Article Sidebar

Download
Download PDF

Main Article Content

Abstract

Penelitian ini menggali ke dalam ranah peningkatan layanan publik melalui implementasi strategis solusi E-Government, dengan fokus pada Kantor Kependudukan dan Pencatatan Sipil Kota Cimahi. Dengan pendekatan kuantitatif yang menggunakan analisis regresi linier sebagai landasan, penelitian ini mengevaluasi pengaruh penerapan E-Government terhadap optimalisasi kualitas layanan publik. Penelitian ini menggunakan data survei terstruktur yang dikumpulkan dari sampel penerima layanan, karyawan, dan stakeholder di Kantor Kependudukan dan Pencatatan Sipil Kota Cimahi. Dengan memanfaatkan kekuatan model regresi linier, penelitian ini menyelidiki korelasi antara penggunaan E-Government, efisiensi prosedural, transparansi, dan kualitas layanan secara keseluruhan. Selain itu, penelitian ini menyelidiki faktor-faktor khusus dalam kerangka E-Government yang berdampak signifikan pada kualitas layanan. Temuan penelitian menekankan hubungan yang nyata dan positif antara tingkat integrasi E-Government dan peningkatan kualitas layanan publik. Penentu utama, termasuk proses administratif yang lebih efisien, pengiriman layanan tepat waktu, dan akses yang lebih baik ke informasi, muncul sebagai kontributor signifikan terhadap peningkatan yang diamati. Temuan ini memberikan wawasan tentang peran penting E-Government dalam membina lingkungan layanan publik yang lebih responsif, efisien, dan berorientasi pada warga. Penelitian ini memperluas wacana tentang potensi E-Government untuk mengoptimalkan kualitas layanan publik melalui lensa kuantitatif, dengan menekankan implikasi analisis regresi linier. Hasil ini memberikan implikasi praktis bagi pembuat kebijakan dan administrator, menawarkan peta jalan untuk memanfaatkan kemajuan teknologi guna meningkatkan standar layanan dan pada akhirnya memenuhi harapan yang terus berkembang dari masyarakat.

Keywords

E-Government, Kualitas Layanan Publik, Kota Cimahi, Kantor Kependudukan dan Pencatatan Sipil

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Mayasari, A. ., & Kushendar, D. H. . (2023). Optimizing Public Service Quality through E-Government Implementation: A Case Study of the Cimahi City Population and Civil Registry Office. Economics and Digital Business Review, 4(2), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.37531/ecotal.v4i2.808
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30-40.
  2. Choudrie, J., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2012). E-Government adoption research: A decade of developments. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(2), 331-346.
  3. Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing E-Government: An international text. SAGE Publications.
  4. Holzer, M., & Kim, S. (2015). Digital government and government reform: A review and assessment. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 714-725.
  5. Kraemer, K. L., Garbacz, C., & Gupta, A. (2011). The role of information systems in emergency response: Lessons learned from the World Trade Center attacks. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(8), 546-564.
  6. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-Government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
  7. Löfstedt, U., & Cronhjort, M. (2003). E‐Government services for citizens: A study of prototypes. Government Information Quarterly, 20(3), 223-247.
  8. Lopez, D. M., & Motta, R. (2017). Accountability, transparency, and government performance: A comparative study. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 171-197.
  9. Liu, C. (2016). E‐Government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 516-523.
  10. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of E-Government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.
  11. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
  12. Schedler, K. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In The self‐restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13-28). Routledge.
  13. Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2019). E‐Government Adoption Model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels. Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 465-509.
  14. UN. (2018). United Nations E-Government Survey 2018: Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
  15. Weerakkody, V., & Janssen, M. (2011). Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 320-328.
  16. AlAwadhi, S., & Morris, A. (2008). The use of the UTAUT model in the adoption of E-Government services in Kuwait. Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2008 (EMCIS 2008).
  17. Löfstedt, U., & Cronhjort, M. (2003). E‐Government services for citizens: A study of prototypes. Government Information Quarterly, 20(3), 223-247.
  18. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
  19. Choudrie, J., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2012). E-Government adoption research: A decade of developments. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(2), 331-346.
  20. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30-40.
  21. Holzer, M., & Kim, S. (2015). Digital government and government reform: A review and assessment. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 714-725.
  22. Kraemer, K. L., Garbacz, C., & Gupta, A. (2011). The role of information systems in emergency response: Lessons learned from the World Trade Center attacks. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(8), 546-564.
  23. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-Government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
  24. Liu, C. (2016). E‐Government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 516-523.
  25. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of E-Government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.
  26. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
  27. Schedler, K. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In The self‐restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13-28). Routledge.
  28. Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2019). E‐Government Adoption Model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels. Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 465-509.
  29. UN. (2018). United Nations E-Government Survey 2018: Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
  30. Weerakkody, V., & Janssen, M. (2011). Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 320-328.