi Terapan, 7(2), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.33379/gtech.v7i2.2393
  28. Lugo-caballero, C. (2015). Saberes y percepciones de las mujeres sobre las enfermedades transmitidas por garrapatas en una comunidad rural de Yucatán, México (resultados preliminares) (Issue January 2016).
  29. Luong, G. H. T. (2025). Exploring Student Assessment Practices in Vietnamese Teacher Training Universities through Naturalistic Inquiry. Vietnam Journal of Education, 9, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2025.426
  30. Mambu, J. Y., Tengker, G. F., Lompoliu, E. M., & Langi, A. (2021). Information Technology Audit at XYZ Agency, a Government Institution, Using COBIT 5 Framework in Domain Delivery, Service, and Support. CESS (Journal of Computer Engineering, System and Science), 6(2), 168. https://doi.org/10.24114/cess.v6i2.25649
  31. Moeller, A. J., Creswell, J. W., & Saville, N. (2016). Second Language Assessment and Mixed Methods Research: testing and innovation theory, solution-based academic writing in higher education, and the use of multilingual proficiency frameworks.
  32. Naufal Wala, G., & Tesalonika, R. (2024). Transformasi Administrasi Perpajakan Melalui Coretax: Analisis Hukum dan Akuntansi. Jurnal Komunikasi Dan Ilmu Sosial, 2(4), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.38035/jkis.v2i4.1479
  33. Ni Putu Ariasih, Anak Agung Made Sastrawan Putra, & Luh Putu Mahyuni. (2023). Menelisik Penerimaan e-Faktur Versi 3.0 melalui Pendekatan Technology Acceptance Model. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Dan Perpajakan), 8(01), 37–52.
  34. Ningsih, S. S., Fitroh, F., & Ratnawati, S. (2021). Evaluasi Tata Kelola Teknologi Informasi (TI) pada Pengembangan Aplikasi dan Data Menggunakan Framework COBIT 5 dan ISO/IEC 38500:2008 (Studi Kasus). Applied Information System and Management (AISM), 2(2). https://doi.org/10.15408/aism.v2i2.20160
  35. NUNES, R. (2025). The Formation of the Public Agenda in the Brazilian Tax Reform: Difficulties, Coalitions, and Impacts. Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting Studies, 7(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.32996/jefas.2025.7.2.13
  36. OECD. (2020). OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report September 2019. OECD, March, 1. https://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/%0Ahttps://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-outlook/volume-2020/issue-1_34ffc900-en#page1%0Ahttps://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-outlook-interim-report-september-2019_37e06864-en
  37. Partinah, I., & Setyowati, M. S. (2024). Global Scientific and Academic Research Journal of Economics, Business and Management ISSN: 2583–5645 (Online) Coretax: DKI Bapenda’s Digital Transformation Based on Learning Organization BY. 5645(2), 126–131. https://gsarpublishers.com/journals-gsarjebm-home/
  38. Ramli, R. M. (2017). E-government implementation challenges in Malaysia and South Korea: A comparative study. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 80(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2017.tb00591.x
  39. Sepasgozar, S. M. E., & Davis, S. (2018). Construction technology adoption cube: An investigation on process, factors, barriers, drivers, and decision makers using NVivo and AHP analysis. Buildings, 8(6), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8060074
  40. Singh, J., & Singh, K. (n.d.). Pr ep rin t n ot pe er r ev Pr ep rin t n ot pe er.
  41. Susanto, E., & Sutabri, T. (2023). Analisis Kualitas Pelayanan E-Library Menggunakan Framework Cobit 5 Pada Perpustakaan Universitas Bina Insan Lubuklinggau. Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary on Social and Technology, 1(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.31004/ijmst.v1i2.127
  42. Syinsyina Arifa, Isnanto, R., & Kridalukmana, R. (2023). Analysis of University Helpdesk Information Technology Governance Using Cobit 2019 and Fuzzy AHP. Jurnal Teknologi Informasi Universitas Lambung Mangkurat (JTIULM), 8(2), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.20527/jtiulm.v8i2.176
  43. Thakur, P., Kaczynska, A., Gandotra, N., Saini, N., & Salabun, W. (2022). The Application of the New Pythagorean Fuzzy Entropy to Decision-Making using Linguistic Terms. Procedia Computer Science, 207, 4525–4534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.516
  44. Thanos Papadopoulos, Teta Stamati, M. B. (2020). Policy and Information Systems Implementation: The Greek Property Tax Information System Case. 17(0), 302.
  45. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540
  46. Zadeh, L. A. (1996). Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems.

Similar Articles

<< < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.